Thursday, 17 December 2009

Inconvenient Truth For Al Gore As His North Pole Sums Don't Add Up

source: Times.co.uk

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.



The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.


Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

Mr Gore is not the only titan of the world stage finding Copenhagen to be a tricky deal.

World leaders — with Gordon Brown arriving tonight in the vanguard — are facing the humiliating prospect of having little of substance to sign on Friday, when they are supposed to be clinching an historic deal.

Meanwhile, five hours of negotiating time were lost yesterday when developing countries walked out in protest over the lack of progress on their demand for legally binding emissions targets from rich nations. The move underlined the distrust between rich and poor countries over the proposed legal framework for the deal.

Last night key elements of the proposed deal were unravelling. British officials said they were no longer confident that it would contain specific commitments from individual countries on payments to a global fund to help poor nations to adapt to climate change while the draft text on protecting rainforests has also been weakened.

Even the long-term target of ending net deforestation by 2030 has been placed in square brackets, meaning that the date could be deferred. An international monitoring system to identify illegal logging is now described in the text as optional, where before it was compulsory. Negotiators are also unable to agree on a date for a global peak in greenhouse emissions.

Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”

Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski’s six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.

“Maslowski’s work is very well respected, but he’s a bit out on a limb,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.

Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020.

He added: “I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this,” he said. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office.”

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: “He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.”

Wednesday, 16 December 2009

Hurricane Expert Rips Climate Fears

source: newswithviews.com
By Marc Morano

'There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination'

Climategate Revelations 'are but the tip of a giant iceberg'

The following commentary is from Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane forecasting specialist Dr. William Gray. Gray is the renowned hurricane forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU).

Puncturing the Climate Balloon
by Bill Gray

Had I not devoted my entire career of over half-a-century to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events I would have likely been concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global climate degradation.


There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO_2 ) induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards.

These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.

Rising levels of CO_2 are not near the threat these alarmists have portrayed them to be. There has yet to be a honest and broad scientific debate on the basic science of CO_2 's influence on global temperature. The global climate models predicting large amounts of global warming for a doubling of CO_2 are badly flawed. They should never have been used to establish government climate policy.

The last century's global warming of about 1 degree F is not a consequence of human activities. This warming is primarily the result of a multi-century changes in the globe's deep ocean circulation. These ocean current changes have lead to a small and gradual increase in the globe's temperature. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age and into a generally warmer climate state. This is akin to the warmer global climate of the Medieval Period. We can do nothing but adapt to such long period natural temperature changes.

The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years. This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the US and of foreign governments were ever made public.

The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO_2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general public. Such CO_2 output decreases would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate.

The Cap-and-Trade bill presently before Congress, the likely climate agreements coming out of the Copenhagen Conference, and the EPA's just announced decision to treat CO_2 as a pollutant represents a grave threat to the industrial world's continued economic development. We should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth. Any United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an infringement on our country's sovereignty.

Tuesday, 15 December 2009

Climategate: The Ailing 'Mainstream' Media Are Committing Suicide by Ignoring The Scoop of The Century

source telegraph.co.uk
by Gerald Warner

Climategate is a global household name. No cat has ever emancipated itself more completely from the bag. It is a world-wide scandal – thanks to the internet. Yet, as its ramifications proliferate and dominoes continue to fall, the most repeatedly asked question online is: how can the mainstream media (MSM) ignore this? Well, we know the answer to that: the MSM are in thrall to the leftist consensus. End of story. But let me pose a follow-up question that may be becoming more imminently relevant.

Are the mainstream media capable of surviving their side lining of the number one global scoop? Are they finally committing suicide? Are they, in fact, any longer mainstream? Every historian knows that any significant trend in society will show warning symptoms over a long period; but the final catastrophe will usually be triggered by a single event. For the moribund MSM that decisive blunder may well be Climategate.

Another feature of any doomed institution is that it signals its imminent demise by behaving in a manner that is contrary to its nature and purpose. Every city in the developed world contains news rooms in which cringing journalists struggle to satisfy the imperative demands of editors for a scoop. Yet the obvious scoop – the BIG ONE of journalistic mythology – is consigned to the waste basket. This is the journalism of Isvestia and Pravda, with all the commercial viability that attached to that school of news reporting.

