Showing posts with label Global Warming BS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global Warming BS. Show all posts
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Hey UN, What Happened To The 50 Million Global Warming Refugees?
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production.
The UNEP even provided a handy map. The map shows us the places most at risk including the very sensitive low lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean.
It so happens that just a few of these islands and other places most at risk have since had censuses, so it should be possible for us now to get some idea of the devastating impact climate change is having on their populations. Let’s have a look at the evidence:
Bahamas:
Similarly, many of the fastest growing cities in the United States also appear within or close to the areas identified by the UNEP as at risk of having climate refugees.
More censuses are due to come in this year, and we await the results for Bangladesh and the Maldives - said to be places most at risk - with interest.
However, a very cursory look at the first available evidence seems to show that the places identified by the UNEP as most at risk of having climate refugees are not only not losing people, they are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world.
(Footnote: As requested, credit goes to the cartographer of the UNEP map, Emmanuelle Bournay.)
UPDATE: What’s it all about then? Find the response from the UNEP here and a theory as to why they were so keen about the 50 million refugees claim.
UPDATE: Some other published reactions to the story.
UPDATE: A little background about the claim.
The UNEP even provided a handy map. The map shows us the places most at risk including the very sensitive low lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean.
It so happens that just a few of these islands and other places most at risk have since had censuses, so it should be possible for us now to get some idea of the devastating impact climate change is having on their populations. Let’s have a look at the evidence:
Bahamas:
Nassau, The Bahamas – The 2010 national statistics recorded that the population growth increased to 353,658 persons in The Bahamas. The population change figure increased by 50,047 persons during the last 10 years.St Lucia:
The island-nation of Saint Lucia recorded an overall household population increase of 5 percent from May 2001 to May 2010 based on estimates derived from a complete enumeration of the population of Saint Lucia during the conduct of the recently completed 2010 Population and Housing Census.Seychelles:
Population 2002, 81755Solomon Islands:
Population 2010, 88311
The latest Solomon Islands population has surpassed half a million – that’s according to the latest census results.Meanwhile, far from being places where people are fleeing, no fewer than the top six of the very fastest growing cities in China, Shenzzen, Dongguan, Foshan, Zhuhai, Puning and Jinjiang, are absolutely smack bang within the shaded areas identified as being likely sources of climate refugees.
It’s been a decade since the last census report, and in that time the population has leaped 100-thousand.
Similarly, many of the fastest growing cities in the United States also appear within or close to the areas identified by the UNEP as at risk of having climate refugees.
More censuses are due to come in this year, and we await the results for Bangladesh and the Maldives - said to be places most at risk - with interest.
However, a very cursory look at the first available evidence seems to show that the places identified by the UNEP as most at risk of having climate refugees are not only not losing people, they are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world.
(Footnote: As requested, credit goes to the cartographer of the UNEP map, Emmanuelle Bournay.)
UPDATE: What’s it all about then? Find the response from the UNEP here and a theory as to why they were so keen about the 50 million refugees claim.
UPDATE: Some other published reactions to the story.
UPDATE: A little background about the claim.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Damn You Global Warming
The insistence on complete certainty about the full details of global warming--the most serious threat we have ever faced--is actually an effort to avoid facing the awful, uncomfortable truth: that we must act boldly, decisively, comprehensively, and quickly, even before we know every last detail about the crisis. Those who continue to argue that the appropriate response is merely additional research are simply seeking to camouflage timidity or protect their vested interest in the status quo.
AL GORE, Earth in the Balance
Meanwhile back in reality, we are facing the coldest winter on record. It has snowed several times in Florida and Miami saw freezing temperatures. I guess it's a good thing these global warming dumbasses "acted boldly and decisively" or Florida might be covered in water from all the melting glaciers.
AL GORE, Earth in the Balance
Meanwhile back in reality, we are facing the coldest winter on record. It has snowed several times in Florida and Miami saw freezing temperatures. I guess it's a good thing these global warming dumbasses "acted boldly and decisively" or Florida might be covered in water from all the melting glaciers.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Global Warming Letter May Be A Martin Luther Moment In Scientific History
Source
Five centuries ago, a German priest challenged the reigning theological “consensus” about the clerical sale of indulgences, unraveling one of the great religious scams in history and inspiring the Protestant Reformation.
This month, a senior American physicist challenged the reigning scientific “consensus” about global warming. His action may prove to be the unraveling one of the great scientific mistakes in history and the beginning of a greatly needed reformation of the scientific community.
Revulsion over fraud
Just as Martin Luther paid the price for his dissent, Dr. Harold Lewis is experiencing a sharp backlash in the wake of his Oct. 6 resignation letter from the prestigious American Physical Society (APS). After 67 years as a member, Dr. Lewis – emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara – parted ways because of his “revulsion” over the climate change “fraud” perpetrated by what he felt was science distorted by money.
Other esteemed scientists have in recent years put forward compelling critiques of the technical and scientific case for anthropogenic climate change. Dr. Lewis’s resignation letter is not such a critique. Rather, it is a condemnation of the way ideology, politics, and money have suppressed dissenting viewpoint and distorted the very nature of scientific inquiry. Like the so-called Climategate controversy, in which hacked emails from a group of climate scientists revealed political and personal factors influencing scientific work, Lewis’ letter lays bare the less-than-noble motivations that seem to be driving discussion of climate-change research today.
The APS position: 'incontrovertible'
To understand Lewis’s letter, you first have to understand the APS position on climate change. The APS, like several other major scientific organizations, supports the theory of man-caused global warming. Its official statement from 2007 read, in part: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.... The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.”
This statement troubled Lewis deeply. These key excerpts from Lewis’s resignation letter explain why:
“[T]he money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.... I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion.
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.)...
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation....
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition....
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?...
Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.... As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 Theses to the Wittenburg church door.
Lewis is no lightweight
Most people don’t know who Lewis is. He’s a quiet man, and he hasn’t sought publicity in his career. He was a student of Robert Oppenheimer, “father” of the atomic bomb, and was active in the field of safety of nuclear power plants, where being wrong had grave consequences. He worked with (the late) noted climatologist Stephen Schneider when he chaired a 1985 task force on nuclear winter.
In short, he’s no lightweight, and he’s well respected in the field of physics.
Lewis and 260 other members of APS signed a petition, and battled within the organization, following the APS constitutional rules, in an attempt to get the APS position statement on global warming considered for revision. The effort was ignored, stonewalled, and rebuked. After years of trying, he finally had enough.
Lewis must have been wrestling with his conscience for a considerable time before concluding that resignation was his only option.
And like Luther, with all other options extinguished, he figuratively nailed his letter to the door of the organization that had become so entrenched in its own consensus that it couldn’t even address the concerns of its own members.
Luther’s brave act started the Reformation of the Catholic church. Lewis’s act could very well begin the reformation of climate science.
Five centuries ago, a German priest challenged the reigning theological “consensus” about the clerical sale of indulgences, unraveling one of the great religious scams in history and inspiring the Protestant Reformation.
This month, a senior American physicist challenged the reigning scientific “consensus” about global warming. His action may prove to be the unraveling one of the great scientific mistakes in history and the beginning of a greatly needed reformation of the scientific community.
Revulsion over fraud
Just as Martin Luther paid the price for his dissent, Dr. Harold Lewis is experiencing a sharp backlash in the wake of his Oct. 6 resignation letter from the prestigious American Physical Society (APS). After 67 years as a member, Dr. Lewis – emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara – parted ways because of his “revulsion” over the climate change “fraud” perpetrated by what he felt was science distorted by money.
Other esteemed scientists have in recent years put forward compelling critiques of the technical and scientific case for anthropogenic climate change. Dr. Lewis’s resignation letter is not such a critique. Rather, it is a condemnation of the way ideology, politics, and money have suppressed dissenting viewpoint and distorted the very nature of scientific inquiry. Like the so-called Climategate controversy, in which hacked emails from a group of climate scientists revealed political and personal factors influencing scientific work, Lewis’ letter lays bare the less-than-noble motivations that seem to be driving discussion of climate-change research today.
The APS position: 'incontrovertible'
To understand Lewis’s letter, you first have to understand the APS position on climate change. The APS, like several other major scientific organizations, supports the theory of man-caused global warming. Its official statement from 2007 read, in part: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.... The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.”
This statement troubled Lewis deeply. These key excerpts from Lewis’s resignation letter explain why:
“[T]he money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.... I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion.
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.)...
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation....
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition....
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?...
Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.... As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 Theses to the Wittenburg church door.
Lewis is no lightweight
Most people don’t know who Lewis is. He’s a quiet man, and he hasn’t sought publicity in his career. He was a student of Robert Oppenheimer, “father” of the atomic bomb, and was active in the field of safety of nuclear power plants, where being wrong had grave consequences. He worked with (the late) noted climatologist Stephen Schneider when he chaired a 1985 task force on nuclear winter.
