The Global Warming Racket

Forget Globull Worming: We're Cooling Again!

2012-01-31T03:14:00.000-08:00

Global Warmists Seek to Flush Out ‘Denier’ Meteorologists

Cloudy with a chance of fiery death

Saving the planet is for the plebs

Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, January 31, 12

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2009:

Today we have reached the point where consumption and people’s desire to consume has grown out of proportion… The reality is that our lifestyles are unsustainable...

His solution: hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed

Here is Pachauri today, living his creed:

This week he’s in India for the 12th Delhi Sustainable Development Summit, which begins on Thursday.

The summit is organized by TERI, an institute led by Pachauri. In other words, he isn’t merely a guest at this event. He’s the conductor of the orchestra. This is his show.
Which is why it’s so eye-popping that it’s taking place in an over-the-top, five-star hotel that’s described this way:
Taj Palace Hotel, New Delhi offers guests a choice of Deluxe Rooms and Luxury Rooms. All guestrooms are luxuriously appointed with central air conditioning, these rooms measure 304 square feet and feature luxuriously large bathrooms.

Its Back to Global Cooling!

If NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.

So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.

‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’

Panic on the Web: 'Is Global Warming Driving Polar Bears to Cannibalism?'

2011-12-20T22:03:00.000-08:00

Stuck on stoopid...

Can't we feed them a bunch of liberal progressives or a bunch of Whoopies instead?

By: Grant Dahl | December 19, 2011 | News Busters

A story prominently displayed on the Science News headlines at Yahoo! News on Friday came from LiveScience.com, which used this question as its headline: "Is Global Warming Driving Polar Bears to Cannibalism?" and later in the article, after asking the question "are polar bears more often resorting to cannibalism because of increased hunger and desperation, or are we simply more frequently observing a behavior that has always existed?" they proceeded to address the cannibalism side of the question without even considering the idea that this behavior might indeed be normal for polar bears.

After asking what was causing the polar bears' descent to cannibalism, the article proceeded to state that the answer to the question would "reveal whether or not the Svalbard polar bear population has started to feel the heat from climate change." In other words, the writer suggested the probability that young polar bear cubs being cannibalized by adult polar bears has been caused by people being unsafe with their car's emissions or overusing their barbecue pit.

The Tactics Behind the Globull Worming Racket

2011-11-21T17:57:00.001-08:00

SUN TV EXPLORES THE TACTICS ON GLOBAL WARMING ORTHORDOXY…….

Thanks to the TT via Vlad

Australia, the Stupid Country

2011-08-20T02:49:00.000-07:00

Will we really pay Nigerians billions to let us keep our lights on?

Andrew Bolt

Saturday, August 20, 2011 at 08:46am

How utterly insane is this Government to plan to send $57 billion a year overseas, just to buy permission to keep our coal-fired power stations running? Terry McCrann explains:

BY 2050, Australia will be sending $57 billion a year overseas just for the right to keep our lights on, as a direct consequence of Julia Gillard’s carbon dioxide tax and consequent emissions trading scheme.
Let me make it perfectly clear. We won’t be getting anything tangible back for that $57bn.
It doesn’t buy us windmills or solar panels made in China. It doesn’t buy us technology or licensing rights. It’s not even a (carbon dioxide) tax, that would at least generate revenue for the government. It just sends money to foreigners for “permission” to keep a few of our coal-fired power stations operating.
That is to say, it will be an entirely artificial cost, imposed on all Australians, by this Gillard-Brown government, with not the slightest offsetting benefit. It has the same economic consequences as taking $57bn and just shredding it. Every year.
This extraordinary “fact” is in detailed Treasury modelling of the proposed carbon dioxide tax.
It’s astonishing that a government could blithely commit to throwing away—it’s not even like foreign aid—$57bn a year of our national income.
It’s even more astonishing that the formerly credible Treasury department could conclude that throwing away that money every year would have almost no negative impact on our economy.
And even more startling yet that all this is of no interest to the media or the broader commenteriat.
I am not aware in the weeks that have elapsed and all the hundreds of thousands of words and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of learned commentaries on the issue, that anyone other than Henry Ergas in this paper on August 3, has even noted, far less discussed, this bizarre and simply insane aspect of the carbon dioxide tax.

The Mother of all Warmists

2011-08-13T02:21:00.000-07:00

The Age’s climate expert and his peer reviewed Kenyan

The Age seeks an expert to write on global warming and the drought in Africa. Naturally, it turns to John McIntyre, the Anglican Bishop of Gippsland, whose grip on the science is so sound that he thinks Australia can stop the whole planet from warming with just a little extra cut to its emissions:

Andrew Bolt rips him a new one: there is no single scientist who’d blame that drought on our emissions, but the bishop has found a peer-reviewed expert to back him up:

In what one 70-year-old man in Kenya described as unseen in his lifetime, there has been a three-year period without any rain at all.

That’s enough proof for the bishop. But I suspect that his 70-year-old Kenyan is suffering Alzheimer’s:

Not many Anglican bishops can boast a wife with tattoos and a daughter with a nose ring.

But John McIntyre, the Bishop of Gippsland, Victoria, even admits that when his son turned 18, he and his wife, Jan, gave him a tattoo.

Honest John bares warts-'n-all

Goracle Meltdown

2011-08-06T18:17:00.000-07:00

Al Gore, ranting about denier evilists and the evil they deny, completely loses it:

“They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!” Gore exclaimed.

The large angry man is also upset about the lack of a shared reality:

“When you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again,” he continued. “There’s no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea! … It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the goddamn word climate. It is not acceptable. They have polluted it to the point where we cannot possibly come to an agreement on it.”

Maybe Al’s warmists might prevail if governments, the UN and the media all got behind his cause and contributed a dollar or two. Oh, wait …

(Via Climate Depot)

HOWLIN’ AL

Tim Blair – Sunday, August 07, 11

Another climate shyster lives (fearfully) on the water front:

Tim Flannery takes all precautions:

While his place was, he admitted, “very close to the water”, the issue was how far it was above the water – something Professor Flannery would not reveal because, he said, it could help identify the location and subject him to a Norway-style attack by conservatives.

This is as likely as any of Flannery’s previous predictions.

(Via Chris Poole)

Lord Monckton: No Opposition, Just Smears & Innuendo

2011-07-21T21:42:00.000-07:00

Farr out on Monckton (Andrew Bolt)

We’re told repeatedly that Lord Monckton is no scientist and his arguments against global warming alarmism are nonsense. So it’s very telling after having been grudgingly granted a debate at the National Press Club that no scientist or journalist has come forward as yet to demonstrate some fraud or foolish error in Monckton’s arguments.

Wait!

Malcolm Farr now offers this rebuttal, with the promising if offensive headline:

Debunking the bunkum of that dopey Monckton

But read it. Please identify a single counter-argument to Monckton’s attack on the global warming faith swallowed so unquestioningly by so many journalists.

Abuse I can see there. But not a single argument. This “journalism” simply confirms what it seeks to deny.

UPDATE

Roy Morgan consults a focus group:

Despite negative publicity surrounding Lord Monckton’s visit to Australia, the results of a special Roy Morgan Reactor test over the last 24 hours show Lord Monckton won the debate and persuaded a substantial 9% of Australians to his view that ‘Concerns about Global Warming are exaggerated’…

When asked after viewing the Reactor to nominate a winner of the debate, more respondents (49%) nominated Lord Monckton as the winner ahead of Dr. Denniss (37%) and 14% couldn’t say.

UPDATE

No wonder global warmists fear debate, and even journalists deplore it. Melanie Phillips:

I am open-mouthed. The BBC Trust is recommending that its journalists ditch balance for propaganda.
A report being published today has apparently decided that the BBC no longer needs to interview man-made global warming sceptics because there is a consensus on this issue that the theory is true.
Its conclusions are said to be based in part on recommendations by the geneticist Professor Steve Jones. Astonishingly, he is said not only to have found no evidence of bias in the BBC’s output on climate change, but suggests that on issues like this where he says there is a ‘scientific consensus’ – also including the MMR vaccination and genetically modified crops – there should be no need for the BBC to find opponents of the mainstream view.
This is as terrifying as it is outrageous. First of all, the claim that there is a consensus on man-made global warming is itself false…
This is nothing less than a totalitarian agenda. Indeed, why stop at science? If ‘consensus’ dictates what is to be reported, and consensus is itself subjectively determined on the basis of the presumed weight of expert opinion (which can never be truly known) or the presumed agreement of the population (which can never be truly known), then it follows that on issues such as abortion, membership of the EU or immigration (on which even the BBC has been forced to admit it got public opinion terribly wrong) the BBC would similarly see ‘no need’ to allow alternatives to chattering-class opinion to be heard.
A free society requires toleration of dissent. Progress depends upon the recognition that today’s dissent may turn into tomorrow’s orthodoxy. Science is littered with examples of this, from Galileo onwards. Indeed, the idea that a presumed consensus should wipe out dissenting voices is positively anti-science. If science doesn’t have an open-mind, it is no longer science but propaganda. And that is what the BBC Trust is proposing.

So much KRudd and so little time....

2011-06-29T04:01:00.000-07:00

Tim Blair:

Women’s Weekly editor Helen McCabe thrills to climate change minister Greg Combet’s legislative heat:

He is trying to introduce a carbon tax, he is a bit brooding, unknown and mysterious.

He is sexy. He is dangerous. He is aware of the need to use a cheaper-to-run hot water system and change the light bulbs.

Then there's Brown:

The mining boom is creating massive problems for other parts of the Australian economy.

All that money. All that progress. Such a massive problem. BROWN TOWN

Andrew Bolt:

And the control the citizens will actually have?

Greens leader Bob Brown really does think this is good and can work:

So why shouldn’t we now join vigorous moves in Europe and at the United Nations for a global people’s assembly based on one person, one vote, one value?

And where's KRudd?

Gillard’s Malaysian deal founders as Rudd dallies with Kyrgyzstan

Say “Yes” to Censorship

2011-06-08T16:32:00.000-07:00

“The arrogance of global warming activists and their fellow travellers in politics is something I know well from the past. They wish to suppress truth, control the market, and dictate policy; and I, who have spent most of my time living under communism, feel obliged to warn against it.”

—Dr. Václav Klaus

Say "Yes" to more taxes

End of the World

2011-05-21T23:01:00.000-07:00

Sultan Knish: End of the World

The media has been having a prolonged belly laugh at a group that had the temerity to suggest that the world would end today. Of course it's ridiculous when Harold Camping predicted that the world will be over today, but not when Al Gore predicted that the North Pole would melt in five years. True believers in Gore would say that's the difference between science and eschatology. But when bogus science warns us of an apocalypse if we don't follow the tenets of their ideology, then how much difference is there anyway?

Of course no one expects MSNBC to do sneering reports of global warming activists freezing at a protest or Al Gore being forced to watch a count down of a solidly frozen North Pole. Such mockery is only directed at people who believe in more unpopular forms of apocalypses. At least unpopular at the broadcasting studios of Manhattan. Camping is ridiculous, but Al Gore is right on the money.

The only real difference between Harold Camping and Al Gore, is that Harold Camping believes what he's saying, while Al Gore preaches one thing to his followers, but lives a lifestyle in direct contraction of it. The Vice President turned Prophet of Gaia lectures on watching our carbon footprint and then flies on jet fueled carbon wings to another concert on behalf of the planet. Other aspiring prophets like Prince Charles, who admires poverty, but lives in privilege, are no better.

Of course prophets are immune from hypocrisy. Doubly so if they're false prophets. If the invariably prosperous believers in Death by Global Warming really believed in the creed, wouldn't they be selling their homes and cars, and going off to live a simpler life in the Himalayan mountains. But it's easier to believe in something than to practice it. Like all liberal social engineering projects, environmentalism is meant to change everyone's life. And there's no point in its proponents doing more than paying lip service to it, as they make it the law of the land. If Osama bin Laden could preach Islamic morality while stocking up on X rated tapes, surely Al Gore can foretell the doom of the North Pole and still take a private jet around the world.

If liberals have turned to doomsday predictions, it's because they have discovered that religion and the apocalypse can be a marvelously effective way of controlling human behavior. But their religion is materialistic, concerned with the human presence in the natural world. Even its materialism is consumeristic. The Reds had no truck with environmentalism. To a Communist, the natural world was a mass of raw resources to be used to build socialism. But to the children of the capitalists, concerned more with what they buy, than with what they do, environmentalism restraints and directs their buying habits. As religions goes, environmentalism is the Consumer Reports of theologies.

For all the talk of apocalypse and melting poles, the environmentalists really only care about what your economic activity. Buy or don't buy. But preferably buy, so long as you're buying green, or buying carbon credits along with whatever you're buying. The sinner fills up on paper towels, but the righteous man buys paper towels with a green stamp on the box. The man of little faith may drive an SUV, and the faithful may also drive an SUV, but the faithful man's SUV has a bumper sticker warning everyone to conserve something or other. Such hypocrisies are constant, pervasive and little commented on.

