"Carbon (Dioxide) trading is now the fastest growing commodities market on earth.....And here’s the great thing about it. Unlike traditional commodities markets, which will eventually involve delivery to someone in physical form, the carbon (dioxide) market is based on lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no-one. Since the market revolves around creating carbon (dioxide) credits, or finding carbon (dioxide) reduction projects whose benefits can then be sold to those with a surplus of emissions, it is entirely intangible." (Telegraph)
This blog has been tracking the 'Global Warming Scam' for over five years now. There are a very large number of articles being published in blogs and more in the MSM who are waking up to the fact the public refuse to be conned any more and are objecting to the 'green madness' of governments and the artificially high price of energy. This blog will now be concentrating on the major stories as we move to the pragmatic view of 'not if, but when' and how the situation is managed back to reality. To quote Professor Lindzen, "a lot of people are going to look pretty silly"
PS: If you have arrived here on a page link, then click on the HOME link...
Monday, 28 December 2015
10 reasons that show global warming is not man-made. Physics Prof explains his switch to skepticism.
10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming:
7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:
......Van Beizen’s other points essentially were that modern temperatures are not unprecedented — it’s all been hotter before. The pattern of warming in satellites doesn’t fit the supposed “forcing”. The world cooled after WWII when it was supposed to warm. The urban heat island effect is real.Warming temperatures cause rises in CO2 (but not necessarily the other way around)."
"Amid all the devastation and recrimination over the floods in Cumbria hardly anybody mentions one factor that may not be the sole cause, but certainly hasn’t helped, and that is the almost complete cessation of dredging of our rivers since we were required to accept the European Water Framework Directive (EWF) into UK law in 2000.
Yet until then, for all of recorded history, it almost went without saying that a watercourse needed to be big enough to take any water that flowed into it, otherwise it would overflow and inundate the surrounding land and houses. Every civilisation has known that, except apparently ours. It is just common sense. City authorities and, before them, manors and towns and villages, organised themselves to make sure their watercourses were cleansed, deepened and sometimes embanked to hold whatever water they had to carry away. ...................But all this changed with the creation of the Environment Agency in 1997 and when we adopted the European Water Framework Directive in 2000. No longer were the authorities charged with a duty to prevent flooding. Instead, the emphasis shifted, in an astonishing reversal of policy, to a primary obligation to achieve ‘good ecological status’ for our national rivers. This is defined as being as close as possible to ‘undisturbed natural conditions’. ‘Heavily modified waters’, which include rivers dredged or embanked to prevent flooding, cannot, by definition, ever satisfy the terms of the directive. So, in order to comply with the obligations imposed on us by the EU we had to stop dredging and embanking and allow rivers to ‘re-connect with their floodplains’, as the currently fashionable jargon has it.
And to ensure this is done, the obligation to dredge has been shifted from the relevant statutory authority (now the Environment Agency) onto each individual landowner, at the same time making sure there are no funds for dredging. And any sand and gravel that might be removed is now classed as ‘hazardous waste’ and cannot be deposited to raise the river banks, as it used to be, but has to be carted away."
For green activists like Bill McKibben this is obviously another consequence of man-made climate change.
And the politicians agree – not just left wing ones like Hilary Benn but also notionally conservative ones like local MP Rory Stewart, Environment Secretary Liz Truss and Prime Minister David Cameron. All have suggested that the floods are the result of unprecedented ‘extreme weather events’ whose consequences are quite beyond their control.
Either they are ignorant or lying or buck-passing – or all three. As it was in Somerset in early 2014, so it is with the floods which have ravaged the north of England (and which are fast spreading south) this year. Yes, they are indeed a man-made creation – but the people mainly responsible are the bureaucrats and green activists at the European Union whose legislation has made it illegal for Britain to take the measures necessary to reduce the risk of flooding."
