Copenhagen climate summit: 'most important paper in the world' is a glorified UN press release

None of this counts. It is all hyped on both sides. The money will never be paid because the Wesy is broke. The East has the money and the manufacturing potential and the manufacturing fact.

Since this has always been a non-issue the result is predictable. Something will be cobbled together to support the idea that the world is heating up due to man’s emissions of CO2. This is the consensus agreed on long ago and it won’t change because it suits all governments to believe this. If you believe in Global Warming you have a wonderful carbon market to play with, a means of raising tax and a bogey threat to keep the public distracted. If you don’t have this bogey threat, and the other useful one of Islamisation of the West, then people will keep on questioning the need for the massive militaries of the West and how the energy supply is going to be coped with as oil stocks become too expensive to extract.

The answers to these questions are obvious and require the reduction of the military complexes and investment in real alternatives to oil. Decisions like this require courage and going up against an alliance of Big Oil and the Military Industrial Complex; the two most powerful lobbies in the Western world. Nobody has the bottle for that kind of a fight so we get Climategate instead and the gullible providing an opposition to the Global Warmers, not to ask the real questions and demand a resolution but to be proved right and that there is no need to worry. There is an enormous need to worry, nuclear armed states are getting closer to confrontation over economically extractable oil and that is worrying.

The hype on both sides is over the top. The lack of any interest in finding real solutions that kill the argument and direct the West’s dwindling industrial abilities into something viable shows the banality and the futility of the media, which prefers a ‘reality show’ format to its reporting rather than one which is investigative and informative and holds power to account.
John Duckham
http://johnduckham.tk

Duckham – get lost. Your posts are laughable and I would bet that most people scroll past them like I now do.

Hitting the nail on the head Gerald. Good for you. Many of us have been too busy with our normal lives to comment on the bizarre events in Copenhagen this week. But just look at it: Thousands of demonstrators gathered in the freezing cold to protest that it’s too hot. How bizarre is that? The UN and the EU, originally conceived to represent a spirit of fairness, openly demonstrating that in reality they are the most one-sided and corrupt of the lot; Politicians from all sides competing to see who can have the most devastating effect on the world by pledging to give their people’s money away and voluntarily run down their own economies; and the world’s media whipping up the greatest propaganda froth we have ever known based on a scrap of unproven scientific theory which has been seen to be backed up by systematically, deliberately, massaged data. In other words a complete crock. What a totally bizarre story. Hans Christien Andersen would have loved it.

‘In the warmist camp the Main Man is a railway engineer with huge investments in the carbon industry.’

That sums up the whole farce, Mr Warner It’s like putting your house on a 3-legged horse to win the Grand National. This mega junket has had nothing to do with the environment.

Gore and co must like smoking out of both ends of a cigar.

Wait for thst last minute, eleventh hour, millenium making moment, when a deal is reached. Too early yet to come to a conclusion. Warner and Skeptiks left with egg on their faces.

Well folks, there is no more argument.

There is proof that we are not responsible for Global Warming.

Climate change, incredibly is controlled by nature. And as is to be expected by the money, the truth is suppressed.

Now you can see for yourselves. Henrik Svensmark must feel as Darwin did. This is by far the most powerful piece of research into climate change and how it works. Once you view this, if you have an ounce of common sense , you will see how pathetic the current lies are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA&NR=1

We must hope that these self-important dunderheads don’t deliver on any of the promises they are bound to make in this hot air festival. It’s no surprise some hysterical “secret” document has been leaked at this time and it’s appearance merely underlines the cynicism that fuels this ridiculous charade. We must be grateful to the likes of Lord Monckton, who took the fight directly to them and James Delingpole, Gerald Warner and others at the Telegraph who have kept us informed of the realities.

turinst – ‘Gore and co must like smoking out of both ends of a cigar’.
Gore’s certainly blowing smoke out of somewhere…..

Plus of course western economies and political systems have been being publicly trashed by advocates who were then applauded by delegates!! – (read socialist scum), by such intellectuals and guardians of free speech, Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe, wow, you really couldn’t make it up.
Meanwhile Danish thugs in uniform, known as the police in those parts, beat up sceptics, the EU – land of freedom and democratic discourse, where every one’s opinions count but only if you are ‘on message’.
And yet, the MSM is still on board with this crap, the world has truly been blinded by this BS and still they talk of a binding agreement, sanity has been kicked into the long grass, personifying this is our own nutter, Gordo – his edicts become ever more bizarre.

“The end of the world” – he sermonizes, frothing at the mouth. Famine, pestilence, war and….er drought?… er no death, the imminence of the Apocalypse according to Broon.
“Only twenty minutes( or whatever) to save the world and only I can do it!”
Does he think he’s on the way to the trap door of his political career?
It should be the door of the ‘funny farm’.

It might be worth $1,200 to be photographed with Dr Goreballs if one could choose the pose: say, standing over his body.

“Duckham – get lost. Your posts are laughable and I would bet that most people scroll past them like I now do.”

LoL – I read this, looked back up the thread and found I’d scrolled past Duckham’s post without even noticing. I guess you see something often enough it just becomes part of the scenery!

Meanwhile, Gerald’s exactly right – this is so lame it’s truly pathetic. (Do we dare ask if this “most important document in the world” has been peer-reviewed?) Listen to Chavez and Mugabe, listen to the scary things they are saying about how much the West “owes” the third world for climate-change – and realise that they got standing ovations for saying so. Follow the money. Money for carbon traders; money for low-carbon advocacy industries (as owned by the very UN people pushing low-carbon); money for third world dictators; and excuses to punish the West for being rich and the working and middle classes of the West for being aspirational (i.e. you can’t go to Florida for your holidays but we can go to Copenhagen or Kyoto or Bali whenever we like).

Duckham might be tedious but Swatantra is always good for a laugh…

Come on boys and girls..!! just in case there is something in all this malarkey here are one tip as to what “might” happen, followed by a handy hint as to what you’d need to carry with you at all times…just in case…and finally a spookily accurate prophesy of the Great Hanger at Copenhagen. You laugh, you’ll cry and you will never, ever worry about being doomed ever again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7nMY_zBvVY

@jonathon.

Good one! The sun affects our planets climate!

No Shit Sherlock!

I guess it is just “that bright thing out there” to the warm brigade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA&NR=1

You are completely right, Gerald.

The final ” agreement” really will be worth perusing, if they have the gall to come up with anything that uses our taxes to prop up others.

The sheer implausibility of the MMGW myth is revealed completely by the UEA emails for what it is – a massive con by those who stand to gain a lot ( grants/research/ careers, salary), and further business interests on a scale that is almost unreal ( Main Man having fingers in every single business MMGW / CARBON “pie”imaginable!).

Keep up the exposing of those who are “in it up-to-their-necks”, and the falsehoods perpetrated by so-called “scientists” funded somehow or other via the IPCC.

It’s a bit chilly out today chaps, wouldn’t mind a bit of global warming out my way.

Superb crutch kicking old boy, keep those toe caps polished. Now for something lighter …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPSUMBrJoI&feature=player_embedded#

‘The 12 Days of Global Warming’ from those good ‘ole Minnesota boys; paste and forward people, lets make THIS number 1 this Christmas.

Can we assume that the lack of new blogs is in part due to the gripping London and the resultant panic?

