Many people trust the IPCC, that it tells governments around the world the truth about global warming. But their trust is being seriously challenged by accumulating lines of evidence that this is not a good characterisation of the IPCC’s process.
The IPCC is coming under ferocious attack by climate sceptics using documentary evidence of astonishing, widespread disregard of fidelity. Continue Reading →
Visits: 144
Perhaps it was simply poor management. Although it would still be grounds to disband the whole dysfunctional team.
Mark Lynas, of all people (for he’s a confirmed believer in man-made warming), writes an excellent article on the ramifications of one Sven Teske, an IPCC lead author and also, by-the-by, a lead author for Greenpeace, using his elevated position on the UN body to get world exposure for his Greenpeace activism.
In applauding Steve McIntyre’s discovery of the latest embarrassment from the IPCC, Mark comments: “McIntyre and I have formed an unlikely double-act.” He’s got that right.
Steve concludes:
The public and policy-makers are starving for independent and authoritative analysis of precisely how much weight can be placed on renewables in the energy future. It expects more from IPCC WG3 than a karaoke version of [a] Greenpeace scenario.
I concur.
Visits: 53
Several readers, among them the evergreen Mike Jowsey (thanks, Mike!) have drawn my attention to Clive Best’s simple yet remarkable post from yesterday. It brings together in a most accessible way the early IPCC forecasts (or “scenarios”, actually — they were never predictions) and the latest observations of global temperature.
So, after 20 years, how well have the consensus scientists done in forecasting the climate? It could be said the results are patchy. Continue Reading →
Visits: 214
Judith Curry draws a radical conclusion from this radical paper. The authors claim that climate forcings from both human influence and natural variation are likely of similar magnitude, which is the first time since the IPCC was created that the climate establishment has expressed that possibility. Then they admit that telling the difference between them is difficult (the science is not settled). That’s the second time that’s been said (the first time was in an early IPCC report). Since “human influence” has become a hot-button code word for guilt, perhaps the guilt might now subside. Finally, Judith has a plea for the IPCC authors: “No more ‘unequivocals’ or ‘very likelys’ in the AR5, please.” Amazing — you must read this and share it with everyone you know or don’t know. It’s sober and persuasive evidence that a tide is turning — a belief in dangerous warming no longer holds a trump card in climate studies. Make the politicians face this new scientific reality or they’ll go on for years with their ETS and carbon taxes – h/t Barry Brill
The issue of separating natural from anthropogenically forced variability, particularly in context of the attribution of 20th century climate change, has been a topic of several previous threads at Climate Etc. The issue of natural vs anthropogenically forced climate variability/change has been a key issue of contention between the climate establishment and skeptics. There are some encouraging signs that the climate establishment is maturing in their consideration of this issue. Continue Reading →
Visits: 56
Crooked.
How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2,500 — that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2,500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.
To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered they were mistaken — those 2,500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently. Continue Reading →
Visits: 72
A new NASA computer modelling effort has found that the additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback — a cooling effect — on the Earth’s climate system that could work to reduce future global warming to only +1.64°C if carbon dioxide was doubled. The IPCC had assumed a +3°C warming in that case.
The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius globally and -0.6 degrees C over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua, of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Bounoua is lead author on the paper that was published Dec 7, 2010, in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
With the negative feedback included, the model found a warming of 1.64 degrees C globally when carbon dioxide was doubled.
Doubling the CO2 contents in the atmosphere from 390 ppmv to 780 ppmv would require some 195 years with the present growth rate of 2 ppm/year. This means, however, that until the year 2100 we have to expect a temperature increase of only 0.75°C. Also, with the higher IPCC value, the resulting temperature growth would be well below the limit of 2°C which has been decided as a limit by the recent conference in Cancun.
Apparently none of the 15,000 participants in Cancun has recognized this fact (or, rather, did not want to do so) since this means that the political UN conference-circus is indeed obsolete. No new post-Kyoto agreement is required, nor a reduction of CO2 emissions at all.
However, we must expect that the expensive annual mega-meetings will continue, since no participant wants to give up these free vacation weeks in one of the more beautiful places of this planet (Kyoto – Bali – Nairobi – Rio de Janeiro – Geneva – New Delhi – Marrakesh – Buenos Aires – Copenhagen – Cancun – and next year Durban, South Africa).
The most important decision at each of 16 conferences was to meet again next year. And if it were only for that reason, then the “fight against climate change” must be continued.