In short, he’s no lightweight, and he’s well respected in the field of physics.
Lewis and 260 other members of APS signed a petition, and battled within the organization, following the APS constitutional rules, in an attempt to get the APS position statement on global warming considered for revision. The effort was ignored, stonewalled, and rebuked. After years of trying, he finally had enough.
Lewis must have been wrestling with his conscience for a considerable time before concluding that resignation was his only option.
And like Luther, with all other options extinguished, he figuratively nailed his letter to the door of the organization that had become so entrenched in its own consensus that it couldn’t even address the concerns of its own members.
Luther’s brave act started the Reformation of the Catholic church. Lewis’s act could very well begin the reformation of climate science.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Obey The Global Warming Thugs Or They Will Kill You
From a crowd that preaches "tolerance" they certainly don't seem to tolerate dissent very well. Even when the mountain of evidence has PROVEN global warming to be man made, a man made complete fabrication.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Climatology And The Hoaxacost
"Sadly we need disasters like this (BP oil spill) to show people. Some people don't believe in climate warming - like those who don't believe there was a Holocaust." - Paul McCartney
Newsflash Paul, the facts don't support global warming (now conveniently called climate change) or the "holocaust". If there were mountains of evidence supporting the jewish side of the holocaust story why then is it illegal to question it?
It is literally illegal and punishable by years in prison for "denying" the holocaust, yet you are encouraged (by academia and pop culture) to deny the Son of God. What a perverse world we live in today.
Climatology which thanks to the internet has been COMPLETELY debunked, is still touted around as fact and those that think differently are demonized. With the power of the internet though we show these people for the fools that they are and no longer are the words from their mouths taken as the gospel truth.
Newsflash Paul, the facts don't support global warming (now conveniently called climate change) or the "holocaust". If there were mountains of evidence supporting the jewish side of the holocaust story why then is it illegal to question it?
It is literally illegal and punishable by years in prison for "denying" the holocaust, yet you are encouraged (by academia and pop culture) to deny the Son of God. What a perverse world we live in today.
Climatology which thanks to the internet has been COMPLETELY debunked, is still touted around as fact and those that think differently are demonized. With the power of the internet though we show these people for the fools that they are and no longer are the words from their mouths taken as the gospel truth.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
Frosty Frigid Global Warming
Water Lines May Freeze
Probably one of the most serious problems this winter will be FROZEN UNDERGROUND WATER LINES. For many decades in northern areas water lines are buried 42" or more to prevent freezing when the ground freezes solid. Water lines in the southern USA are not buried anywhere near that deep with some less than 12" deep. Running water will not freeze, so people may need to keep a tap running slowly somewhere in the house, maybe for the entire winter. People will have to choose between a high water bill or no running water if the ground starts to freeze deep.
Arctic Air
An unmistakable bite of Arctic air is what the northeast and many places in the USA suffer with right now. Here in the northeast we experienced January temperatures a month early. There is a recognizable signature with Arctic air – bitter cold, wicked wind chills complete with just enough humidity to cut through your coat like a knife. Other than that it's nice outside.
I've been quietly watching local weather which has hovered around the teens in the northeast for the past few weeks. In December and early January, temperatures usually hover around the 20's or even 30's. But not this winter – it's been much colder.
So what's happening across the United States? If the average annual temperature has been rising a few degrees according to global warming experts, will that explain temperatures more than TEN degrees colder than in the past?
The logic behind warming must be truly unfathomable. Perhaps we need to use some of that "new math" which has intelligent college students believing 2 + 2 = 5. Of course, the warming science vehicle has already had the tires shot out from under it by hacker exposure.
CNN recently posted an article about incredible cold happening everywhere.
* In Florida there is a state of emergency as crops are threatened by bitter cold. Enjoy that fresh squeezed orange juice you have right now – this year orange juice might be worth more than gold. Weight limits for big farm trucks are being lifted to permit as much of the orange and grapefruit crops to be harvested as possible. You might want to stock up your freezer with frozen juice as an alternative. You can sell it to your neighbors later at a hefty profit!
* Low-temperature records in many states are being broken while temperatures continue to fall. Clearly global warming is making everything colder.
* St. Louis, Missouri may see temperatures fall below zero for the first time since 1999.
* Little Rock could see temperatures of +10F with a wind-chill of –20F four days from now according to the National Weather Service.
* Thursday and Friday will get hot in Dallas – as temperatures reach a balmy high of +20F. National Weather Service has said that consecutive days of cold in Dallas like this haven't happened since 1998.
* Northern plains will see wind-chills of –20F to –30F.
* CNN meteorologist Rob Marciano says the "length of this cold snap is unusual."
* Atlantic, Iowa broke a 1958 record when temperatures dropped to –29F.
* Kansas City, MO already dropped to +1F and froze a homeless man to death.
* A dusting of snow is expected in Atlanta, GA.
* There have been four cold-related deaths in Tennessee.
And there's more:
"Some hard freeze warnings were also in effect in Louisiana and parts of the state could see temperatures drop into the 20s, some of the coldest weather in the area since 1996, CNN affiliate WWL in New Orleans, Louisiana, reported.
Supplies for protecting pipes from freezing were disappearing from area stores, CNN affiliate WDSU reported. It forced some to discuss other options – like wrapping pipes in newspaper and covering it in plastic, WDSU reported.
Hard freeze warnings were in effect Tuesday morning for much of northern Florida and parts of other Gulf Coast states, according to the National Weather Service."
Read the Full Article Here
Probably one of the most serious problems this winter will be FROZEN UNDERGROUND WATER LINES. For many decades in northern areas water lines are buried 42" or more to prevent freezing when the ground freezes solid. Water lines in the southern USA are not buried anywhere near that deep with some less than 12" deep. Running water will not freeze, so people may need to keep a tap running slowly somewhere in the house, maybe for the entire winter. People will have to choose between a high water bill or no running water if the ground starts to freeze deep.
Arctic Air
An unmistakable bite of Arctic air is what the northeast and many places in the USA suffer with right now. Here in the northeast we experienced January temperatures a month early. There is a recognizable signature with Arctic air – bitter cold, wicked wind chills complete with just enough humidity to cut through your coat like a knife. Other than that it's nice outside.
I've been quietly watching local weather which has hovered around the teens in the northeast for the past few weeks. In December and early January, temperatures usually hover around the 20's or even 30's. But not this winter – it's been much colder.
So what's happening across the United States? If the average annual temperature has been rising a few degrees according to global warming experts, will that explain temperatures more than TEN degrees colder than in the past?
The logic behind warming must be truly unfathomable. Perhaps we need to use some of that "new math" which has intelligent college students believing 2 + 2 = 5. Of course, the warming science vehicle has already had the tires shot out from under it by hacker exposure.
CNN recently posted an article about incredible cold happening everywhere.
* In Florida there is a state of emergency as crops are threatened by bitter cold. Enjoy that fresh squeezed orange juice you have right now – this year orange juice might be worth more than gold. Weight limits for big farm trucks are being lifted to permit as much of the orange and grapefruit crops to be harvested as possible. You might want to stock up your freezer with frozen juice as an alternative. You can sell it to your neighbors later at a hefty profit!
* Low-temperature records in many states are being broken while temperatures continue to fall. Clearly global warming is making everything colder.
* St. Louis, Missouri may see temperatures fall below zero for the first time since 1999.
* Little Rock could see temperatures of +10F with a wind-chill of –20F four days from now according to the National Weather Service.
* Thursday and Friday will get hot in Dallas – as temperatures reach a balmy high of +20F. National Weather Service has said that consecutive days of cold in Dallas like this haven't happened since 1998.
* Northern plains will see wind-chills of –20F to –30F.
* CNN meteorologist Rob Marciano says the "length of this cold snap is unusual."
* Atlantic, Iowa broke a 1958 record when temperatures dropped to –29F.
* Kansas City, MO already dropped to +1F and froze a homeless man to death.
* A dusting of snow is expected in Atlanta, GA.
* There have been four cold-related deaths in Tennessee.
And there's more:
"Some hard freeze warnings were also in effect in Louisiana and parts of the state could see temperatures drop into the 20s, some of the coldest weather in the area since 1996, CNN affiliate WWL in New Orleans, Louisiana, reported.
Supplies for protecting pipes from freezing were disappearing from area stores, CNN affiliate WDSU reported. It forced some to discuss other options – like wrapping pipes in newspaper and covering it in plastic, WDSU reported.
Hard freeze warnings were in effect Tuesday morning for much of northern Florida and parts of other Gulf Coast states, according to the National Weather Service."