The dead-tree press is already on the critical list. In the United States, in the six months to 31 March this year, newspaper circulation slumped by 7 per cent, according to the US Audit Bureau of Circulations. This was a steeper decline than in the two previous recorded periods (you can reasonably attribute that to the vomit-inducing idolatry of Barack Obama that permeated the American press at that time). In the UK the comparable figure was 5 per cent. How many businesses do you know that record such declines, in an unreversed trend, and survive?

The BBC – or, to give the Corporation its proper name, British state television – is on a multi-billion pound life support system, thanks to the licence fee extortion racket by which it acts as gatekeeper to 200 other television channels by charging £142.50 a year to viewers, the majority of whom do not want to watch its programmes. The BBC’s own report to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in 2005 revealed that, if the licence fee were abolished, 58 per cent of viewers (14 million households) would opt out of all BBC television, leaving the Corporation with a paltry £1.2bn in revenue.

That is the despised organisation that relentlessly inflicts climate alarmist propaganda, fairy tales, “bedtime stories” on the British public, in the style of Radio Moscow, circa 1954 (“Implement the resolutions of the 23rd Congress…” “We have 27 minutes to save the polar bears from melting…”). No intelligent or inquiring individual believes, respects or trusts the BBC. Ditto the print media that is similarly spewing out Al Gore’s trashy superstition.

So, instead of proving its worth, serving truth and debate, arresting the attention of the public by exposing our rulers’ lies, the MSM are rolling over to become a mouthpiece of the consensus, repelling readers and viewers as they go online, just as citizens in Iron Curtain countries once tuned in covertly to Western media. The internet is the new samizdat. All of this may still be a relatively gradual process while all citizens are being deprived of is information and debate. But when the bill is presented to sustain the phoney religion consecrated at Copenhagen, when taxes rocket, when we can barely see by the light of mercury bulbs, when every amenity of life is threatened – will people still be willing to pay money for newspapers and television channels that tell them to submit to this tyranny, when they could be exploding the myth and freeing society?

It seems less than likely. The Mainstream Media are hanging themselves – it is doubtful that they can any longer be described as mainstream. These are turkeys voting for Christmas.

Monday, 14 December 2009

Lord Monckton Adresses A Greenpeace-Campaigner On Global Warming

Friday, 11 December 2009

Global Warming: Was it Ever Really a Crisis?

source: globalwarmingheartland.org

Professionally produced for The Heartland Institute, this 20-minute video features leading climate scientists who spoke at the Second International Conference on Climate Change in New York City in March 2009.

Thursday, 10 December 2009

Solar Geomagnetic Activity Is At An All Time Low – What Does This Mean For Climate?


source: wattsupwiththat.com

Yesterday, NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center released their latest data and graph of the interplanetary geomagnetic index (Ap) which is a proxy for the activity of the solar dynamo. Here is the data provided by SWPC.




At a time when many predicted a ramp up in solar activity, the sun remains in a funk, spotless and quiet. The Ap value, for the second straight month, is “3″. The blue line showing the smoothed value, suggests the trend continues downward. To get an idea of how significant this is in our history, take a look at this data (graph produced by me) from Dr. Leif Svalgaard back to the 1930’s.

The step change in October 2005 is still visible and the value of 3.9 that occurred in April of this year is the lowest for the entire dataset at that time. I’m hoping Dr. Svalgaard will have updated data for us soon.



Why is this important? Well, if Svensmark is right, and Galactic Cosmic Rays modulated by the sun’s magnetic field make a change in cloud cover on Earth, increasing it during low solar magnetic activity, we are in for some colder times.

There’s a presentation by Jasper Kirkby, CLOUD Spokesperson, CERN, which shows what we currently know about the correlations between Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR’s) and variations in the climate.

The CLOUD experiment uses a cloud chamber to study the theorized link between GCR’s and cloud formation in Earth’s atmosphere. Kirkby talks about the results from the first CLOUD experiment and the new CLOUD experiment and what it will deliver on the intrinsic connection between GCR’s and cloud formation. This is from the Cern, one of Europe’s most highly respected centers for scientific research.

Kirkby’s one hour video presentation is hosted here. It is well worth your time to view it.

Wednesday, 9 December 2009

The Scam of Our Lifetime

sources: Calgary Herald/wattsupwiththat.com

Global Warming Caused by Human-made CO2?
By Bill Bell


The idea that humans are causing global warming is little more than nonsense. The goal of the perpetrators is a transfer of wealth with the apparent forfeiture of power to a proposed environmental world government formed by the United Nations. A possible vote on this sociopolitical concept could be held in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December.