When exactly did environmentalism turn into a fanatical religion, complete with its own televangelists, revival concerts and scripture? Arguably that's what it always was. But what began as a movement for the responsible stewardship of the earth has been corrupted from the ethical to the fanatical. Conservationism kept humanity in the picture. Environmentalism rages at humanity. Behind its colorful drawings and its dolphin key chains is the vision of a world in which humanity and its fire sticks are the original sin.

But that primal rage has been channeled and diluted into a million businesses, into countless regulations and profitable ventures. The new environmentalists are regulatory robber barons like Al Gore, green rent seeking tycoons looking to use cap and trade, and a thousand mandatory revenue streams to fleece both the faithful and the unfaithful. There is no further way to corrupt environmentalism, its existence is already an abiding corruption. For the false prophets, the lab coated peddlers of junk science and the writers dreaming up ever more fanciful depictions of the day when the oceans rise and man finds himself paddling for safety besides the polar bear, there is nothing left but the lie.

The religious apocalypse is the break between a fallen world and a better world. But in the environmental apocalypse, it is only the end. Materialistic eschatology cannot see any way past the end or any purpose for it. Only a Waterworld in which some of us develop gills and others have to learn to kayak. The threat of their end of days is meant to badger us into bowing our heads. Buy Green or the North Pole will end in 5 years. Bicycle to work or a polar bear will chew your ear off. Their end of days lacks imagination and proof. It is constantly imminent, yet never arrives. It is held to be proven so thoroughly that it can never be disproven. And who would want to disprove it, except someone who doesn't already have a grant to prove it.

There's hardly a problem in the world that the media doesn't blame on Global Warming. When it's hot, they point to Global Warming. When it's cold, they also point to Global Warming. Earthquakes,civil wars and the end of WiFi are all laid at the door of one single phenomenon. The difference between religion and science is that one is revealed truth and the other is theory. But when men and women in lab coats start predicting the end of days if the heretics don't repent and cast out their fluorescent light bulbs and SUV's, then what you have is theory as revealed truth. An experiment in eschatology.

Science requires objectivity. Combine science with ideology and you get a mandatory belief in absurdity. Everyone who self-righteously insists that global warming is science misses the point. The scientific orthodoxy of every generation has embraced ridiculous and wrongheaded theories. Science is not a pure form of revealed truth, it is the trial and error process by which we crawl toward a better understanding. A less flawed picture of the universe. Turn the scientific orthodoxy of any era into a mandatory ideology and you have killed the science and left only another belief system.

Environmentalists parade around the corpse of science on their shoulders, mount it on their walls and proclaim that science is on their side. Once you completely murder a system of using trial and error experimentation to confirm a theory, then you might as well use it as a banner on a flagpole or a trophy in your living room. But the environmentalist' science has as much relation to a living field, as the head of a dead moose mounted over a bed and breakfast's fireplace does to a living creature.

Ideology has killed science and now claims its intellectual credibility for its own. But purging dissenting scientists, burning books and silencing all critics with jeers is not science, no more than what passed for it in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was science. It is the fanaticism of an ideology, the championing of backwardness, the exploitation of titles and terminology to silence debate and betray the ethical trust of inquiry.

The end of the world? The same people who ridicule Christians waiting for the end, are waiting for their own end. Without any real faith in it. That's the difference between Camping's followers and Gore's followers. No one will hang around with a count down clock in 2014 and wait for the North Pole to end. Not even if Gore's prediction was better known. Those who believe in Global Warming, paradoxically don't really believe that the world could actually end. They may eat up the cinematic spectacle of oceans rising, cities sinking underwater and whales doing belly flops over the Grand Canyon, but it never really touches them.

To understand why is to understand the purpose of environmentalism. Its harsh criticism of consumerism turns it into a moral activity. The Whole Foods shopper is elevated above the Wal-Mart shopper. The woman who buys sneakers made of recycled tires isn't shopping, she's engaged in an ethical communion with the earth. Environmentalism is the theology of consumerism, uplifting it rather than proscribing it, taking a cut of ordinary economic activities in exchange for its blessing.

Environmentalism is the religion of the comfortable, and the theology of the convenient. It injects a false spirituality into the materialism of the faithless. There is nothing to it but greed. From the false prophets spinning tales of the end, to scientists doing a more elevated version of the same for grant money to scribes envisioning the end for a lucrative book or movie deal. It's not the end of the world they're waiting for, but a commercial break.

Warmist yearns for the “freedom” of a dictatorship

2011-04-21T01:24:00.000-07:00

All warmists are dictators:

Andrew Bolt

Sydney Morning Herald columnist Elizabeth Farrelly sighs for the virtue of a communist dictatorship, which, unike Australia, needs not pander to the 80 per cent of the population which has an IQ of just 80 and resists virtuous causes such as global warming:

Whether non-democracies such as China will negotiate the rapids of the coming century more adroitly remains to be seen. Certainly, freed from any need to pander to the 80/80 rule, they have at least one freedom Western-style democracies do not have – the freedom to act decisively.

Farrelly of course imagines herself in the 20 per cent of the intellectual elite, and thus born to dictate.

UPDATE

Farrelly joins other warmists in regretting the freedom of other citizens to disagree with them.

Here’s former Greens candidate Professor Clive Hamilton:

(T)he implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of “emergency” responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.

Here’s Emeritus Professor David Shearman, an IPCC assessor and honorary secretary of Doctors for the Environment Australia:

Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task.

Warmist yearns for the “freedom” of a dictatorship

Al Gore & Charlie Manson: Partners in Crime

2011-04-19T03:19:00.000-07:00

Global warming must be true, Charles Manson believes in it.

Killer breaks 20-year silence on 40th anniversary of gruesome Sharon Tate murders

Daily Mail

600 Climate Wankers in Cairns, Creating "Super-Organisms....”

2011-04-07T18:38:00.000-07:00

Not only:

“We will be a regulating intelligence for the planet.”

You want to put a tax on coal,

Of borders you have lost control,

Your cabinet has got a mole,
Abbott wants to stop the dole,
The Greens think you are just a troll,
The NBN’s a money hole,
There’s been a really awful poll,
They say your party’s lost its soul,
But it’s no excuse for hyperbowl.

600 of Australia’s top climate scientists met in Cairns on Monday.

Excuse me … we have 600 “top climate scientists”? Just in Australia? Six freakin’ hundred? That’s close to the total number of listed senior AFL players. What do these people do all day – train?

CSIRO chief Megan Clark, who was at the gathering, said climate change was one of the most challenging issues humanity had ever faced.
“It does need careful consideration and it does need debate. It also needs all of the players,” Dr Clark told ABC Radio.
“Clearly we need a price on carbon.”

I’m not sure why, unless the CSIRO wants more cyclones:

CSIRO research commissioned by the federal government suggests climate change could dramatically reduce the number of tropical cyclones in the Australian region and decrease wave heights on the nation’s east coast.
The surprise findings, which appear to contradict some common predictions about the impact of climate change, are contained in scientific papers on “Projecting Future Climate and its Extremes” …

In other carbon news:

Kevin Rudd has admitted he got it wrong in abandoning the emissions trading scheme a year ago.

That’s not what Julia Gillard says.

-------------------------------------------------------

“We have formed a super-organism,” announces Tim Flannery.

“There will be no ‘outside’, there is no ‘other’. We will form a global community with a common set of shared beliefs …

“We will be a regulating intelligence for the planet.”

On a Tim Blair tip.....

The Redistribution Tax We Have to Have

2011-03-17T01:25:00.000-07:00

Ross Garnaut, Socialist with his snout in the trough:

"This tax will keep future Australian generations safe from dangerous climate change"

Ever doubted that global warming was just the Left’s latest excuse for ramping up taxes and redistributing wealth?

Garnaut: use carbon tax to redistribute wealth

The Gillard Government’s global warming advisor, Ross Garnaut, today gives the game away:
Wise use of revenue from a carbon price can reduce the cost to the economy, and promote productivity above what it otherwise would be.

The largest element of revenue (around half initially rising to the large majority) should be applied to productivity-raising reform of the personal income tax system, focussing on low and middle levels of incomes. This will generate positive effects on income distribution as well as national productivity.
But this is what Julia Gillard said yesterday:
What is certain is that all funds raised by a carbon price will go to assisting households, helping business transition and programs to tackle climate change. Not a cent will go to Treasury.
I think we know which of these two spruikers is closer to the truth.

Governed by fools:

Keneally admits: no idea how much the tax will cut temperatures. If at all

Some guy at the debate between NSW Premier Kristina Keneally and Opposition leader Barry O’Farrell asks the very basic question that journalists always miss: by how much is your “carbon tax” going to lower the temperature?
And the answer is a scandal:
But it was a clash with questioner Rob over Ms Keneally’s support for the federal government’s carbon tax that heated up her 60 minutes at the microphone.
Asked what impact the tax would have on global temperatures and emissions, Ms Keneally replied she was not a scientist so she could not give an answer.
No idea if it will work. Never even asked. But let’s do it anyway.

Gillard’s global warming speech: count the deceits

Alternative views are an absolute no no:

If GetUp keeps up this hateful rhetoric, someone might get hurt

Wow. Talk about the language of hatred and fear. Here is part of the latest email from GetUp to its supporters:

As a climate champion, you know what we’re up against. Ultra-rightwing politicians, millionaire radio shock-jocks and corporate polluter lobbyists are trying to engineer a dangerous lie - that Australians are mobilised against climate action.

No one, according to GetUp, can have an alternative view on man-made warming without being corrupt or a neo-Nazi.

Whose tax is this anyway?

Bobby Brown is laughing loudly in the back:

Julia Gillard refuses to say who made her inflict this carbon dioxide tax on millions of voters:

On Monday, Ms Gillard said she was compelled to introduce a carbon tax due to the fact she was leading a minority government.
“If I’d been leading a majority government I would have been getting on with an emissions trading scheme (ETS),” she said.
But asked on Wednesday who exactly had forced her to change tack, the prime minister refused to name names.

But hee’s a clue, from Sky News Agenda, which found the one person in Australia who’d say such a thing:

Julia Gillard I find a very good person. She sticks to her word.

ONE OR TWO QUESTIONS

2011-03-02T00:26:00.000-08:00

ONE OR TWO QUESTIONS

Tim Blair – Monday, February 28, 11

Dear Prime Minister Gillard,

Thank you for making the weather nicer by forcing us to pay more for everything. Who knew that fixing the global climate was so simple? Still, one or two questions remain about your new plan and a few related matters.

Yours in climate justice,

Tim

• By how much will your carbon dioxide tax reduce Australia’s temperature?

Continue reading 'ONE OR TWO QUESTIONS' or go below the fold>>

Every “green” job costs at least one other

Bob Brown claims Julia Gillard’s “carbon tax” will create thousands of green jobs, just like green schemes allegedly did in Germany:.....

SEND IN THE COWS

Moo taxer Ross Garnaut wants cattle carbonated:

The government’s climate change adviser Ross Garnaut has recommended agriculture eventually be included in a carbon price regime, after it was ruled out by Julia Gillard.

That phrase – “after it was ruled out by Julia Gillard” – rings a bell. At the same Andrew Bolt link, this data from Versoe Economics:

For every job created in the UK in renewable energy, 3.7 jobs are lost.

Not very renewable, then, is it? Listen here.

The message underpinning the rationale of a carbon price carries an implicit tone of admonition: you cannot keep living they way you’ve been living and you’ll have to change; if you don’t, you’ll be punished financially.
Why would you approve of this?

• By how much will your carbon dioxide tax reduce Australia’s temperature?
• If after five years there has been no recorded decline in temperature, will the tax be abandoned?
• Multiple choice! How much money has already been wasted by federal Australian governments on pointless climate change initiatives that have done nothing:
a - $2,000,000,000
b - $3,500,000,000
c - $5,500,000,000
• If taxing Australians at a certain level will make us more competitive with the rest of the world, as you claim, then surely taxing us at even higher levels will make us more competitive still. Universal taxation at, say, 80 per cent should make us a global powerhouse. Why are you holding Australia back?
• You claim that Australians want this new tax. How about testing your theory at an election?
• If I announced on television that I was going to kidnap the federal cabinet and put them through a series of deadly Saw-style torture tests, do you think I could avoid charges by asking the police to stop going on about “semantics” and “word games”?
• Do you have any experience in herding cats? This might be important during your coming 16 months of negotiations with the Greens, who you seem to have forgotten are completely insane.
• Considering Labor couldn’t run a simple grocery pricing website and Labor’s attempts to insulate houses ended up setting them on fire and killing people, what are the odds Labor can successfully run the country’s largest and most complicated tax regime?
• Labor promised to reduce the number of boat people arrivals. As with everything else, Labor’s policies resulted in exactly the opposite outcome. Now you’re trying to change the weather. Where should people hide?
• Carbon dioxide contains two oxygen atoms for every one carbon atom. Shouldn’t we call it an “oxygen tax”?
• If the aim of the carbon tax is to change behaviour, why are you planning to compensate so many households? They’ll just keep killing the planet and get no penalties at all.
• At what point does carbon dioxide’s necessary presence in the atmosphere become “pollution”?
• If the carbon tax is definitely going to be introduced on July 1, 2012, how come Tim Flannery is going to be paid $720,000 over the next four whole years while he roams the country “explaining” it?
• Isn’t explaining new taxes your job? Or, more specifically, Wayne Swan’s?

