This link was sent to me by Jon Eison the publisher of
UNCENSORED. An excellent news magazine that does not hide from the truth. seeUncensored
As a long time environmentalist (50 years!) and staunch supporter of all manner of worthy green and liberationist causes, I am hopping mad at this “Climategate” scandal. Ladies and gentlemen, the good people in the environmental movement (to say nothing of the rest of the world) have been had by Al Gore and the slick, slack, lying “scientific” establishment.Now the whole sordid truth about how they lied has been laid bare. Here’s a short vid which sums the whole thing up: – Jon
CBC – Global Warming Doomsday Called Off43:59 – 2 years ago A very informative documentary about the real cause of global warming. It clearly discuss about the fact that CO2 is not cause of global warming. Take a look also at the Great Global Warming Swindle and Green House Conspiracy in google video. This documentary discusses many topics that are not covered in the Swindle such as the hockey stick graph, from the viewpoint of Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. Very good scientific informations on the subject here: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71&k=0 http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm TAKE ACTION: Go sign this petition to force Al Gore to debate himself over is lies: http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?agdgw
Only days after the failed Copenhagen Global Warming Summit, yet a new scandal over the scientific accuracy of the UN IPCC 2007 climate report has emerged. Following the major data-manipulation scandals from the UN-tied research center at Britain’s East Anglia University late 2009, the picture emerges of one of the most massive scientific frauds of recent history.
Senior members of the UN climate project, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been forced to admit a major error in the 2007 IPCC UN report that triggered the recent global campaign for urgent measures to reduce “manmade emissions” of CO2. The IPCC’s 2007 report stated, “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world.” Given that this is the world’s highest mountain range and meltdown implies a massive flooding of India, China and the entire Asian region, it was a major scare “selling point” for the IPCC agenda. As well, the statement on the glacier melt in the 2007 IPCC report contains other serious errors such as the statement that “Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035.” There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas. And a table in the report says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840 meters. Then comes a math mistake: It says that’s a rate of 135.2 meters a year, when it really is only 23.5 meters a year. Now scientists around the world are scouring the entire IPCC report for indications of similar lack of scientific rigor.
It emerges that the basis of the stark IPCC glacier meltdown statement of 2007 was not even a scientific study of melting data. Rather it was a reference to a newspaper article cited by a pro-global warming ecological advocacy group, WWF.
The original source of the IPCC statement, it turns out, appeared in a 1999 report in the British magazine, New Scientist that was cited in passing by WWF. The New Scientist author, Fred Pierce, wrote then, “The inclusion of this statement has angered many glaciologists, who regard it as unjustified. Vijay Raina, a leading Indian glaciologist, wrote in a paper published by the Indian Government in November that there is no sign of “abnormal” retreat in Himalayan glaciers. India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, accused the IPCC of being “alarmist.” The IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as “voodoo science” lacking peer review. He adds that “we have a very clear idea of what is happening” in the Himalayas.” [1]
The same Pachauri, co-awardee of the Nobel Prize with Al Gore, has recently been under attack for huge conflicts of interest related to his business interests that profit from the CO2 global warming agenda he promotes.[2]
Pearce notes that the original claim made by Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, in a 1999 email interview with Pearce, namely that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035, never was repeated by Hasnain in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that Hasnain now says the remark was “speculative”.
Despite the lack of scientific validation, the 10-year-old claim ended up in the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas.
Since publication of the latest New Scientist article, the IPCC officially has been forced to issue the following statement: “the IPCC said the paragraph “refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.”
The IPCC adds, “The IPCC regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance.” But the statement calls for no action beyond stating a need for absolute adherence to IPCC quality control processes. “We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance,” the statement said.” [3]
In an indication of the defensiveness prevailing within the UN’s IPCC, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the IPCC, insists that the mistake did nothing to undermine the large body of evidence that showed the climate was warming and that human activity was largely to blame. He told BBC News: “I don’t see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report.”