We can stand by and criticise and laugh at these fools, but meanwhile we have our own fools handing over billions in bribes. Its like we are disjointed from our government – we elect them, but then they do what they want.

Sorry …

Can we assume that the lack of new blogs is in part due to the snow gripping London and the resultant panic?

“…seriously professional truncheon work by Danish Plod on the smellies” – nice one Mr.Warner, keep ‘em coming.

For a reasoned approach to this debate, try informationisbeautiful.com’s wonderful (and very balanced, I promise) dissection here http://bit.ly/6hGoXJ

Lays out both sides of the argument so we can finally understand what the other side is so angry about. Maybe then we can stop calling each other “socialist scum” (I’m looking at you, JustinXS) over something that should be a dry scientific debate.

Now my own tuppen’orth. Stated position: I believe that climate change is both real and anthropogenic. I am going to try to make my case civilly, and hopefully people will reply in kind.

I think that the problem most people on the AGW side of this row have with the sceptical side is the “zombie arguments” that keep being raised even after they have been refuted.

Sceptics complain about the Mediaeval Warming Period, even after it has been explained that that was a local phenomenon, not a global one, which didn’t affect the southern hemisphere or anywhere outside the north Atlantic region.

They continue to mention the slow in warming in the middle of this century despite higher CO2 emissions. This has been explained; it was caused by a higher concentration of particulates from dirtier factories etc which blocked sunlight.

If the sceptic side of the debate feels these are just explaining away, rather than explaining, the issue, then they should reply with counter-arguments, rather than repeat the same ones.

There are a few more like this (eg the 800-year carbon gap), and I worry that sceptics are not aware that their arguments have often been dealt with and moved past, instead just reinforcing their own beliefs. I am aware that this sort of confirmation bias goes on on the other side as well, but it is less pronounced.

The CRU emails were sordid little things, but a few emails in a university in Norwich do not a global conspiracy make. The IPCC still draws on a vast body of work from tens of thousands of climate scientists, which overwhelmingly backs the AGW case.

Anyway. Like I say, am trying to make this whole debate a bit more civil. Look forward to your responses.

Best

Tom Chivers

Duckham – you make Igonikon Jack (or should that be ‘jerk’?) look sensible.

I’ve come to the view that the people of Africa are the cause of global warming.

Black surfaces absorb the sun’s heat – that’s a scientific fact.

As there are more and more black people living in Africa, so more heat is absorbed and the globe warms.
The solution is more reflective white peoples, and fewer black.

Most of us here, and I suspect many of those making speeches at Copenhagen, know that this whole idea of MMGW is total scientific guano and that the ’science’ has been fiddled, but that is hardly the point any more. The politicians, the supine MSM, and much of the scientific establishment have nailed their trousers to the mast, to quote Sir Humphrey Appleby, and so they can’t climb down. They will reach some sort of deal at Copenhagen because they have to. Not so to do would destroy what little credibility any of them now have in their own eyes. The shysters, the get rich quick merchants and the kleptocrats can hardly believe their luck and have scrambled aboard the gravy train.

The climate may well warm slightly in the decades ahead with some interruptions, not because of CO2, but because it is just a continuation of the warming/cooling cycles lasting about 1000 to 1400 years per cycle. Unless all of the research now being undertaken can prove beyond any possible doubt that these cycles are solar driven, then we may have to go on listening to these demented persons, watch the wrecking of our economies and the deaths of our elderly in the cold because they will not be able to afford to warm themselves in winter.

Here here Gerald! Any conference that offers a podium to Chavez and Mugabe must be cursed, tainted and up its own backside!

Mr. Warner – spot on, old chap!
Jonathan – you get no marks for common sense, you know!
I entirely agree with you.

Governments like ‘Global Warming’ because it gives them another source of taxes for the (gullible) masses.

Scientists like ‘GW’ because they can present themselves as ‘consultants’ to governments and advise how to stop this awful climate change.

Failed politicians (eg Al Gore) like ‘GW’ because they can persuade earnest institutions worldwide to pay them to lecture on their ‘vast international experience’ of the phenomenon.

It will never go away – after all everyone knows that the earth is flat and is the centre of the universe!

@Tom Chivers. Sorry Tom, civility doesn’t make your arguments very effective. Comment on this if you like.
(AND FOLLOW MY PREVIOUS LINK)

Lord Monckton reports on Pachauri’s eye opening Copenhagen presentation
17.12.2009
From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen

In the Grand Ceremonial Hall of the University of Copenhagen, a splendid Nordic classical space overlooking the Church of our Lady in the heart of the old city, rows of repellent, blue plastic chairs surrounded the podium from which no less a personage than Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, was to speak.

I had arrived in good time to take my seat among the dignitaries in the front row. Rapidly, the room filled with enthusiastic Greenies and enviro-zombs waiting to hear the latest from ye Holy Bookes of Ipecac, yea verily.

The official party shambled in and perched on the blue plastic chairs next to me. Pachauri was just a couple of seats away, so I gave him a letter from me and Senator Fielding of Australia, pointing out that the headline graph in the IPCC’s 2007 report, purporting to show that the rate of warming over the past 150 years had itself accelerated, was fraudulent.

Would he use the bogus graph in his lecture? I had seen him do so when he received an honorary doctorate from the University of New South Wales. I watched and waited.

Sure enough, he used the bogus graph. I decided to wait until he had finished, and ask a question then.

Pachauri then produced the now wearisome list of lies, fibs, fabrications and exaggerations that comprise the entire case for alarm about “global warming”. He delivered it in a tired, unenthusiastic voice, knowing that a growing majority of the world’s peoples – particularly in those countries where comment is free – no longer believe a word the IPCC says.

They are right not to believe. Science is not a belief system. But here is what Pachauri invited the audience in Copenhagen to believe.

1. Pachauri asked us to believe that the IPCC’s documents were “peer-reviewed”. Then he revealed the truth by saying that it was the authors of the IPCC’s climate assessments who decided whether the reviewers’ comments were acceptable. That – whatever else it is – is not peer review.

2. Pachauri said that greenhouse gases had increased by 70% between 1970 and 2004. This figure was simply nonsense. I have seen this technique used time and again by climate liars. They insert an outrageous statement early in their presentations, see whether anyone reacts and, if no one reacts, they know they will get away with the rest of the lies. I did my best not to react. I wanted to hear, and write down, the rest of the lies.

3. Next came the bogus graph, which is featured three times, large and in full color, in the IPCC’s 2007 climate assessment report. The graph is bogus not only because it relies on the made-up data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia but also because it is overlain by four separate trend-lines, each with a start-date carefully selected to give the entirely false impression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998. The truth, however – neatly obscured by an ingenious rescaling of the graph and the superimposition of the four bogus trend lines on it – is that from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940 the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975-1998.

click to enlarge
4. Pachauri said that there had been an “acceleration” in sea-level rise from 1993. He did not say, however, that in 1993 the method of measuring sea-level rise had switched from tide-gages to satellite altimetry against a reference geoid. The apparent increase in the rate of sea-level rise is purely an artefact of this change in the method of measurement.

5. Pachauri said that Arctic temperatures would rise twice as fast as global temperatures over the next 100 years. However, he failed to point out that the Arctic was actually 1-2 Celsius degrees warmer than the present in the 1930s and early 1940s. It has become substantially cooler than it was then.