Read the Full Article Here
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
German Phyicists Trash Global Warming Myth
guest article by John O’Sullivan
For any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the complexities of atmospheric physics – the “hardest” science of climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
Before going further, it’s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist ever completed any university course in climatology–that’s how new this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded “appeal to authority” where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will say, “Well, professor so-and-so says it’s true – so it must be true.” Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.
In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.
The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:
1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.
2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi.
Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper. The German physicists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%. They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the planet works as an “open” system and the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. All through their paper the German scientists show how the greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.
The paper’s introduction states it neatly:
John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his website.
Note: Over 500 Diggs! Keep it alive with a Digg here
For any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the complexities of atmospheric physics – the “hardest” science of climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
Before going further, it’s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist ever completed any university course in climatology–that’s how new this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded “appeal to authority” where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will say, “Well, professor so-and-so says it’s true – so it must be true.” Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.
In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.
The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:
1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.
2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi.
Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper. The German physicists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%. They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the planet works as an “open” system and the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. All through their paper the German scientists show how the greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.
The paper’s introduction states it neatly:
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.This thorough debunking of the theory of man made warming disproves that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal “forcing” effect on the warmer surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. As there is no glass roof on the earth to trap the excess heat, it escapes upward into space.Thus we may conclude that the common sense axioms are preserved so that the deeper the ocean, the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED.
John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his website.
Note: Over 500 Diggs! Keep it alive with a Digg here
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Boycott Build-a-Bear
Source
Do Al Gore or Dr Rajendra Pachauri own shares in the international toy franchise Build-A-Bear? Here is a video – one of a series of three – that the company’s impressionable young customers are being directed to watch via its website www.buildabearville.com. (Hat tip: Plato Says)
You can watch the other two here and here.
America’s parents aren’t happy at this kind of eco-indoctrination. Here’s a taste from Big Government.
Do Al Gore or Dr Rajendra Pachauri own shares in the international toy franchise Build-A-Bear? Here is a video – one of a series of three – that the company’s impressionable young customers are being directed to watch via its website www.buildabearville.com. (Hat tip: Plato Says)
You can watch the other two here and here.
America’s parents aren’t happy at this kind of eco-indoctrination. Here’s a taste from Big Government.
Every year we take the kids to Build-A-Bear, but we have now gone for the last time. I get enough indoctrination from the main stream media, and now I need to worry about what political messges Build-A-Bear feels a need to pass on to my grandchidren? I don’t think so. They just made sure that we will now switch to a store that sells toys that don’t come with political indoctrination. Build-A-Bear, you just lost an entire family and generation of good customers.and here is Build-A-Bear’s CEO’s not altogether convincing response.
Leave our children alone Build a Bear. I once thought your store was cute …. the whole concept of it but not anymore. Let children be children. They should not have to deal with heavy subjects such as Global warming which is a hoax anyway. Pure disgusting on your part and I will no longer shop at your stores or online.
Wow … more like build-a-scare than a bear. This is unconscionable. My kids have a dozen of their products but we will NOT be shopping there anymore. I just can’t believe they actually did that. I shouldn’t be surprised but what a mistake.
Our goal with the online webisodes was to show children, through two animated polar bears and a penguin, how they could also make a difference in big and small ways. The animated story occurs in the North Pole where the 2 polar bear characters live and they want to help keep the ice from melting so Santa and the reindeers can take off safely in time to deliver all their gifts. Thanks to the giant ice cubes created by the bear and penguin team they replace the melting ice and all is well so Santa and the reindeers do not miss a beat.Merry Christmas, Maxine. Something tells me that your Yuletide sales figures are about to stink like Mr Hankey.
We had no other intentions with the story whatsoever. we do hear you and will certainly take your opinion into consideration when developing future stories. It is interested customers like yourselves that help us do a better job.
Sincerely,
Maxine Clark
Maxine Clark
Founder and Chief Executive Bear
Sunday, December 27, 2009
The Sky Is NOT Falling!
by Bill Huff
Now what will you do Mr. Gore?
As Al Gore continues to put his mouth where his money is...
It is widely known that Al Gore stands to make billions on this ruse. While we thought of him as a stick in the mud, barely able to Macarena, socially speaking, he has drawn quite a crowd to his big faux green kiosk. And if you don't believe people are willing to buy useless junk, just scope out a few late night infomercials, or, for that matter, pharmaceutical ads. An Academy Award usually goes to the creator or an actor involved in a work of fiction. "An Inconvenient Truth" is looking more and more like extremely convenient fiction. Politicians occasionally lie to get elected. Scientists occasionally lie to acquire or retain grant money. We don’t know all of the pathology of Al Gore’s fantasies. But we can already see the pain train coming.
Whether Al is busy overselling the problem or profiting on the "solution," it seems he will not be relenting any time soon. Because their dreams and claims are not based on reliable science we can expect the climate superstitionists' "solutions" to wander further away from logic as time goes by. Even with all of the good intent in the world it is very difficult to solve problems that do not exist. In the meantime, resources will be diverted away from real, observable environmental problems that do exist. Example: Oozing landfills that are sitting over aquifers. We have real problems that need immediate attention. Ever hear of Yucca Mountain? Hanford? Of course I would advocate free market solutions to these – not restrictive and arbitrary regulations and bureaucracies to plague and tax the entire human race.
Click on the link to the right to read of yet another Goldman Sachs connection: Blood and Gore et Al?
At times the real Truth may be a bit Inconvenient – but it does come out sooner or later. As soon as it comes out, the true career liar, the real Pro, launches a well-prepared damage control campaign. Can you imagine the next round? They already went to Copenhagen to sew up the deal. Now they are going to need something like a full-scale attack from outer space. Watch the tabloids carefully over the next few months. Orson Welles would love it. When someone mounts an instantaneous visceral counterattack you tend to suspicion that they either have something they are well prepared to hide or they are "true believers [read delusional]" – either of which can produce disastrous and expensive results.
If there is a man we need to save, or a women, or a child, I would say it should be one of those who are placed in the greatest jeopardy by the globalists' plans for the planet. As I look across the world I think it is readily apparent that free market capitalism will do more for the suffering masses than any collectivist or coercive approach. The nations where it has been tried have been preferred destinations for numberless refugees over the years. The African continent desperately needs toilets and sanitation, food and potable water. They are not well prepared to simply skip all of the benefits of modern technology and live in some idyllic garden of Al Gore's grandiose delusions. The Chinese and the Russians will tend to be more pragmatic.
And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
He chortled in his joy.
~ Lewis Carroll
I have determined that the snarky snort emanating from Al Gore as he prepares to diss an adversary is actually a "chortle" – some admixture of chuckling and snorting.
This annoying chortler has got to go! Notice the strategy as Al first laughs, then engages in disingenuous subterfuge and sophistry in lieu of anything like a straight answer. Do we need a review on how "non-profits" are often used to garner real profits? Watch both of these videos and think about them carefully. The same incident is presented two different ways: Here is the Fox News "Fair and Balanced" treatment. Here it is with the "advocacy framing" of the Left. I think both adversaries were probably disingenuous to some extent.
When Al says he is "not making one single penny" is he really saying he is making two or more?
He is at least condescending enough to avoid all debate. The Weather Channel guy has 30,000 scientists that want to sue for the truth to be exposed. One of the main reasons given is Al’s smugness and lying about the matter having been settled long ago through an overwhelming scientific consensus.
You'll be relieved to know more about a "few" scientists who agree with the title of this article.
Bastiat put his finger on the combination of two principles that are being exposed right now in this controversy:
"...unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense."
How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?
The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: STUPID GREED and FALSE PHILANTHROPY... [emphasis added]
This leaves me with a contradiction in terms of Bastiat's wisdom, which I have found to be nearly flawless. Could Al Gore be some strange mixture of False Greed and Stupid Philanthropy?
Is it possible that Al Gore has divested himself of any possibility of financial gain regarding this fraud? I have come to realize there are a lot of wealthy "philanthropists" out there who still crave possessions and power – even though they cloak their true motives within non-profit corporate veils. The tax code was not written by Moses.
Do you want global government and universal taxation through the UN in order to protect you from something that couldn't happen in 10,000 years? When will all of these self-appointed philosopher kings stop torturing the rest of us with all of their artificial plans?
Isn't science supposed to be so much more than monkey see, monkey do? Is there so much peer pressure being generated here that such reputedly intelligent humans are willing to trash their own disciplines in order to fit in with Al Gore's clique? When I think of how Copernicus and Galileo labored to bring science out of the Dark Ages, I have to wonder how much Al Gore is willing to invest in his effort to take all of us into a new Dark Age, which by many recent accounts, may turn out to be Cooler than the last. If you think the Carbon Tax is bad, just wait ’til Al discovers the rest of the Periodic Table of the Elements. We have yet to discover AlGoreium.