Visits: 41
We now have the details of a proposed stitch-up at Cancun. $100bn, it is intended by 2020, should be levied from the taxpayers of “rich” nations to help poor ones adjust to the manifestly and absurdly extravagant alleged effects of climate change. The outcome of any such a fund actually being collected and distributed is predictable, of course.
Unimaginably vast sums will go to enriching the dictators of such countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa but elsewhere too, no doubt, as well as the so-called environmentalist movement in the West. A few years hence there will be little, if any, measurable evidence of investment in “measures to save the planet”.
It is illuminating to recall that Kenya now acknowledges that 43% of its annual receipts of grant aid are syphoned off into sleaze. It is also salutary to recall that WWF now expects to reap revenues of $2bn plus from such a “world fund”.
Is it too fanciful to suggest that the quid pro quo for the enrichment of the third world classe politique is an undisclosed agreement for a percentage back-wash into the Lichtenstein bank accounts of our own political protagonists, amongst whose number in the UK, may well be the heir to the throne as well as individual propagandists at the BBC and not forgetting other dedicated quangos, for example?
Will they get away with it? I don’t think so – after all, where’s the money to come from? And let’s not forget that there’s an ocean of difference between promise and performance. Still, if personal enrichment is actually the real undisclosed name of the game, we may have to anticipate interesting times.
Just a thought – ignoble, I know, but then we live in a funny old world, do we not?
Visits: 114
Cancun anti-climate beach conference.
Around the world more and more publications, commentators and blog writers are declaring opposition to, even outright disgust of, the global warming scam.
Increasingly, people are waking up to the fact that, in the words of senior IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, we must “free ourselves from the illusion” that international climate policy has anything to do with environmental problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
That is in addition to the extreme disillusionment arising from the failure of the scientific climate predictions to come anywhere near true. Continue Reading →
Visits: 49
The conference is over. There are 25 separate documents listed here at the UNFCCC web site called “Cancun Agreements” which one must presume represent what has been agreed to. Plus a joint expression of gratitude to Mexico and its leaders for running the conference (and who knows what horrors could be hidden away in that one?). Total: 26 documents.
They’re in two groups, reflecting the fact that two conferences were taking place (COP 16 and CMP 6). Actually, I mislead you: there were three other conferences also taking place. Confusing, isn’t it?
Who could distinguish who was who with so many hats being swapped and shared?
It could take a while to find out what the heck they’ve been up to. Continue Reading →
Visits: 81
A symbol of the proposed, unelected “Secretariat”.
I will resist these proposals with all the means at my disposal for as long as there is breath in my body.
Here’s a selection from Lord Monckton’s hard-hitting exposé of the United Nation’s plans for a world government which were first revealed by him in Copenhagen a year ago. The plans are being further stitched together this week in Cancun, to be finalised the year after next in Rio de Janeiro.
This material is from what is euphemistically termed the Chairman’s “note” (actually, “Note by the Chair”, as though a chair might speak) and which is subtitled “Elements of the outcome”.
It is impenetrable, impossible to understand – and that, Christopher Monckton explains, is deliberate; we’re not meant to know what it means. Continue Reading →
Visits: 263
Christopher Monckton has just revealed that efforts are being made at Cancun, as they were made at Copenhagen a year ago, to forge a world government for the good of all its people. Such a government will, of necessity, reduce or eliminate national sovereignty and the democratic process.
For a modern exemplar of this, see the European Community. For an historic model, see Attilla the Hun.
Lord Monckton gives his analysis at WUWT. I have located the Chairman’s note he cites, which is the source of our knowledge of these monstrous overtures, at the UNFCCC web site — click on English under Electronic version available. I’m still reading through it and intend to comment further.
At the end of Monckton’s article he recommends informing our representatives of the contents of the Chairman’s proposals. That’s a good idea and it should be done right now, while they’re still at Cancun. There isn’t much time to stop this dangerous nonsense and only weight of numbers will do it.
I welcome your comments and suggestions.
Visits: 46
From the Global Warming Policy Foundation comes news of an interview that should sweep the world, finally destroy the credibility of the tireless seekers for truth in the ponderous committees of the IPCC and confirm forever the transmogrification of the great climate change prevention movement into the “economic-justice-for-every-corner-of-the-earth-for-their-own-good-socialist-expansion-brigade”.