This would be the abandonment of everything hard working, decent individuals have accomplished over hundreds of years, and satisfies only the cravings of a power hungry, unscrupulous intelligentsia that somehow believe they should rule the world.

Click here to read the rest of the article

Copenhagen Climate Summit in Disarray After 'Danish Text' Leak

source: guardian.co.uk


Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol



The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed."

Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."

The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.

Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2C and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15.

Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Copenhagen Climate Summit: 1,200 Limos, 140 Private Planes and Caviar Wedges

sources: telegraph.co.uk/wattsupwiththat.com



On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.

At the takeaway pizza end of the spectrum, Copenhagen's clean pavements are starting to fill with slightly less well-scrubbed protesters from all over Europe. In the city's famous anarchist commune of Christiania this morning, among the hash dealers and heavily-graffitied walls, they started their two-week "Climate Bottom Meeting," complete with a "storytelling yurt" and a "funeral of the day" for various corrupt, "heatist" concepts such as "economic growth".

The Danish government is cunningly spending a million kroner (£120,000) to give the protesters KlimaForum, a "parallel conference" in the magnificent DGI-byen sports centre. The hope, officials admit, is that they will work off their youthful energies on the climbing wall, state-of-the-art swimming pools and bowling alley, Just in case, however, Denmark has taken delivery of its first-ever water-cannon – one of the newspapers is running a competition to suggest names for it – plus sweeping new police powers. The authorities have been proudly showing us their new temporary prison, 360 cages in a disused brewery, housing 4,000 detainees.

And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.

At least the sex will be C02-neutral. According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.

The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.

Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.

Even if they had agreed anything binding, past experience suggests that the participants would not, in fact, feel bound by it. Most countries – Britain excepted – are on course to break the modest pledges they made at the last major climate summit, in Kyoto.

And as the delegates meet, they do so under a shadow. For the first time, not just the methods but the entire purpose of the climate change agenda is being questioned. Leaked emails showing key scientists conspiring to fix data that undermined their case have boosted the sceptic lobby. Australia has voted down climate change laws. Last week's unusually strident attack by the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, on climate change "saboteurs" reflected real fear in government that momentum is slipping away from the cause.

In Copenhagen there was a humbler note among some delegates. "If we fail, one reason could be our overconfidence," said Simron Jit Singh, of the Institute of Social Ecology. "Because we are here, talking in a group of people who probably agree with each other, we can be blinded to the challenges of the other side. We feel that we are the good guys, the selfless saviours, and they are the bad guys."

As Mr Singh suggests, the interesting question is perhaps not whether the climate changers have got the science right – they probably have – but whether they have got the pitch right. Some campaigners' apocalyptic predictions and religious righteousness – funeral ceremonies for economic growth and the like – can be alienating, and may help explain why the wider public does not seem to share the urgency felt by those in Copenhagen this week.

In a rather perceptive recent comment, Mr Miliband said it was vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. "If Martin Luther King had come along and said 'I have a nightmare,' people would not have followed him," he said.

Over the next two weeks, that positive vision may come not from the overheated rhetoric in the conference centre, but from Copenhagen itself. Limos apart, it is a city filled entirely with bicycles, stuffed with retrofitted, energy-efficient old buildings, and seems to embody the civilised pleasures of low-carbon living without any of the puritanism so beloved of British greens.

And inside the hall, not everything is looking bad. Even the sudden rush for limos may be a good sign. It means that more top people are coming, which means they scent something could be going right here.

The US, which rejected Kyoto, is on board now, albeit too tentatively for most delegates. President Obama's decision to stay later in Copenhagen may signal some sort of agreement between America and China: a necessity for any real global action, and something that could be presented as a "victory" for the talks.

The hot air this week will be massive, the whole proceedings eminently mockable, but it would be far too early to write off this conference as a failure.












Monday, 7 December 2009

EPA about to declare CO2 dangerous – ssshhh! – Don’t tell the trees

source: wattsupwiththat.com

I can’t find the words to describe the illogic behind the EPA with this ruling. Perhaps it is best to say that bureaucrats don’t understand anything but regulations and leave it at that.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy, according to several people close to the matter. Story here.

To celebrate, surfacestations.org volunteer Gary Boden sends along this poster:



But there’s an interesting twist, just two days ago, the University of Wisconsin says that CO2 is accelerating forest growth. Of course, bureaucrats wouldn’t understand this, because they can’t regulate tree growth. Oh, wait.