Saturday, 26 December 2015
The Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia used to show the “hiatus” very clearly. Then they talked it over with their fellow fraudsters at NOAA and NASA – and made the hiatus disappear by switching to a new version of their data. If you remove their recent 0.1 degree data tampering, then 1998 becomes the hottest year – which agrees with satellites. Previously, CRU had excellent agreement with satellites about the hiatus. Satellites are supposed to show larger swings than surface data, but the trend was the same. Also note how satellite data shows much larger spikes during El Nino events, like 1998 and 2010. The new CRU data creates a warming trend where there is none. But the real smoking gun of fraud is the divergence with satellites during the current El Nino. They should be converging, not diverging. "
Lindzen: A recent exchange in the Boston Globe clearly illustrated the sophistic nature of the defense of global warming alarm
Even the IPCC recognizes that climate change has always occurred – including a warming episode from about 1919 to 1940 that was almost identical to the warming episode from about 1978 to 1998 that the IPCC does identify with human activities. However, all the claims cited by Dyson are frequently made by politicians and environmental activists (including Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the UN), and the IPCC scientists never really object. Why should they? Support for climate science (a rather small backwater field) has increased from about $500 million per year to about $9 billion. "
Michael Kile expands on the little conflict of interest in the UN’s decarbonisation mission
It seems the UN is co-founding groups for money managers to get large funds to “decarbonize”. That’s code for chiseling investments out of coal and forcing them into the pointless, inefficient and uncompetitive “renewables”. But of course, renewables are only worth investing in if governments keep demanding people use them. If the darn voters vote muck it up, by voting for leaders who will stop wasting their money, the renewables industry is a dead dog. So the UN project (which is probably funded by taxpayers) aims to remove the risk for investors by lobbying governments to keep the regulations friendly to green investors (and not so much to taxpayers).
For the Green Machine, “due diligence” means putting the risks onto the taxpayer and citizen. For the free market, “due diligence” means assessing the scientific credibility of those who say they can control the weather. What are the odds that the debate can be kept out of the mainstream media, and this bizarre meme (man-made global warming) will still be running in a few decades? The risk is that voters will get sick of being called names for asking good questions, and they chuck out the gullible fools and parasites. How long has the Golden Gravy Train got?"
“The Senate leadership does not want an institutional fight,” but after cedingits institutional prerogative to President Obama over the Iran nuclear deal, it can and should reclaim its constitutional role by unilaterally refusing to ratify theParis climate change treaty, saysChristopher Horner, an attorney and senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).
“Although the Senate’s treaty function has been greatly diminished, refusing to ratify sends a statement to the world that this agreement should be regarded as a promise, not a commitment. But not doing anything is, in fact, a commitment,” Horner told CNSNews.com.
“The ball really is in the Senate’s court,” he continued. “Obama knows that if the Senate says something, his signed pledge will be under a cloud. But if the Senate lets this go, there is no middle ground.”
Tuesday, 15 December 2015
Monday, 14 December 2015
It is inconceivable that Turnbull and his cronies are unaware of the fatuousness of a non-binding treaty based on carbon-reduction commitments, many made by some very dodgy regimes indeed. Despite the posturing in Paris, none actually believes anything substantive will actually come from the treaty they have blessed with pieties and photo ops. The establishment knows the science is bogus, but that is beside the point. There are lobbies to be pleasured, mates to be enriched, taxpayers to be fed nonsense with one hand and robbed blind with the other."
The CRU temperature record run by Phil Jones is fraudulent. The case for this is shown clearly below.
In 1922, the US Consul reported a “radical change of climatic conditions in the Arctic” with “unheard of high temperatures.” “Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable.” “Glaciers have … entirely disappeared”
In 1923, the glaciers of Glacier National Park in Montana were rapidly disappearing and predicted to be gone by 1950. By 1939, all of the glaciers in Eastern Greenland were nearing “catastrophic collapse.” By 1940, the Arctic had warmed six degrees, and sea ice had dramatically declined in thickness. By 1947, a ten degree rise in Arctic temperature was reported, and scientists were worried about sea level rise drowning seaports. By 1952, the glaciers of both Norway and Alaska had lost half their mass. This tells us that the warming was universal across the Arctic. The glaciers of Glacier National Park in Montana were still rapidly disappearing. Glaciers in the Alps disappeared during the first half of the century. However, a dramatic turnaround occurred, and by 1961 there was unanimous consensus for global cooling. By 1955, the glaciers of the Pacific Northwest were advancing – “for the first time in about one hundred years.” By 1970, the US and Soviet Union were trying to figure out why the Arctic ice was becoming “frigid” and Arctic sea ice was becoming “ominously thicker.” In 1976, scientists blamed “freakish weather” on global cooling, and the CIA said global cooling “will become the central issue of every government.” In 1976, all of the glaciers in northern Norway were expanding. The climate had cooled dramatically. In 1979, the global cooling since WWII was “indisputable.” NOAA reported 0.5C global cooling” In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences generated a graph of Northern Hemisphere land surface temperatures which accurately showed the warmth before 1940, followed by half a degree cooling. This graph made sense based on the behavior of the ice across the Northern Hemisphere and Arctic.