• For that matter, where was Wayne the other day when you announced this massive new tax? You were there, and so was Bob Brown and Christine Milne and Greg Combet and Tony Windsor and the Hairy Princess. But no Wayne.
• The next time you see Wayne, could you ask him why he said this last August: “What we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax.” This question should really be asked by journalists, I guess, but they’re too busy making excuses for your hilarious lies.
• What is the point of building a $27 billion national broadband network to deliver computer connectivity across the nation when Greg Combet is telling people to turn off lights and televisions?
• Another thing: how much more cost will be added to the NBN courtesy of the carbon tax?
• Agriculture, which produces around a quarter of our carbon dioxide output, is exempt from the carbon tax. You’re not really serious about this whole “carbon pollution” deal, are you?
• Why don’t you just ban the mining, burning and export of coal? Your boss Bob Brown wants to. He thinks that coal caused the Queensland floods (or “water pollution").
• You’ve said that people shouldn’t be worried about media estimates of the amount they will be penalised. Why should they believe you?
• How does taking money off person A and giving it to person B help the climate?
• You’d be surprised, Ms Prime Minister, you really would, at the way clever lawyers can shift investments and capital around so that the source becomes “agriculture”.
• In 2007, Labor resources minister Martin Ferguson said that a mere $30 carbon tax on local flights would ”kill the Australian aviation industry both domestically and internationally.” If he was right, what does that mean for all Australian industries facing a carbon tax?
• What level of bureaucratic expansion will be required to deal with the intake and dispersal of something like $10 billion per year?
• Will your compensation plans take into account Australia’s regional differences in living standards? Because if they don’t, hard-up families in Sydney are going to be giving money to the well-off in Adelaide.
• What percentage of revenue from the carbon tax will be lost in bureaucratic churn between it being collected by your government and handed out in compensation?
• Instead of creating a tax system that eventually gives people their money back, why not just let them keep their own damn money in the first place?
• According to you, “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.” Would you mind telling us who does lead this government, then? Otherwise I’ve sent this to the wrong person.

Playing us for all its worth.....

2011-02-13T21:06:00.000-08:00

Playing the Global Warming Card

Carbon dioxide is natural and beneficial to plants. Rises in carbon dioxide follow temperature rise. It is a lie that the cause and effect are the reverse.

[…]

In 1992 the federal government, by executive decree, made the core of every cabinet agency’s mission the implementation of Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. Global Warming is the global crises used to restructure human life so as to implement world governance under the Agenda 21 action plan. Other crises are prepped in the event that Global Warming theory becomes exposed. Agenda 21 serves the globalist movement with its policy cornerstones: abolition of private property, education of the youth for global citizenship, and the utilization of technological advance for the purpose of monitoring and controlling human action.

Michael Shaw of FreedomAdvocates.org says, “Agenda 21 is the action plan that calls for the establishment of world government in accordance with principals that negate the political recognition of an individual’s unalienable rights. This alone accounts for much of the turmoil we see today. Our future under Agenda 21 is bleak as power becomes centralized.“

[…]

The proper role of government is to protect the people and their property; this is why destructive policies are cloaked in “safety” provisions.

Because a national cap-and-trade scheme failed in Congress, the feds are using the EPA to institute draconian laws. The EPA has drawn up an 18,000 page document with new federal regulations that affect energy production and transportation in addition to a cap-and-trade scheme. House Republicans are planning to stop the EPA (but Obama and the Senate will likely block them). As of September 2010, Texas is the only state that has had the good sense to oppose these absurd and unconstitutional mandates based on a vague Supreme Court ruling.

Almost every level of the federal government has a “sustainability” plan, from the Department of Homeland Security’s new ‘Climate Change and Adaptation Task Force’ to the USDA, Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, Department of Transportation, HUD, the Department of Defense, and even the Post Office. The regulations include everything from centralizng control over supergrids to licensing homes for energy efficiency. Each agency and many of their sub-departments have regulations based on phony science designed to centralize control.

[…]

State Mandates

Thirty two states are involved in unconstitutional alliances to implement global warming laws that directly affect energy production and transportation. Northeastern states are already engaged in a carbon trading scam and California’s plan is to permanently break its economy by imposing a cap-and-trade scheme and implementing outrageously invasive restrictions on individuals and businesses.

[…]

While the overwhelming regulations attack energy production, transportation and land use and ownership, the ultimate goal of the UN Agenda 21 is depopulation. The UN’s Global Biodiversity Assessment report says on page 773 that only 1 billion people are ‘sustainable’ in an industrialized world; therefore, an 85% population reduction is necessary to maintain “sustainability”.

In addition to energy and transportation as targets for destruction, independent farms are also under the “sustainable” attack, again in the name of fighting global warming.

[…]

Overpopulation is another enormous lie that the UN has foisted upon us. Their very own documents [link] reveal that the population will reach 9 billion people by 2050 AND will plateau there into 2300.

Genghis, the Climate Changer

2011-01-25T23:45:00.000-08:00

There is no end to this stupidity:

Genghis Khan the GREEN: Invader killed so many people that carbon levels plummeted

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

New legacy: Genghis Khan's bloody conquests scrubbed 700million tons of carbon from the atmosphere as depopulated land returned to forest

Genghis Khan has been branded the greenest invader in history - after his murderous conquests killed so many people that huge swathes of cultivated land returned to forest.

The Mongol leader, who established a vast empire between the 13th and 14th centuries, helped remove nearly 700million tons of carbon from the atmosphere, claims a new study.

The deaths of 40million people meant that large areas of cultivated land grew thick once again with trees, which absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

And, although his methods may be difficult for environmentalists to accept, ecologists believe it may be the first ever case of successful manmade global cooling.

‘It's a common misconception that the human impact on climate began with the large-scale burning of coal and oil in the industrial era,’ said Julia Pongratz, who headed the research by the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology.

‘Actually, humans started to influence the environment thousands of years ago by changing the vegetation cover of the Earth's landscapes when we cleared forests for agriculture,’ she told Mongabay.com.

The 700million tons of carbon absorbed as a result of the Mongol empire is about the same produced in a year from the global use of petrol.

A still from the film Mongol: The Rise To Power Of Genghis Khan where the lead role was played by Tadanobu Asano. The legendary warrior rose to power by uniting nomadic tribes

Mongol warriors wiped out entire settlements to create a vast empire. Genghis's descendants continued to push its borders until it reached into Eastern Europe

CAST OUT TO DIE, HE ROSE UP TO CREATE AN EMPIRE

Originally known as Temüjin of the Borjigin, Genghis was born holding a clot of blood in his hand. His father was khan of a small tribe, but he was murdered when Temüjin was still very young. The new tribal leader wanted nothing to do with Temüjin's family, so with his mother and five other children, Temüjin was cast out and left to die. Of all those in this list, he is the only one to start with nothing. From the most brutal beginning possible, Genghis survived to unite the Mongolian tribes and conquer territories as far apart as Afghanistan and northern China. He left a mountain of skulls that remained for years in China. Genghis Khan paved the way for his grandson Kublai to become emperor of a united China and founder of the Yuan dynasty. In all, Genghis conquered almost four times the lands of Alexander the Great. He is still revered in Mongolia and in parts of China.

The Carnegie study measured the carbon impact of a number of historical events that involved a large number of deaths.

Time periods also looked at included the Black Death in Europe, the fall of China's Ming Dynasty and the conquest of the Americas.

All of these events share a widespread return of forests after a period of massive depopulation.

But the bloody Mongol invasion, which lasted a century and a half and led to an empire that spanned 22 per cent of the Earth’s surface, immediately stood out for its longevity.

And this is how Genghis Khan, who repeatedly wiped out entire settlements, was able to scrub more carbon from the atmosphere than any other despot.

‘We found that during the short events such as the Black Death and the Ming Dynasty collapse, the forest re-growth wasn't enough to overcome the emissions from decaying material in the soil,’ explained Pongratz.

‘But during the longer-lasting ones like the Mongol invasion... there was enough time for the forests to re-grow and absorb significant amounts of carbon.’

Though the Khan will remain known as Genghis the Destroyer and not Genghis the Green, Dr Pongratz hopes that her research will lead to future historians examining environmental impact as well as the more traditional aspects of study.

‘Based on the knowledge we have gained from the past, we are now in a position to make land-use decisions that will diminish our impact on climate and the carbon cycle,’ she said.

'We cannot ignore the knowledge we have gained.’

Cooling effect: Russian forest which, before Khan, may have been cultivated land

The researchers said it is a common misconception that the human impact on climate began with the large-scale burning of coal and oil in the industrial era

Global Warming Explained

2011-01-12T05:13:00.001-08:00

TIME magazine's headline of the week: "Holiday Blizzard: More Signs of Global Warming"

2010-12-30T01:51:00.000-08:00

Yeah, you read that right.

And they even kindly provide a photo to illustrate what global warming looks like:

People dig out along 72nd Street in New York City on Dec. 27, 2010, in the wake of a powerful East Coast blizzard that shut down major airports and rail lines (eye on the world)

Fewer People are Buying into this Crazyness:

Michelle Malkin:

By way of Newsbusters, here’s our global warming headline of the day, courtesy of Time Magazine:

The ‘We’re Gonna Freeze to Death Because of Global Warming’ Headline of the Day

The article itself discusses a few theories as to why the heat is causing the cold. Normally I don’t like my scientific facts to be so littered with the word “theory,” but I guess we can blame the ravages of global warming for the over-theorization of settled-science.
It seems like only yesterday that Time was parroting a different eco tune:

Jeff Foxworthy could get a whole bit out of this insanity:

“If your copy of An Inconvenient Truth is frozen in a block of ice… you might be a victim of global warming.”

“If your pet penguin asks you to buy him a Snuggie… you might be a victim of global warming.”

“If you’re on stage in a Florida strip club and your tongue gets stuck to the pole… you might be a victim of global warming.”

The proper headline to the above Time column should have been, “Holiday Blizzard: More Signs of Winter,” but how many carbon credits would that sell?

**Written by Doug Powers

The Spin Stops at Nothing

2010-12-25T01:11:00.000-08:00

Global warming 'will give Britain longer, colder winters' as melting sea ice plays havoc with weather patterns

Melting ice will cause blasts of cold air to be funnelled over Britain during winter months

Britain will be hit by longer and colder winters in coming years because of global warming, scientists have said.
Melting Arctic Sea ice has changed wind patterns in the northern hemisphere - bringing blasts of colder air across the UK.
Scientists believe the changes could be why we have been experiencing such a bitterly cold December.

Daily Mail

Who the f*kc are these "scientists" who make these predictions?

BREAKING NEWS! The abdication of the West — the sting at Cancun

2010-12-21T18:28:00.000-08:00

It did seem too quiet at Cancun.

The power hungry tyrants learnt from Copenhagen. They realized that they have a far better chance of success by underselling the expectations and sliding in long impenetrable documents in front of underling bureaucrats. Due to the importance of this I have reproduced Christopher Monckton’s words in full as reported at SPPI (see below).

The UN wants nothing less than 1.5% of our GDP.

That’s $212 billion from the USA every year ($2700 per family of 4).

That’s $32 billion from the UK every year ($2000 per family of 4).

That’s $13 billion from Australia every year ($2400 per family of 4).

Figures calculated from the CIA world Factbook

The Secretariat will have the power not merely to invite nation states to perform their obligations under the climate-change Convention, but to compel them to do so. Nation states are to be ordered to collect, compile and submit vast quantities of information, in a manner and form to be specified by the secretariat and its growing army of subsidiary bodies.

Please send this message on and email politicians. Australian elected representatives are listed here. Once this is quietly established, how will any single nation back out even if it’s citizen vote to do so (other than the US with the military might to match the UN?)

If you would prefer to spend that money on other things. Now is the time to protest. The more money they get, the harder they are to stop.

– Joanne Nova

This has been translated into Danish, thanks to Karl. J. Hansen.

The abdication of the West

December 9th, 2010

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

From the SPPI Blog

Cancun, Mexico

I usually add some gentle humor to these reports. Not today. Read this and weep. Notwithstanding the carefully-orchestrated propaganda to the effect that nothing much will be decided at the UN climate conference here in Cancun, the decisions to be made here this week signal nothing less than the abdication of the West. The governing class in what was once proudly known as the Free World is silently, casually letting go of liberty, prosperity, and even democracy itself. No one in the mainstream media will tell you this, not so much because they do not see as because they do not bl**dy care.