This interview contains the sinister confession from a senior IPCC official that climate policy has almost nothing to do any more with environmental protection. He also passes on the alarming information that the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economic conference during which the redistribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. Continue Reading →
Visits: 189
On 17 May, 2010, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced the appointment of Mrs Christina Figueres as the new Executive Secretary of the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat based in Bonn, Germany. The appointment was endorsed by the Bureau of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). She replaced Yvo de Boer, who resigned in February, 2010, declaring himself “appalled” by the failure of the international community to reach agreement at Copenhagen on “fighting climate change”.
The AP quotes Mrs Figueres as saying today in Beijing, China:
“Countries have felt a renewed urgency to address global warming given this year’s series of frequent and catastrophic disasters, including massive flooding in Pakistan, drought and fires in Russia, and mudslides and floods in China.”
Have they, indeed? First, how does she know this, or is she merely stating what she would like to hear? Continue Reading →
Visits: 131
After years of darkness, there are signs of light returning both to climate science and the mainstream media! What is instinctively unacceptable in one (uncontaminated) scientific realm is at last observed as being practically the rule in the (deeply flawed) realm of climate science. (How NZ climate scientists can continue to pretend that the practice of their science has not been besmirched and remains beyond reproach is a mystery.) In this story we hear that a scientific inquiry actually does its job properly, The Times begins to stir and a real journalist concludes we don’t need a neck tourniquet for a nose bleed. Fascinating!
– Richard Treadgold
Here’s the full story: Continue Reading →
Visits: 358
From the New York Post, September 1, 2010.
If this keeps up, no one’s going to trust any scientists.
The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.
For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world’s governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium — and to civilisation itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to “save the planet.”
But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of “the best scientists and engineers worldwide” (as the group’s own web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give “high-quality advice to international bodies,” has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices — and found them badly wanting.
For example, the IPCC’s much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false — yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming. Continue Reading →
Visits: 342
Reported today on Fox News (subheads added):
In the wake of its swift and devastating fall from grace, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) says it will announce “within the next few days” plans to make significant changes in how it does business.
Just one year ago a pronouncement from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) was all that was needed to move nations and change environmental policies around the world. But today, the panel’s creditability and even its very existence are in question.
In the wake of its swift and devastating fall from grace, the panel says it will announce “within the next few days” that it plans to make significant though as yet unexplained changes in how it does business.
Brenda Abrar-Milani, an external relations officer at the IPCC’s office in Geneva, Switzerland, said changes have been slow in coming because “we have to inform the governments (all 194 member States) of any planned steps, and they are the ones who eventually take decisions on any revision of procedures.”
“We put everything on the table and looked at it,” she said, explaining that the panel’s reforms would be extensive. She refused to detail any of the changes, but she did confirm that are in response to recent scandals involving the panel. Continue Reading →
Visits: 130
This QOTW [Quote Of The Week] is from our friend and WUWT contributor Willis Eschenbach who writes:
I just got my 29 January 2010 copy of Science Magazine, which contains an interview with Rajendra K. Pachauri, the future ex-Chairman of the IPCC. In it, he gives the following astounding answer:
Q: Has all that has happened this winter dented the credibility of IPCC?
R.K.P.: I don’t think the credibility of the IPCC can be dented. If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?
Why, indeed? …
Visits: 323
As much as I would like to focus on local facets of the climate change dreamland it is nevertheless impossible to ignore the continuing revelations from abroad that are tearing at the fabric of the “Grand Narrative”, to use Philip Stott’s term at the Clamour Of The Times.
These tectonic changes will demand alterations to or even cancellation of our own ETS and other responses to “global warming”, so we need to know about them. New Zealand needs a dialogue to debate the implications. Continue Reading →
Visits: 130
This is a good summary of the Himalaya glacier story. Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings, at The Times Online, go through the details and discuss the implications.
The IPCC tell us constantly that they use experts in every field to assemble its reports. It’s scandalous that any of their teams might be led by a person who could know so little that this kind of school-boy error is possible.
Their reputation is getting worse by the day.
Visits: 73
UPDATE 1 Jan 19, 3:54 pm: I’ve just come across Roger Pielke Jr’s view on this. He’s disgusted.
Dr Richard North, at Eureferendum, explains how a mistaken claim from about five years ago made its way into the latest IPCC “summary of the latest science” on climate change, has been thoroughly discredited and disproven, and yet still allows Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman and public front of the IPCC, to make a lot of money from it.
We’re constantly told that the IPCC reports “are put together by 2500 scientists” but so what, if they miss this kind of thing?
How can we trust this man and the alarming climate predictions he gives us?