From the University of Wisconsin-Madison press release:

Greenhouse gas carbon dioxide ramps up aspen growth

Dec. 4, 2009

by Terry Devitt

The rising level of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be fueling more than climate change. It could also be making some trees grow like crazy.

That is the finding of a new study of natural stands of quaking aspen, one of North America’s most important and widespread deciduous trees. The study, by scientists from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Minnesota at Morris (UMM) and published today (Dec. 4) in the journal Global Change Biology, shows that elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the past 50 years have boosted aspen growth rates by an astonishing 50 percent.

“Trees are already responding to a relatively nominal increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 50 years,” says Rick Lindroth, a UW-Madison professor of ecology and an expert on plant responses to climate change. Lindroth, UW-Madison colleague Don Waller, and professors Christopher Cole and Jon Anderson of UMM conducted the new study.

The study’s findings are important as the world’s forests, which cover about 30 percent of the Earth’s land surface, play an important role in regulating climate and sequestering greenhouses gases. The forests of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular, act as sinks for carbon dioxide, helping to offset the increase in levels of the greenhouse gas, widely viewed as a threat to global climate stability.

What’s more, according to the study’s authors, the accelerated growth rates of aspen could have widespread unknown ecological consequences. Aspen is a dominant tree in mountainous and northern forested regions of North America, including 42 million acres of Canadian forest and up to 6.5 million acres in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Aspen and their poplar cousins are considered “foundation species,” meaning they exert a strong influence on the plant and animal communities and dynamics of the forest ecosystems where they reside.

“We can’t forecast ecological change. It’s a complicated business,” explains Waller, a UW-Madison professor of botany. “For all we know, this could have very serious effects on slower growing plants and their ability to persist.”

Carbon dioxide, scientists know, is food for plants, which extract it from the air and through the process of photosynthesis convert it to sugar, plant food.

Previously, scientists have shown that plants and trees in growth chambers respond to levels of carbon dioxide well above levels in the atmosphere. The new study is the first to show that aspen in their native forest environments are already growing at accelerated rates due to rising ambient levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

“It’s a change hiding right in front of us,” says Cole, a biologist at UMM. “Aspens respond to all sorts of things we had to account for — water, genetics and other factors — but the strong response to carbon dioxide surprised all of us.”

The study measured the growth rates of 919 trees from Wisconsin forests dominated by aspen and birch. Trees ranging in age from 5 to 76 years old were sampled and subjected to tree-ring analysis. Comparing the tree-ring data, a measure of annual tree growth, with records of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the researchers were able to correlate increased rates of growth with changes in the chemistry of the air.

The surprising increase in growth rates for the trees sampled in the study is coupled, the authors note, with moist conditions. By contrast, aspen in the western United States do not seem to grow as fast as those in the American Midwest, most likely due to recent extended periods of drought. Also, while the researchers found that aspen grow much faster in response to elevated carbon dioxide, similar effects have not been observed in other trees species, notably oak and pine.

Findings from the new study, the authors note, could augur revisions of the estimates of how much carbon northern temperate northern forests can sequester.

“Forests will continue to be important to soak up anthropogenic carbon dioxide,” says Waller. “But we can’t conclude that aspen forests are going to soak up excess carbon dioxide. This is going to plateau.”

“Aspens are already doing their best to mitigate our inputs,” agrees Cole. “The existing trees are going to max out in a couple of decades.”

The new study was funded by the National Science Foundation and UMM.

Friday, 4 December 2009

The Great Climate Fraud Worse Than First Thought

source: examiner.com 

Phil Jones the director of CRU and ringleader of the scam dubbed “climate gate” has stepped down according a spokes person for East Anglia University. Scientists from the University also admitted to dumping raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming is based. They were forced to reveal that little tid bit when papers were filed under the freedom of information act.

If you haven’t been following this story where have you been? Whistle-blowers displayed emails between the top scientists for all to see a few weeks ago. Five weeks prior to releasing the emails the same individuals sent the emails to BBC news but BBC did not cover the story. The emails clearly showed the top climate scientists made up global warming but why? Why would someone try to pull off such a large hoax like this?

Global warming themes are everywhere. You see the ads on television, your company is probably going green (though they are really not), and the President will be attending a conference for it in Copenhagen to sign a binding treaty with 192 other nations. Why? White house spokes person Gibbs said this to the press.

It’s being reported that 31,000 scientists are suing Al Gore over global warming including the founder of the weather channel John Coleman who founded the network cable channel in 1982. Al Gore has already profited greatly from the hoax and is said to have received millions in stimulus money. It has also been reported that Gore owns a company that will trade carbon credits.