The 33-page Note (FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/CRP.2) by the Chairman of the “Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Co-operative Action under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”, entitled Possible elements of the outcome, reveals all. Or, rather, it reveals nothing, unless one understands what the complex, obscure jargon means. All UNFCCC documents at the Cancun conference, specifically including Possible elements of the outcome, are drafted with what is called “transparent impenetrability”. The intention is that the documents should not be understood, but that later we shall be told they were in the public domain all the time, so what are we complaining about?

Since the Chairman’s note is very long, I shall summarize the main points:

Finance: Western countries will jointly provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to an unnamed new UN Fund. To keep this sum up with GDP growth, the West may commit itself to pay 1.5% of GDP to the UN each year. That is more than twice the 0.7% of GDP that the UN has recommended the West to pay in foreign aid for the past half century. Several hundred of the provisions in the Chairman’s note will impose huge financial costs on the nations of the West.

There is so much more…

The world-government Secretariat: In all but name, the UN Convention’s Secretariat will become a world government directly controlling hundreds of global, supranational, regional, national and sub-national bureaucracies. It will receive the vast sum of taxpayers’ money ostensibly paid by the West to the Third World for adaptation to the supposed adverse consequences of imagined (and imaginary) “global warming”.

Bureaucracy: Hundreds of new interlocking bureaucracies answerable to the world-government Secretariat will vastly extend its power and reach. In an explicit mirroring of the European Union’s method of enforcing the will of its unelected Kommissars on the groaning peoples of that benighted continent, the civil servants of nation states will come to see themselves as servants of the greater empire of the Secretariat, carrying out its ukases and diktats whatever the will of the nation states’ governments. Many of the new bureaucracies are disguised as “capacity-building in developing countries”. This has nothing to do with growing the economies or industries of poorer nations. It turns out to mean the installation of hundreds of bureaucratic offices answerable to the Secretariat in numerous countries around the world. Who pays? You do, gentle taxpayer. Babylon, Byzantium, the later Ottoman Empire, the formidable bureaucracy of Nazi Germany, the vast empire of 27,000 paper-shufflers at the European Union: add all of these together and multiply by 100 and you still do not reach the sheer size, cost, power and reach of these new subsidiaries of the Secretariat. In addition to multiple new bureaucracies in every one of the 193 states parties to the Convention, there will be an Adaptation Framework Body, a Least Developed Countries’ Adaptation Planning Body, an Adaptation Committee, Regional Network Centers, an International Center to Enhance Adaptation Research, National Adaptation Institutions, a Body to Clarify Assumptions and Conditions in National Greenhouse-Gas Emission Reductions Pledges, a Negotiating Body for an Overall Level of Ambition for Aggregate Emission Reductions and Individual Targets, an Office to Revise Guidelines for National Communications, a Multilateral Communications Process Office, a Body for the Process to Develop Modalities and Guidelines for the Compliance Process, a Registry of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions by Developed Countries, a Body to Supervise the Process for Understanding Diversity of Mitigation Actions Submitted and Support Needed, a Body to Develop Modalities for the Registry of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions, an Office of International Consultation and Analysis; an Office to Conduct a Work Program for Development of Various Modalities and Guidelines; a network of Developing Countries’ National Forest Strategy Action Plan Offices; a network of National Forest Reference Emission Level And/Or Forest Reference Level Bodies; a network of National Forest Monitoring Systems; an Office of the Work Program on Agriculture to Enhance the Implementation of Article 4, Paragraph 1(c) of the Convention Taking Into Account Paragraph 31; one or more Mechanisms to Establish a Market-Based Approach to Enhance the Cost-Effectiveness Of And To Promote Mitigation Actions; a Forum on the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures; a Work Program Office to Address the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures; a Body to Review the Needs of Developing Countries for Financial Resources to Address Climate Change and Identify Options for Mobilization of Those Resources; a Fund in Addition to the Copenhagen Green Fund; an Interim Secretariat for the Design Phase of the New Fund; a New Body to Assist the Conference of the Parties in Exercising its Functions with respect to the Financial Mechanism; a Body to Launch a Process to Further Define the Roles and Functions of the New Body to Assist the Conference of the Parties in Exercising its Functions with respect to the Financial Mechanism; a Technology Executive Committee; a Climate Technology Center and Network; a Network of National, Regional, Sectoral and International Technology Centers, Networks, Organization and Initiatives; Twinning Centers for Promotion of North-South, South-South and Triangular Partnerships with a View to Encouraging Co-operative Research and Development; an Expert Workshop on the Operational Modalities of the Technology Mechanism; an International Insurance Facility; a Work Program Body for Policy Approaches and Positive Incentives on Issues Relating to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries; a Body to Implement a Work Program on the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures; and a Body to Develop Modalities for the Operationalization of the Work Program on the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures.

The world government’s powers: The Secretariat will have the power not merely to invite nation states to perform their obligations under the climate-change Convention, but to compel them to do so. Nation states are to be ordered to collect, compile and submit vast quantities of information, in a manner and form to be specified by the secretariat and its growing army of subsidiary bodies. Between them, they will be given new powers to verify the information, to review it and, on the basis of that review, to tell nation states what they can and cannot do.

Continuous expansion: The verb “enhance”, in its various forms, occurs at least 28 times in the Chairman’s note, Similar verbs, such as “strengthen” and “extend”, and adjectives such as “scaled-up”, “new” and “additional”, are also frequently deployed, particularly in relation to funding at the expense of Western taxpayers. If all of the “enhancements” proposed in the note were carried out, the cost would comfortably exceed the annual $100 billion (or, for that matter, the 1.5% of GDP) that the note mentions as the cost to the West over the coming decade.

Intellectual property in inventions: Holders of patents, particularly in fields related to “global warming” and its mitigation, will be obliged to transfer the benefits of their inventiveness to developing countries without payment of royalties. This is nowhere explicitly stated in the Chairman’s note, but the transfer of technology is mentioned about 20 times in the draft, suggesting that the intention is still to carry out the explicit provision in the defunct Copenhagen Treaty draft of 15 September 2009 to this effect.

Insurance: The Secretariat proposes, in effect, to interfere so greatly in the operation of the worldwide insurance market that it will cease to be a free market, with the usual severely adverse consequences to everyone in that market.

The free market: The failed Copenhagen Treaty draft stipulated that the “government” that would be established would have the power to set the rules of all formerly free markets. There would be no such thing as free markets any more. In Cancun, the Chairman’s note merely says that various “market mechanisms” may be exploited by the Secretariat and by the parties to the Convention: but references to these “market mechanisms” are frequent enough to suggest that the intention remains to stamp out free markets worldwide.

Knowledge is power: The Chairman’s note contains numerous references to a multitude of new as well as existing obligations on nation states to provide information to the Secretariat, in a form and manner which it will dictate. The hand of the EU is very visible here. It grabbed power from the member-states in four stages: first, acting merely as a secretariat to ensure stable supplies of coal and steel to rebuild Europe after the Second World War; then as a registry requiring member states to supply it with ever more information; then as a review body determining on the basis of the information supplied by the member states whether they were complying with their obligations on the ever-lengthier and more complex body of European treaties; and finally as the ultimate law-making authority, to which all elected parliaments, explicitly including the European “Parliament”, were and are subject. Under the Cancun propsoals, the Secretariat is following the path that the plague of EU officials here have no doubt eagerly advised it to follow. It is now taking numerous powers not merely to require information from nation states but to hold them to account for their supposed international obligations under the climate-change Convention on the basis of the information the nations are now to be compelled to supply.

Propaganda: The Chairman’s note contains several mentions of the notion that the peoples of the world need to be told more about climate change. Here, too, there is a parallel with the EU, which administers a propaganda fund of some $250 million a year purely to advertise its own wonderfulness to an increasingly sceptical population. The IPCC already spends millions every year with PR agencies, asking them to find new ways of making its blood-curdling message more widely understood and feared among ordinary people. The Secretariat already has the advantage of an uncritical, acquiescent, scientifically illiterate, economically innumerate and just plain dumb news media: now it will have a propaganda fund to play with as well.

Damage caused by The Process: At the insistence of sensible nation states such as the United States, the Czech Republic, Japan, Canada, and Italy, the Cancun outcome acknowledges that The Process is causing, and will cause, considerable economic damage, delicately described in the Chairman’s note as “unintended side-effects of implementing climate-change response measures”. The solution? Consideration of the catastrophic economic consequences of the Secretariat’s heroically lunatic decisions will fall under the control of – yup – the Secretariat. Admire its sheer gall.

Damage to world trade: As the power, wealth and reach of the Secretariat grow, it finds itself rubbing uncomfortably up against other supranational organizations. In particular, the World Trade Organization has been getting antsy about the numerous aspects of the Secretariat’s proposals that constitute restrictions on international trade. At several points, the Chairman’s note expresses the “decision” – in fact, no more than an opinion and a questionable one at that – that the Secretariat’s policies are not restrictive of trade.

The Canute provision: The conference will reaffirm the decision of its predecessor in Copenhagen this time last year “to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels”, just like that. In fact, temperature in central England, and by implication globally, rose 2.2 Celsius in the 40 years 1695-1735, as the Sun began to recover from its 11,400-year activity minimum, and rose again by 0.74 C in the 20th century. There has been no warming in the 21st century, but we are already well over 2 Celsius degrees above pre-industrial levels. The Canute provision, as some delegates have dubbed it (after the Danish king of early England who famously taught his courtiers the limitations of his power and, a fortiori, theirs when he set up his throne on the beach and commanded sea level not to rise, whereupon the tide came in as usual and wet the royal feet), shows the disconnect between The Process and reality.

Omissions: There are several highly-significant omissions, which jointly and severally establish that the central intent of The Process no longer has anything to do with the climate, if it ever had. The objective is greatly to empower and still more greatly to enrich the international classe politique at the expense of the peoples of the West, using the climate as a pretext, so as to copy the European Union by installing in perpetuity what some delegates here are calling “transnational perma-Socialism” beyond the reach or recall of any electorate. Here are the key omissions:

The science: The question whether any of this vast expansion of supranational power is scientifically necessary is not addressed. Instead, there is merely a pietistic affirmation of superstitious faith in the IPCC, where the conference will “recognize that deep cuts in global [greenhouse-gas] emissions are required according to science, and as documented in the [IPCC’s] Fourth Assessment Report.”
The economics: There is no assessment of the extent to which any of the proposed actions to mitigate “global warming” by cutting emissions of carbon dioxide or to adapt the world to its consequences will be cost-effective. Nor, tellingly, is there any direct comparison between mitigation and adaptation in their cost-effectiveness: indeed, the IPCC was carefully structured so that mitigation and adaptation are considered by entirely separate bureaucracies producing separate reports, making any meaningful comparison difficult. Though every economic analysis of this central economic question, other than that of the now-discredited Lord Stern, shows that mitigation is a pointless fatuity and that focused adaptation to the consequences of any “global warming” that may occur would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective, the Cancun conference outcome will continue to treat mitigation as being of equal economic utility with adaptation.
Termination: Contracts have termination clauses to say what happens when the agreement ends. Nothing better illustrates the intent to create a permanent world-government structure than the absence of any termination provisions whatsoever in the Cancun outcome. The Process, like diamonds, is forever.
Democracy: Forget government of the people, by the people, for the people. Forget the principle of “no taxation without representation” that led to the very foundation of the United States. The provisions for the democratic election of the new, all-powerful, legislating, tax-raising world-government Secretariat by the peoples of the world may be summarized in a single word: None.

How did this monstrous transfer of power from once-proud, once-sovereign, once-democratic nations to the corrupt, unelected Secretariat come about? The story begins with Sir Maurice Strong, an immensely wealthy UN bureaucrat from Canada who, a quarter of a century ago, established the IPCC as an intergovernmental, political body rather than as a scientific body precisely so that it could be maneuvered into assisting in the UN’s long-term aim, reiterated at a summit of senior UN officials this May by Ban Ki-Moon himself, of extinguishing national sovereignty and establishing a world government.

The Process began in earnest in 1988, when the IPCC was established. Shortly thereafter, on a June day in Washington DC deliberately chosen by Al Gore because it was unusually hot, his political ally and financial benefactor James Hansen appeared before a Congressional committee and put before it a wildly-exaggerated graph predicting global warming over the coming 20 or 30 years. Yet June 2008, the 20th anniversary of his testimony, was cooler globally than June 1988, and worldwide warming has happened at less than half the rate he predicted.

The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 allowed environmental groups and world “leaders” to grandstand together. From that summit emerged the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which began holding annual conferences on “global warming”.

The Kyoto Protocol in 1997 committed its signatories to cut back their national CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2012. Most are not going to make it. The US Senate, with Al Gore as its president, voted 95-0 to reject any treaty such as Kyoto, which bound only the West while leaving developing nations such as China to emit carbon dioxide without constraint.