Some serious scientists disagree. Georg Kaser, an expert in glaciology with University of Innsbruck in Austria and a lead author for the IPCC, gave a damning different assessment of the implications of the latest scandal affecting the credibility of the IPCC. Kaser says he had warned that the 2035 prediction was clearly wrong in 2006, months before the IPCC report was published. “This [date] is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude. All the responsible people are aware of this weakness in the fourth assessment. All are aware of the mistakes made. If it had not been the focus of so much public opinion, we would have said ‘we will do better next time’. It is clear now that working group II has to be restructured.” [4]
The chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, has made no personal comment on the glacier claim. It appears he is as well shaken by the wave of recent scandals. He told a conference in Dubai on energy recently, “They can’t attack the science so they attack the chairman. But they won’t sink me. I am the unsinkable Molly Brown (sic). In fact, I will float much higher,” he told the Guardian. His remarks suggest more the ‘spirit of Woodstock’ in 1969 than of what is supposed to be the world’s leading climate authority.
F. William Engdahl is the author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order
This gentleman was interviewed on the ABC Late Line. He is pro warming but one key question Tony Eastly did not ask was how much Humans are contributing to it. It would be good to hear him and Prof. Plimmer meet head to head and see how their arguments stand up. However he does make alot of sense and he does have some good advice on how the carbon tax could be implimented and given back to the people for innovation and use for alternative technologies. We hope Tony Abbott may sit up and take notice. However we must keep in mind that the forces driving the climate
change agenda are the big boys only interested in big money and world institutions for world control. The old New World Order agenda. We only have to observe the madness that has overtaken Rudd and his Rush to push this thing through while keeping the people in the dark and of course Mr Turnbull is a Banker and should defect to labour as he is so keen on bleeding us all for the corporate sins. James Hansen on Late Line made the point that while we are doing deals to sell more coal there is no way carbon emissions will reduce. That makes a lier of Rudd and all the others screaming out for reductions..
We in the Association know that we could have had clean technology for the last 100 years since Tesla but the J.P. Morgans and co have made sure it has never seen the light of day. How sad.
We endorse clean energy programs through incentives rather than massive tax penalties placed on the people.
Exclusive: World’s leading climate change expert says summit talks so flawed that deal would be a disaster
‘We don’t have a leader who is able to grasp [the issue] and say what is really needed. Instead we are trying to continue business as usual,’ say James Hansen. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA
James Hansen talks to Suzanne Goldenberg Link to this audioIn an interview with the Guardian, James Hansen, the world’s pre-eminent climate scientist, said any agreement likely to emerge from the negotiations would be so deeply flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.
“I would rather it not happen if people accept that as being the right track because it’s a disaster track,” said Hansen, who heads the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
“The whole approach is so fundamentally wrong that it is better to reassess the situation. If it is going to be the Kyoto-type thing then [people] will spend years trying to determine exactly what that means.” He was speaking as progress towards a deal in Copenhagen received a boost today, with India revealing a target to curb its carbon emissions. All four of the major emitters – the US, China, EU and India – have now tabled offers on emissions, although the equally vexed issue of funding for developing nations to deal with global warming remains deadlocked.
Hansen, in repeated appearances before Congress beginning in 1989, has done more than any other scientist to educate politicians about the causes of global warming and to prod them into action to avoid its most catastrophic consequences. But he is vehemently opposed to the carbon market schemes – in which permits to pollute are bought and sold – which are seen by the EU and other governments as the most efficient way to cut emissions and move to a new clean energy economy.
Hansen is also fiercely critical of Barack Obama – and even Al Gore, who won a Nobel peace prize for his efforts to get the world to act on climate change – saying politicians have failed to meet what he regards as the moral challenge of our age.
In Hansen’s view, dealing with climate change allows no room for the compromises that rule the world of elected politics. “This is analagous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill,” he said. “On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can’t say let’s reduce slavery, let’s find a compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%.”
He added: “We don’t have a leader who is able to grasp it and say what is really needed. Instead we are trying to continue business as usual.”
The understated Iowan’s journey from climate scientist to activist accelerated in the last years of the Bush administration. Hansen, a reluctant public speaker, says he was forced into the public realm by the increasingly clear looming spectre of droughts, floods, famines and drowned cities indicated by the science.
That enormous body of scientific evidence has been put under a microscope by climate sceptics after last month’s release online of hacked emails sent by respected researchers at the climate research unit of the University of East Anglia. Hansen admitted the controversy could shake public’s trust, and called for an investigation. “All that stuff they are arguing about the data doesn’t really change the analysis at all, but it does leave a very bad impression,” he said.