6. Pachauri said the frequency of heavy rainfall had increased. The evidence for this proposition is largely anecdotal. Since there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” for 15 years, there is no reason to suppose that any increased rainfall in recent years is attributable to “global warming”.

7. Pachauri said that the proportion of tropical cyclones that are high-intensity storms has increased in the past three decades. However, he was very careful not to point out that the total number of intense tropical cyclones has actually fallen sharply throughout the period.

8. Pachauri said that the activity of intense Atlantic hurricanes had increased since 1970. This is simply not true, but it appears to be true if – as one very bad scientific paper in 2006 did – one takes the data back only as far as that year. Take the data over the whole century, as one should, and no trend whatsoever is evident. Here, Pachauri is again using the same statistical dodge he used with the UN’s bogus “warming-is-getting-worse” graph: he is choosing a short run of data and picking his start-date with care so as falsely to show a trend that, over a longer period, is not significant.

9. Pachauri said small islands like the Maldives were vulnerable to sea-level rise. Not if they’re made of coral, which is more than capable of outgrowing any sea-level rise. Besides, as Professor Morner has established, sea level in the Maldives is no higher now than it was 1250 years ago, and has not risen for half a century.

10. Pachauri said that if the ice-sheets of Greenland or West Antarctica were to melt there would be “meters of sea-level rise”. Yes, but his own climate panel has said that that could not happen for thousands of years, and only then if global mean surface temperatures stayed at least 2 C (3.5 F) warmer than today’s.

11. Pachauri said that if temperatures rose 2 C (3.5 F) 20-30% of all species would become extinct. This, too, is simply nonsense. For most of the past 600 million years, global temperatures have been 7 C (13.5 F) warmer than today, and yet here we all are. One has only to look at the number of species living in the tropics and the number living at the Poles to work out that warmer weather will if anything increase the number and diversity of species on the planet. There is no scientific basis whatsoever for Pachauri’s assertion about mass extinctions. It is simply made up.

12. Pachauri said that “global warming” would mean “lower quantities of water”. Not so. It would mean larger quantities of water vapor in the atmosphere, hence more rain. This is long-settled science – but, then, Pachauri is a railroad engineer.

13. Pachauri said that by 2100 100 million people would be displaced by rising sea levels. Now, where did we hear that figure before? Ah, yes, from the ludicrous Al Gore and his sidekick Bob Corell. There is no truth in it at all. Pachauri said he was presenting the results of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report. It is quite plain: the maximum possible rate of sea-level rise is put at just 2 ft, with a best estimate of 1 ft 5 in. Sea level is actually rising at around 1 ft/century. That is all.

14. Pachauri said that he had seen for himself the damage done in Bangladesh by sea-level rise. Just one problem with that. There has been no sea-level rise in Bangladesh. At all. In fact, according to Professor Moerner, who visited it recently and was the only scientist on the trip to calibrate his GPS altimeter properly by taking readings at two elevations at least 10 meters apart, sea level in Bangladesh has actually fallen a little, which is why satellite images show 70,000 sq. km more land area there than 30 years ago. Pachauri may well have seen some coastal erosion: but that was caused by the imprudent removal of nine-tenths of the mangroves in the Sunderban archipelago to make way for shrimp-farms.

15. Pachauri said we could not afford to delay reducing carbon emissions even by a year, or disaster would result. So here’s the math. There are 388 ppmv of CO2 in the air today, rising at 2 ppmv/year over the past decade. So an extra year with no action at all would warm the world by just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 C, or less than a twentieth of a Fahrenheit degree. And only that much on the assumption that the UN’s sixfold exaggeration of CO2’s true warming potential is accurate, which it is not. Either way, we can afford to wait a couple of decades to see whether anything like the rate of warming predicted by the UN’s climate panel actually occurs.

16. Pachauri said that the cost of mitigating carbon emissions would be less than 3% of gross domestic product by 2030. The only economist who thinks that is Lord Stern, whose laughable report on the economics of climate change, produced for the British Government, used a near-zero discount rate so as artificially to depress the true cost of trying to mitigate “global warming”. To reduce “global warming” to nothing, one must close down the entire global economy. Any lesser reduction is a simple fraction of the entire economy. So cutting back, say, 50% of carbon emissions by 2030, which is what various extremist groups here are advocating, would cost around 50% of GDP, not 3%.

17. Pachauri said that solar and wind power provided more jobs per $1 million invested than coal. Maybe they do, but that is a measure of their relative inefficiency. The correct policy would be to raise the standard of living of the poorest by letting them burn as much fossil fuels as they need to lift them from poverty. Anything else is organized cruelty.

18. Pachauri said we could all demonstrate our commitment to Saving The Planet by eating less meat. The Catholic Church has long extolled the virtues of mortification of the flesh: we generally ate fish on Fridays in the UK, until the European Common Fisheries Policy meant there were no more fish. But the notion that going vegan will make any measurable impact on global temperatures is simply fatuous.

It is time for Railroad Engineer Pachauri to get back to his signal-box. About the climate, as they say in New York’s Jewish quarter, he knows from nothing.

There or may not be a problem to be solved. However, in the round we have is a self serving Political Class trying to demonstrate they have the power to save us from an event suggested in a report that between them they have created.

If the Political Class can’t save us, why would we need them? Without them we would live in a democracy.

In the words of Michael Jackson – to change the word, you first need to look in the mirror. It is actually that simple.

We have to get real the self appointed world leaders, are just that – self appointed rulers.

The real aim behind Copenhagen is to massage the ego of a minority so they can dominate the majority. The only result is that we all have to pay extra taxes to pay for their whims.

Did someone mention vested interests?

IPCC head Dr Pachuri up to his neck in vested interests with Tata inc.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/letter_to_pachauri.html

Al Gore up to his neck in $billions from carbon trading;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

Lord Stern (he of the absurd ‘Stern review’) up to his neck in carbon rating company;
http://www.ideaglobal.com/IDEAcarbon_Press_Release_Final.pdf

Gordon Brown knocking one off at the prospect of ‘green taxes and control’;
http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2167559/gordon-brown-set-final-budget

Prince Charles with his green fingers on the pulse;
http://www.infowars.com/prince-charles-flies-to-copenhagen-in-private-big-carbon-footprint-jet/

A little song about ‘Hide the Decline’…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

I just listened to Jeremy Vine’s show on Radio 2, against my better judgement. His first topic for discussion was the talks in Copenhagen and whether or not people were hopeful some agreement would be reached. The first contributor was the Independent’s Johann Hari, who offered the usual alarmist crap he has been evacuating all over his column, followed by a scientist, whose name escapes me. The scientist calmly explained there is no scientific consensus, despite Hapless Hari’s claims. Vine then wheeled out Vivienne Westwood and offered a listener the opportunity to rebut her ramblings. Quite bizarre!

Have we come no further since we followed the ’snake oil’ priests who told us to paint our faces and dance naked around may poles to attempt to mitigate the excesses of Mother Nature ? We should have noticed by now that the priests have different prorities and concentrated on acquiring wealth.

This Conference has been buffoonery of the highest order and we have provided it with the High Priest of Buffoonery (Gordon) and his Clown Prince (John Prescott).