If you don’t know what a carbon credit is you had better learn. If the new energy bill which already passed the house is passed in the Senate or if the Copenhagen treaty is signed you will be taxed almost for the very air you breathe. We can already see signs in Washington State where companies are charged by what employees drive to work. Depending on the size of your house, the car you drive, and the appliances you use you will be taxed to death all for something that now most likely doesn’t even exist.

There is more to the story however with every foot deeper into the rabbit hole we go. Remember the famous address given by Eisenhower? The UN not only is wrapped up in climate gate but now new evidence suggests they may also be interested in Global Governance which “conspiracy theorists” have been warning for decades. One organization said to be involved is the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). This club for politicians once said to be secret is not so secret after all. In each election there are many of its members and acquaintances running for office. Dick Cheney was one for sure but even more candidates were said to be members. It has been reported that almost all Presidential candidates in 2008 belonged to the group. Someone even asked former candidate Ron Paul if he was a member.

Many people are worried about the sovereignty of the United States now more than ever in light of all this evidence of a global government. Many people do not realize that the United States is the only truly free nation having its rights derived from the people and not the government. Will an investigation be launched or has it been planned? Who is involved? Will the American people give up their rights for a hoax? They have already surrendered many rights for security which went against the wishes of the founders. The Bush administration never repealed any legislation set fourth by the Clinton administration and the Obama administration has not repealed any legislation from the Bush administration so does voting for a party really matter?

The truth is complicated, too complicated for one article. A reporter can only report, it’s up to the reader to go and put the pieces together. Do we have the time and inclination to put a stop to the madness of the would be globalists or will the brave American people simply fall down on one knee and worship the power hungry of the world?

Gore cancels climate lecture in Copenhagen

COPENHAGEN — Climate campaigner Al Gore has cancelled a lecture he was supposed to deliver in Copenhagen.



The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had been scheduled to speak to more than 3,000 people at a Dec. 16 event hosted by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper group.

The group says Gore cancelled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.


Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says the decision was made because of "all the events going on with the summit." Dec. 16 is a key date for the meeting because that's when the ministerial segment starts.

Chief editor Lisbeth Knudsen says it's a "great disappointment" that Gore cancelled and that all tickets will be refunded.

Thursday, 3 December 2009

Climategate fallout: top climatologist steps down

Wednesday, 2 December 2009

'ClimateGate' deception continues to unfold

source: onenewsnow.com

As "ClimateGate" continues to unfold, prominent scientists are finding the boldness to speak out.

ClimateGate refers to the e-mails and computer codes that were leaked from climate research centers in the United Kingdom. The e-mails and codes detail how temperature data and climate models were manipulated to show alleged "manmade global warming."

Former science advisor to Lady Margaret Thatcher, Lord Christopher Monckton, says he was attacked in some of the e-mails. He notes that another eminent professor of physics in the U.S., David Douglas, was also attacked. According to Monckton, he was contacted by Douglas and informed that conspirators had delayed publication of one of his papers that proved climate science was being over-hyped.

Monckton explains: "The conspirators managed to get the publication of the hard copy of that paper delayed by one year so that they could have time to cobble together a basically fraudulent paper authored by the man who had rewritten the scientists' version of the 1995 U.N. report so that where the scientists had said, 'We can't see any human effect on the temperature,' this man Ben Santer turned it around and wrote the opposite and said, 'Well, in fact, there is a human effect from this' -- even though the scientists hadn't said that."

The former science advisor labels this clear evidence that there is interference at high levels in the editorship of the "learned journals" in which scientific research is published. Criminal charges are being pursued in this matter. Monckton adds that he is also in communication with members of both houses of Congress concerning the fraudulent activities uncovered in ClimateGate. 

Google gags the skeptic 
On a related note, Monckton also is accusing Google of playing dirty tricks with Internet searches. A popular Internet video featuring the noted climate skeptic was allegedly "buried" beneath junk searches on the popular Internet search engine Google.

Monckton says Google knowingly hid the video that featured him discussing the dangers of signing a climate treaty in Copenhagen later this month.

"They made no sense at all," says Monckton. "[The junk search results] were just put there -- and put there by somebody who must have paid Google something like a million dollars to allow these pages of rubbish to appear above the page on which my video could be found."

He says it was not until Google was confronted about the biased techno-treatment that things changed.