Visits: 60
The Times of India, under an odd-sounding headline, carry the following story on their web site today:
Pachauri-led TERI under UK scanner
LONDON: The British government is to carry out due diligence on New Delhi-based The Energy Research Institute following a local newspaper’s relentless campaign against the organization and its director-general, Rajendra Pachauri, who is also the IPCC chairman.
A British Department for International Development statement said, ‘‘As is routine, DFID is undertaking a full Institutional Assessment of TERI as part of our due diligence process.’’
The Sunday Telegraph’s persistence seems to have ‘‘triggered the routine’’.
The paper attacked DFID and its secretary of state (cabinet minister) Douglas Alexander for presenting 10 million pounds of British tax-payers money to TERI in Delhi last September. In its most recent piece, titled ‘‘The curious case of the expanding environmental group with falling income’’, it once again questioned TERI and Pachauri’s probity.
It alleged, ‘‘He (Pachauri) enjoys a lavish lifestyle; his Delhi home is in the Golf Links area, the most expensive stretch of residential real estate in India, and he is famous for his $1,000 suits.’’ The piece also insinuated that while the registered charity, TERI Europe’s business in the past six years had increased, its published turnover had decreased.
When ‘‘The Sunday Telegraph’’ reportedly put it to one of its two directors, Dr Ritu Kumar, a south London resident, that the body’s income and expenditure in recent years were both much greater than the figures it declared, she is said to have admitted anomalies in the accounts. Teri Europe’s accountants have now been instructed to produce a revised version.
Let us hope it achieves a frank disclosure of the financial affairs of arguably the most important figure in the climate change scandal. With the reputation of the IPCC taking almost daily hits on multiple fronts, it’s little wonder recent polls show fewer New Zealanders now worried by “global warming”.
Visits: 77
In a dramatic recent article on his blog, Clouds Dominate CO2 as a Climate Driver Since 2000, Roy Spencer sets out clear evidence for internally-forced changes in the climate system. An internal forcing is a feedback, as when a change in temperature causes some other change which itself also changes the temperature.
For example, when temperature rises, it may cause an increase in atmospheric water vapour; that water vapour may condense into clouds, which in turn, by reflecting the incoming sunlight back to space, may cause the temperature to drop.
Such a process might be termed a thermostat, a natural regulator, keeping the temperature within its natural bounds, much as it has done for half a billion years and more.
In our example, the forcing was a temperature increase and the feedback was a temperature decrease – a negative feedback, moving the temperature in the opposite direction from the forcing. A positive feedback would move the temperature in the same direction as the forcing.
To date, the IPCC assumes two vital things: that climate sensitivity is high and internal forcing (feedback) is positive.
I do not follow every detail that Dr Spencer describes, but, after challenging these two assumptions and showing them to be wrong, his conclusion pulls no punches.
Last year I posted an analysis of satellite observations of the 2007-08 global cooling event, showing evidence that it was due to a natural increase in low cloud cover. Here I will look at the bigger picture of how the satellite-observed variations in Earth’s radiative budget compare to those expected from increasing carbon dioxide. Is there something that we can say about the relative roles of nature versus humanity based upon the evidence?
What we will find is evidence consistent with natural cloud variations being the dominant source of climate variability since 2000. Continue Reading →
Visits: 77
Is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), dealing with us (his global constituents, as it were) honestly?
Richard North, in a blog piece called Pachauri: How much is this man getting?, says:
What we are seeing here … is an interesting modus vivendi — three different payments to support the chairman of the IPCC, yet each payment is made by a different organisation to a different organisation — one in the US, one in the UK and one in India. No one knows what the other is doing — except Pachauri, of course.
Why were these payments made in such complex fashion? Apparently his United Nations salary is not publicly disclosed — why not?
On January 6, 2010, in an article entitled Pachauri: the smoking gun, Dr Richard North describes how
TERI Europe was engaged in the production of a report for which it must have attracted funding in the order of £70,000 and incurred considerable expense, yet it shows an income of £9,000 and an expenditure of £5,000.
Even if there is a substantial discount on the SI2 report, it is simply not credible that TERI Europe could have operated that year with an income so low, or spent so little. On the face of it, we are very much closer to showing that this organisation has indeed been guilty of false accounting, and misleading the Charity Commission. Continue Reading →
Visits: 98
Dr Andrew Reisinger, Senior Research Fellow, New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute (CCRI), sits at the right hand of God. The god, that is, of the IPCC — Dr Rajendra Pachauri. Andy is head of the Technical Support Unit for the Synthesis Report group of the IPCC, and from that exalted position controls what the world’s national leaders get to know about climate change.