If there’s a disaster Gordon’s ‘yer man’. No man ecapsulates the portent of doom as well as he. The man who has presided over economic catastrophe now seeks now to unseat the Grim Reaper as purveyor of misery.

The one scandal exposed by this Conference is how a small cabal of government funded scientists have managed to hijack world opinion with the most childish work, exposed as fake data and faulty computer models, and nearly got away with it. Don’t forget that our government wasted £13m of our money on the UEA CRU who no longer possess an iota of credibilty.

Ninety per cent of the delegates are only there to pick up the cash on offer. Gordon’s there because he has an election to win and he’s in a spending frenzy. He calaculates he must appear to lead with our cheque book to the fore.

Tom,
How many warming and ice ages has this planet had so far?How many times has the CO2 been way higher than it is now?I don’t think T Rex was driving around in 4×4s or burning the forests.Yes climate IS changing,but it always does.Nobody is denying that it is the MANMADE part that is a lie.

Jonathan:

But your Svensmark link is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about. Svensmark’s theories had been debunked by the time I was doing my (abortive, I must admit) PhD on this topic.

There just is no convincing evidence that cosmic rays cause significant cloud formation. And there has been no drop in sunspot activity to correspond with the measured warming of the globe.

But still you continue to use the argument like it’s a new one.

New Scientist is good for this sort of thing, and don’t worry, it’s not a socialist Trojan horse, it’s edited by ex-Telegraph hero Dr Roger Highfield; try here http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11651-climate-myths-its-all-down-to-cosmic-rays.html

As for Lord Monckton; I don’t want to be too ad hom here but the man is not worthy of your or my time or consideration. Also, I’m not going to go through 18 cut-and-pasted points and debunk each one for you; if you haven’t got the time or inclination to make your own arguments, I don’t feel I should have to.

If you have a straightforward response to any of the three (mediaeval warming; mid-20th century; Svensmark) we’ve discussed, I’d be glad to hear it, though.

Best

Tom Chivers

Tom – The Medieval Warm Period WAS a global phenomenon as was the cooling before the Roman Warming, the Roman Warming itself, the Dark Ages cooling and the Little Ice age. The idea that it was a European phenomenon only is another of the falsehoods peddled to us by the warmists. There have been many field studies in all parts of the world to show that this was so and there are the scientific papers published as a result of these many studies. Have a look round the web or get a hold of Singer and Avery’s book ‘Unstoppable Global Warming every 1500 Years’ where the authors have done the job for you and meticulously gathered all of the published information.

The “icing on the cake” of this whole debacle would be a good dose of snow in Copenhagan to keep them all there for a few extra days and leave us to get on with living in the real world!
(all contributed to Global Warming of course)

David

I don’t think anyone is claiming that the Earth has always had the same climate, and if they are, they are obviously wrong. The claim is that this particular bout of warming is caused by CO2, and that the excess CO2 is caused by human activity.

Earlier warm bouts were caused by solar activity, and CO2 levels change with a variety of factors, including how much is tied up in permafrost, the oceans, etc, which themselves change with global temperatures. That is accepted. It is the current changes we’re talking about. I am just as sure as you are that dinosaurs did not drive Hummers.

Yours

Tom

But ‘Global Warming’ is now an industry for all sorts of charlatans and snake oil sales reps – from Al Gore ( A Convenient Pack of Lies) via non-dom pop stars to the University of East Anglia which falsified Russian met data ! And still the Fakes at East Anglia refuse to resign.

Well Gordon will save us all – as he jets in, is chauffeured in a gas guzzling limo and dines on caviar and champers in his overheated luxury hotel. He will of course make no personal sacrifices himself – nor will Balls or Prince Charles – but Gordon will save the future for our ( well, his privileged) children.

Gordon Brown has damaged the World single handed more than any coal fired power station by bailing out a corrupt banking system with OUR money. Being a ‘climate change denier’ in the eyes of Labour/Guardian/BBC is like being a child molester. I would not leave any of my adorable grandchildren though in his hands – the man with the weird smile.

So as we pledge millions to help the Third World – impoverished by the crooks and murderers who run it – they must be rubbing their hands in glee. How many Mercs, Rolexes, shopping trips for the wives, weapons to kill their opponents can all this western money actually buy ? Mrs Mugabe must be polishing her Amex as she watches proceedings on TV. How many more millions of children can be ’saved’ by western money – as distinct from not being born ?

14,000 (mainly) charlatans have filled the coffers of Copenhagen’s best hotels for two weeks now – paid for by US. China must be enjoying every minute as the West promises to impoverish itself and as China opens one coal fired power station every day or week. China is proud that it has NINETY years worth of polluting coal left to burn. Lenin described Western liberals as “useful fools” . There have been 14,000 such ‘useful fools’ gorging at OUR expense in Copenhagen over the past two weeks. Most of them privileged public sector employees.

The heart attack suffered by Prof Svensmark live on Danish TV earlier this week was not a farce.

He’s the Danish climatologist who, together Prof Veizer in Ottawa and Prof Shaviv in Jerusalem, has proposed the hypothesis that cosmic rays are the key driver in climate variability. The CO2 hypothesis is built on sand; Svensmark’s work is more like granite.

Svensmark has a better understanding of the physics underlying our climate than anyone else at the Copenhagen summit. It has fallen to him to play the role of little boy in this a sequel to the Emperor’s New Clothes. But unlike the original little boy he’s not an innocent: he knows what he’s up against.

If you’re unfamiliar with Svensmark’s extraordinary research you could do worse than look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA

Tom C – I’d put money on NASA ahead of Norfolk turkies

“There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said paleoclimatologist Lowell Stott, the study’s lead author and a professor of Earth sciences at USC College.

“You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.”

“The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” Stott said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.”

This pantomime is based on trying make people believe that there is a consensus. The consensus only exists in a small body of scientists who have sought to hijack the research and isolate the massive body of scientists who are aghast at the manipulated data and dud computer models used.

The harm this is doing to science is incalculable, setting aside the climate. Obama is sensibly setting out a ‘walk away’ strategy. I hope Gordon does the same before he’s disposed of all our money.

You name a warmist speaker and I’ll show you their business backers. The adage is ‘if you want the truth – follow the money’.

Tom,
I’ll respond in a civil manner. The problem with sceptics/deniers is that many of us are trained scientists and we take a dim view of the standard of science presented by the AGW camp.

1) There is considerable evidence from: Grenland ice cores, Vostok ice cores (antartic), South America, South Africa, Phillipines and Australia that there was a warm period about 1000 years ago. If this had been a local phenomenon, there is no way that climate models could explain this as a greater degree of homogeneity is assumed than actually occurs in the current climate.

2) The correlation with CO2 is weak. You mention soot as a problem with the warming trend. If am not sure that I follow your argument. If there was soor in the early industrial period, was this causing warming or cooling? If it was causing cooling, why did the temperature rise as industrialisation progressed? If is causing global warming, then do you attribute the falling temperature during the last decade to clean air? If this is the case, we don’t have to worry about CO2 but soot, which is an entirely different matter.

3) The global temperature records are beginning to look increasingly compromised and scientists are, and should, be extremely worried about the amount of research based on these records.