Here is where the problem comes in. The current CRU graph for Northern Hemisphere land surfaces makes no sense. It shows glaciers melting rapidly during a very cold period, and glaciers growing during a warmer period. The sharp cooling after 1940 has been nearly erased. The CRU temperatures are nonsense. The next graph shows how CRU generated their fraudulent graph. They cooled pre-1960 temperatures by about half a degree. The CRU fraud is much worse than that, however. Not only did they dramatically cool pre-1960 temperatures, but they dramatically warmed post-1980 temperatures relative to satellite Northern Hemisphere land temperatures (UAH V6) – to create a completely fake hockey stick of warming.The 1975 National Academy of Sciences data, combined with the recent satellite data, shows us that there has been little net warming since the 1930’s. The hockey stick is a total fabrication by government scientists. Climategate E-mails confirm that this manipulation of data was the scientists’ intent, and that they intended to cover up their activities.. Evidence is overwhelming that global warming/climate change is the biggest fraud in history."
Here’s James Hansen, NASA’s former in-house activist and the man who invented global warming hysteria:
“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”I never thought I’d say this but Hansen is totally right here. It was all bullshit. The words were all worthless. There will not be any action. And yes fossil fuels will carry on being burned a) because, as Hansen says, they’re the cheapest fuels out there and b) because, as he probably meant to say, fossil fuels are God’s way of telling us He wants us to be rich and warm, not cold and poor."
Wow. Just wow. Tony Thomas has uncovered the material the AAS provides to thousands of Australian teachers and students under the guise of science education resources.
As far as climate science goes, they might as well have hired Greenpeace. Mining is a questionable activity, Bob Brown is a hero, students should be lobbyists, and climate activists are champions. Forget the calculator, just whip out the placards. Science is not about evidence or thinking, but about following “reputable web sites” (which is code for “give me your brain and I’ll tell you what to think”). Coal is not so much a combustible mineral, as the number one “climate killer”. Not quite the dispassionate, logical path we used to think an Academy of Science might pursue."
Remember back when Australian voters thought they were electing a government which was committed to abolishing carbon taxes? The following are the words of Australia’s Environment Minister Greg Hunt, who under former Prime Minister Tony Abbott vigorously opposed carbon pricing; ....
So which is it Greg – were you opposed to carbon pricing, until your new boss Malcolm Turnbull told you to embrace carbon pricing? Or did your party lie to the Australian people about being opposed to carbon pricing, back when you were campaigning for our votes? Or is there an innocent explanation for this apparent backflip which I have overlooked?
Given the horrific Danish experience, in which Danes lost 2% of their GDP to carbon fraud, in my opinion, encouraging the purchase of international carbon credits is tantamount to an invitation to criminals to loot the Australian economy."
Sunday, 13 December 2015
Obama was just on the news declaring victory for “climate justice”. (ANY adjective in front of “justice” is a red flag to a propaganda ploy. There is only “justice”, not flavors of it. Things are either just, or not… )
It’s his Big Legacy and he’s asserting this was a big win.
Some other folks are quasi celebrating that it’s Yet Another Farce and can’t possibly be enforce anyway as it “isn’t a treaty”.
But there’s a secret back door in the works. The TPP."