For he was responsible to his “core group” co-author Rajendra Pachauri for co-ordinating the drafting of the Synthesis Report for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The SR is “the concluding summary of the IPCC’s most recent assessment of our current knowledge on climate change,” as Andy’s cv puts it.
That sounds like proper influence to me — real, transformative power. For what comes out of the IPCC’s Assessment Report (or more particularly the summary of it) goes straight into the ears of national leaders around the globe and they will act upon it. They don’t read the actual reports, so they won’t spot the differences between them and the summary. Neither will they fault the summary for themselves, because they are not scientists.
So they are necessarily at the mercy of the authors (or manipulators) of the Summary Report. Much has been said elsewhere about the politically-motivated alterations that were made to many of the IPCC reports. The reports are meant to represent the best of current scientific knowledge, but in practice they are watered down, uncertainties are grossly understated, certainty is claimed where it doesn’t exist and what the scientists said has even been reversed — without their approval.
Visits: 418
We Kiwis should stay in touch with Australian developments, so here’s another in a continuing collaboration with the friendly dingos across the ditch. Download the original pdf (153KB) from Carbon Sense.
The Carbon Sense Coalition today called on the Australian Parliament to repudiate the
Copenhagen giveaways promised by PM Rudd to the failed states of Africa and the welfare
beggars of the islands.
The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that the three Climate Crusaders,
Obama, Brown and Rudd, had been comprehensively conned in Copenhagen by African
mendicants and fakers from the islands.
“They have agreed to hand over mega-bucks of our money (anywhere from $5 billion to
$100 billion) as compensation for alleged damage caused by our production of carbon
dioxide – the Africans citing climate damage and the islanders claiming rising sea levels.
“Even a cursory examination of the facts would prove that both of these claims are
fraudulent.
“There is no evidence that carbon dioxide has caused global warming, or causes damage to
any aspect of life on earth. The vast majority of earth’s warming originates from the sun, and fluctuations there are the major cause of climate changes.
“In addition, careful recent surveys show no unusual rising of sea levels. Continue Reading →
Visits: 120
In the thousands of emails released last month in what is now known as Climategate, the greatest battles took place over scientists’ attempts to reconstruct a credible temperature record for the last couple of thousand years. Have they failed? What the Climategate emails provide is at least one incontrovertible answer: They certainly have not succeeded.
In a post-Copenhagen world, climate history is not merely a matter of getting the record straight, or a trivial part of the global warming science. In a Climategate email in April of this year, Steve Colman, professor of Geological Science at the University of Minnesota Duluth, told scores of climate scientists “most people seem to accept that past history is the only way to assess what the climate can actually do (e.g., how fast it can change). However, I think that the fact that reconstructed history provides the only calibration or test of models (beyond verification of modern simulations) is under-appreciated.”
If temperature history is the “only” way to test climate models, the tests we have on hand — mainly the shaky temperature history of the last 1,000 or 2,000 years — suggest current climate models are not getting a proper scientific workout.
Two scientists, one British and the other American, straddle the initial Climategate battle over recent global temperature history. Later, the same two scientists appear to abandon their internal disagreements and join forces to present a united front to fight off critics and put down skeptics. Continue Reading →
Visits: 97
This summary from the National Post of the Climategate emails and what has been discovered in them is the best I have seen. It is especially pleasing to hear Terence Corcoran’s moderate tone. The contents of the released emails and computer code throw strong doubt on the conclusions of the science of global warming. Everything needs further examination and there are signs this re-examination is happening, in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the USA, Britain and Russia. — Richard Treadgold
Now that the Copenhagen political games are out of the way, marked as a failure by any realistic standard, it may be time to move on to the science games. To get the post-Copenhagen science review under way, the world has a fine document at hand: The Climategate Papers.
On Nov. 17, three weeks before the Copenhagen talks began, a massive cache of climate science emails landed on a Russian server, reportedly after having been laundered through Saudi Arabia. Where they came from, nobody yet knows. Described as having been hacked or leaked from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, the emails have been the focus of thousands of media and blog reports. Since their release, most attention has been focussed on a few choice bits of what seem like incriminating evidence of trickery and scientific repression. Some call it fraud.
Email fragments instantly began flying through the blogosphere. Perhaps the most sensational came from a Nov. 16, 1999, email from Phil Jones, head of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), in which he referred to having “completed Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline” in temperature.