4) Do you believe the models? The are falsifiable in that the precision is greater than measurement. The climate is deviating significantly from the predictions of models. While they are complex, this is not a good necessarily a good thing as they become increasingly sensitive to parameter variation and numerical instability.

5) The difficulty with the AGW camp, is that usually start with a statement of faith, but cannot advance properly crafted scientific arguments to support their faith.

Draughtsman

One hates to quote Wikipedia, but since its VERY FIRST LINE states:

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, lasting from about AD 800–1300.

…it seems apposite.

It’s backed up by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research:

“The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm climate in Europe.”

The US National Climactic Data Centre agrees:

“As paleoclimatic records have become more numerous, it has become apparent that ‘Medieval Warm Period’ or ‘Medieval Optimum’ temperatures were warmer over the Northern Hemisphere than during the subsequent ‘Little Ice Age’, and also comparable to temperatures during the early 20th century.”

There may be some argument over the nature of it – I found the abstract of an article in Science that argued that it was global – but the accepted understanding seems to be that it was a local phenomenon.

Regards

Tom Chivers

Tom Chivers,

research by physicists for you (all with PhDs) :

Climategate: revolt of the Physicists

watch it and come back with your scientific comments.

Why not:

* Publish all the data
* Publish the algorithms that underlie the computer models
* Publish the source code of the programs that were used to process the data

If the World at large is affected, then the World has a right to know.

The fact of the matter is that there is no solid and undisputed scientific foundation on which to build the arguments for the enormous social and economic changes promoted by some groups – perhaps ultra-leftists realising that all their other attempts to return to the stone age have failed? Hence, the conference in Copenhagen should not result in an agreement with far reaching consequences. Rather, it should conclude with the realisation that we need to go back to the scientific drawing board, while continuing to save on fossil fuels and reduce pollution at a reasonable pace.

In particular, I think it is time to take a very deep and serious look at the total footprint of humanity on the planet and discuss how to start to reduce it. Some sort of managed population reduction must be discussed and not least the Chinese experiences analysed to see what can be learnt from them.

A problem with the climate change debate and the eventual anthropogenic part in climatic behaviour is that the science is terribly muddled. I have read most of the reports and many of the underlying papers over the years. A number of them I have simply not been able to understand in the sense that I have not been able to logically reconcile the conclusions with the data and methods presented (my main degree is in physics), whether because of deficiencies in my background knowledge and/or brain capacity or because of errors in the science presented I don’t know.

A lot of the data as well as important details in the methods, e.g. the detailed tweaking of the climate model software, has simply not been published and made available to open peer review – and peer review among a closed group researching along more or less the same lines of thought is not really reliable peer review at all, thus fundamentally undermining scientific method.

So, at this point I’m agnostic with regard to the amount of influence human activities have on the climate. I fully support moving towards more ecological sustainability with passivehouses, smarter energy production and all that (this does not include electrical cars powered by energy from old-generation power stations and windmills with a ludicrously low energy output per unit of land area of wind farms, both very red herrings).

For reasons not related to climate change it makes extremely good sense to save on the planet’s resources and improve the environment. Fundamentally this has nothing to do with climate change and it is a distraction and a great shame the two have become so firmly entwined.

@ Tom C
I was not a sceptic up until a month or so ago. As soon as it became suddenly urgent and the West’s fault I realised that this was the same kind of bad sales technique pulled by double glazing salesmen. The key thing though was everyone who didn’t share the same view was a “denier” or “flat-earther”. I had and have no acedemic, business or political stake in this CC game, but the warmists antics really miffed me with their arrogance and dogma, enough to start taking an interest.

If this was such a crucial situation for mankind why on earth didn’t you people ensure the data was captured and managed and protected and verified and authenticated properly. If the warmist analysis and position was so unassailable why be so obstructive with acceptance and peer reviews of papers from counter positions. Why start using demeaning language against sceptics?

To my mind the warmist position is based on data that cannot be trusted at all, manipulated by a small self-interest group of so-called scientists that cannot be trusted, promoted by a UN group that cannot be trusted at all and preached by politicians …

I don’t believe what you say. You do not offer incontrovertable evidence or facts or proof, you offer opinion based on data put together and manipulated and massaged by rank amateurs. You do not practice proper science in the generally accepted sense where it is founded on scepticism and testing and debate but practice some strange dogma based psuedo process where questioning is not permitted.

You warmists have blown it, not just for yourselves but also the less fortunate peoples who will probably not get the aid they needed now because of the morons who cried wolf or the theives who have tried to steal money and livelyhoods and the future from our children.

So when people in the East and Africa get into trouble due to weather extremes but no help arrives they can thank the warmists, especially the evil, greedy charlatans in chief – Pachauri, Gore and Brown aided and abetted by the niaive pseudo-scientists.

It really doesn’t matter whether the believers or deniers are in the right. Pumping out 26 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere is intrinsically bad. It has to go somewhere and there is a limit to how much the planet can absorb naturally. Arguably, we have the climate that we have today because huge quantities of carbon were locked away as fossil fuels. Of course, it took over 300 million years to do that.
Thus we have to find alternatives, especially as the jolly good black stuff could run out in 50 years time.
However, CO2 reduction will take place simply because of the economics of using them, as demand outstrips supply.
The frightening aspect, as Van Rompuy made in his inaugural speech, is the attempt at global governance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXWeOa-FuyM&feature=related

European politicians have accepted the CO2 agenda with both hands as a means of removing sovereignty and freedom, and replacing them with constraints and taxation in every part of our daily lives. In effect, they want to create an elite that postures while living normally. Lesser mortals have to pick up the bill and experience a falling standard of living.

Tom Chivers,

No one has “de-bunked” Svensmark’s hypothesis. All that’s happened is that all the CO2 fanatics have piled in to say it isn’t proved. And most of the criticisms have been comprehensively answered. Even Fred Pearce in the New Scientist piece you refer to very carefully leaves the door open, and he’s about as rabid a CO2 proponent as they come.

But, for goodness sake, look at the CO2 hypothesis! It leaks like a colander compared to Svensmark’s.

Great article, could not have said it any better.

Great article, could not have said it any better.

‘Danegeld Summit’ – that really sums it up in one outstanding, pithy expression.
I shall steal it – with h/t, naturally!

Good article – couldn’t agree more.

Btw – i seem to recall reading somewhere today (dunno where) that this Danegeld agreement isn’t legally binding – can anybody confirm?

THis Just In!!!! THe UN IPCC has AGREED that the SUN is INDEED responsible for ‘Global Warming’. Therefore, all world Citzens will be required to wear UN-approved-and-Manufactured mirror-hats (Copyright ALbert Gore 2009) at all times outdoors. The $1200.00 price tag will be offset by a ‘World Solar Tax’ on Western countries, so that the hats may be subsidized for third-world and developing countries.

that is all…

I am not well educated I have no knowledge of global warming. But I do no that we in Britain are going to pay through the nose while the rest of the world laughs at these targets.First we have a TV add telling us if we drive five miles less a week it can help save the planet.What happens half the worlds leaders get on planes and fly privatly to Coppenhagen.Then get picked up in cars that can barely manage 10 miles per gallon.Then our primeminister promises third world countrys more money than we have.He believes Mugabe is going bak home to make sure those poor starving people are going stop burning wood and by solar panels.Get real they cant afford to buy rice and Mugarbe is going to put every penny he gets into his swiss bank account.