Little appreciated in the current debate on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the dramatic way the TPP will abrogate legislative authority permanently from the U.S. Congress to the president. TPP creates a commission with full power to amend the agreement, and an arbitration mechanism with the strength to enforce such amendments. The House and Senate gave up their rights to amend TPP, but they can still vote it down when it comes up for up-or-down votes in both chambers next year.
Although many people still labor under the delusion that TPP is a free trade agreement, the 5,544 page TPP regulates trade, the environment, immigration, patents, copyrights, and labor laws among the 12 countries that are participants and the additional countries that are expected to join. Consequently, in a post-TPP world, U.S. presidents could force almost any alteration in U.S. law simply by achieving support in the TPP commission for a U.S. specific modification to the TPP. Case in point today, Obama’s climate ambitions. ...........
Republicans are now beginning to realize that Obama will use TPP to enforce his climate agreement. Manning continues:
There can be little doubt that Obama plans on using the Trans-Pacific Partnership governance as the means to enforce whatever he agrees to in Paris on the U.S. all the while our trade partners will ignore it, with the threat of international trade sanctions imposed against the United States should Congress or a future president roll back his agenda.
Thus, in the end, what we apparently got out of Paris is voluntary emission caps, voluntary progress reviews, no international oversight of any voluntary progress, and voluntary contributions to the Fund.
Of course, the entire climate cataclysm mantra is based on the claim that carbon dioxide has replaced the solar and other powerful natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth and human history. Now, merely tweaking CO2 emissions will supposedly stabilize climate and weather systems.
President Obama fervently believes this delusion. He will likely use the voluntary Paris gobbledygook to say America somehow has a “moral obligation” to set an example, by de-carbonizing, de-industrializing and de-developing the United States. Thankfully, Congress and the states will have something to say about that, because they know these anti-fossil fuel programs will destroy jobs and living standards, especially for poor, working class and minority families."
If global warming was a concern in the 1800s, Hollywood might have portrayed the COP21 Paris global warming pow wow like this…Of course, Hollywood seldom uses such racial stereotypes anymore…unless they are of White Southerners. .........Chief Obama of the Developed Tribes addresses all tribes of Earth: “After many moons of rain dance and pow wow talk, the Developed Tribes chiefs have made peace with the Undeveloped Tribes, and with Earth. Now the clouds will cry tears of joy, and the great waters will be kept from our villages.”
We have undeniable proof that COP 21 and Barack Obama have healed the US climate.
US forest fire burn acreage has plummeted since the 1930’s. US tornado deaths have plummeted to record lows since the 1930’s. The frequency and extent of hot weather has plummeted in the US since the 1930’s. The huge improvement in the US climate since the 1930’s can only be attributed to the healing powers of the great prophet Obama, and his revival meeting in Paris."
Neither did anyone mention that the entire increase in global average temperature from about 1850 to today, about 1.4˚F, is a small fraction of the typical range from minimum to maximum at any given location on any given day, not to mention the range from midsummer to midwinter—temperature swings that humans, animals, and plants all seem to endure quite well."
China and India will be pleased that this agreement permits them to go on burning coal and expanding their economies all they want. The President will be pleased that the agreement is weak enough that he can attempt to bypass Senate ratification. ........
This agreement will not meaningfully alter the temperature of the Earth, even under the UN’s own computer models. The bad news is that it plants the seeds of a new UN climate regime that left unchecked will swell into a bureaucratic behemoth. The good news is that the agreement’s soft commitments, lack of penalties for noncompliance, and long dates buy time for more scientific data to come in. The more scientific evidence we examine, the weaker the case for economy-wrecking global warming policies becomes. Science may provide the way out. If we can keep the data honest."
Saturday, 12 December 2015
A global agreement to funnel trillions upon trillions of dollars into windmills and solar panels over the next few decades will gratify politicians keen to add ‘saving the planet’ to their list of career accomplishments. Yet in terms of aiding the world’s benighted, arresting insignificant rises in global temperatures would amount to precious little. Indeed, it will be cold comfort for the untold millions in Asia and Africa who over the coming years will die premature deaths from preventable disease while living in conditions of abject misery.