These words, now famous around the world as the core of Climategate, are in fact the grossest possible over-simplification of what the emails contain. The Phil Jones email and other choice email fragments are really just microscopic particles taken from a massive collection of material that will, in time, come to be seen as the greatest and most dramatic science policy epic in history.
Whether the emails, containing more than 2,000 pages and links to thousands more, are smoking guns and direct evidence of scientific skulduggery is in many ways a secondary issue. The Climategate emails are an unprecedented and unparalleled record of attempts by scientists to crack the mysteries of the world’s climate. They are at the heart of a massive effort to understand the world’s climate history and create models and systems to predict climate hundreds of years into the future. Continue Reading →
Visits: 108
Copenhagen finally exposed the world-government desires of the global warming devotees.
It is now in the open. United Nations officials, environmentalists and sundry politicians have spoken over increasingly over the last year of the “need” to govern all nations’ decisions relating to the use of fossil fuels in order to get the climate under “control”. There has been the occasional leaked report discussing how to achieve such governance.
But with the release of the actual wording of the Copenhagen Treaty all camouflage and obfuscation has been put aside. What has been revealed is a naked grab for power, which—thank the gods—has been thwarted.
Even now I shrink from talking about it, since it seems simple-minded, or even paranoid, to give credence to just another conspiracy theory. But too many people have expressed a desire for world government, from the French President to the leader of Greenpeace, to disbelieve it any longer. Lord Monckton expressed the issues and the dangers in his superlative style in a speech he gave to the Minnesota Free Markets Institute on October 14.
Now, immediately following Copenhagen and with a newly sore head from police brutality, he writes in the SPPI blog this summary of the agreement and his view of its likely effects. He finishes on a note of hope, but watch for the unstated sting in the tail.
*************************
The mountains shall labour, and what will be born? A stupid little mouse. Thanks to hundreds of thousands of US citizens who contacted their elected representatives to protest about the unelected, communistic world government with near-infinite powers of taxation, regulation and intervention that was proposed in early drafts of the Copenhagen Treaty, there is no Copenhagen Treaty. There is not even a Copenhagen Agreement. There is a “Copenhagen Accord”. Continue Reading →
Visits: 116
The Carbon Sense Coalition, highlighting the hypocrisy which surrounds the global warming circus, today called for the “climate conspirators” attending the Copenhagen carnival to walk home.
The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, added: “Right now, over 15,000 green hypocrites, mostly funded by the world’s suffering taxpayers, have winged their way in comfortable carbon-fuelled air travel to Copenhagen’s best VIP accommodation. There they will be seeking ways to forcibly reduce our carbon footprint while doing nothing about their own.
“Top-rated airlines are booming as prominent people top up their frequent flyer carbon credits. Concierges are smiling as limousines glide in, full of exalted envoys with their entourage of minders and courtiers, all with lights blazing, air conditioners humming, kitchens cooking, champagne bubbling and caviar disappearing.”
Mr Forbes said that the global warming industry would also be there, creating scares, talking about drowning polar bears and melting ice, demanding handouts, seeking exemptions, defending paper credits and pushing for subsidies and special deals.
He said, “There will be battalions of largely gullible and fawning media, many also from government media monoliths touring on the tab of the taxpayer. We are told that Australian taxpayers have sent 114 official delegates there, all concerned to reduce our consumption of carbon fuels.”
“If they are fair dinkum,” he fumed, “they should all lead by example, use “green energy”—and walk home.”
Can’t say we disagree with too much of that, really. Drop a note to your MP and let him/her know what you think of this junket.
Visits: 103
It’s been a busy day and it’s close to its end. I check out the NZ Herald for the first time and see a headline: “Tiny Tuvalu outgunned by oil giant”. Curious, I click on it. Now I’m furious. That was yesterday, it’s taken until now to finish researching and writing this damned rebuttal and adjust the images and I’m still furious.
There is no justification for a high level of alarm over future sea level rise and no reason to blame human emissions of carbon dioxide.
The “oil giant” is Saudi Arabia, apparently anxious not to have its oil exports reduced too much. “Outgunned” means opposing votes squash Tuvalu’s motion for developed nations to more aggressively curb their emissions. So Tuvalu’s leaders are distressed, thinking their island nation will soon disappear beneath the waves.
Activists claim that sea level rise is already making life difficult for islanders on Tuvalu and on Kiribati, another set of low-lying Pacific islands to the north-east of Australia.