Very little progress had been made by the time of the Bali conference in 2007: but at that conference a “road-map” was constructed that was to lead to a binding international treaty in Copenhagen in 2009.

Just one problem with that. The US Constitution provides that, even if the President has signed a treaty, his signature is meaningless unless the treaty has been debated in the Senate, which must ratify it by the votes of at least 67 of the 100 Senators. It became clear to everyone, after the Obama administration failed to cajole or bully even 60 Senators into passing the Waxman/Markey cap-and-tax Bill, that no climate treaty would pass the Senate.

Worse, the Secretariat grossly overreached itself. Believing its own propaganda to the effect that none but a few vexatious, fossil-funded sceptics believed that “global warming” would be small enough to be harmless, it drafted and posted up on its website a 186-page draft Treaty of Copenhagen, proposing to turn itself into an unelected world government with unlimited powers to impose direct taxation on member nations without representation, recourse or recall, to interfere directly in the environmental policies of individual nations, and to sweep away all free markets worldwide, replacing them with itself as the sole rulemaker in every marketplace (treaty draft, annex 1, articles 36-38). Some quotations from the draft reveal the sheer ambition of the UN:

“The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism. … The government will be ruled by the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies.” (Copenhagen Treaty draft of September 15, 2009, para. 38).

The three central powers that the UN had hoped to grant itself under the guise of Saving The Planet from alleged climate catastrophe were as follows:

“Government”: This use of the word “government” is the first use of the term to describe a world government in any international treaty draft.

“Financial mechanism”: The “financial mechanism” was a delicate phrase to describe a new power of the UN to levy unlimited taxation directly on the peoples of its member states: taxation without representation, and on a global scale.

“Facilitative mechanism”: This mechanism would, for the first time, have given the UN he power directly to coerce and compel compliance on the part of its member states, by force if necessary. The Treaty draft describes it as –

“… a facilitative mechanism drawn up to facilitate the design, adoption and carrying out of public policies, as the prevailing instrument, to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate.”

In short, there was to be a New World Order, with a “government” having at its command a “financial mechanism” in the form of unlimited rights to tax the world’s citizen’s directly, and a “facilitative mechanism” that would bring the rules of all formerly free markets under the direct control of the new UN “government”, aided by an already-expanding series of bureaucracies.

At no point anywhere in the 186 pages of the Treaty draft do the words “democracy”, “election”, “ballot”, or “vote” appear. As the EU has already demonstrated, the transfer of powers from sovereign democracies to supranational entities brings those democracies to an end. At the supranational level, in the UN, in the EU and in the proposed world government, decisions are not made by anyone whom we, the voters, have elected to make such decisions.

The exposure of the draft treaty in major international news media panicked the UN into abandoning the draft before the Copenhagen conference even began. Instead, the UN is now legislating crabwise, as the European Union does, with a series of successive annual agreements, the last of which was the Copenhagen Accord, each transferring more power and wealth from individual nations to its supranational bureaucracy. The latest of these agreements is being finalized here in Cancun.

The European Union, which has stealthily stamped out democracy over the past half-century by a series of treaties each transferring a little more power and wealth from elected hands in the member states to unelected hands in Brussels, has been advising the Secretariat on how to do the same on a global scale.

After the spectacular bloody nose the Secretariat got in Copenhagen, it was most anxious not to endure a second failure in Cancun. To this end, it obtained the agreement of the German government to host a monthly series of conferences in Bonn in the early part of 2010, some of which were open to outside observers and some were behind closed doors in a comfortable suburban palace, where the new way of legislating for the world – in secret – first came into use.

The Chinese regime, anxious to get a piece of the action, agreed to host an additional session in Tientsin a few weeks ago. The purpose of this near-perpetual international junketing – which the national delegates have greatly enjoyed at our expense – was to make sure that nearly all of the elements in the Cancun agreement were firmly in draft and agreed well before Cancun, so as to avoid what too many journalists have tediously and obviously described as a “Mexican stand-off”.

It is precisely because of all this massive and expensive preparation that the note by the Chairman, whose main points are summarized above, may well reflect what is finally decided and announced here in a couple of days’ time. The Chairman is not simply guessing: this Note reflects what the Secretariat now confidently expects to get away with.

However, following the Copenhagen disaster, our grim future New Masters are taking no chances. They persuaded their friends in the mainstream news media, who cannot now easily back out of their original declarations of blind faith in the Church of “Global Warming” and are as anxious not to lose face as the Secretariat is, to put it about that at Cancun this year and even at Durban next year very little of substance will occur.

The intention is that, after not one but two international climate conferences, the second of them in Rio in 2012 on the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit that began it all, the Secretariat will have become so wealthy and will have accreted so much power to itself that no one – not even the US Senate – will dare to resist ratifying the Treaty of Rio that brings democracy to an end worldwide and fulfils Lord Mandelson’s recent statement that “we are now living in a post-democratic age.”

Over my dead body. The people know best what is best for the people. The governing class no doubt knows what is best for the governing class, but does not necessarily know what is best for the people, and must always be kept in check by the ballot-box.

If we are to have a world government at all (and, as the science of “global warming” alarm continues to collapse, the current pretext for world domination by a privileged few is wearing more than a little thin), then it is essential that the world government should be an elected government, and that, as Article 1, Section 1 of the US Constitution makes plain when it grants “All legislative power” to the elected Congress and to the now-elected Senate, none shall make laws for the world or impose taxes upon the world except those whom the people of the world have elected by universal secret ballot.

How can we, the people, defeat the Secretariat and keep the democracy we love? Simply by informing our elected representatives of the scope, ambition, and detail of what is in the Cancun agreement. The agreement will not be called a “Treaty”, because the Senate, particularly after the mid-term elections, will not pass it. But it can still be imposed upon us by the heavily Left-leaning Supreme Court, which no longer makes any pretence at judicial impartiality and may well decide, even if Congress does not, that the Cancun agreement shall stand part of US law on the ground that it is “customary international law”.

What to do? Send this blog posting to your legislators. It is their power, as well as yours, that is being taken away; their democracy, as well as yours, that will perish from the Earth unless this burgeoning nonsense is stopped.

Thanks to the Science and Public Policy Institute. See the blog entry and other reports by Monckton.

Wealth Transfer Schemes

2010-12-07T03:09:00.000-08:00

wealth transfer schemes, such as the climate treaty, are not needed ... the third world gains wealth simply by being included in the world's economy ... statistical proof, courtesy the bbc ...

please watch this fascinating video by hans rosling, a person with a dramatic flair for numbers, statistics and their graphic representation. he takes a very complex subject, that being the wealth and health (they are in reality the same: jjjay) of nations, and compares the growth of same over the past 200 years in just over 4 minutes, in a way that makes what has happened intuitively capable of grasping.
it is an exceeding complicated matter, rendered instantly comprehensible, ... , and, one hesitates to say it, but it is true, ... , quite simple. in the simplest of terms, the world has made stunning progress in the past two years, ... , all of it.
and, it makes glaringly obvious that all of these massive wealth transfer schemes engineered by the united nations and third world diplomats, scheming, all of them to transfer money from western "industrial societies" to the "third world" simply aren't needed. just going along as we have since world war ii has created fantastic wealth the world over, and the third world, asia and africa have made tremendous strides.
watch this video at youtube, hans rosling of in a bbc presentation, ... , "hans rosling, 200 countries, 200 years, 4 minutes, the joy of stats, bbc four," ... , here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo& , sent to me by ron fortier.

Cancun: Warming Moonbats Worship @ Altar of Human Sacrifice

2010-12-03T19:56:00.000-08:00

The totalitarian moonbats doggedly pushing the moth-eaten global warming hoax tend to despise Christianity, but they have no trouble bowing their heads to a goddess in whose name savages performed human sacrifices — symbolizing their eagerness to sacrifice us to their own false religion, Envirostatism.

UN Warmists Pray to Mayan Goddess

Moonbattery

Authoritarian bureauweenies are really piling on the moonbattery as they plot world domination and play in the sun at taxpayerexpense in luxurious Cancun:

With United Nations climate negotiators facing an uphill battle to advance their goal of reducing emissions linked to global warming, it's no surprise that the woman steering the talks appealed to a Mayan goddess Monday.

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguargoddess Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico, noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also "the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving. May she inspire you — because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools."

In her heyday, Ixchel was worshiped at the Lord and Lady Begin to Dance Festival:

During this Mayan festival in the honor of Ixchel: the goddess of the Moon, beehives, fertility, medicine and weaving, a beautiful young woman was chosen by craftsmen and artisans to represent the goddess. This young woman was sacrificed by the priests and flayed.

Her skin was worn by a man who sat at a loom and pretended to weave, while the craftsmen danced around him in animal costumes. The ceremony was then completed when the worshippers engaged in bloodletting and then had a ritual bath.

How multicultural.

IT’S ALL ABOUT MONEY

2010-11-18T21:30:00.001-08:00

Tim Blair

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer clarifies matters:

The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War … one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.

Nice of him to spell it out. Ottmar also has some doubts about the ability of Africans to cope with wealth:

If global emission rights are distributed … then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

There’s stacks of dough available over at Ottmar’s climate nerd laboratory, however. Ten research positions! Further from Chris Horner and Marc Sheppard.

LSU Global Warming Indoctrination

2010-11-17T06:58:00.000-08:00

Real bad crazyness:

Professor to Students: ‘Blood Will be on Your Hands’ if You Don’t Fight Global Warming

EDUCATION

"Sit on your tuffets and screw the kids." Read More »

UN Still Wants Money For "Climate Change"

2010-11-07T14:02:00.000-08:00

Here We Go Again: Climate Taxes on the Table, Accompanied by Usual Media Slant

By: Tom Blumer | November 07, 2010

They're back, they have their media water-carriers in place, and the Obama administration is smack dab in the middle of it.

The United Nations is pushing for countries in the developed world to keep their "promise" to, in the worlds of Charles J. Hanley at the Associated Press, "raise up to $100 billion a year in new money for poorer countries to cope with climate change and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions."

It's as if ClimateGate never happened (link is to NB's 120-plus posts on the topic). It's as if the IPCC and others associated with the scandal and the evidence-impaired claims of global warming -- er, climate change -- uh, make that climate disruption -- still have their reputations totally intact.

Here is how Bloomberg describes the U.N.'s request:

Bank Tax, CO2 Auctions Recommended by Soros Panel to Help Climate Efforts

At least $65 billion might be raised by taxing foreign-exchange transactions and auctioning pollution permits, a United Nations panel said today in a report recommending ways to finance aid for fighting global warming.

The panel, which includes billionaire investor George Soros and Larry Summers, director of President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, said selling carbon-emissions permits would generate $38 billion and a financial transactions tax an additional $27 billion, according to the report released today.

The findings are intended to guide envoys at UN climate talks that start this month in Mexico as they seek ways to pay for $100 billion in climate aid that was pledged by 2020 to poor nations at last year’s summit in Copenhagen. The report found that the goal is “challenging but feasible” to achieve.

Those of us with memories recall that Copenhagen resulted in nothing resembling a "pledge," as the UK Guardian reported with sadness last year:

Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure The so-called Copenhagen accord "recognises" the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but does not contain commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal.

The AP's Hanley is even worse, giving casual readers who don't understand that the U.S. Senate would have to ratify what would in effect be a treaty the impression that the U.S. has signed on to something meaningful already (bold is mine):

UN panel sees sources for billions for climate

A high-level U.N. panel on Friday outlined potential sources, including levies on international flights, to raise up to $100 billion a year in new money for poorer countries to cope with climate change and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

The greatest contributions would come from private investment and from "carbon pricing," either a direct tax broadly on emissions of carbon dioxide or a cap on emissions coupled with trading in emissions allowances, the advisory group of global political and financial leaders said in a report to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

The United States has been a major holdout, however, against such carbon pricing plans, and Tuesday's Republican victory in the U.S. House guarantees none will be enacted for at least two years.

... At last December's climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, developed nations, led by U.S. President Barack Obama, agreed to set a goal of $100 billion in annual climate finance by the year 2020.

... In scores of developing nations in a warming world, money will be needed to build coastal protection against rising seas, modify or shift crops threatened by drought, build water supply and irrigation systems, preserve forests, and improve health care to deal with diseases spread by warming.

It also will help them move to low-carbon energy systems, such as solar and wind power, and away from the fossil fuels whose emissions are blamed for global warming.

"It is challenging but feasible to meet this goal," the panel said of the $100 billion target.

... The panelists acknowledged likely political difficulties in enacting transportation and foreign-exchange levies on a global scale, but U.N. chief Ban said their vision was both "financially feasible and politically viable."

If you think you can stand it, read the whole thing, especially the possible revenues sources listed at the end of Hanley's piece.

As to Hanley's contention that no carbon pricing plans will be enacted, I would only suggest that we be aware of lame ducks still possessing power.