As Bjorn Lomgborg has demonstrated, and drawn the unrelenting ire of warmists and rent-seekers for doing so, if we care more about facts than expensive gestures, the best value climate mitigation lies in researching better green energy technology. And as renewables become more cost effective, we’ll start to see them replace traditional sources without having to foist the unnamed billions in costs onto long-suffering taxpayers."
In the run-up to Paris, every country was asked to provide its plans for the next 15 years. China, already now responsible for half the world’s “carbon emissions”, said it plans to build so many more coal-fired power stations that by 2030 its CO2 output will double. India, now the world’s third-largest emitter, said its emissions will triple. There are currently plans across the world to build 2,500 more coal plants, because coal is easily the cheapest source of energy.
It is this which has been the scarcely noticed elephant in the room in Paris. Whatever clever words are devised to hide the reality of what emerges from this conference, there is no way the world as a whole is going to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
Equally contentious behind the scenes, prompting the US Secretary of State John Kerry at one point to threaten to walk out altogether, was the idea that the rich countries of the West are genuinely prepared to shell out $100 billion every year after 2020 to help poorer nations rely only on wind and sun for their energy.
So does this matter? Few pleas were heard more often in Paris than those from “small island nations” such as Kiribati in the Pacific, whose president insisted that, unless the rise in world temperatures was kept below 1.5 degrees, his country would soon be “underwater” from rising seas. In fact, far from being inundated, the latest study shows that its area has in recent decades been expanding."
The evidence also suggests that rainfall in Cumbria last weekend only marginally overtook much older records, if at all. Indeed, the frequency of such floods in the past three decades, according to scientists from Lancaster University, is not unusual and has fallen markedly from the mid-20th century.
My point is that this dreadful flooding could easily have happened even if the climate were not changing, since it is largely caused by landscape changes. And the measures the world has taken against climate change have not and will not significantly change the risk of flooding in Cumbria.
So what, then, have these 21 years of exchanging hot air on the subject actually achieved? Very little in terms of restricting global emissions – just look at India and China – but as far as Britain is concerned, they have had a devastating effect on our energy policy. Back in 2011, the world pledged to produce binding legal targets on emissions for all countries at this Paris meeting. But that ambition has been abandoned in favour of vague “intended” national promises. Each country must now set its own energy policy. So China and India – in fact any country – can continue to burn fossil fuels at will.
Apart from Britain. We are left uniquely isolated and vulnerable as the only country in the world with a legal target for reducing emissions, thanks to our Climate Change Act of 2008. No other country will be breaking its own law if it misses its target. But we have a binding target to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. We have repeatedly boasted that we are setting the world an example – but the world seems disinclined to take notice."
A committee of the US Senate held a hearing on Tuesday titled: Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate. Climatologist Judith Curry, of Georgia Tech University, provided verbal and written testimony. She described the “enormous pressure” those who work in climate science are under to conform to a single point-of-view. This state of affairs, she says, “risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty and objectivity.”
Anyone who truly cares about the good name of science should be alarmed by Curry’s testimony. Any parent genuinely worried about how climate change might affect their children deserves to hear that this highly qualified scientist thinks her profession has gone astray. That important avenues of research have been systematically ignored. That the data on which momentous conclusions have been based “is sparse and inadequate.” That, in its eagerness to pin the blame on humanity, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has paid insufficient attention “to natural causes of climate change, in particular from the sun and from the long-term oscillations in ocean circulations.”
The Paris agreement is based on fraudulent temperature graphs, like this one from CRU which shows more than 1C warming in the Northern Hemisphere over the last century. Compare that to this National Geographic graph from 1976, based on National Academy of Sciences and NOAA temperatures. It showed no net warming from 1890 to 1976, and a sharp decline after 1940 “halfway back to the chill of the Little Ice Age”
The next graph overlays the two at the same scale. Note how the right side of the graph lines up very well, but government climate criminals posing as scientists knocked half a degree off pre-1960 temperatures, and erased the post-1940 cooling. Phil Jones is in charge of this data at CRU, and Climategate E-mails show that he and other government climate scientists conspired to remove “the 1940’s blip” Without the tampering, there has been little or no net warming since the 1930’s. NOAA reported the same thing for the US in 1989. No net warming in the US. NOAA fixed this problem by massively cooling the past.