They quote damaging effects such as fortnightly “king tides” attacking the coastline, wells contaminated with sea water—even one village in Kiribati abandoned to “waist-high water”. It is very distressing. Continue Reading →
Visits: 48
Steve O’connor is a senior geologist who has studied paleoclimate for 40 years. He lives in the circulation area of the Taranaki Daily News, which today published some astonishing comments from one Trotter. I am, unfortunately, unable yet to confirm the Taranaki Daily News item or give a link to it, but I am re-publishing Steve’s letter anyway, because it is the best summary I have read of the central anxieties arising from the global warming scam.
UPDATE 14 Dec 8:30 am: To give you just an outline of Trotter’s complete abandonment of evidence-based science, his denial of the right to free speech and his denial of evidence-based doubts of man-made global warming, here are the concluding comments from his Dominion article, titled “In the war for nature, the deniers are traitors”:
“There will, of course, be people who whisper that the enemy isn’t really our enemy … In 1940, England was full of such whisperers. The British ruling class, in particular, was riddled with defeatists, Nazi sympathisers and traitors. Back then people called them “Quislings” and “Fifth Columnists”. If, therefore, the battle against climate change has to become the moral equivalent of war, with all the sacrifice that war entails, then climate change denial must become the moral equivalent of treason. Over the top? No. The stakes really are that high.”
It is sobering to reflect that, a mere 65 years after World War II, which killed so many of our finest young men as they defended the freedom we still live in against the oppression from without of the advancing fascist barbarians, we are about to subjugate ourselves from within. For the remaining vestiges of that freedom are about to be crumpled in the unelected fists of the most devoted, socialist, totalitarian, “environmentalist” bureaucrats the world has ever produced, justified solely on the grounds of non-existent evidence of man-made climate control.
When I first encountered, a couple of years ago, this menacing interpretation of the approaching “carbon crisis” I scoffed. It was alarmist nonsense; outlandish that anybody would do such a thing; an imaginary conspiracy from the paranoid—surely the movement is based on the science of the enhanced greenhouse effect? Continue Reading →
Visits: 340
This from The Guardian of 5th November:
A global treaty to fight climate change will be postponed by at least six months and possibly a year or more, senior negotiators and politicians conceded today.
In a day of gloomy statements, the world’s key industrialised nations said they had abandoned hope of a legally binding treaty at the Copenhagen summit next month and had begun to plan only for a meeting of world leaders.
Makase Nyaphisi, the Lesothan ambassador speaking on behalf of the UN’s least developed group of 49 countries, responded by saying: “We cannot afford delaying tactics in any way. It’s a matter of life and death.”
Poor countries stand to gain enormous sums of money in the name of climate change. Just announced in Barcelona was $1.1 billion funding from the World Bank for “clean energy” and “preparation for climate change” in Africa, from a total pot of $6.3 billion pledged by donors in funds for developing nations.
It’s hardly surprising Lesotho wants the process to move on. The climate change scam scheme is promising poor nations a Lotto win, the biggest pot of gold they could imagine. The best thing is that it’s completely open-ended, since there’s no finish date. When will the climate be “changed” enough? When will western countries stop feeling guilty about causing climate change?
To be plain, once begun, there will be a Niagara of money flooding into the poor nations. How on earth will it stop? Because the climate won’t stop—it’ll keep changing forever. If there is to be an exit method or a review date, what is it? It is scandalous that our government is negotiating this treaty without disclosing to us its contents.
For undeveloped countries, it must seem like the very best kind of extortion—the kind the victim volunteers for. All the poor people have to do is keep asking for more.
With “climate change” revenue streaming into the country, despotic leaders will feed on the bounty like never before while their people remain hungry, unhealthy and uneducated. What incentives will there be seriously to improve their society?
By all means send money, but don’t connect it with climate change and tie it firmly to schemes the people know about and join with. But the most important thing is to FIRST discover the cause of the nation’s poverty.
Poverty is caused by something like land ownership, political structure or the restrictive hand of religion. It’s almost never because of lack of natural resources and is absolutely never due to lack of intelligence or skill. Change the knowledge, change the behaviour. Our aim should be to introduce right knowledge then STOP sending money and LEAVE. Let commerce and trade do the job thereafter, just as it has with us.
This international climate treaty lacks knowledge of basic human nature. It will drain the coffers of the rich but almost guarantees that poor nations never become wealthy. Continue Reading →
Visits: 39
Only weeks to go before Copenhagen is due to reshape the political world as we know it, and now more signals that it will fail.