The row reached Congress today, with Republicans accusing the researchers of engaging in “scientific fascism” and pressing the Obama administration’s top science adviser, John Holdren, to condemn the email. Holdren, a climate scientist who wrote one of the emails in the UEA trove, said he was prepared to denounce any misuse of data by the scientists – if one is proved.
Hansen has emerged as a leading campaigner against the coal industry, which produces more greenhouse gas emissions than any other fuel source.
He is scathing of that approach. “This is analagous to the indulgences that the Catholic church sold in the middle ages. The bishops collected lots of money and the sinners got redemption. Both parties liked that arrangement despite its absurdity. That is exactly what’s happening,” he said. “We’ve got the developed countries who want to continue more or less business as usual and then these developing countries who want money and that is what they can get through offsets [sold through the carbon markets].”
For all Hansen’s pessimism, he insists there is still hope. “It may be that we have already committed to a future sea level rise of a metre or even more but that doesn’t mean that you give up.
“Because if you give up you could be talking about tens of metres. So I find it screwy that people say you passed a tipping point so it’s too late. In that case what are you thinking: that we are going to abandon the planet? You want to minimise the damage.”
• James Hansen’s book Storms of My Grandchildren is published by Bloomsbury, £18.99
TONY Abbott was asked whether he believed in climate change at his opening media conference as Opposition Leader.
It was an inevitable question, even an appropriate one, given the decidedly small-c catholic opinions he has expressed on the subject. But it was also The Question on behalf of the media gallery, exactly capturing its crushing group non-think.
For him to have shown the slightest hesitation would have condemned him to eternal and endless characterisation, if not damnation; branded as a Hansonite denier from the get-go of his leadership. So he gave the understandable if unfortunate politically correct response. Yes.
Instead of posing to the gallery the counter-question: which climate change? The one that has been happening every day, every week, every month, every decade, every century, every millennium, since 4004 years before the birth of He Who Should Not be Named, or of the planet, whichever came first?
Or the climate change invented in the Climate Research Unit in Britain, the holiest of holy places of the First Church of Climate Apocalypse and Purportedly Pissed-off Gaia. The church that is about to have its great synod at Copenhagen this month.
He might have followed through with a supplementary counter-question: has any one of the massed might of the gallery ever, in two years of relentless droning from the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Climate Change Minister asked them what exactly will their emissions trading scheme do about the climate change they purport to believe in, fear and are “acting” to tackle?
Yes, PM, D-PM and CCM, but what exactly will reducing our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 do to the climate? Even making the heroic assumption they are reduced under your ETS — which is currently in, if you’ll excuse the term, cold storage.
How many degrees will it lop off temperatures? How exactly will it keep the water from lapping at the feet of people in the front stalls at the Opera House?
I’d suggest those sorts of questions have never been put directly to those ministers. They certainly weren’t by Barrie Cassidy on the ABC’s Insiders last week, when he was given a golden opportunity by Julia Gillard droning on and on about the opposition’s refusal “to do anything” about climate change.
Gillard: “We want to act now to deal with climate change.” Missing response from Cassidy: how does this ETS deal with climate change?
Gillard: “We are interested in delivering this huge reform in the nation’s interests so we tackle climate change.” Missing response from Cassidy: how does this tackle climate change?
You could replay this sort of non-exchange 1000, 10,000 times over the past two years.
This is not about belief in, or scepticism over, climate change, but about policy and consequence. On the one hand a policy that does exactly nothing about climate change, as defined and believed in by Rudd, Gillard, Malcolm Turnbull and co, but a policy that would have a very real, dramatic, and indeed devastating, impact on the economy and all Australians.
There are two policy consequence issues. The ETS as a tax and the ETS as a direct intervention in the economy. In both cases the mainstream media, and the gallery in particular, have adopted the nothing-to-see-here, move-on, approach.
Paul Keating’s very effective assault on John Hewson’s GST in 1993 has been called back into play by Abbott. Its effectiveness was hugely leveraged by the media.
The interesting thing is that it had to be rebirthed by Abbott, in the absence of the media having the slightest interest in the subject.
The ETS will save the Barrier Reef if not the planet, nothing more to be said. Well, to be honest, not exactly. There has been lots of focus on “handouts to polluters” — the part of the money raised from the ETS directed to power stations to keep them open, and to export-exposed industries.
The media inanely parrot the government’s big lie about carbon pollution — a lie intended to create subconscious perceptions of dirty bits of grit, a lie the gallery again, in particular, should be calling the government on rather than retailing it.