The entire Paris agreement is based on fraudulent data from NOAA, NASA and CRU. Global warming is the biggest scam in history. Here are a few more gems from the 1976 National Geographic article. - Glaciers disappearing before 1956 It was one or two degrees warmer 8,000 years ago. Earth’s climate has always been changing "
If all the world’s leading nations stick to the carbon-reduction commitments they will make in Paris this week, then they will stave off “global warming” by the end of this century by 0.170 degrees C.
Oh – and that’s the optimistic scenario, calculated by Bjorn Lomborg, assuming that countries like, say, China don’t lie or cheat about how much CO2 they’re burning secretly.
At an annual cost to the global economy of $1.5 trillion. "
Figure how the equation looks for China:
- how do I hobble my competitors, steal their factories, and sell them more of my goods?
- how do I collect more of their pointless guilt payments (carbon credits etc)?
- and how can I look like a hero in the West at the same time?
New “Historical Draft” Is Delusional …Will Go Down In History As Certificate Of Madness And Hysteria
Signatories to this treaty will go down as historical fools who let themselves get caught up in hysteria."
I learned in school that King Canute (990 – 1035 AD) was the most stupid King in English history. He was so ignorant and arrogant he believed he could stop the tide. World leaders in Paris led by President Obama, who promised to stop sea level rise in his election campaign, are the modern day equivalent of Canute’s mentality. ..................Hopefully, future historians will report that his was the last generation that ignorantly and arrogantly believed they could stop climate change and sanity finally prevailed, but I won’t wait for the tide to come in."
Physicist: ‘Stunning scientific illiteracy behind the Paris 2 °C target’ – ‘ill-defined, meaningless, inconsequential’
The “final” COP21 Paris agreement has 31 pages and it will go down in history as a certificate of madness and hysteria.Fourteen months ago, Victor and Kennel published an article in Nature explaining some of the reasons why the “temperature targets” such as the 2 °C target should be ditched because it’s ill-defined, meaningless, inconsequential, unreachable, … and just plain idiotic. But the climate hysteria has lost all contacts with Science."
"As well as the 2C target, the deal, which would be legally binding and is meant to take effect in 2020, includes a commitment to strive towards limiting increases to 1.5C by 2100. "
ED: King Canute
Wednesday, 9 December 2015
Climate alarmism is going nowhere. The two-decade global-warming pause, which no late 1990s climate model foresaw, led the public to doubt Big Climate’s confident predictions for the future. In response, federal bodies such as NOAA and NASA have adjusted the past to make the present appear hotter, and thus supposedly demonstrated that in fact there is no such “pause”. As a result, public opinion, which no longer trusts the Big Climate enforcers to tell them what the climate will be like in 2050, now no longer trusts them to tell them what it was like in 1950. A recent poll found that, notwithstanding the urgings of the President and the Secretary of State and others, only three per cent of Americans regard climate change as their major concern. Three per cent. There is your 97 per cent consensus, gentlemen."
NASA’s top temperature expert says Antarctic temperatures have decreased significantly. NASA’s top ice expert says that Antarctic land ice is increasing. NASA says that Antarctic sea ice is increasing to record levels. Antarctica is cooling and the ice is expanding. Scientists respond to this by saying that global warming threatens penguins. Climate science is the first fully fact-free science."
The Green Blob wear the mask of concern, but judging by their actions it’s just the cloak that hides self-serving, freeloading ambitions. If they really put the planet first, they would not be trying to save it with erratic wind and expensive solar power. They eschew all the cheap efficient options because those only reduce CO2 (which appears to be irrelevant) and don’t help with the real goal, namely bigger-government and a smaller independent sector.
If the goal is money and power, reducing CO2 through cheap efficient means would actually be counter productive. It would stop the flow of cash to the patron saints of wind and solar and show how pointless they are:
I am profoundly dismayed that the organization I founded – an organization that once did good work addressing real environmental concerns – has descended to what I consider to be criminality and also proposes to descend to libel.