"God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." ~ Bastiat
As the scientific community searches for its own soul, I hope Mr. Gore can find a way to regain his, instead of trying to save the world from something no mortal man can honestly, or sanely, predict. Don't give up Al! Keep preachin' it! We want you to be a Metaphor some day – unless of course there could be some way for you to really come to the end of your Self [read Super-Ego].
"He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him." ~ Daniel 2:22 KJV
Now what will you do Mr. Gore?
As Al Gore continues to put his mouth where his money is...
It is widely known that Al Gore stands to make billions on this ruse. While we thought of him as a stick in the mud, barely able to Macarena, socially speaking, he has drawn quite a crowd to his big faux green kiosk. And if you don't believe people are willing to buy useless junk, just scope out a few late night infomercials, or, for that matter, pharmaceutical ads. An Academy Award usually goes to the creator or an actor involved in a work of fiction. "An Inconvenient Truth" is looking more and more like extremely convenient fiction. Politicians occasionally lie to get elected. Scientists occasionally lie to acquire or retain grant money. We don’t know all of the pathology of Al Gore’s fantasies. But we can already see the pain train coming.
Whether Al is busy overselling the problem or profiting on the "solution," it seems he will not be relenting any time soon. Because their dreams and claims are not based on reliable science we can expect the climate superstitionists' "solutions" to wander further away from logic as time goes by. Even with all of the good intent in the world it is very difficult to solve problems that do not exist. In the meantime, resources will be diverted away from real, observable environmental problems that do exist. Example: Oozing landfills that are sitting over aquifers. We have real problems that need immediate attention. Ever hear of Yucca Mountain? Hanford? Of course I would advocate free market solutions to these – not restrictive and arbitrary regulations and bureaucracies to plague and tax the entire human race.
Click on the link to the right to read of yet another Goldman Sachs connection: Blood and Gore et Al?
At times the real Truth may be a bit Inconvenient – but it does come out sooner or later. As soon as it comes out, the true career liar, the real Pro, launches a well-prepared damage control campaign. Can you imagine the next round? They already went to Copenhagen to sew up the deal. Now they are going to need something like a full-scale attack from outer space. Watch the tabloids carefully over the next few months. Orson Welles would love it. When someone mounts an instantaneous visceral counterattack you tend to suspicion that they either have something they are well prepared to hide or they are "true believers [read delusional]" – either of which can produce disastrous and expensive results.
If there is a man we need to save, or a women, or a child, I would say it should be one of those who are placed in the greatest jeopardy by the globalists' plans for the planet. As I look across the world I think it is readily apparent that free market capitalism will do more for the suffering masses than any collectivist or coercive approach. The nations where it has been tried have been preferred destinations for numberless refugees over the years. The African continent desperately needs toilets and sanitation, food and potable water. They are not well prepared to simply skip all of the benefits of modern technology and live in some idyllic garden of Al Gore's grandiose delusions. The Chinese and the Russians will tend to be more pragmatic.
And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
He chortled in his joy.
~ Lewis Carroll
I have determined that the snarky snort emanating from Al Gore as he prepares to diss an adversary is actually a "chortle" – some admixture of chuckling and snorting.
This annoying chortler has got to go! Notice the strategy as Al first laughs, then engages in disingenuous subterfuge and sophistry in lieu of anything like a straight answer. Do we need a review on how "non-profits" are often used to garner real profits? Watch both of these videos and think about them carefully. The same incident is presented two different ways: Here is the Fox News "Fair and Balanced" treatment. Here it is with the "advocacy framing" of the Left. I think both adversaries were probably disingenuous to some extent.
When Al says he is "not making one single penny" is he really saying he is making two or more?
He is at least condescending enough to avoid all debate. The Weather Channel guy has 30,000 scientists that want to sue for the truth to be exposed. One of the main reasons given is Al’s smugness and lying about the matter having been settled long ago through an overwhelming scientific consensus.
You'll be relieved to know more about a "few" scientists who agree with the title of this article.
Bastiat put his finger on the combination of two principles that are being exposed right now in this controversy:
"...unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense."
How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?
The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: STUPID GREED and FALSE PHILANTHROPY... [emphasis added]
This leaves me with a contradiction in terms of Bastiat's wisdom, which I have found to be nearly flawless. Could Al Gore be some strange mixture of False Greed and Stupid Philanthropy?
Is it possible that Al Gore has divested himself of any possibility of financial gain regarding this fraud? I have come to realize there are a lot of wealthy "philanthropists" out there who still crave possessions and power – even though they cloak their true motives within non-profit corporate veils. The tax code was not written by Moses.
Do you want global government and universal taxation through the UN in order to protect you from something that couldn't happen in 10,000 years? When will all of these self-appointed philosopher kings stop torturing the rest of us with all of their artificial plans?
Isn't science supposed to be so much more than monkey see, monkey do? Is there so much peer pressure being generated here that such reputedly intelligent humans are willing to trash their own disciplines in order to fit in with Al Gore's clique? When I think of how Copernicus and Galileo labored to bring science out of the Dark Ages, I have to wonder how much Al Gore is willing to invest in his effort to take all of us into a new Dark Age, which by many recent accounts, may turn out to be Cooler than the last. If you think the Carbon Tax is bad, just wait ’til Al discovers the rest of the Periodic Table of the Elements. We have yet to discover AlGoreium.
"God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." ~ Bastiat
As the scientific community searches for its own soul, I hope Mr. Gore can find a way to regain his, instead of trying to save the world from something no mortal man can honestly, or sanely, predict. Don't give up Al! Keep preachin' it! We want you to be a Metaphor some day – unless of course there could be some way for you to really come to the end of your Self [read Super-Ego].
"He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him." ~ Daniel 2:22 KJV
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Avatar And Global Warming
With the imminent release of the science fiction blockbuster "Avatar," some have characterized it as a multi-million dollar public service announcment for global warming.
Popular Science reported Tuesday:
For what it's worth, author and freelance science writer Christina Reed wrote Wednesday:
For more on the bias in this film, readers are encouraged to review Geoffrey Dickens' "On Today: James Cameron Reveals Liberal Propaganda in Avatar."
Popular Science reported Tuesday:
Unlike [George] Lucas’ more playful science fiction epic ["Star Wars"], [James] Cameron reaches for a heavy environmental message. Avatar is every militant global warming supporter’s dream come true as the invading, technology-worshiping, environment-ravaging humans are set upon by an angry planet and its noble inhabitants.In an interview with "The Hollywood Reporter," Cameron refuted this sentiment...or did he? (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript):
Well, anybody that would say it was a $300 -- first of all, it's not $300 million, at whatever price tag -- it's a PSA for global warming, um, obviously Republican. You know. But anyway, you know, look, there, there is a theme. I don't want to say a message, cause it's not beating it over the head. There's a theme, and I think it's a theme that's a legitimate one. It's one that I care very passionately about, and by the way, I think if we want to survive as a species we better all start caring about it.Hmmm. So only Republicans would claim it's a PSA for global warming...but Cameron didn't disagree, did he?
For what it's worth, author and freelance science writer Christina Reed wrote Wednesday:
James Cameron's new movie Avatar arrives coincidently at the end of the Copenhagen climate talks. It's being shown here in Denmark with Danish subtitles. Let's demand that our delegates only be allowed into MusikTeatret Albertslund to see the film if they reach a fair and ambitious agreement before the screening time of 7:45 p.m. Friday!Is she a Republican, too, James?
For more on the bias in this film, readers are encouraged to review Geoffrey Dickens' "On Today: James Cameron Reveals Liberal Propaganda in Avatar."
Friday, December 18, 2009
Pat Buchanan On Climategate
If you would know what Copenhagen is all about, hearken to this nugget in The Washington Post's report from the Danish capital.
"Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi – who is representing all of Africa here – unveiled his proposal Wednesday for a system in which rich countries would provide money to poor ones to help deal with the effects of climate change. ...
"Zenawi said he would accept $30 billion in the short term, rising to $100 billion by 2020. ... This was seen as a key concession by developing countries, which had previously spurned that figure ... as too low."
There was a time when a U.S. diplomat would have burst out laughing after listening to a Third World con artist like this.
But not the Obamaites. They are already ponying up.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack just pledged $1 billion at Copenhagen to developing countries who preserve their forests. Thus, America, $12 trillion in debt and facing a second straight $1.4 trillion deficit, will borrow another $1 billion from China to send to Brazil to bribe them to stop cutting down their trees.
When you slice through the blather about marooned bears and melting ice caps, oceans rising and cities sinking, global warming is a racket and a crock. It is all about money and power.
Copenhagen has always been about an endless transfer of wealth from America, Europe and Japan and creation of a global bureaucracy to control the pace of world economic and industrial development.