Yes, PM, D-PM, CCM, but isn’t this all about emissions of carbon dioxide, so are we polluting each other as we talk? I don’t recall John Howard and Peter Costello getting a complete pass from the gallery on the impact of the GST in either the 1998 election or running down to its implementation in 2000.
It’s not only the Canberra media gallery. Never have the business organisations been more supine or more asinine.
They all make their ritualistic murmurs of obeisance at the altar of the climate apocalypse. Australian Industry Group’s Heather Ridout says we need a “national approach to emissions reduction that can form part of international action to address the threat of climate change”.
Even the Minerals Council, representing the great sinners, says: “It remains committed to the development of climate change policy that puts a price on carbon.”
Give us certainty is the inane clarion call of these business groups.
In effect, Ridout and her peers are demanding the certainty of the positioning of the deckchairs on the Titanic.
This coming week, December 7-18, 2009 in Copenhagen , Denmark, the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 15) the successor to the Kyoto Protocol and will be attended by 20,000 delegates from 193 nations, approximately 65 heads of government (including the Philippine President).
Amidst the climategate scandal of e-mails that hackers have revealed in the e-mail communications of “scientists” of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University in Great Britain , the summit will go ahead as scheduled.
In October this year, President Gloria M. Arroyo signed into law Philippine Climate Change Act of 2009 that would enable the country to better respond to disasters spawned by climate change. This law which is also known as R.A. 9729, seeks to influence climate change policy into the formulation of government agenda by setting up a National Framework Strategy and Program on Climate Change along with the creation of the Climate Change Commission that will coordinate, monitor and evaluate the government’s programs and actions to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. Like other countries riding the bandwagon of climate change, it seems that the globalists are succeeding in their effort for world governance in which depopulation is the centerpiece. Why do we say this? The following quotes from the movers of the global warming scare, will give light as to why we are caught riding the bandwagon on the road to the dark age.
The global warming alarm was initiated at the United Nations in the 1980s.The “original” goal was to use it to achieve global governance and fund it through a global carbon tax.
In 1991, Maurice Strong, a key developer of global warming scare and one of the original members of the Club of Rome came out with the report – “The First Global Revolution”, which stated : “It would seem that humans need a common motivation..
.either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.. Read More
AFP does not have an issue of the paper this week, but you can bet that we will be right on this story as soon as our staff is back from the holiday. Meanwhile, here are some great articles on this huge scandal:
The aim of our association is to develop and implement technology that does not pollute
the environment and enables human beings to be as independent as possible from the
corporate domination of our energy and fuel supply. We focus on developing practical,
grass roots solutions to a range of environmental issues. Our membership consists of
people from a variety of fields, including Engineers (Chemical, Civil, Electrical, etc.),
Inventors, Mechanics, Physicists, Scientists and Corporate Managers. As such, we have
a wide range of views, and are able to find synergies across a large range of technologies.
Unlike many “think tanks” we are not controlled by current and former CEOs of oil
companies, coal mines, etc., nor do we have a vested interest in any particular
technology.
Key Points:
1. Energy efficiency in existing transport and stationary energy systems is extremely
poor.
2. Technologies already exist that can dramatically improve the efficiency of
production of electricity in power stations, and fuel efficiency in vehicles, which
in Australia are responsible for two-thirds of our production of greenhouse gases.
3. If implemented these technologies would easily allow Australia (and the World)
to meet Kyoto Greenhouse Gas Emission targets, plus improve the standard of
living of all Australians, with reduced health impacts, less environmental impacts,
improved energy security, etc.
4. Technologies have not been implemented as they conflict with business models of
established corporations and governments.
5. Policy changes will be required in order to encourage changes in business models
of both corporations and governments, and to support large changes in
employment. Now is the perfect time to implement this in the vehicle industry;
there have already been massive layoffs locally in Geelong with Ford, and in the
USA internationally with GM, for example. With the impending introduction of
the CPRS improvements in the stationary energy arena are also ripe.
6. Investment in education, research and development will also be required;
conventional education has often ignored the possibilities of new technologies and
scientific learnings. Many Engineers and Scientists have been incorrectly taught
that some technologies are impossible, and even in the most prestigious
Universities are still being taught theories proven to be incorrect over a century
ago with the advent of quantum mechanics. read more
Recent Comments