Tom C on Dec 18th, 2009 at 2:06 pm:

So wiki is now peer-reviewed???

It is no good, Tom. As has been stated above, most of us here are either scientists or have a scientific background.
We don’t rely for our information on articles in popular science magazines, who have shown over the last few years and especially now that they are heavy apologists for AGW.

Besides the junk science which we have, thanks to CRUtape, now all seen and read for ourselves, as a zoologist this obsession with catastrophic warming has always rung false to me.
Changes in the environment, be they physical (plate tectonics) or pushed by climate changes are the drivers of evolution.
It is of great wonder to me that so many AGWers have not the slightest understanding of how the natural environment actually works, nor that the point of life is adaptation, and does most certainly not lie in trying to stop everything from changing at this particular moment in time.

I shall refrain from saying what I think of this AGW madness, being a polite person …

Sheumais, I also listened to the Jeremy Vine farce. He, and the BBC are so slewed towards this AGW nonsense, that no serious sceptical view will be tolerated, other than the odd intellectually challenged “man-on-th-street” who phones in and who isn’t given the chance to state his case, however inarticulate. The conversation between one of the aforementioned “plebs” and the horrible Westwood woman rather demonstrated this. The Johann character was unstoppable, and should have been challenged on the string of rubbish claims he was spouting.

It’s hopeless, really. Vine has previous for showing the same prejudice on other occasions of his “programme”. It’s a media trait. Steve Wright is just as bad – they’ve been pushing this AGW/Copenhagen nonsense, too – it’s de rigueur for the BBC and there’s no escape. If scepticism was the mantra in favour, they’d support that, instead.

Of course the climate is changing. It’s common sense. I’m a scientist (an electronics engineer). Take this example:-

The maximum temperature in Alicante the day before yesterday was 5ºC.

Yesterday, it reached 10ºC. Today it is 20ºC. The big question is what is the correct computer model to use?

Now, based on the first two days, one would have expected the temperature today to be 15ºC but it was 20ºC. That almost certainly means that it must be a geometric progression and that means that tomorrow it will reach 40ºC and the day after 80ºC. We shall all be grilled. God save us!!

However, if today was an anomaly, and should have been 15ºC, then tomorrow will be 20ºC, the day after 25ºC and so on so it will probably be at least another week before the end of life as we know it.

If you really believe this clap-trap, go and have a look at this link from the U.S. Senate Minority Report:- http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

Or view this video in YouTube and if it interests you, there are three more from the same Professor Bob Carter:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

How bad is Flopenhagen? Even Obama couldn’t act interested reading his speech.

Overthrow the worldwide environmentalist wacko dictatorship. These are not “scientists” —- they’re a gang of bloodsxcking anti-intellectual thugs who belong in jail, not in public office. Do we need clean air, clean water, and plentiful, cheap, safe energy? We do. But you don’t have to be a liar and a moron to pursue those goodies.

Bully for you Gerald.
This Danegeld Summit has expelled more hot air, caused more pollutions, used more fuel, and has done everthing we are being told NOT TO DO, except for these charlatans—may the have a place ready for them in the really hotspot-Hell.
This article should be on the front page Gerald, not hidden in a blog. What can you do about it?
I also am one who no longer reads Duckham as he always repeats ecxactly the same thing so what is the point? Just duck him!

thaddeusskaczorj

Darn! He beat us to it, that Al Gore, he’s a quick one.

We’ll have to be satisfied with what we can make in the black market for foil hats.

The technical term “buffoon” best fits my summing up of most of my leftist friends. They are at best ill informed, and at worst mentally handicapped. See Lyle Rossiter’s “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness”. A very dreadful possibility is that leftists are mentally ill. We in the US are having a bunch of leftists trying to force nationalized health care down our throats, and the world is having a bunch of leftists forcing “global warming” down its collective throats.

The more unworkable the outcomes of Copenhagen, the better for British people. This is only if our tunnel vision politicians can come off their ’save the planet’ bandwagon and save the citizens of the UK £720 billion over the next 40 years which a blind Parliament already voted for. This would require the demolition of our hydrocarbon-based economy and the death of our way of life all for the poor and likely contrived ideology of AGW.

The Global Warming scam should end here and now. The data may be corrupt but even so, it still shows that there has been no warming since 1998….if this is the best the alarmists can do even with their secret data sets…why are our politicians still going along with AGW? Gordon Brown is in suicide mode, David Cameron only wants to win an election based on Labour’s being unelectable and Libby Clegg has lost the plot in AGW wallowing. What a choice. The only sanity remaining is a few true Tories and UKIP.

All the Global Warming zombies are Ebeneezer Scrooge in person. They are currently holding the hand of “the ghost of earth’s future” and proclaiming it forebodes death and doom unless we fork over the trillions of dollars to them. They are so desperate that they are even waving the bony skeleton’s hand and shouting they will celebrate the carbon death knell and forever be faithful to their own fantasy and lie. Oh how utterly foolish they look. Like the Emperor’s new clothes story, they seem to have fooled themselves by themselves using their own rhetoric and nonsense and they are now parading down the global streets while absolutely naked and devoid of truth or credibility. It is time to flush them from the sewage pipes of life. FLUSH! Oops! They are clogging the pipes because the news media of this world keeps holding them up when they should be smashing the entire fraud and exposing the con-artists in every sense. Shut down the environmental extremists and silence their idiocy. If they resurface – challenge every statement they make! It appears that they are brain-washed pathological liars trying to dupe all the innocent people of planet earth. FLUSH! Hopefully they are gone now.

Dick on Dec 18th, 2009 at 3:25 pm – posted the link to a most interesting Senate report which cracks the ‘consensus’ myth wide open. Go to page 10 of the report to read the specific views of hundreds of scientists who dissent from the AGW hysteria. Many are UN-IPCC participants and/or eminent university porofessors and research scientists.

Here’s a taster from the first few pages:

The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a
process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle,
not a scientific process.

It makes one wonder if UK politicians can actually read? Jumping on bandwagons is no substitute for intellectual ability.

Well said Mr Warner. Unfortunately Gordon W Brown will pursue anything that has the potential to reap more taxation and inflate his wildly overblown opinion of himself. Hopefully there will be no agreement for us to support dictators in Africa or the Chinese in manufacturing ever more of their rubbish to export here. When will he get the idea into his thick skull that we cannot afford these giveaways? Perhaps that would require him to acknowledge the dire state we are in and his leading part in it?

Excellent assessment,thank you

Climate scientists are wonderful. They can take a phenomemon such as the Medieval Warm Period reported in a myriad of historical documents and claim it’s “local”. Whereas they can take the climate “detected” by one tree in Russia and decide (through the miracle of “teleconnection” and honest-to-God I am not making this up!) that this represents global temperature!

TomC, most of weren’t sceptics until we looked at what the climate so-called scientists were doing. And when you see people adjusting inconvenient data, ignoring or hiding inconvenient results, cherry-picking data that fit your theories, allowing publication of dud papers (temperature proxies interpreted upside down!) and blocking publication of any papers that cast doubt on their messianic message, well, anyone with any scientific principles should become a sceptic.