Accordingly, I have decided to inform the Federal Bureau of Investigation of Greenpeace’s dishonest and disfiguring attempt at entrapment of Professor Happer, whom I know to be a first-rate scientist, one of the world’s half-dozen most eminent and experienced physicists, and one who would never provide any scientific advice unless in his professional opinion that advice was correct.
The organization’s timing was clearly intended to spring the trap on Professor Happer hours before he was due to appear in front of Congress. This misconduct constitutes a serious – and under many headings criminal – interference with the democratic process that America cherishes.
I have reported Greenpeace to the FBI under 18 USC 96 (RICO statute); 18 USC 1343 (wire fraud); 18 USC 1512 (tampering with a witness due to appear at a Congressional hearing); and 18 USC 1505 (obstruction of proceedings before committees)."
Greenpeace, in furtherance of what is in effect its war against every species on the planet, has now turned to what, on the face of things, looks to me like outright breach of the RICO, wire-fraud, witness-tampering and obstruction-of-committee statutes. I have called in the FBI.
Greenpeace appears to have subjected Dr Will Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, to a maladroit attempt at entrapment that has badly backfired on it.
Greenpeace used this dismal rent-by-the-hour office block in the Beirut souk for its entrapment scam."
Patrick Moore has reported Greenpeace–the charity he co-founded in the 1970s–to the FBI for what he claims are a series of offences, including “outright breach of the RICO, wire-fraud, witness-tampering and obstruction-of-committee statutes.”"As Happer told Moore, “I was suspicious about the email exchange from the start, so I wrote every response assuming that it might be public someday. But what I wrote expressed exactly what I believed to be true.”
Moore has published a full account of the sting operation here.
What’s clear is that every stage Happer’s behaviour was morally and scientifically unimpeachable.
Happer stressed from the start that his opinion could not be bought – that is, he would only say in his paper what he believed anyway."
One of the key myths it demolishes is the one established by Al Gore in his pimped-up power point lecture, An Inconvenient Truth, where he climbs onto a scissor lift to show how dramatically – and apparently unprecedentedly – CO2 levels have risen in the late Twentieth Century with inevitably disastrous consequences for the planet.
This scaremongering claim by Gore is a perfect example of what presenter Marc Morano means by the “Climate Hustle”: just like in a card game where tricksters use sleight-of-hand, distraction techniques, and dirty tricks in order to con the mark (the mug punter) out of his money, so the alarmist establishment is withholding key details and presenting false or distorted information in order to extract vast sums from the gullible public.
In this case, the details that Gore isn’t giving us are
1. Almost invariably throughout geological history, CO2 increases have lagged rises in temperature not preceded them. In other words, it’s more likely that global warming causes increased CO2 rather than that increased CO2 causes global warming.
2. Current carbon dioxide levels are minuscule compared to what they were in our deep geological past. As several earth scientists testify in the movie, our planet is – in terms relative to the past – “CO2-starved”.
“I am the son of two mathematicians,” Cruz said in his opening statements. “I believe that public policy should follow the actual science and the actual data and evidence, and not political and partisan claims that run contrary to the science and data and analysis.”
Cruz told the story of a scientific ship that got stuck in Antarctic ice in the summer of 2013, and said that climate “alarmists” predicted that there would be no ice that year.
“On Christmas Eve, they became stuck in ice, ice that the climate-industrial complex had assured us had vanished,” he said.
Cruz, chairman of a Commerce Committee subpanel, repeatedly referred to satellite data that showed a long pause in global warming, data that recent studies have rebuked.
“According to the satellite data, there has been no significant global warming for the past 18 years,” he said. “Those are the data. Global-warming alarmists don’t like these data. They are inconvenient to their narrative. But facts and evidence matter.”
President Obama has talked about climate change with at least three world leaders in the last four days while international negotiators in Paris hash out a final deal on global warming.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Obama talked with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday to discuss the progress on a United Nations climate pact.
“He's following this quite closely, he's getting regular updates from his team in Paris about the status of the negotiations,” Earnest said Tuesday. “So it's something that he continues to follow closely."