End game: enrichment and empowerment of global elites at the expense of Western peoples whose leaders have been bamboozled by con artists.
When Katrina hit New Orleans and the Gulf Coast and Rita came ashore in Texas in 2005, we were told this was due to global warming, and hurricane seasons would now get worse and worse until the world radically reduced the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
President Bush ignored the hysteria. What happened?
As Michael Fumento reports, the 2009 hurricane season ended quietly, with the fewest hurricanes since 1997, and not one hurricane made landfall in the United States.
When the feds sought to list the polar bear as an endangered species, Gov. Sarah Palin protested this "politicized science" and sued, claiming the polar bear was a healthy species whose numbers had doubled in recent years.
Was she wrong?
Is the Arctic ice cap melting? So we are told. But what harm has befallen mankind other than to have a Northwest Passage opened up to maritime traffic in the summer?
The Antarctic ice sheet is nine times as large as the Arctic, and here is what the British Antarctic Survey wrote last April:
"(D)uring the winter freeze in Antarctica this ice cover expands to an area roughly twice the size of Europe. Ranging in thickness from less than a metre to several metres, the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above. Satellite images show that since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade."
One hundred thousand square kilometers a decade?
This would mean Antarctic sea ice expanded by 300,000 square kilometers since the 1970s, or 116,000 square miles, which is an area larger than all of New England.
How can the Antarctic ice cap grow for three decades as the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has steadily increased, unless carbon dioxide has little or nothing to do with global warming?
Unlike the Arctic, Antarctica is a continent, and while chunks of ice are cracking off in Western Antarctica, in Eastern Antarctica, four times larger, the ice sheet is thickening and expanding. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research reported last April that the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades."
In April 1992, as the alarm over the Earth's end times began, scientists worldwide issued what was called the Heidelberg Appeal, aimed at just the kind of hysteria we are witnessing now in Copenhagen.
"We are ... worried ... at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development," said the scientists.
"We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look towards the past, does not exist and has probably never existed since man's first appearance in the biosphere. ... (H)umanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing Nature to its needs and not the reverse.
"We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data."
Since then, 4,000 scientists and 72 Nobel Prize winners have signed on. Again, it needs be said: Global warming is cyclical, and has been stagnant for a decade. There is no conclusive proof it is manmade, no conclusive proof it is harmful to the planet.
"Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi – who is representing all of Africa here – unveiled his proposal Wednesday for a system in which rich countries would provide money to poor ones to help deal with the effects of climate change. ...
"Zenawi said he would accept $30 billion in the short term, rising to $100 billion by 2020. ... This was seen as a key concession by developing countries, which had previously spurned that figure ... as too low."
There was a time when a U.S. diplomat would have burst out laughing after listening to a Third World con artist like this.
But not the Obamaites. They are already ponying up.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack just pledged $1 billion at Copenhagen to developing countries who preserve their forests. Thus, America, $12 trillion in debt and facing a second straight $1.4 trillion deficit, will borrow another $1 billion from China to send to Brazil to bribe them to stop cutting down their trees.
When you slice through the blather about marooned bears and melting ice caps, oceans rising and cities sinking, global warming is a racket and a crock. It is all about money and power.
Copenhagen has always been about an endless transfer of wealth from America, Europe and Japan and creation of a global bureaucracy to control the pace of world economic and industrial development.
End game: enrichment and empowerment of global elites at the expense of Western peoples whose leaders have been bamboozled by con artists.
When Katrina hit New Orleans and the Gulf Coast and Rita came ashore in Texas in 2005, we were told this was due to global warming, and hurricane seasons would now get worse and worse until the world radically reduced the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
President Bush ignored the hysteria. What happened?
As Michael Fumento reports, the 2009 hurricane season ended quietly, with the fewest hurricanes since 1997, and not one hurricane made landfall in the United States.
When the feds sought to list the polar bear as an endangered species, Gov. Sarah Palin protested this "politicized science" and sued, claiming the polar bear was a healthy species whose numbers had doubled in recent years.
Was she wrong?
Is the Arctic ice cap melting? So we are told. But what harm has befallen mankind other than to have a Northwest Passage opened up to maritime traffic in the summer?
The Antarctic ice sheet is nine times as large as the Arctic, and here is what the British Antarctic Survey wrote last April:
"(D)uring the winter freeze in Antarctica this ice cover expands to an area roughly twice the size of Europe. Ranging in thickness from less than a metre to several metres, the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above. Satellite images show that since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade."
One hundred thousand square kilometers a decade?
This would mean Antarctic sea ice expanded by 300,000 square kilometers since the 1970s, or 116,000 square miles, which is an area larger than all of New England.
How can the Antarctic ice cap grow for three decades as the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has steadily increased, unless carbon dioxide has little or nothing to do with global warming?
Unlike the Arctic, Antarctica is a continent, and while chunks of ice are cracking off in Western Antarctica, in Eastern Antarctica, four times larger, the ice sheet is thickening and expanding. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research reported last April that the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades."
In April 1992, as the alarm over the Earth's end times began, scientists worldwide issued what was called the Heidelberg Appeal, aimed at just the kind of hysteria we are witnessing now in Copenhagen.
"We are ... worried ... at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development," said the scientists.
"We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look towards the past, does not exist and has probably never existed since man's first appearance in the biosphere. ... (H)umanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing Nature to its needs and not the reverse.
"We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data."
Since then, 4,000 scientists and 72 Nobel Prize winners have signed on. Again, it needs be said: Global warming is cyclical, and has been stagnant for a decade. There is no conclusive proof it is manmade, no conclusive proof it is harmful to the planet.
Climategate Just Got Bigger
Source
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)
As Richard North says: This is serial.
UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.
And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:
Oh, if anyone speaks Russian, here’s the full report.
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.What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.
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.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
As Richard North says: This is serial.
UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has itAnd here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent
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.
Cheers
Phil
And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:
The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.Not, of course, dear readers that I’m in any way tempted to crow about these latest revelations. After all, so many of my colleagues, junior and senior, have been backing me on this one to the hilt….
One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.
Oh, if anyone speaks Russian, here’s the full report.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Global Warming: 'Fixing the Climate Data Around the Policy'
More than 15,000 people will be gathering in Copenhagen for COP 15: the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Official delegations from 192 nations will mingle with the representatives of major multinational corporations, including Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, The representatives of environmental and civil society organizations will also be in attendance. Parties & Observers
Heads of state and heads of government are slated to be in appearance in the later part of the Summit event. (See The essentials in Copenhagen – COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009.)
It is worth noting that key decisions and orientations on COP15 had already been wrapped up at the World Business Summit on Climate Change (WBSCC) held in May in Copenhagen, six months ahead of COP15.
The WBSCC brought together some of the World's most prominent business executives and World leaders including Al Gore and UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. (The World Business Summit on Climate Change, includes webcast.)
The results of these high level consultations were forwarded to the Danish government as well as to the governments of participating member states. A so-called summary report for policymakers was drafted by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, on behalf the corporate executives participating in the event. This report has very little to do with environmental protection. It largely consists in a profit-driven agenda, which uses the global-warming consensus as a justification. (For details see Climate Council: The World Business Summit on Climate Change.)
"The underlying ambition of the Summit was to address the twin challenges of climate change and the economic crisis. Participants at the Summit considered how these risks can be turned into opportunity if business and governments work together, and what policies, incentives, and investments will most effectively stimulate low-carbon growth." (Copenhagen Climate Council)
The agenda of the Copenhagen Climate Summit (7–18 December 2009), is upheld both by the governments, the business executives and the NGO community as "one of the most significant gatherings in history. It is being called the most complex and vital agreement the world has ever seen."
CO2 emissions are heralded as the single and most important threat to the future of humanity.
The focus of the Summit is on strictly environmental issues. No mention of the word "war" – i.e. the US-NATO led war and its devastating environmental consequences.
No mention of the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons as an instrument of "peacemaking."
No mention, as part of an environmental debate, of the radioactive fallout resulting from the Pentagon's humanitarian nuclear bombs. Tactical nuclear weapons, according to scientific opinion commissioned by the Pentagon are "safe for the surrounding civilian population."
No mention of "weather warfare" or "environmental modification techniques" (ENMOD) and climatic warfare.
No mention in the debate on climate change of the US Air Force 2025 project entitled "Owning the Weather" for military use. (See FAS, AF2025 v3c15-1 | Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning... | (Ch 1) see also SPACE.com – U.S. Military Wants to Own the Weather)
Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate climatic manipulations for military use is no longer part of the UN agenda on climate change. It was, however, part of the agenda of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Environmental Warfare and Climate Change, Global Research, 27 November 2005. See also Michel Chossudovsky, Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare, The Ecologist, December 2007.)