AGW is the zombie theory. But we’re getting closer to that smoking shotgun…

HAHAHAHAHA!!! You have to love watching the Band of Buffoons, led by the Buffoon in Chief, Al Gore (aka, ‘Inventor of the Internet’) show themselves to be utter morons. Even God is mocking them by dumping snow on their ‘global warming’ fest. And now our newest Nobel laureate, the Dear Leader and Kenyan-in-Chief, Barry Hussein Obama, jets off to HopeAndChangen to bark orders to foreign counterparts, who must be laughing hysterically on the inside. This pathetic, pusillanimous man-child, with the temperament and experience of a teenager, is seeing his Presidency plummet like global temperatures. His vaunted team of thugs, Axelrod/Emmanuel/Gibbs, so exalted for their alleged ‘genius’ at public relations and image-making, did not even realize how pathetic they were making their Grand Poobah look by sending him on another quixotic mission to accomplish nothing, a la Chicago’s effort to nab the Olympic Games. How utterly pathetic this gaggle of clowns is, and how embarrassing to me as an American, having them ‘lead’ us.

Very good piece, as ever, Mr. Warner. Thanks very much.

not unexpectedly, the chemical industrial community sat down to chat about this quite some time back and decided, “Well, it just seems a terrible shame to throw away perfectly good carbon dioxide when we are already making 400 millions tonnes of it per year for catalytic steam reforming for the manufacture of plastics, fertilizer, etc.”

This is what is coming soon to a coal plant near you. It’s rather laughable. Those awful green tires on which your parents and grandparents drove about during WW II were made by an ammonia extraction from coal plant flue gas similar to this. Have a gander:

http://www.powerspan.com/technology/

They are making fertilizer in this instance. Click on the Anderson link to see how this “pollutant” is being used to grow crops. It’s a good little earner now, emission trading or no emission trading.

613 Squadron used ammonium nitrate for their Welly-delivered 20,000 lb bomb to do for the “Gneisenau” made by this process, too. Pity there isn’t another one to spare for Copenhagen.

“There was one good moment at Copenhagen, though”

You forgot the other good moment at Copenhagen, Gerald – Gordon Brown and Al Gore marching down a corridor, puffing their chests out like peacocks for the camera, as only very, very, very important people do.
We saw them go decisively and very, very, very importantly go into a room….and then emerge a second or two later.
It’s the room where the janitor keeps his stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDSnyz1Wytw

Brown has the decency to look sheepish. Al Gore dares you to snigger.

Junkmale said:Why not:

If the World at large is affected, then the World has a right to know.

Exactly right. The IPCC “assessments” should be thrown out and rewritten with transparently obtained data. Not until then should any conference like Copenhagen be organised.

Of course it’s really all about leftist politics of tax and control, the rapturous reception given Chavez’ speech says it all.

China has a strict population control policy, and so has this ‘credit’ to put on its carbon catechism plus, equivalent to some ‘indulgences’ at the time of the Reformation. Most third world nations are gross offenders in terms of population boom, and so have a large negative on their side of the ledger.
Why should we pour cash into fast breeder nations, using up oxygen and producing sinful carbonarist purgatorial stuff?
There is a kind of madness about this Copenhagen thing, and politicians love it – it gives them all a free hand over their populations, to tax and spend, as if with a morally clean purpose. In fact it is in need of a Luther to come along and tell the truth as it is.

The problem the world faces is not alleged Global Warming, but politicians of the world who’ve nailed their colours to the Global Warming mast.
Which one will now admit he’s been a bit of a jackass and accept that manmade CO2 has NO effect on global temperature?
Not one single one.
All politicians are self-serving trash. They’ll lie, tell half-truths and offer their grandmothers to be melted down into glue if it suits their purpose.
It is truly bizarre that only the BNP has the courage to say that Global Warming is a complete load of old toss.

Gerald Warner, James Delingpole and Christopher Booker should be on the front page of the Telegraph with these articcles. Konwing just how much this climate scam is costing the people, where are our Telegraph crusaders?…hidden away in blogs whilst all the AGW tripe mongers are given prominent coverage. The BBC is a total disgrace with its prejudice stance despite some fair reporting by thier Mr Hudson in ‘Global Warming has Stopped’…a glimmer of truth from the biggotted BBC (PRAVDA) government media.

The Telegraph only has to interview real scientists like Prof Bob Carter, Dr Fred Singer, Dr Tim Ball, Prof Ian Pilmer, Dr Roy Spencer, Prof John Christy, Dr Philip Lloyd, Dr Vincent Gray and Prof Tim Patterson to bury the “consensus” AGW fairy tale forever.

Junkmale talks about need to see the temperature data.
I am increasingly convinced that the methodology of temperature collection is fundamentally and terminally flawed.
It is now clear that all temperature data gathered in URBAN locations shows a rising trend while data gathered in MATCHED RURAL locations shows NO RISING TEMPERATURE TREND whatsoever.
There is something hopelessly and deceptively wrong with the recording of temperature in cities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04&feature=player_embedded

Tom C on Dec 18th, 2009 at 12:17 pm

“Sceptics complain about the Mediaeval Warming Period, even after it has been explained that that was a local phenomenon, not a global one, which didn’t affect the southern hemisphere or anywhere outside the north Atlantic region.”

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute disagrees with you, and even Mann has modified his position:

“August 27, 2009

A new 2,000-year-long reconstruction of sea surface temperatures (SST) from the Indo-Pacific warm pool (IPWP) suggests that temperatures in the region may have been as warm during the Medieval Warm Period as they are today.”

Link: http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=59106&ct=162

“The CRU emails were sordid little things, but a few emails in a university in Norwich do not a global conspiracy make.”

The CRU emails are by no means a sordid little affair, and when it is taken into account that the UEA CRU was the source for all data funneled to the IPCC, who then issue it to the majority of the research institutes Worldwide, this pus a somewhat different complexion on things. You deliberately downplay the importance of UEA CRU in the scheme of things.

Further to that, although the emails are bad enough, the computer code is damning, you appear to have failed to notice Russian accusations of cherrypicking and worse, as they fortuitously still retain the information that CRU had “lost” or deleted, and also the US DOE’s writ restraining CRU from disposing of any information whatsoever, which comes from the US Senate itself. Yhat is hardly to be expected if your dismissal of the emails carries any weight.

Of course, the recent decoupling of the CO2 increase from the temperature is somewhat difficult to explain away too, as it would appear to have utterly destroyed the possibility of the feedbacks AKA “forcings” that are necessary to amplify the small warming effect of the CO2 in order to produce the alarming temperature rises postulated by the AGW hysterics.

Of course, without reliable climate models, the Warmists have no evidence whatsoever to ascribe climate change to anthropogenic CO2.

I’m afraid consulting one AGW friendly site will not come close to supplying you with enough information about the science to construct a convincing case for AGW, Tom.

Dwightvandryver

With no scientific background but a keen sense of analysis and rationality, let me pull apart your prognostications:

It really doesn’t matter whether the believers or deniers are in the right. Yes it fricking well does. If we go haring off spending vast sums of money on solutions to non-problems we can destroy economies for nothing and perhaps even end up making our environment even worse.

Pumping out 26 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere is intrinsically bad. It has to go somewhere and there is a limit to how much the planet can absorb naturally. Pumping out none would be even worse as all our plant life could be affected and the human race would eventually asphyxiate. There are more and more people on the planet needing more and more oxygen. You do understand photosynthesis don’t you? You have no idea how much CO2 can be absorbed naturally any more than I do.