Goodbye Global Warming, Hello Biodiversity

2010-11-06T23:51:00.000-07:00

The next big scam is just around the corner

Written By Alan Caruba

ClimateChangeDispatch

After three decades of trying to push the global warming scam to a point where billions could be made selling and trading bogus “carbon credits”, the global schemers have abandoned it in the wake of 2009 revelations that a handful of rogue climate scientists were literally inventing the data to support it.

If there is one lesson to be learned from and about environmentalists, it is that they are utterly relentless. The ultimate goal is one-world government directed from the United Nations by unelected bureaucrats who are soulless strangers to the truth, to morality, to humanity.

The United States supports this abomination to the tune of billions every year.

The United Nations is a place where some of the world’s dictatorships have delegates representing them on its Human Rights Council, where a vast Oil-for-Food scandal flourished while Saddam Hussein held power in Iraq, where a single agency’s sole purpose is to ensure that Palestinians remain refugees six decades after the rebirth of Israel.

It is an organization where all manner of international treaties are ginned up to extend its control over the entire land mass and all the waters of the earth.

It is where the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) practiced its deceit, regularly documenting a rise in the earth’s average temperature even when a new natural cooling cycle began in 1998.

Everything that could be attributed to a phony global warming to keep the people of the world scared flowed from this enormous lie. It caused governments to invest billions into the worst forms of energy, wind and solar, along with endless other equally worthless “Green” programs.

So, now, permit me to introduce you to the NEXT Big Lie—biodiversity!

It is the claim that a “Global extinction crisis looms, new study says.” That’s the headline on an October 27 Washington Post article by Juliet Eilperin, the Post’s designated shameless scaremongering reporter.

In June, the delegates from 200 nations gathered in Busan, a South Korean port city, under the banner of the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a platform just like the discredited IPCC, but with the goal of denying vast areas of the earth from the development needed to feed six billion people and provide the raw materials vital to the energy required for a modern technological society dependent on electricity and on transportation fuels.

The “reason” for this is the alleged extinction of “nearly 26,000 species across the globe.” The list was compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature that purports to count all the mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish in the world to determine how “imperiled” there.

The very idea evokes incredulity. It is laughable and it is impossible. In the same fashion people were told that the global warmers could predict the temperature of the Earth fifty to a hundred years from now, we are expected to believe that all current species are imperiled. Just as humans were blamed for a non-existent rise in the Earth’s temperature, human are blamed on a massive and fictional extinction.

Consider that, from the earliest forms of life on earth to the existence of present species all have been engaged daily in the act of killing and eating one another. Ruminants that dine on grasses and other vegetation remain the prey for predator species.

Consider that of all the species that ever existed on Earth, 99% are extinct.

Nicholas K. Dulvy, a co-author of the list of alleged endangered species, complained that “We’ve transformed a third of the habitable land on earth for food production.” Oh, heaven forbid that humans should have enough food!

So, naturally, as reporter Eilperin noted, “Environmental groups are pushing for a goal of protecting 25 percent of all land on earth and 15 percent of the sea by 2020” even though, under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, roughly 14 percent of terrestrial areas and less than one percent of the ocean are already subject to so-called “environmental safeguards.”

Expect to begin hearing from yet a new group of “scientists” claiming that every creature from antelopes to zebras, from anteaters to weasels, albatrosses to vultures, crocodiles to vipers, and all the fish in the seas are doomed! Doomed! Doomed!

Billions of dollars that should go to feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and all manner of humanitarian needs will be siphoned off by this new group of United Nations grifters and charlatans for endless “research” grants and, of course, more international meetings to discuss this horrible new crisis.

This is how the cruel enviro-mafia works. We have all had a taste of it since the late 1980s when the global warming hoax was first perpetrated. The biodiversity lie needs a quicker death.

"I'm a Denier"

2010-11-05T18:38:00.000-07:00

It's a parody of "I'm a Believer" written by Neil Diamond and performed by the Monkees. This version was written by Elmer Beauregard and Brian D. Smith and performed by Elmer and the M4GW players.

This song is in honor of all the new Republican Freshman entering Congress and the Senate most of whom are Deniers and proud of it.

I think this is song may be our "Tour de Farce"

Biodiversity, the Left's Next Big Hoax

2010-10-30T02:21:00.000-07:00

Moonbattery

Rebranding global warming as "climate change" won't keep the dying hoax alive; too many people have caught on that it's a lie. It's time for our moonbat rulers to invent a new crisis in an attempt to justify their never-ending war on our freedom and wealth. Biodiversity might work:

With all the shamelessness of a Goldman Sachser trading in his middle-aged wife for a hot, pouting twentysomething called Ivanka, the green movement is ditching "Climate Change". The newer, younger, sexier model's name? Biodiversity. …
When I say shameless, I'm talking so amoral it makes the Whore of Babylon look like Mother Theresa; so flagrant it makes Al Gore's, ahem, alleged drunken "Love poodle" assault on the Portland Masseuse look like an especially delicate passage from Andreas Capellanus's The Art of Courtly Love.

Liberals will eagerly buy anything with "diversity" in the name without looking at the price tag. The rest of us are in for some sticker shock. Like the debunked global warming hoax, biodiversity involves the insatiably greedy United Nations taking money from you and passing it out among socialist dictators in places like Africa:

Developing nations say more funding is needed from developed countries to share the effort in saving nature. Much of the world's remaining biological diversity is in developing nations such as Brazil, Indonesia and in central Africa.
"Especially for countries with their economies in transition, we need to be sure where the (financial) resources are," Eng. B.T. Baya, director-general of Tanzania's National Environment Management Council, told Reuters.
Baya knows perfectly well where the financial resources are: in your bank account. Comrade Obama will be more than happy to move them from there to Baya's on behalf of the three-toed bat-winged ground sloth, or whatever huggable doe-eyed creature the media is hyping at the moment.

Climate change had the advantage that the climate never stops changing. Similarly, species never stop going extinct. Only a tiny percentage of the species that have existed are still around today. Meanwhile,

Despite the U.N.'s fear that biodiversity may be at risk, scientists over the past decade have identified new species at an unprecedented rate. The 2008 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) study First Contact in the Greater Mekong reported that 1,068 species were discovered or newly identified by science between 1997 and 2007 — averaging two new species a week. And the Census of Marine Life — an ambitious, 10-year project to catalog the diversity of the world's oceans — recently concluded, having identified more than 6,000 potentially new ocean-going species.
Information like this will soon become scarce, as biologists, like climate scientists, are compelled to become political hacks in exchange for lucrative government grants.

In case it isn't obvious that this is a cheesy sequel to A Convenient Lie, Japanese Environment Minister Ryu Matsumoto ominously intones,

"We are nearing a tipping point, or the point of no return for biodiversity loss."
The dreaded tipping point is once again upon us! Grab hold of your wallet with both hands.

Lord Christopher Monckton - On the New World Order

2010-10-22T02:46:00.000-07:00

Milestone Interview with Lord Christopher Monckton explaining his views on the "New World Order". To him it is refreshingly clear, that NWO is a communist conspiracy, entertained by the international left and the left-overs of the Evil Empire. If you stumble on films who go through a lot of trouble to convince you that NWO is an essentially capitalist conspiracy, you should in my oppinion regard this as dis-info.
From part 5
But I need to come back finally, to the way I have used the word "communistic" quite frequently in this interview. I could go back to the communist manifesto and what it says is, that they want a world government. They want an international socialist administration. They want the commanding heights of the economy to be controlled by this communist administration. They do not want freedom, they do not want democracy. All of these things are not in the communist manifesto. So what is being proposed is very close to what Marx and Engels in the communist manifesto 100 years ago . That plan is essentially still being followed...

Thanks to Kitman TV

Save the planet! Scrap global warming conferences

2010-10-20T17:32:00.000-07:00

I don’t know if the planet can survive the alarmists trying to “save” it:

Department of Climate Change staff flew first class to 64 global climate change meetings in just 12 months at a cost of more than $4 million.

Never mind global warming. Ban global swarming!

Andrew Bolt

Kill all the lawyers!

2010-10-05T02:26:00.000-07:00

GET READY FOR INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL WARMING LAWSUITS

You gotta love the irony. We foot the largest portion of UN support and they sue us. I think we should kick ‘em the 7734 out of New York and let mooch off someone else.

The Blaze

As government officials gather this week in Tianjin, China for negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), one group from the United Kingdom is urging developing countries to seek legal action against the world’s developed nations for their supposed role in global warming.

“A large part of the relevant legal literature suggests that the main polluting nations can be held responsible under international law for the harmful effects of their greenhouse-gas emissions,” says attorney Christoph Schwarte of the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development (FIELD), a UK-based environmental law group.

“As a result affected countries may have a substantive right to demand the cessation of a certain amount of emissions. In selected cases they also have the procedural means to pursue an inter-state litigation in an international judicial forum such as the International Court of Justice in The Hague.”

In a new paper published in time for the UNFCCC meeting, FIELD outlines a proposed legal argument for a lawsuit on behalf of the world’s developing countries, offering some observations on the potential for a hypothetical case brought before an international court or tribunal.

“Today, a credible case for inter-state litigation on climate change can be made,” says Schwarte. “Developing country governments are understandably reluctant to challenge any of the big donor nations in an international court or tribunal. But this may change once the impacts of climate change become even more visible and an adequate agreement remains wanting,” he says.

While UN negotiations over climate change remedies have stalled, FIELD says that a threat of litigation “may help to create the political pressure and third-party guidance” environmental activists need to re-start international negotiations.

Kochie worries

2010-09-28T02:44:00.000-07:00

WE’RE REALLY RESILIENT

Tim Blair

Warmenist Tim Flannery, prior to Copenhagen:

This round of negotiations is likely to be our last chance as a species to deal with the problem. I can’t say I’m optimistic ...

He can now. The former panic merchant has changed his mind. In fact, he seems absolutely buoyant at humankind’s prospects. Here’s Flannery on yesterday’s Sunrise, jabbering with fellow warmster-turned-optimist David Koch:

Flannery: After the Copenhagen meeting, I guess myself and a few other people sat back and thought, gee, are we actually going to make it or not? And there was a bit of a mood of depression hanging over everyone and I thought, you know, the only way to understand this is to take a bit of a longer view.
So that’s why I brought in evolution and how the process that created us – what’s it created, a monster or something that can live within the planet’s constraints. And, you know, I must say I came away from that exercise feeling a lot more optimistic … you’ve got to take a longer view.
Koch: Yeah, coz you’ve looked at history and you’ve found that we change all the time. We’re actually, and the earth, nature, ourselves, we’re really resilient.
Flannery: That’s right.

Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about. Congratulations to Flannery, by the way, on his discovery of human adaptation. A Nobel awaits.

UPDATE. The return of global cooling.

Trust Gillard?

2010-09-23T03:08:00.000-07:00

NEW PARADIGM

Tim Blair – Thursday, September 23, 10 (01:09 pm)

Julia Gillard, August 16:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

But now:

Australian Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said all options for putting a price on emissions will be considered by Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s minority government, including a carbon tax.

This process began a week or so back.

The Cap-and-Trade Charade

2010-09-02T20:53:00.000-07:00

Green terror, anti-baby terror

2010-09-02T18:57:00.000-07:00

Green terror

Andrew Bolt

Every belief drawn from the green credo, which makes the violence seem a logical conclusion:

James J. Lee divided the world into good and bad. According to his writings on a Web site he created, people were bad, especially “parasitic” babies.

Animals and bugs were good, Lee wrote. But war was bad, along with global warming, pollution and international trade.

As for civilization?

The environmental militant who was killed Wednesday at the end of a tense hostage standoff at Discovery Communications headquarters in downtown Silver Spring, termed it “filth.” ...

Lee held a grudge against Discovery, viewing the network as a purveyor of ideas he considered environmentally destructive and staging protests outside its headquarters…

Lee, whose environmental creed was spread across the Internet in manifestoes and blog posts, was killed at 4:48 p.m. after he stalked into the building with a handgun, took three hostages and later pointed his gun at one of them...

Who awakened Lee to his mission?

Lee said he experienced an ‘‘awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.”

If you really think humans are wilfully murdering the planet and all life upon it, well, what must you do?

A Trillion Dollar Fraud

2010-08-29T18:43:00.000-07:00

Green Swindle

The Cap-and-Trade Charade

The Greatest Con of All Fizzles.....

2010-04-01T02:01:00.000-07:00

The multi billion-dollar hoax

Andrew Bolt

ONCE global warming was the "great moral challenge of our generation". Or so claimed the Prime Minister.

But suddenly it's the great con that's falling to bits around Kevin Rudd's ears.

In fact, so fast is global warming theory collapsing that in his flurry of recent speeches to outline his policies for the new decade, Rudd has barely mentioned his "moral challenge" at all.

Take his long Australia Day reception speech on Sunday. Rudd talked of our ageing population and of building stuff, of taxes, hospitals and schools - but dared not say one word about the booga booga he used to claim could destroy our economy, Kakadu, the Great Barrier Reef and 750,000 coastal homes.