"That persisted for a week until we told Google if you don't take that down and rearrange it we will go public and expose what you have done and you will eventually face statutory controls so that you cannot manipulate information in this way so as to prevent people from genuinely finding the information they want on your search engine."

Monckton notes that Google backed down rather quickly. He adds that Al Gore serves as an advisor on Google's board.

Tuesday, 1 December 2009

CRU: What Data? Just Trust Us

source: timesonline

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.




It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.


The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Monday, 30 November 2009

Australian Senator Steve Fielding Opposes Cap-and-Trade

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Speech – 25/11/2009

Here we are today debating the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation, which is one of the biggest pieces of legislation ever to come before the parliament, and the Rudd government wants to ram it through the Senate. The CPRS is a multibillion dollar tax that will affect every single Australian. Just a few hours ago the Rudd government put forward changes to its flawed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and now it wants the Senate to agree to them without proper scrutiny and debate. This is irresponsible and reckless behaviour and, to me, it is an attack on what a democracy is all about. The Senate should not be voting on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until at least after Copenhagen and until after we know what the rest of the world is going to commit to.

It is economically reckless to commit Australia to a carbon pollution reduction scheme before the rest of the world commits to similar schemes themselves or one with at least the same targets. Why is the scheme economically reckless?


Here are some important facts the Rudd government does not want Australian families to hear:
1. The cost of doing business in Australia will go up under the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme;
2. The competitive position of Australia will plummet, as other countries have less stringent targets or no scheme at all;
3. One of Australia’s biggest competitive advantages, low-cost electricity, will be lost; and
4. Australian families will pay more for their groceries and see their power bills soar.



And what does Australia gain for increasing the cost of doing business in Australia and wrecking Australia’s competitive position? In fact: nothing. And what does the environment gain from increasing the cost of doing business in Australia and wrecking Australia’s competitive position? Again, nothing. The rest of the world emits more than 98 per cent of the total global carbon dioxide emissions. So, if you believe the Rudd government, and that carbon dioxide is the problem, then clearly there will be no environmental benefit unless the rest of the world also agrees to at least the same targets as Australia. This is one fact that everyone can agree on. Clearly, it is economically reckless to commit to an ETS prior to a global agreement at Copenhagen. For any political party to agree to commit Australia to a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme before any global agreement is economically reckless. My real concern is that families and small business will end up footing the bill for this multibillion dollar carbon tax, with no benefit to Australia or to the environment.

I say to the Prime Minister: first you told us the CPRS you put forward was perfect, then you released another version, with amendments, and told us it was perfect too. Which is it, Mr Rudd? Which one is the best? Or are they both bad, and have been decorated to suit your political agenda? But, even worse, the coalition lost any economic credibility they ever had. No wonder Mr Costello got out when he did. Mr Costello knew the coalition were a rabble, and this is proof. Today the coalition sold out Australian families and sold out businesses. But I think the Nationals are even worse than that. The Nationals sold out the bush when they sold Telstra. The Nationals sold out the bush when they agreed to allow the coalition to negotiate with the Rudd government on a CPRS before Copenhagen. They allowed that to happen. All regional and rural areas know the Nationals cannot really be trusted in looking after the bush after these two issues. From bakers, to butchers, to farmers they will be worse off under this CPRS. And the Nationals will allow the coalition to negotiate with the Rudd government. Why did the Nationals stand by and go silent on the fact that the coalition were in negotiations to agree to an ETS prior to Copenhagen? If the Nationals had any backbone they would resign from the coalition today. The CPRS is the biggest betrayal of the bush, the biggest betrayal of rural and regional Australia and the biggest betrayal of small business. The coalition today have lost any economic credibility, but the Nationals have lost the respect that they held within rural and regional communities. How can any National MP remain in the coalition given that the coalition has committed to a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme? You stand with the bush; at the same time you stay in partnership with a party that has sold out the bush and small business. The Nationals are frauds if they stay in the coalition. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is the biggest betrayal of the bush and rural and regional communities.

Turning to my home state of Victoria, the CPRS will be devastating to the state of Victoria. Under a CPRS thousands of jobs in Victoria will be lost. Under a CPRS the electricity prices will escalate for families and small businesses. Under a CPRS the coal mining region of the Latrobe Valley will be devastated. Under a CPRS dairy and cattle farmers will be facing skyrocketing electricity prices to produce their milk and beef, adding to the overheads that are currently eating into their profits. Will the Rudd government’s new amendments stop Victoria being threatened by the CPRS? I doubt it. But we sure as all hell need more than a few short hours or a few days to determine the real impact on Victoria and Australia. Giving the Senate just a few short hours to have a look at these amendments is irresponsible and is not in the national interest. The Australian public expect a lot more from their elected representatives, rather than just a brief look at the biggest tax this country has ever seen. This is making policy on the run and it will be Australian families and small businesses that will end up paying the price. This is turning the Senate into a rubber stamp, with families and small businesses footing the bill for the CPRS.