CO2 is the logo, which describes the Worldwide crisis. No other variable is contemplated.
Moreover, no meaningful anti-pollution clean air policy directed against CO2 emissions can be formulated as an objective in its own right, because the reduction of CO2 emissions is subordinate to the Global Warming consensus.
The words "poverty," "unemployment" and "disease" resulting from a global economic depression are not a matter of emphasis because authoritative financial sources state unequivocally: "the economic recession is over."
And the war in the Middle East and Central Asia is not a war but "a humanitarian operation directed against terrorists and rogue states."
The Real Crisis
The Copenhagen Summit not only serves powerful corporate interests, which have a stake in the global multibillion-dollar carbon-trading scheme, it also serves to divert public attention from the devastation resulting from the "real crisis" underlying the process of economic globalization and a profit-driven war without borders, which the Pentagon calls "the long war."
We are at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. War and economic depression constitute the real crisis, yet both the governments and the media have focused their attention on the environmental devastation resulting from CO2 emissions, which is upheld as the greatest threat to humanity.
The Multibillion-Dollar carbon-trading System
The carbon-trading system is a multibillion money-making bonanza for the financial establishment. The stakes are extremely high and the various lobby groups on behalf of Wall Street have already positioned themselves.
According to a recent report, "the carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU's emissions trading scheme... The speed of that growth will depend on whether the Copenhagen summit gives a go-ahead for a low-carbon economy, but Ager says whatever happens schemes such as the ETS will expand around the globe." (Terry Macalister, Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade, The Guardian, 28 November 2009)
The large financial conglomerates, involved in derivative trade, including JP Morgan Chase, Bank America Merrill Lynch, Barclay's, Citi Bank, Nomura, Société Générale, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are actively involved in carbon trading. (FACTBOX: Investment banks in carbon trading | Reuters, 14 September 2009)
The legitimacy of the carbon-trading system rests on the legitimacy of the Global-Warming Consensus, which views CO2 emissions as the single threat to the environment. And for Wall Street the carbon-trading system is a convenient and secure money-making safety-net, allowing for the transfer of billions of dollars into the pockets of a handful of conglomerates.
"Every major financial house in New York and London has set up carbon-trading operations. Very big numbers are dancing in their heads, and they need them to replace the "wealth" that evaporated in the housing bust. Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital, told the New York Times, "Carbon will be the world's biggest market over all." Barclays thinks the current $60 billion carbon market could grow to $1 trillion within a decade. Four years ago Redshaw, a former electricity trader, couldn't get anyone to talk to him about carbon." (Mark Braly, The Multibillion-Dollar Carbon Trading, RenewableEnergyWorld.com, 5 March 2008)
The Global Warming Data Base
Is the Global-Warming Consensus based on reliable data?
There are indications that both the concepts and the data on temperature and greenhouse gas emissions including CO2 have been adjusted and shaped to fit the agenda of the UN Panel on Climate Change.
For several years, the claims of the UN Panel on Climate Change (UNPCC) including the data base have been questioned. (See Global Research's Climate Change Dossier: Archive of more than 100 articles)
Critical analysis of the climate change consensus has been conveyed in reports by several prominent scientists.
There has been, in this regard, a persistent attempt to silence the critics as conveyed in the writings of MIT meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen. (See Richard Lindzen, Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence, Global Research, 7 April 2007)
Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libelled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. (Ibid)
ClimateGate and the Emails' Scandal
In November 2009, barely a few weeks before the inauguration of the Copenhagen Summit, a vast data bank of over 3000 email exchanges between key Climate Change scientists and researchers was revealed.
While the emails do not prove that the entire data base was falsified, they nonetheless point to scientific dishonesty and deceit on the part of several prominent scientists who are directly linked to the UNPCC.
The emails suggest that the data was shaped, with a view to supporting a predetermined policy agenda. "Fixing the climate data to fit the policy" is the modus operandi as revealed in the email messages of top scientists, directly linked to the work of the UN Panel on Climate Change?
The British media has acknowledged that the scientists were intent upon manipulating the data on Climate Change as well as excluding the critics:
[the comments below the quotes are by The Telegraph].
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted.
From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.
From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"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"
Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics – that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.
From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."
Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.
From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004
"Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future."
The scientists make no attempt to hide their disdain for climate change sceptics who request more information about their work.
(University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes – Telegraph, 23 November 2009).
The complete list of contentious emails can be consulted at Alleged CRU Emails – Searchable published by eastangliaemails.com.
What is significant is that the authors of the emails are directly involved in the UN Panel on Climate Change:
"[They are] the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the 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.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history. (Prof. Christopher Booker, Climate Change: This is the Worst Scientific Scandal of our Generation, The Telegraph, 28 November 2009)
One of the contentious emails by Dr Jones (published by eastangliaemails.com) points to the deliberate manipulation of the data:
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Source: Alleged CRU Emails – Searchable published by eastangliaemails.com
US Congressional Probe
Barely two weeks before the inauguration of the Copenhagen Summit, the US Congress is now probing into "the Global Warming Emails":
"U.S. congress has begun investigating climate scientists whose emails and documents were hacked into to see if their global warming theories have misrepresented the truth behind the cause of climate change.
Investigators have begun "studying" the 1,079 e-mails and over 3,800 documents that hackers stole last week from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University in the U.K., Rep. Darrel Issa from California told the Wall Street Journal.
Some of the leaked e-mails and files – which were posted on sites like www.Wikileaks.org and www.EastAngliaEmails.com – show growing tensions between scientists and skeptics. Others are mundane announcements of upcoming conferences or research trips.
According to his website, Rep. James Inhofe from Oklahoma said on Monday the leaked correspondence suggested researchers "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."
The White House Science Adviser John Holdren has also come under investigation, after one of his emails written in 2003 to Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, was hacked.
"I'm happy to stand by my contribution to this exchange. I think anybody who reads what I wrote in its entirety will find it a serious and balanced treatment of the question of 'burden of proof' in situations where science germane to public policy is in dispute," Holdren said.
Meanwhile, The University of East Anglia said it will cooperate with police and proceed with its own internal investigation. The University posted a statement calling the disclosure "mischievous" and saying it is aiding the police in an investigation.
The statement also quotes Jones, CRU's director, explaining his November 1999 e-mail, which said: "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."
Jones said that the word trick was used "colloquially as in a clever thing to do" and that it "is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward."
The leaked data comes just two weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen will begin on Dec. 7–18, when 192 nations will meet to discuss a solution on how to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. (International Business Times, November 24, 2009)
Meanwhile, the "international community" (supported by the mainstream media) has launched a counteroffensive, accusing the critics of waging a smear campaign:
The chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, stood by his panel’s 2007 findings last week. That study is the foundation for a global climate response, including carbon emission targets proposed this week by both the US and China.
So far, climate scientists say nothing in the leaked emails [that] takes away from the fact that the climate change evidence is solid. In fact, a new study in the journal Science shows the polar ice cap melting is happening at a faster rate than predicted just a few years ago.
In a teleconference call with reporters this week, one of the scientists whose emails were leaked, Pennsylvania State University paleoclimatologist Michael Mann, said that “regardless of how cherry-picked” the emails are, there is “absolutely nothing in any of the emails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus of climate change.”
...
This is a “smear campaign to distract the public,” added Mann, a coauthor of the Copenhagen Diagnosis, the report on climate change released this week ahead of the Copenhagen. “Those opposed to climate action, simply don’t have the science on their side,” he added.
Professor Trevor Davies of the East Anglia CRU called the stolen data the latest example of a campaign intended “to distract from reasoned debate” about global climate change ahead of the Copenhagen summit. (As Copenhagen summit nears, ‘Climategate’ dogs global warming debate | csmonitor.com, Christian Science Monitor, 28 November 2009, emphasis added)
But what is significant in this counteroffensive, is that the authenticity of the emails has not been challenged by the IPCC scientists.
The scientists are not saying "we did not do it." What they are saying is that the Global Warming Consensus holds irrespective of their actions to selectively manipulate the data as well as exclude the critics from the scientific debate on climate change.
What Is the Stance of the Civil Society and Environmentalist Organizations?
Civil society organizations are currently mobilizing with a view to pressuring the official governmental delegations:
"Two years ago, at a previous UN climate conference in Bali, all UN governments agreed on a timetable that would ensure a strong climate deal by the time of the Copenhagen conference. The implications of not achieving this goal are massive, and nearly unthinkable. Turn to our great partners film – the Age of Stupid – if you need to be convinced why.
The meeting – which should include major heads of state for the last three days, will attempt to reach a massively complex agreement on cutting carbon, providing finance for mitigation and adaptation, and supporting technology transfer from the North to the South.