What's happened?

Answer: in just the past few months has come a cascade of evidence that the global warming scare is based on often dodgy science and even outright fraud.

Here are just the top 10 new signs that catastrophic man-made warming may be just another beat-up, like swine flu, SARS, and the Y2K bug.

1. Climategate

THE rot for Rudd started last November with the leaking of emails from the Climatic Research Unit of Britain's University of East Anglia.

Those emails from many of the world's top climate scientists showed them conspiring to sack sceptical scientists from magazines, hide data from sceptics, and cover up errors.

One of the scientists, CRU boss Phil Jones, even boasted of having found a "trick" to "hide the decline" in recent temperature records.

Jones was also on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so influential in convincing us our gasses are heating the planet that it won the Nobel Prize.

But he showed how political the IPCC actually is by promising in yet another email that he and another colleague would do almost anything to keep sceptical studies out of IPCC reports.

Just as damning was the admission by IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth that the world isn't warming as the IPCC said it must: "We cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

2. The Copenhagen farce

MORE than 40,000 politicians, scientists and activists flew to Copenhagen last month - in clouds of greenhouse gasses - to get all nations to agree to make the rest of us cut our own emissions to "stop" global warming.

This circus ended in total failure. China, the world's biggest emitter, refused to choke its growth. So did India. Now the United States is unlikely to make cuts, either, with Barack Obama's presidency badly wounded and the economy so sick.

Not only did this show that Rudd's planned tax on our emissions will now be even more suicidally useless. It also suggested world leaders can't really think global warming is so bad.

3. The Himalayan scare

RUDD has quoted the IPCC as his authority on global warming, claiming it's a group of "guys in white coats" who "just measure things". But the IPCC also just makes things up.

Take this claim from its 2007 report: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

In fact, we now know this bizarre claim was first made by a little-known Indian scientist in an interview for an online magazine, and then copied into a report by the green group WWF.

From there, the IPCC lifted it almost word for word for its own 2007 report, without checking if it was true.

It wasn't, of course, as the IPCC last week conceded. The glaciers will be around for at least centuries more.

But why did the IPCC run this mad claim in the first place?

The IPCC's Dr Murari Lal, the co-ordinating lead author responsible, says he knew all along there was no peer-reviewed research to back it up.

"(But) we thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians ... "

Note: you are told not the truth, but what will scare you best.

4. Pachauri's response

BUT what smells just as much is how IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri, a former railway engineer, first tried to defend this "mistake" by accusing sceptical scientists of practising "voodoo science".

Deny and abuse. That's the IPCC way.

Even more suspiciously, Syed Hasnain, the scientist who first made the false claim, then turned out to be now employed by The Energy Research Institute, headed by ... er, Pachauri.

More astonishing still, only two weeks ago TERI won up to $500,000 from the Carnegie Corporation to study exactly Hasnain's bogus claim. See how cash follows a good scare?

5. Pachauri's conflicts

IN fact, Pachauri and TERI do amazingly well from his IPCC job.

Britain's Sunday Telegraph this month revealed TERI had created a global business network since Pachauri became IPCC chairman in 2002.

Its recent donors include Deutsche Bank, Toyota, Yale University - and, sadly, Rudd, who last year handed over $1 million, hoping to win influence with such a big UN honcho.

Pachauri himself is now a director or adviser to a score of banks, investment institutions and carbon traders, many involved in areas directly affected by IPCC policies.

He denies any wrongdoing, and is not paid by the IPCC. But see again how cash follows a scare, and ask if the IPCC chief has a conflict of interest.

6. The green hand revealed

WE'VE seen how the IPCC just copied its false claims about the Himalayas from a report by WWF, a green activist group which earn donations by preaching such doom.

In fact, the IPCC's 2007 report cites WWF documents as "evidence" at least another 15 times.

Elsewhere it cites a non-scientific, non-peer-reviewed paper from another activist body, the International Institute for Sustainable Development, as its sole proof that global warming could devastate African agriculture.

Whose agenda is the IPCC pushing?

7. More fake IPCC claims

THIS week came more evidence that the IPCC sexed up its 2007 report, this time when it claimed the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s", thanks to global warming.

In fact, the claim was picked out of an unpublished report by a London risk consultant, who later changed his mind and said "the idea that catastrophes are rising in cost because of climate change is completely misleading".

8. New research on our gasses

AT least four new papers by top scientists cast doubt on the IPCC claim that our carbon dioxide emissions are strongly linked to global warming.

One, published in Nature, shows the world had ice age activity even when atmospheric CO2 was four times the level of our pre-industrial times.

Another, by NASA medallist John Christy and David Douglass, shows global temperatures did not go up as much as expected from man-made emissions over the past three decades.

9. New Australian research

JAMES Cook University researcher Peter Ridd says Australian scientists have cried wolf over the threat to the Great Barrier Reef from global warming, and the reef was actually in "bloody brilliant shape". The alarmist CSIRO this month also backed away from blaming global warming for a drought in Tasmania and in the Murray-Darling basin, saying "the jury is still out". A new paper by another Australian academic, Assoc Prof Stewart Franks, says the Murray-Darling drought is natural, and has nothing to do with man-made warming.

10. The world still won't warm

AND still the world hasn't warmed since 2001, even though we pump out more emissions than ever.

Even professional alarmist Tim Flannery, author of The Weather Makers, admits "we haven't seen a continuation of that (warming) trend" and "the computer modelling and the real world data disagree".

And with Europe, the United States and China hit with record cold and snow this winter, no wonder Kevin Rudd has suddenly gone cold on global warming, the mad faith that has cost us so many futile billions already.

Why would KRudd belt our economy with his emissions trading scheme just to set an example when barely a single country plans to follow us? That’s not cutting emissions but exporting jobs...

2010-03-24T01:19:00.000-07:00

France refuses to do what Rudd plans for us

Andrew Bolt

Kevin Rudd looks more isolated than ever in planning to inflict a great green tax to cut our insignificant gasses:

(French) President Nicolas Sarkozy on Tuesday scrapped the country’s proposed carbon tax and reshuffled his cabinet in populist tilt after suffering a crushing electoral defeat over the weekend…

"The greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people"

2010-03-15T22:28:00.000-07:00

Inhofe slams Gore on climate 'hoax'

By: Meredith Shiner

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) attacked former Vice President Al Gore on the Senate floor Monday, calling climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" and claiming that Gore is now "running for cover."

The “hoax” line is an Inhofe standby, but he raised the level of attack on Monday.

In front of the backdrop of a blown up Weekly Standard cover featuring Gore, Inhofe railed on the former vice president.

"After weeks of the global warming scandal, the world's first climate billionaire is running for cover. Yes, I'm talking about Al Gore," Inhofe charged. "He's under siege these days. The credibility of the IPCC is eroding. The EPA's endangerment finding is collapsing. And belief that global warming is leading to catastrophe is evaporating. Gore seems to be drowning in a sea of his own global warming illusions nevertheless. He's desperately trying to keep global warming alarmism alive today."

Inhofe also floated a political conspiracy theory focused on Gore.

He cited a secret “high-level meeting with all [Gore's] global alarmists,” called a recent Gore op-ed in the New York Times a "sure-fire sign of desperation" and compared Gore to an ostrich.

“When it comes to reform and openness and transparency and peer review, and when it comes to practicing good science, Gore stands alone,” Inhofe said. “He wants the world to put its head in the sand and pretend nothing's happening. It reminds me of the two boy ostriches chasing the two girl ostriches. They're chasing them, the one girl ostrich said, 'What do we do? They said, let's hide so each girl ostrich stuck their head in the hole and the boy ostriches gallop up to the clearing and one of them said, 'Where did the girls go?' This is what we're looking at here. They're hiding their head in the sand and Gore's writing this op-ed."

Inhofe spoke for approximately a half hour before yielding the floor. He also mentioned the climate change legislation being worked on by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.), saying that if any form of a cap-and-trade bill passes "people are going to be the losers."

Brothers Chavez & Penn

2010-03-13T14:30:00.000-08:00

Sean Penn: Journalists who call Hugo Chávez a dictator should be jailed

Sean Penn: Journalists who call Hugo Chávez a dictator should be ...

Sean Penn, pictured, said journalist who smeared the Venezuelan president should be punished. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP Sean Penn has defended Hugo Chávez as a model democrat and said those who call him a dictator should be jailed. The Oscar-winning actor and political activist accused the US media of smearing Venezuela 's socialist president and called for journalists to be punished. "Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And...

Read full story at guardian.co.uk

Is Tom Hanks Unhinged? by Victor Davis Hanson

Warmists overwhelmed by fear, panic and deranged hatred as their 'science' collapses

2010-03-07T02:07:00.000-08:00

James Delingpole/Telegraph UK
A sharp-eyed viewer has noticed that when I was debating George Monbiot on TV yesterday and I mentioned that his cherished “peer-reviewed science” had been discredited by Climategate he bared his teeth like a cornered cur. Says my body language expert John Lish:
“It was a quite aggressive and defensive gesture which was noticeable when he was attempting to dismiss you (talking about peer review). A definite body-language sign of being rattled. He’s definitely uncomfortable about what’s occurring and others will have spotted that as well.”
Monbiot isn’t the only one. Consider the paranoid tone of this email from climate-fear-promoter Paul Ehrlich, during an exchange with fellow members at the National Academy of Scientists on how best to deal with the Denier threat: (Hat tip: Marc Morano)
“Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules.”

And consider this tragic response from the editor of the US magazine Skeptical Inquirer when faced with declining readership. Despite its name, the Skeptical Inquirer has tended to adopt a none-too-sceptical position on AGW. This has annoyed one or two readers who have been cancelling their subscriptions in disgust. The editor Kendrick Frazier seems to imagine that this is not a reflection on his editorial policy but on his readership’s ‘false consciousness’ – as he shows in this robust editorial: (hat tip: Philip Thomas)
This is the third SI reader who has canceled his (it’s always a male) subscription over our climate change pieces in the current SI (not to mention the at least six who did so after our first round of articles several years ago). Boy, they don’t want to hear anything they disagree with, do they.
It is clear the anti-GW science crowd have their minds made up, and nothing anyone is going to say, no appeal to scientific evidence, no attempt to place things into an accurate context, no attempt to point out that many media and blog portrayals are not always fully accurate, no facts, no explanations, no attempts to show they themselves are being manipulated, nothing is ever going to change their minds. Very much like the evolution/creationist controversy, except that these are some of our longtime readers.
They do not want to engage forthrightly with factual, science-based statements or arguments. They only want their own views reinforced. There is no attempt at open-minded discussion or even fair argument. Just a determination to maintain their ideological purity and not have it be contaminated with any scientific information and perspective that doesn’t support their presuppositions. They want to draw a don’t-tell-me-anything-I-don’t-want-to-hear cocoon around themselves. Unfortunately, that cocoon is growing ever larger. And they know they are punishing us, because, even more than most publications, which have advertising, we depend mostly on subscription revenue.
Guess we should just go along with the crowd, the lynch mob. Hop on the bandwagon. Slam those damned ignorant climatologists coming up with all that nonsense about changing climate and a warming planet. Who needs science anyway?
All this is a roundabout way of answering one of my editors’ kind suggestions that I respond to this morning’s front page story in which some desperate scientists at the embarrassing, useless and parti pris Met Office have apparently attempted to repair their creaky, wheel-less AGW bandwagon with a hurried new botch job report. Sorry, but I don’t think many of us are going to fall for this nonsense any more.
Monbiot tried it on yesterday with his free two and half minute propaganda broadcast generously funded by the BBC’s The Daily Politics show in which he rehashed all his old arguments (man’s selfishness, rising sea-levels, plight of the poor, wind farms, blah di blah di blah) as though Climategate, Glaciergate, Pachaurigate, Amazongate, Africagate et al had never happened. Now the MET office is having a go.
Sorry chaps, it won’t wash. The debate has moved on. It’s not about “the science” any more. (Not that it ever was). It’s about economics. Politics. Money. The taxpayer versus Big Government.
On all of which, more later….

A Scam Too Good To Miss For Any Government

2010-02-19T16:28:00.000-08:00

10 Wong Reasons to Tax us

Why tobacco is central to explaining Climate Science...

Thanks to JoAnne Nova

The Sydney Morning Herald published a speech by Penny Wong (our Minister of Climate Change, Storms, Droughts, and Rainy Days). Sometimes I marvel that humanity ever managed to get civilized.

“Climate Sceptics are all red herrings and quackery”

Get ready for the startling Proof by Motherhood Statements & WhiteWash. I’m loosely Paraphrasing Penny, taking the liberty of including the fuller more accurate message (that I’m sure she would want to share)… [then adding a few thoughts].

A strong global agreement is apparently “manifestly in Australia’s own national interest” (and worth paying billions upon billions for). Why?