All that I am asking for is nothing more than basic due diligence. Whether we like it or not, due diligence takes time. Most people who are going to buy a house will first do some simple checks to make sure that everything is okay. That is due diligence. So how much more due diligence should be undertaken with the CPRS, which is a multibillion dollar tax? Surely Australia should spend a couple more months performing proper due diligence on the amended CPRS, not just a few hours. What is the rush? Two months delay is not going to cause any environmental problems. The Rudd government delayed this whole thing in the first place.

Australians should think very hard about what the Rudd government is saying and doing—except they are not being given the chance. Let us say you have a salesman telling you that you have negotiated a good deal, but you have some serious concerns. What is the next step of the salesman? Does the salesman do the right thing and give you all the time you need to make the right decision or not? We all know a shady salesman would give you no time and put unrealistic deadlines on the deal. Well, guess what? The Rudd government is acting like a shady salesman, putting unrealistic demand times on the CPRS deal. There is no real policy imperative to sign the CPRS deal prior to Copenhagen, other than for Mr Rudd to look good. It is politics that is driving the Rudd government to act like a shady salesman—not the national interest, as the Prime Minister tries to spin. Rather than ramming the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills through the Senate this week, why don’t we allow other experts, and the general public, to have a look at the CPRS deal and come back in February and conclude the CPRS debate?

Now I want to turn to the science. Earlier this year, like most Australians at the time, I simply accepted without question that increasing carbon dioxide emissions was the major driver of climate change. I believed the media when they told me repeatedly that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were to blame for the changing temperatures on this planet. In fact, I listened to radical environmentalist groups when they protested about the damage we were causing to this earth and to our future generations. I remember the enthusiasm surrounding former US Vice-President Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth. All of a sudden climate change hit centre stage, and carbon dioxide was the main actor. Carbon dioxide was the new villain which needed to be caught and punished.

Throughout the whole debate one thing was missing, and that was genuine debate on whether the science behind climate change being a result of human activity was even correct. I am not saying that no-one ever questioned whether climate change was caused by something other than carbon dioxide emissions, but many experts have called for a proper debate on the issue because of serious questions in the science that climate change alarmists have relied on. Until now, the scientists who believe that carbon dioxide emissions are not the major driver of climate change have been labelled ‘sceptics’ and dismissed out of hand without real debate. To question the science has meant public ridicule. It has carried a stigma and had you labelled as a sceptic. That is not the way to conduct a debate. Scientists who question the science behind climate change have been maligned in the media as fear-mongers and as being backwards. Their views have been treated with contempt. Anyone who dares to so much as even question human induced climate change is shouted down and discredited. Free and fair debate, the very thing which we as a democracy thrive on, has been stifled on the climate change issue.

So when it was raised with me that carbon dioxide emissions have skyrocketed since 1995 but global temperatures have remained relatively steady I was left dumbfounded. How could I as a federal senator, or anyone, vote for something that will carry such a high price for all Australians and have such significant consequences without being able to answer a simple question— if carbon dioxide is a problem, why have global temperatures not been going up as predicted by the IPCC in recent years? I went out and spoke to a cross-section of scientists and quickly began to understand that the science on this issue is by no means conclusive. I went on a self-funded trip to Washington to investigate further the science and facts behind climate change, and I listened to both sides of the debate. I heard views which challenged the Rudd government’s set of so-called ‘facts’—views which could not be dismissed as mere conspiracy theories but were derived using proper scientific analysis. I went on a journey to discover the truth about climate change. It is a journey that other Australians have now also gone on, perhaps not in a physical sense but certainly in an intellectual sense.

During my trip to the US I met not only with scientists who were questioning the science but also with climate change experts on the other side of the spectrum. This included members of President Obama’s administration who are driving the US’s climate change policies. As an engineer, I have been trained to listen to both sides of the debate on the science in order to make an informed decision, in this case about climate change. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that in order to form a conclusive view about any topic you need to properly explore all available possibilities. All of this is nothing more than due diligence.