This is a major milestone in history, and one where civil society must speak with one voice in calling for a fair, ambitious and binding deal. We are ready, but we need to let the leaders know the world is ready too. Are you? (COP-15 Copenhagen Climate Conference | TckTckTck)
Where do civil society activists stand in relation to the climate change email scandal?
Will these civil society organizations, many of which are funded by major foundations and governments, continue to unreservedly endorse the Global Warming consensus?
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace are among several key civil society organizations which are pushing the Copenhagen agenda. Their position is unchanged.
Environmentalist organizations are demanding a reduction in CO2 emissions, not as a means to tackling pollution, but as an instrument to reverse the process of global warming. For many of these organizations, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the "bible." It cannot be challenged even if the climate data base which supports the Global Warming Consensus turns out to be questionable or contentious.
While the mainstream NGO lobby groups including Greenpeace and WWF continue to support the consensus, there is a small and growing movement which challenges the legitimacy of the Copenhagen CO15 Summit agenda, while also accusing the UNPCC of manipulating the data. This manipulation of the data also serves the profit-driven carbon-trading scheme.
The Alternative Summit: KlimaForum09
The NGOs will be meeting in a parallel alternative summit, KlimaForum09. More than 10,000 people a day are expected to attend the sessions of KlimatForum09
Major international NGOs and environmentalist groups will be in attendance including Friends of the Earth, Campaign against Climate Change among others.
Klimaforum09 is to finalize a draft declaration which "will put forth a vision of a more socially just world society, [while] emphasizing the need to create substantial changes in the social and economic structures of society in order to meet the challenges of global warming and food sovereignty." (See Declaration · Klimaforum09)
While there is fierce opposition to the multibillion carbon-trading system within the NGO community, the Alternative Summit will not challenge the Global Warming consensus and its underlying data base. (All events · Klimaforum09).
While critical and active voices will emerge from within the various sessions of the Alternative Forum, the organizational envelope of KlimaForum09 remains compliant to the official agenda. In many regards, the rhetoric of the KlimaForum09's Danish organizers ties in with that of the host government of the official Summit, which coincidentally also funds the Alternative Summit. (Political Platform · Klimaforum09"). What this means is that the boundaries of dissent within the Alternative Summit have been carefully defined.
There can be no real activism unless the falsehoods and manipulations underlying the activities of the UNPCC, including the data base and the multibillion profit-driven carbon-trading scheme, are fully revealed, debated and understood.
Source
Official delegations from 192 nations will mingle with the representatives of major multinational corporations, including Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, The representatives of environmental and civil society organizations will also be in attendance. Parties & Observers
Heads of state and heads of government are slated to be in appearance in the later part of the Summit event. (See The essentials in Copenhagen – COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009.)
It is worth noting that key decisions and orientations on COP15 had already been wrapped up at the World Business Summit on Climate Change (WBSCC) held in May in Copenhagen, six months ahead of COP15.
The WBSCC brought together some of the World's most prominent business executives and World leaders including Al Gore and UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. (The World Business Summit on Climate Change, includes webcast.)
The results of these high level consultations were forwarded to the Danish government as well as to the governments of participating member states. A so-called summary report for policymakers was drafted by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, on behalf the corporate executives participating in the event. This report has very little to do with environmental protection. It largely consists in a profit-driven agenda, which uses the global-warming consensus as a justification. (For details see Climate Council: The World Business Summit on Climate Change.)
"The underlying ambition of the Summit was to address the twin challenges of climate change and the economic crisis. Participants at the Summit considered how these risks can be turned into opportunity if business and governments work together, and what policies, incentives, and investments will most effectively stimulate low-carbon growth." (Copenhagen Climate Council)
The agenda of the Copenhagen Climate Summit (7–18 December 2009), is upheld both by the governments, the business executives and the NGO community as "one of the most significant gatherings in history. It is being called the most complex and vital agreement the world has ever seen."
CO2 emissions are heralded as the single and most important threat to the future of humanity.
The focus of the Summit is on strictly environmental issues. No mention of the word "war" – i.e. the US-NATO led war and its devastating environmental consequences.
No mention of the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons as an instrument of "peacemaking."
No mention, as part of an environmental debate, of the radioactive fallout resulting from the Pentagon's humanitarian nuclear bombs. Tactical nuclear weapons, according to scientific opinion commissioned by the Pentagon are "safe for the surrounding civilian population."
No mention of "weather warfare" or "environmental modification techniques" (ENMOD) and climatic warfare.
No mention in the debate on climate change of the US Air Force 2025 project entitled "Owning the Weather" for military use. (See FAS, AF2025 v3c15-1 | Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning... | (Ch 1) see also SPACE.com – U.S. Military Wants to Own the Weather)
Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate climatic manipulations for military use is no longer part of the UN agenda on climate change. It was, however, part of the agenda of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Environmental Warfare and Climate Change, Global Research, 27 November 2005. See also Michel Chossudovsky, Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare, The Ecologist, December 2007.)
CO2 is the logo, which describes the Worldwide crisis. No other variable is contemplated.
Moreover, no meaningful anti-pollution clean air policy directed against CO2 emissions can be formulated as an objective in its own right, because the reduction of CO2 emissions is subordinate to the Global Warming consensus.
The words "poverty," "unemployment" and "disease" resulting from a global economic depression are not a matter of emphasis because authoritative financial sources state unequivocally: "the economic recession is over."
And the war in the Middle East and Central Asia is not a war but "a humanitarian operation directed against terrorists and rogue states."
The Real Crisis
The Copenhagen Summit not only serves powerful corporate interests, which have a stake in the global multibillion-dollar carbon-trading scheme, it also serves to divert public attention from the devastation resulting from the "real crisis" underlying the process of economic globalization and a profit-driven war without borders, which the Pentagon calls "the long war."
We are at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. War and economic depression constitute the real crisis, yet both the governments and the media have focused their attention on the environmental devastation resulting from CO2 emissions, which is upheld as the greatest threat to humanity.
The Multibillion-Dollar carbon-trading System
The carbon-trading system is a multibillion money-making bonanza for the financial establishment. The stakes are extremely high and the various lobby groups on behalf of Wall Street have already positioned themselves.
According to a recent report, "the carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU's emissions trading scheme... The speed of that growth will depend on whether the Copenhagen summit gives a go-ahead for a low-carbon economy, but Ager says whatever happens schemes such as the ETS will expand around the globe." (Terry Macalister, Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade, The Guardian, 28 November 2009)
The large financial conglomerates, involved in derivative trade, including JP Morgan Chase, Bank America Merrill Lynch, Barclay's, Citi Bank, Nomura, Société Générale, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are actively involved in carbon trading. (FACTBOX: Investment banks in carbon trading | Reuters, 14 September 2009)
The legitimacy of the carbon-trading system rests on the legitimacy of the Global-Warming Consensus, which views CO2 emissions as the single threat to the environment. And for Wall Street the carbon-trading system is a convenient and secure money-making safety-net, allowing for the transfer of billions of dollars into the pockets of a handful of conglomerates.
"Every major financial house in New York and London has set up carbon-trading operations. Very big numbers are dancing in their heads, and they need them to replace the "wealth" that evaporated in the housing bust. Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital, told the New York Times, "Carbon will be the world's biggest market over all." Barclays thinks the current $60 billion carbon market could grow to $1 trillion within a decade. Four years ago Redshaw, a former electricity trader, couldn't get anyone to talk to him about carbon." (Mark Braly, The Multibillion-Dollar Carbon Trading, RenewableEnergyWorld.com, 5 March 2008)
The Global Warming Data Base
Is the Global-Warming Consensus based on reliable data?
There are indications that both the concepts and the data on temperature and greenhouse gas emissions including CO2 have been adjusted and shaped to fit the agenda of the UN Panel on Climate Change.
For several years, the claims of the UN Panel on Climate Change (UNPCC) including the data base have been questioned. (See Global Research's Climate Change Dossier: Archive of more than 100 articles)
Critical analysis of the climate change consensus has been conveyed in reports by several prominent scientists.
There has been, in this regard, a persistent attempt to silence the critics as conveyed in the writings of MIT meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen. (See Richard Lindzen, Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence, Global Research, 7 April 2007)
Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libelled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. (Ibid)
ClimateGate and the Emails' Scandal
In November 2009, barely a few weeks before the inauguration of the Copenhagen Summit, a vast data bank of over 3000 email exchanges between key Climate Change scientists and researchers was revealed.
While the emails do not prove that the entire data base was falsified, they nonetheless point to scientific dishonesty and deceit on the part of several prominent scientists who are directly linked to the UNPCC.
The emails suggest that the data was shaped, with a view to supporting a predetermined policy agenda. "Fixing the climate data to fit the policy" is the modus operandi as revealed in the email messages of top scientists, directly linked to the work of the UN Panel on Climate Change?