10 Wong Reasons

Copenhagen wasn’t the complete failure that people say. (Who mentioned a red herring?) [Countries for the first time have signed a pledge that they will control the weather and keep temperatures from rising no more than 2 degrees. It has no legal meaning in any court, but leaders who break this will be embarrassed in public.]

Evidence, that I can’t name specifically, points to climate change happening more quickly than we thought. (Though CO2 levels are rising “dead linear”, sea levels have flattened off, and temperatures have so “stopped rising” that people are calculating the statistical chances that we could call this form of rising: “falling”. Ocean heat content change has gone negative. Nothing bar anything that’s important is getting worse faster than the IPCC predicted, except CO2 emissions (which kinda flies in the face of the idea that those emissions matter eh?) Strike that… the number of skeptics is accelerating, and the number of holes in the IPCC documents has gone exponential. Damn.) **

Australia needs an emission trading scheme on carbon because some people once did misleading campaigns on the safety of tobacco. That was a totally different debate about different topics, different risks, and a different level of evidence and among a different industry. There was no UN Agency involved, and the tradeable market was tiny in comparison. Also Medical research is audited by the FDA, and the IPCC is audited by… unpaid bloggers. But other than that, there are similarities.

We’ve had lots of “hottest ever records” broken lately: If you ignore all the inexplicable adjustments (like these in Darwin) and forget that temperatures have been rising for 150 years before carbon started to be pumped en-masse, that’s quite scary. (And don’t ask me what caused the Little Ice Age, or when that mystery factor stopped.)

People claim we’ve been “hoodwinked by scientists”. (Don’t they know that scientists never lie?) Obviously this is a silly claim, because “those hoodwinked would have to include … Margaret Thatcher”. [Wong actually says exactly that. As if Margaret Thatcher would know in the 80's that Phil Jones and a cabal of friends would say "Hide the Decline" a decade or two later... Really? Does she think naming a conservative politician who agreed with her a quarter of a century ago is like a free ticket to the land of "convincing'? Has anyone asked Mrs T what she thinks lately? ]

The IPCC AR4 is 3000 pages long. (Not that I would ever give you a red herring). Argumentum by documentum ad infinitum. [ So 2 + 2 = 4 is wrong because it fits on one page? If you pay me $10 million I can make that a 3000 page proof. ]

Models that assume disasters are “caused by carbon” have projected disasters that are (shock me) “caused by carbon”. The Minister has been known to wave this around as “evidence”.

Carbon markets “work” in Europe. $133 billion dollars turned over in 2009, lining profit sheets of bankers, auditors, accountants and government officials. These markets work well to suck spending power from citizens and buy yachts for financial CEO’s. They also help to screw poor peasants in China and India. “Multipurpose” is the word.

Politicians in Canberra have all taken out insurance on their homes for fire or theft. [And I'm planning to sell them a policy for Asteroid Damage. Who could refuse? I mean, you never know if you'll come home one day to find a remnant from the formation of the solar system in the spot where your living room used to be.]

One of the disastrous humiliating claims about IPCC errors was shown to be not quite as grovellingly awful as it first appeared. And the IPCC fixed one of their other mistakes. Rajandra Pachauri knew about the error before Copenhagen, and it only took front page headlines calling for his resignation to force him to stop attacking the whistleblowers as “voo-doo” practictioners and start getting the science right. Who could ask for more?

Bonus point: Anything you say in disagreement with the above shows you are funded by big oil and trained by Phillip Morris. Therefore the World is Warming. D-QED*.

What’s scary about this is that people who are supposed to represent the public (our elected representatives) are using the equivalent of a medieval witchhunt to run the country, and the people who are supposed to inform the public (the journalists) don’t seem to notice.

*D-QED: Don’t Question the Evidence, Denier.
** Since you asked: We skeptics can offer specific evidence that the carbon-dioxide theory is falsified: the missing hotspot, most carbon dioxide emissions have happened since WWII but it has been warming at a roughly steady rate since 1750, analysis of outgoing radiation observations by Lindzen and Choi, cloud feedback observations by Spencer, etc. See my links page for more information.]

Camel gas and other warmist nonsense

2010-02-15T04:01:00.000-08:00

Piers Akerman – Monday, February 08, 10

THE insanity all of those who have been engaged in running the great global warming scam is summed up by the decision to recognise belches and farts from domestic camels, and not those emitted by the feral camel population, when calculating a nation’s carbon footprint.

Continue reading 'Camel gas and other warmist nonsense

It Was All a Lie: Climategate Scientist Admits There Is No Global Warming

2010-02-14T15:27:00.001-08:00

Top Climate Scientist Admits Man-made Global Warming Is a Farce–
* Data for vital ‘hockey stick graph’ has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before – but NOT due to man-made changes

Global Warming Fraudsters Bilked EU & US for £800,000 Annually for Last 20 Years

Finally, one of the chief scientists at the center of the “Climategate” scandal admitted this weekend that there has been no significant global warming in the last 15 years.
The Daily Mail Online reported:

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

More… The U.N. panel of climate experts overstated how much of the Netherlands is below sea level, according to a preliminary report on Saturday.
Andrew Bolt has more on the collapse of global warming junk science.

Thanks to Gateway Pundit

Nothing is Real. Nothing is True. Nothing is Good.

2010-02-09T16:40:00.001-08:00

By

Professor Mark McIntire, SBCC

Welcome to the Wonderful, Wide, World of Post-modernism! We finally made it. As post-modernists, we finally figured it all out: Nothing is Real. Nothing is True. Nothing is Good. And, nothing is Beautiful. Unless, of course you think it is. And we're not quite sure about that either. Or are we? Relax. Have some marijuana. Have some cocaine. Have an abortion. Buy a Lexus. Put a crucifix in a bottle of piss. Go to Hawaii. Invite your friends. Have an orgy. If it feels good, then it is good. There is no reality, truth, goodness or beauty. These are merely thoughts. We are all just organisms that 'react' to 'stimuli'. Your reaction is just as sound as anyone else's. Have some more marijuana.

Remain calm. Don't get excited. Wear Birkenstocks.

Above all don't have thoughts. Have feelings. Thoughts are confusing and filled with difficulty. Why be confused with difficulties? It will make you feel bad. Don't you want to feel good? Then, don't think, just feel. Do you feel tired? Then stay home. Relax. Have some cocaine. You'll feel better.

Remain calm. Have sex with a stranger. Drive a Volvo station-wagon. Put lots of bumper-stickers on it to express what you feel. Have a candle-light vigil for something.

If you're a man, then become a woman. If you're a woman, then become a man. Then you'll understand that there are no men and there are no women. We're all just 'persons'. We're all the same. We have no differences. Logic is a coercive and repressive pack of lies. Be diverse. Differences are the result of thoughts, and thoughts are confusing and difficult. You don't want to be confused with difficulties do you? Have some LSD. Try this pill. Everything is simple. Listen to some Rap.

Remain calm. Get in touch with your feelings. Tell a lie. After all, if it's true to you, then it is true, but just to you. Be vague. Better yet, be ambiguous.

It's not your fault. You're just reacting to stimuli. Nothing you do, or did, is ever bad or good for that matter. It's all these stimuli that make you feel that you've been bad or good. Multinational corporations stimulate you to feel good or bad. It's not your fault. It's all these swirling stimuli. So, just change the stimuli. Have a drink. Have another. Invite your friends. Be diverse. Read Newsweek or Time. Look at the pictures. Hallucinate. Vote for Hillary.

Above all, remain calm. Bash a corporation. Bash them all. Defend Michael Jackson. Do you feel there are some nasty people in other countries trying to kill you? Relax. Have some X. There are no countries. There are no nasty people. There are no patriots or terrorists. There are no national allegiances, just disturbing and confusing thoughts about allegiances. These are just 'reactive' thoughts you are having to some 'stimuli'. How did the stimuli get there? No one knows. More importantly, no one can ever know, thanks to post-modernism. It's like asking " Who painted the roses red?" No one did. They are just 'red'. It's all just the result of being stimulated. What 'roses'? What 'red'? And, what is 'is' by the way?

Remain calm. Don't think. You'll only confuse yourself. Blame the corporations. Marry your cat.

But stimulated by what? Does not 'stimulated' imply something that stimulates? And if there is something that stimulates, then that something must be real? And if that something that stimulates is real, then might it be knowable? And if it is knowable, then might it be good or bad. And if it could be good or bad, then might it actually be beautiful or ugly?

Have some morphine. Remain calm. Hallucinate. Watch Oprah Winfrey.

Oh, there you go, thinking again. Having thoughts will only confuse you and fill you with difficulties. Worse still would be for you to take those thoughts and formulate an 'argument' An 'argument' is a whole mess of thoughts that will really confuse you if you try to understand it. Now, you might compile a 'bibliography' of books and articles that you have never read. A bibliography is a whole mess of'stimuli' that confused other people with difficulties. And, you might offer that in place of an argument, because then you would not have to have a thought, let alone an argument. And, everyone would be stimulated to like you because you are a brilliant post-modernist thinker. So, have some more drugs. Relax. Nothing is Real. Nothing is True. Nothing is Good. And, certainly nothing is beautiful.

How are you feeling now? Better?

But there's just one thing that vexes me. If these brilliant post-modernists have figured it all out, then just exactly how did they figure it all out if, as they claim, nothing is real, true, good or beautiful (note no caps...my only concession to post-modernism)?
Oh! You're hopeless! It's the evil corporations. De gustibus non disputandum est. ("In matters of feelings, there is no real dispute.")1.

---Mark McIntire
October 1, 2003

http://www.markmcintire.com/postmodernism.htm

UN Chief Seeks 'Global Governance Structure'

2009-12-17T07:51:00.000-08:00

U.N. chief weighs in on climate talk expectations

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says he expects a final treaty to be signed by mid-2010. He also defends the U.N.'s role as the overseer of funding from developed to developing nations.

By Bruce Wallace
December 16, 2009

Reporting from The United Nations/ LA Times

As negotiations for a global climate change convention entered their final stages in Copenhagen, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon sat down with Times Foreign Editor Bruce Wallace to discuss the prospects for a deal, and whether rich nations are looking to curb the United Nations' role in overseeing the billions of dollars that may be transferred from the developed to the developing world.

Ban said he expected to see a final, legally binding agreement signed by the middle of next year.

Is a political deal in Copenhagen still possible?

We need to have a very strong, robust, binding political deal that will have an immediate operational effect. This is not going to be a political declaration, just for the sake of declaration. It is going to be a binding political deal, which will lead to a legally binding treaty next year.

I'm a perfectionist -- sort of. Everybody wants to have a perfect deal.

But if we insist on agreeing to everything upfront, all the nitty-gritty in Copenhagen, then it may lead us nowhere, to no agreement at all.

There has been talk of reducing the U.N.'s role in future climate change policy and allowing Western-led institutions to oversee how the developing world spends any money it receives from developed countries. Can there be a deal that excludes the U.N.?

How can you scrap the role of the United Nations? The United Nations has global reach.

The United Nations will be there and should be involved in this implementation process.

One of the principles agreed upon is that all commitments should be reportable, measurable and verifiable. This is what has been agreed by both developed and developing countries.

We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this. Experts from both worlds should participate.

Do developed countries owe a carbon debt to developing countries?

Developed countries have political and moral responsibilities, therefore they have to do more, first of all by coming out with ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and they should be prepared to provide financial support.

We have pretty good agreement on short-term, fast-track financial support in the order of $10 billion for the coming three years. When we agree on a politically binding agreement, this will have immediate operational effect, including financial support from next year.

Does President Obama's decision to attend this week mean a deal is likely?

The U.S. has had very serious, in-depth bilateral engagement with China and India.

And I believe that the fact that President Obama has agreed to participate himself may suggest that the U.S. has some better understandings on what China and India will do. He has been instrumental in changing the political dynamics of this debate.

Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’

2009-12-17T07:31:00.000-08:00

This is what they did — these climate “scientists” on whose unsupported word the world’s classe politiqueproposes to set up an unelected global government this December in Copenhagen, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all formerly free markets, to tax wealthy nations and all of their financial transactions, to regulate the economic and environmental affairs of all nations, and to confiscate and extinguish all patent and intellectual property rights.

The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.

Copenhagen Extortion Racket

2009-12-17T07:21:00.001-08:00

Copenhagen con: how the socialists are making capitalists pay

Andrew Bolt – Friday, December 18, 09 (01:17 am)

First the Copenhagen summit gives Hugo Chavez a standing ovation for savaging capitalism. Then out comes the begging bowl, to be filled by those very same evil capitalists:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sought to put new life into flagging U.N. talks Thursday by announcing the U.S. would join others in raising $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poorer nations cope with global warming.

But no sooner have those billions been promised, than the anti-capitalists up the ask:

China and other developing countries say the target should be in the range of $350 billion.

How much is this carpet-baggers’ convention costing us, for heaven’s sake? Recall our prime minister now before our cash is all gone.