When I came back to Australia I had a meeting with the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong; the Chief Scientist; and Professor Will Steffen. I put to them three questions about climate change that I believed needed to be answered in order to establish that climate change is a direct result of human-made carbon dioxide emissions. They are three questions that every senator needs to be able to answer. They were not designed to trick anyone; they were simple questions which went to the heart of the climate change debate. My three questions, along with the minister’s response, are on my website at www.stevefielding.com.au, for all of you to evaluate for yourselves.

One of the questions is key to the whole debate on the science. It was based around a global temperature chart that was incorporated into Hansard back in August this year. This is the chart that was incorporated into Hansard, quite clearly showing—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Trood)—Senator Fielding, I think you know the rules about the use of props.

Senator FIELDING—It is in Hansard. That is a chart that the Australian public want to see. It is a chart that clearly the Rudd government does not want people to see. It shows that carbon dioxide emissions have skyrocketed, yet global temperatures have not increased the way the IPCC predicted. To help people with the chart, imagine the black line is CPI and the red line is your salary. You are going backwards. Quite clearly you would be very unhappy if that was your salary. The government wants to make you believe that the science is conclusive. I think we still need to have this chart further debated. It is based on 15 years of records. The global temperature chart may be an inconvenient fact to those that refuse to have an open mind on climate change, but to many Australians this global temperature chart is helpful and it allows them to engage in a technical debate. For those people watching who find charts hard to understand, as I said, think of the red line as if it was your salary and the black line as if it was CPI.

Even if you put aside the science, the Rudd government does not seem to acknowledge that its CPRS is a multibillion-dollar carbon tax. It is economically reckless to agree to any CPRS before the Copenhagen climate change conference, where the rest of the world will make up its mind on how to deal with climate change. There are some estimates that the government’s carbon reduction tax would be the equivalent of raising the GST by 2½ per cent. But wait—it gets worse. Not only will we be paying more tax; there will be more people without jobs. Frontier Economics predicts 68,000 Australians will not be employed in rural and regional Australia if the government’s plan goes through.

Who knows what the proposed amendments will do? According to the government’s own numbers this new tax amounts to more than $12 billion per year for industry. This is a cost which will be passed on to ordinary Australians. It was reported in the Business Spectator recently that the current legislation would have an $8 billion adverse impact on four Latrobe Valley power generators which is offset by $2 billion in current credits— a net enterprise value reduction of $6 billion. State governments too will face a massive hole in their budgets as a result of the scheme and will be $5.5 billion worse off by 2020. That means less money for schools, less money for hospitals and less money for the social services which so many Australians rely on.

Australian families will also be hard hit under the Rudd government’s proposal. Electricity prices are still forecast—as I heard this morning in Victoria—to double in Victoria. What will that do to households and small businesses in Victoria? Council rates will also be affected and will go up under the current plan. The Rudd government’s ETS has the potential to cripple our economy and send families with their backs already against the wall tipping over the edge. It is the sheer arrogance of the Rudd government that is driving this debate at the moment; it is not sensible public policy.

The Rudd government is playing politics with the lives of millions of Australians by voting again on this issue now and trying maybe to force an early election. Someone needs to tell the Prime Minister that there are no prizes for going first on implementing an emissions trading scheme—only losers! We are not playing a game here. We are talking about a multibillion-dollar tax that will impact on real people’s lives and jobs. There is a lot more at stake than the government seems to realise.

Is the government aware that only a couple of weeks ago the US senate ruled out passing its own emissions trading scheme legislation before Copenhagen and ordered a five-week pause to review the costs of the legislation to the American economy? It is not one day, not two days and not a week; they are asking for a five week pause. This is why we should come back in February. The world’s biggest economy has voted to put its carbon tax legislation on ice and yet, incredibly, we are still being fed the line that we need to deal with this issue urgently. This whole CPRS bill is a disgrace and the Senate needs to do the only honourable thing and at least delay the vote till next year. Anything else would put Australian families, small businesses, rural and regional communities and our economy at risk, and that is reckless.

The coalition have got to think very carefully about how this will pan out over the next few hours and days and they have to think very carefully about seeing this thing rammed through the Senate. I think that having even a one-week Senate inquiry is still not long enough. The US senate quite clearly believes more time is needed. A multibillion-dollar tax needs time.

Let’s not treat the Australian public like mugs. Let’s not treat the Australian Senate like a mug. Let’s give this thing proper and due diligence. Time is important but we have got to get this right, not wrong.