The British media has acknowledged that the scientists were intent upon manipulating the data on Climate Change as well as excluding the critics:
[the comments below the quotes are by The Telegraph].
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted.
From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.
From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"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"
Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics – that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.
From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."
Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.
From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004
"Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future."
The scientists make no attempt to hide their disdain for climate change sceptics who request more information about their work.
(University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes – Telegraph, 23 November 2009).
The complete list of contentious emails can be consulted at Alleged CRU Emails – Searchable published by eastangliaemails.com.
What is significant is that the authors of the emails are directly involved in the UN Panel on Climate Change:
"[They are] the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the 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.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history. (Prof. Christopher Booker, Climate Change: This is the Worst Scientific Scandal of our Generation, The Telegraph, 28 November 2009)
One of the contentious emails by Dr Jones (published by eastangliaemails.com) points to the deliberate manipulation of the data:
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Source: Alleged CRU Emails – Searchable published by eastangliaemails.com
US Congressional Probe
Barely two weeks before the inauguration of the Copenhagen Summit, the US Congress is now probing into "the Global Warming Emails":
"U.S. congress has begun investigating climate scientists whose emails and documents were hacked into to see if their global warming theories have misrepresented the truth behind the cause of climate change.
Investigators have begun "studying" the 1,079 e-mails and over 3,800 documents that hackers stole last week from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University in the U.K., Rep. Darrel Issa from California told the Wall Street Journal.
Some of the leaked e-mails and files – which were posted on sites like www.Wikileaks.org and www.EastAngliaEmails.com – show growing tensions between scientists and skeptics. Others are mundane announcements of upcoming conferences or research trips.
According to his website, Rep. James Inhofe from Oklahoma said on Monday the leaked correspondence suggested researchers "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."
The White House Science Adviser John Holdren has also come under investigation, after one of his emails written in 2003 to Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, was hacked.
"I'm happy to stand by my contribution to this exchange. I think anybody who reads what I wrote in its entirety will find it a serious and balanced treatment of the question of 'burden of proof' in situations where science germane to public policy is in dispute," Holdren said.
Meanwhile, The University of East Anglia said it will cooperate with police and proceed with its own internal investigation. The University posted a statement calling the disclosure "mischievous" and saying it is aiding the police in an investigation.
The statement also quotes Jones, CRU's director, explaining his November 1999 e-mail, which said: "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."
Jones said that the word trick was used "colloquially as in a clever thing to do" and that it "is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward."
The leaked data comes just two weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen will begin on Dec. 7–18, when 192 nations will meet to discuss a solution on how to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. (International Business Times, November 24, 2009)
Meanwhile, the "international community" (supported by the mainstream media) has launched a counteroffensive, accusing the critics of waging a smear campaign:
The chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, stood by his panel’s 2007 findings last week. That study is the foundation for a global climate response, including carbon emission targets proposed this week by both the US and China.
So far, climate scientists say nothing in the leaked emails [that] takes away from the fact that the climate change evidence is solid. In fact, a new study in the journal Science shows the polar ice cap melting is happening at a faster rate than predicted just a few years ago.
In a teleconference call with reporters this week, one of the scientists whose emails were leaked, Pennsylvania State University paleoclimatologist Michael Mann, said that “regardless of how cherry-picked” the emails are, there is “absolutely nothing in any of the emails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus of climate change.”
...
This is a “smear campaign to distract the public,” added Mann, a coauthor of the Copenhagen Diagnosis, the report on climate change released this week ahead of the Copenhagen. “Those opposed to climate action, simply don’t have the science on their side,” he added.
Professor Trevor Davies of the East Anglia CRU called the stolen data the latest example of a campaign intended “to distract from reasoned debate” about global climate change ahead of the Copenhagen summit. (As Copenhagen summit nears, ‘Climategate’ dogs global warming debate | csmonitor.com, Christian Science Monitor, 28 November 2009, emphasis added)
But what is significant in this counteroffensive, is that the authenticity of the emails has not been challenged by the IPCC scientists.
The scientists are not saying "we did not do it." What they are saying is that the Global Warming Consensus holds irrespective of their actions to selectively manipulate the data as well as exclude the critics from the scientific debate on climate change.
What Is the Stance of the Civil Society and Environmentalist Organizations?
Civil society organizations are currently mobilizing with a view to pressuring the official governmental delegations:
"Two years ago, at a previous UN climate conference in Bali, all UN governments agreed on a timetable that would ensure a strong climate deal by the time of the Copenhagen conference. The implications of not achieving this goal are massive, and nearly unthinkable. Turn to our great partners film – the Age of Stupid – if you need to be convinced why.
The meeting – which should include major heads of state for the last three days, will attempt to reach a massively complex agreement on cutting carbon, providing finance for mitigation and adaptation, and supporting technology transfer from the North to the South.
This is a major milestone in history, and one where civil society must speak with one voice in calling for a fair, ambitious and binding deal. We are ready, but we need to let the leaders know the world is ready too. Are you? (COP-15 Copenhagen Climate Conference | TckTckTck)
Where do civil society activists stand in relation to the climate change email scandal?
Will these civil society organizations, many of which are funded by major foundations and governments, continue to unreservedly endorse the Global Warming consensus?
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace are among several key civil society organizations which are pushing the Copenhagen agenda. Their position is unchanged.
Environmentalist organizations are demanding a reduction in CO2 emissions, not as a means to tackling pollution, but as an instrument to reverse the process of global warming. For many of these organizations, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the "bible." It cannot be challenged even if the climate data base which supports the Global Warming Consensus turns out to be questionable or contentious.
While the mainstream NGO lobby groups including Greenpeace and WWF continue to support the consensus, there is a small and growing movement which challenges the legitimacy of the Copenhagen CO15 Summit agenda, while also accusing the UNPCC of manipulating the data. This manipulation of the data also serves the profit-driven carbon-trading scheme.
The Alternative Summit: KlimaForum09
The NGOs will be meeting in a parallel alternative summit, KlimaForum09. More than 10,000 people a day are expected to attend the sessions of KlimatForum09
Major international NGOs and environmentalist groups will be in attendance including Friends of the Earth, Campaign against Climate Change among others.
Klimaforum09 is to finalize a draft declaration which "will put forth a vision of a more socially just world society, [while] emphasizing the need to create substantial changes in the social and economic structures of society in order to meet the challenges of global warming and food sovereignty." (See Declaration · Klimaforum09)
While there is fierce opposition to the multibillion carbon-trading system within the NGO community, the Alternative Summit will not challenge the Global Warming consensus and its underlying data base. (All events · Klimaforum09).
While critical and active voices will emerge from within the various sessions of the Alternative Forum, the organizational envelope of KlimaForum09 remains compliant to the official agenda. In many regards, the rhetoric of the KlimaForum09's Danish organizers ties in with that of the host government of the official Summit, which coincidentally also funds the Alternative Summit. (Political Platform · Klimaforum09"). What this means is that the boundaries of dissent within the Alternative Summit have been carefully defined.
There can be no real activism unless the falsehoods and manipulations underlying the activities of the UNPCC, including the data base and the multibillion profit-driven carbon-trading scheme, are fully revealed, debated and understood.
Source
Monday, December 7, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Academy Members Want Gore To Give Back His Oscar
Two members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have called on the group to take back the Oscar awarded to former Vice President Al Gore for the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."
Roger L. Simon and Lionel Chetwynd made the request based on the e-mails that a hacker/whistle blower released revealing that so-called scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England systematically falsifying data to support the theory that the earth is heating up and that humans caused it.
"An Inconvenient Truth," a film based on a climate-change speech that Gore developed, won the Academy Award for best documentary feature in 2007. (Coincidentally, the next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household. )
That same year, the Academy elevated Gore's PowerPoint lecture, helping him to snag a Nobel Peace Prize as well.
The academy members' request that Gore return his statue is happening as preparations are under way for next week's United Nations climate change meeting in Copenhagen, where 16,500 people from 192 countries will fly in using private jets, consume 200,000 meals, and produce an estimated 41,000 tons of carbon dioxide, roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006.
Roger L. Simon and Lionel Chetwynd made the request based on the e-mails that a hacker/whistle blower released revealing that so-called scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England systematically falsifying data to support the theory that the earth is heating up and that humans caused it.
"An Inconvenient Truth," a film based on a climate-change speech that Gore developed, won the Academy Award for best documentary feature in 2007. (Coincidentally, the next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household. )
That same year, the Academy elevated Gore's PowerPoint lecture, helping him to snag a Nobel Peace Prize as well.
The academy members' request that Gore return his statue is happening as preparations are under way for next week's United Nations climate change meeting in Copenhagen, where 16,500 people from 192 countries will fly in using private jets, consume 200,000 meals, and produce an estimated 41,000 tons of carbon dioxide, roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)