Online Spiegel Survey Reveals 60% Of Germans Say Cheap Diesel Fuel Is Good, Or Needs To Be Even Cheaper!
In Europe, especially Germany, diesel engines are quite popular. The oil-burning combustion motors get far better fuel mileage and the price of fuel in the country is some 20% cheaper than gasoline – thanks to lower taxes."
Thursday, 3 December 2015
China sees it as a brilliant opportunity to fleece the gullible gwailo for as much money as it can, to burnish its international image by making all the right green noises, and to blackmail the West into providing it with free technology.
But it has no intention whatsoever of sacrificing economic growth by reducing its carbon dioxide emissions. ...................
That’s because China understands – as the West pretends not to – that CO2 and “pollution” are very different things.
Not only do the goals of reducing carbon emissions and air pollution not reinforce each other, they conflict. Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless, tasteless gas that does not harm health. Efforts to reduce it rely on un-proven abatement technologies, and are prohibitively expensive. In contrast, abating air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide rely on proven technologies and are relatively inexpensive."
Anthropology professor Wade Davis wants to declare war on global warming, comparing the battle against CO2 to military conflict in WW2. ...................The truth is the world, or at least the Western world, is already pretty much on a wartime footing against global warming. People are getting fed up with the cost of it all, with the blazing hypocrisy of our jetset planetary saviours. They are also fed up with the fact the problems of global warming are largely imaginary, invented by fools and profiteers."
Wednesday, 2 December 2015
Of course, the last thing you'd want to do before agreeing that "the Earth is warming" would be to look at the data. Well, maybe just a peak? Here's the latest satellite temperature record from UAH, from the time they first put up the satellites in 1979 and going right up to yesterday: ............So 40,000 people, all on government payroll, meet in Paris to seek to put over on the world's people a spending/control program of multi-trillions of dollars, all based on so-called "facts" that all are required to believe but are contradicted by the best available data. Our primary media sources systematically suppress the data. Yes, the world truly has gone mad."
Tuesday, 1 December 2015
LDCs (least developed countries) have forwarded an invoice for $1 trillion dollars, to be paid between 2020 – 2030, in order to meet their climate goals."
Every intelligent or wise person knows that this whole ritual is complete nonsense. Intelligent or wise people may differ in their estimate of the climate sensitivity – the expected warming of the globe contributed by each doubling of CO2 in the air. But regardless of the value which is not known exactly, it is spectacularly obvious that no one will rationally make the economic sacrifices justified by the tiny downward changes of the temperature. ....................While all sane people and people with at least average intelligence know very well that any similar plan to reduce the harmless gas is a complete insanity, politicians from the U.S., Western Europe, and many other corners of the world systematically visit these meaningless meetings and try to "fight the climate change". This fact is a sad proof that – by reelecting all sorts of Obamas and related political kitsch – similar breathtaking imbecile voters have de facto conquered the world. They are commanding us. We need to get rid of this baggage ................These aggressive imbeciles, and not CO2, are what threatens the intelligent life on Earth."
Obama Is Correct, Climate Change Is Biggest Threat, But Only Because Official IPCC Climate Science Is Completely Wrong
There are insufficient superlatives to describe the disaster that is the UN COP21 Climate Conference in Paris. None of the superlatives are the ones used by the organizers and their lackeys. It is the largest, most political conference ever, based on completely false claims deliberately created in the greatest science deception in history. It will cost more socially in direct damage to individual lives, communities, and social structures. It will cost more in economic damage to jobs, businesses, and industry. In addition, besides destroying lives it will remove freedom and actually cost lives. It will weaken economies preventing resistance to terrorism. This far exceeds any potential damage from terrorism and is much worse because it is self-inflicted"
Nearly everything NASA says about climate is fraudulent, and their claims about sea level are no exception. Their sea level data agreed with the 1990 IPCC report until about 1920, but after 1920 NASA turned a measured reduction in sea level rise rates into an acceleration. The 1990 IPCC report said that sea level was rising from 1.0-1.2 mm/year, and had not accelerated in the 20th century. The criminals at NASA have tripled the rate of sea level rise to 3.24 mm/year. "