Although heads of government met in New York recently, we have been getting mixed signals on the likelihood of them reaching a meaningful agreement. As early as June this year, the UN’s top climate official, Mr Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said global emissions reduction targets are unlikely to be reached in Copenhagen. That was quite a pessimistic outlook from the man who’s supposed to be organising it.
In early September UN Development Chief, Miss Helen Clark (remember her?), was toning down expectations for Copenhagen, even suggesting there might be no deal at all. “I think the conference will be positive but it won’t dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’.”
Less than six weeks ago, the UK Foreign Secretary, Mr David Miliband, said that the Copenhagen conference would fail to produce an effective treaty on cutting greenhouse gases. We were daring to hope we could forget about Copenhagen committing us to any serious reduction in our energy use. Continue Reading →
Visits: 89
SHAME on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually sceptical media told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews, doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from Canberra for an outcome at Copenhagen, opposition criticism of government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty?
With just over 40 days until more than 15,000 officials, advisers, diplomats, activists and journalists from more than 190 countries attend the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, we know nothing. Nothing about a climate change treaty that the Rudd government is keen to sign and one that will bind this country for years to come. Continue Reading →
Visits: 360
Chris de Freitas takes aim at decision-makers who should know, but apparently don’t know, what they’re doing. If they don’t squirm on reading this stinging criticism, then surely they possess no conscience. Let us hope they’re strong enough to honestly re-evaluate their position. I’m posting his article in toto; crafted with the best possible reasoning, it deserves the widest possible circulation.
Bias or blindness… emission targets
THE KYOTO PROTOCOL, an icon of the global environmental movement, is soon to be replaced by a more radical international treaty to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
What it will involve depends on the outcome of negotiations that begin this December in Copenhagen. In preparation, the Government has committed New Zealand to cut up to a third of current emissions by 2020.
The economic, social and moral implications are immense, since carbon taxes and tradable emissions alone cannot make such a massive reduction. Sweeping legislation restricting the use of oil, coal and natural gas would be required, along with far-reaching reforms in pastoral farming to cut methane release. Continue Reading →
Visits: 97
Christopher Monckton, at the Science and Public Policy Institute, is despondent about the uses being made of the global warming “crisis”. He fumes about the supranational aspirations of the United Nations and speaks darkly of a “fledgling World Government”. I recommend you download the pdf and read him directly; it’s not only a demonstration of excellent writing but also illuminates the situation.
Does he exaggerate in referring to international arrangements, through treaties, which aim to control our emissions of greenhouse gases, as “this constitutional monstrosity, [this] abnegation of life, this repudiation of liberty, this cancellation of the pursuit of happiness”? Continue Reading →
Visits: 72
So, it’s official: the possibility of a replacement being hammered out for the Kyoto Treaty now appears remote.
It will be “physically impossible” to have a detailed deal to tackle climate change by this December’s summit in Copenhagen, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said on Wednesday in Bonn.
The “four tough nuts”, as he termed them, were proving extremely difficult to crack because, he said, the “delivery on four political essentials”, on which success in Copenhagen would depend, was turning out to be “impossible”. Continue Reading →
Visits: 101
I just emailed Barry Coates, Executive Director of Oxfam New Zealand, thus:
Dear Barry,
Your article in the Herald today attracted my attention, since I am interested in the general topic of global warming, but I also experienced a certain (perhaps naive) surprise at Oxfam’s connection with global warming. Clearly you believe in the hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming; I hope you don’t mind if I ask some questions about it.
First, some facts seem to have come unstuck from reality. Continue Reading →
Visits: 63
Michael Duffy wrote yesterday in the Sydney Morning Herald that the chairman of the IPCC gave an erroneous presentation. Others have commented on the IPCC’s increasingly discredited reputation. I did some research and posted the following comment on Dr Pachauri’s blog; so far it hasn’t been published:
Dr Pachauri,
In January you were quoted in The Guardian as saying you would “look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.” Continue Reading →
Visits: 344
So CO2 is now a polluting gas. Does nobody have any elementary science knowledge? Dr Muriel Newman lambasts the Commissioner for the Environment for stupidly declaring CO2 a pollutant. But the campaign against carbon dioxide originates with the IPCC, who breaches its own rules, ignores accepted scientific procedure and whose objective when set up was to find evidence of human interference in the climate. With all those bureaucrats employed for that single purpose, there was never much chance of not finding evidence, was there? more…
Visits: 31