Arguably, we have the climate that we have today because huge quantities of carbon were locked away as fossil fuels. Of course, it took over 300 million years to do that. Most of that carbon was walking around on 4 legs or growing as trees. So the carbon was already captured and locked away in their bodies. Now you are just being silly.

Thus we have to find alternatives, especially as the jolly good black stuff could run out in 50 years time. Wow, can you get in touch with Shell quick. They really would like to be able to predict accurately when the oil will run out. The simple answer is that nobody actually knows when the salvageable oil will run out. It could be in a few years it could be in a thousand years.

However, CO2 reduction will take place simply because of the economics of using them, as demand outstrips supply. Again, you don’t know that. People have been saying things like this for over 50 years and it has not so far come true. Of course it has to eventually, but simply saying it does not make it so.

Only your last piece on the miserable twat van Rumpty Pumpty do I concur. He is an unelected slimeball that is set to tax us in the name of the environment just to keep him and his misbegotten pals in pensions. I have to go now as there is a loud knocking at the door.

Tom C on Dec 18th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
“New Scientist is good for this sort of thing, and don’t worry, it’s not a socialist Trojan horse”

Kindly stop being patronising, or you will not be taken seriously.

If you believe that there are no climate sceptics posting here that are not thoroughly grounded in the science (quite possibly in excess of your own qualifications), you are sadly mistaken.

Tom C

I would like to add my voice to the other scientists here who find flaws in your claim to a “reasoned approach” to the belief “that climate change is both real and anthropogenic.”

What really gets me is your claim in one breath to want a civil exchange and in the next that your opponents (many of whom are practicing scientists) offer nothing but “zombie arguments.” I don’t know, maybe some of the Brits here can tell me. Does that qualify as “cheek”? Not my idea of civil, anyway.

As others have noted, the only zombies I see are wandering through your posts.

The very fact that the money men and the politicians are in alliance with the global anti-capitalist movement over this one should ensure a delicious car crash at some point.

Please be assured that every person I have spoken to , with the exception of females under 30 , knows that this is a complete con

What really does frighten me is the rapidity with which the money men and politicians have taken over the world via basically : The US government ,The WHO, The UN and now , The EU. Just like with all potential whistleblowers , sane , rational UK politicians are probably afraid to shout out : ‘The Emperor is naked !’ !

Nothing short of civil disobedience will make one jot of difference , I’m afraid. Difficult to see that happening as our rulers will just switch off the electricity and gas and ensure no food gets into the shops. We will be starved and then beaten by the Tazer Service if we don’t tow the line…

Tom C you are either drugged or in on it.
New Scientist is a propaganda machine as all who dwell here know. Your dig at Monckton is not very civil is it. As for forming my own opinions, I do it by reviewing the available information and forming them based on my research of all those putting forward their theories. From that it is very, very transparent that AGW is a scam. You obviously use guesswork. Perhaps that is why your PHD, like I would be impressed if you had one, was not achieved?
Show me the debunking of Svensmark or am I supposed to take your rather dubious word for it?

Tom C

Your claims fail in their every element and even if they were valid fall far short of affirming the proposition under debate, which is –

That the developed nations should spent trillions in limiting CO2 in order to avert catastrophe from run-away global temperatures.

You list three arguments – “mediaeval [sic] warming; mid-20th century; Svensmark.”

1. Others above have done a good job of showing that the MWP has NOT “been explained” as “a local phenomenon.” I would simply add that even if it had, there are plenty of other warmer periods when life flourished, which is really the point. While eliminating the MWP helps the warmists make their graphs appear more convincing, it in no way proves catastrophic AGW.

2. Everyone agrees that particulates play a role in climate, but there is nowhere near the correlation with temps required for your explanation. And again, this is really a footnote, hardly enough to support your theory.

3. And Svensmark!!! Where to start???

Tom C

You site NewScience as evidence that “Svensmark’s theories had been debunked”? That’s a hoot. (BTW, re: patronizing. Thanks, Catweazle.)

I read the article you linked and it’s typical NewScience fluff and puff – ifs-ands-and-buts mixed with opinions and NO science. They even grudgingly admit a couple of places that Svensmark might be right. It’s not quite as bad as their “debunking of the debunking of the hockey-stick,” article but it’s close.

That article is classic NewScience bunk. Only a few paragraphs saying what a great thing the hockey stick is, then acknowledging that there are claims that it’s flawed but never saying who’s making the claims or why they’re making them. (see McIntyre S., R. McKitrick (2005), Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, peer-reviewed) They say the claims are “lengthy and arcane” so we should just “skip” them.

This is your idea of science? Please.

Tom C

Here’s some real science for you, re “Svensmark’s theory” or the idea that cosmic-ray flux (CRF) has significant impact on Earth’s climate.

In the Earth and planetary sciences and sciences like astrophysics it’s difficult to achieve the kind of mathematical certainty that is possible in more basic sciences like physics and chemistry. What we look for is corroboration, especially when overlapping different time/space scales.

That’s exactly what is developing for the CRF/Climate theory. Shaviv and Veizer, “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate”, GSA Today, 2003 (peer-reviewed), show that the CRF/Climate theory operates on much longer time scales and overlaps with and corroborates Svensmark’s. In fact, now there is a substantial body of CRF/Climate work published in peer-reviewed journals showing very good correlations for the CRF effect. It was recently summarized in “The Terrestrial Cosmic Ray Flux: Its Importance for Climate” by Ram, Stolz and Tinsley EOS, Trans. AGU, Volume 90, Number 44, 3 November 2009, pp. 397-398. BTW, there is so much peer-reviewed literature on this now they didn’t even get around to mentioning Svensmark or Shaviv.

Wiki links and NewScience references are a dead give-away that you are not up on the literature.

Curious that Helen Baxendale (whoever she is), Geoffrey Lean (whatever that is) and Louisa Gray (we know what that is -a shill for the AGW fraud) don’t have any Comments boxes attached to their published drivel. If, as I guess, its because they are afraid of taking both barrels from all and sundry, then why to they bother posting their ramblings in the first place?

Gerald,

Excellent summary of the whole Flopenhaggle embarrassment. I see Obama has capped it off with another patronizing lecture. His teleprompter must have frosted over.

Tom C on Dec 18th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
“and CO2 levels change with a variety of factors, including how much is tied up in permafrost”

Er, I think you will find that it is methane (CH4) that resides in the permafrost, not CO2.

The AGW models depend on the “forcing” caused by increased CO2 levels to generate the rather unrealistic temperature estimates is dependent on, amongst other things, the release of methane from the permafrost. As this had not occurred by the temperature spike in 1998, it is pretty much discredited.

“Curious that Helen Baxendale (whoever she is), Geoffrey Lean (whatever that is) and Louisa Gray (we know what that is -a shill for the AGW fraud) don’t have any Comments boxes attached to their published drivel”

Geoffrey Lean does have a comments box attached to his latest piece about singing and dancing polar bears.
Some early comments appeared, including one about his description of John Prescott as a “substantial” politician. (My own contribution to the thread, asking whether he meant that Prescott was obese never saw the light of day).
Presumably Lean didn’t like the way it was going – they disappeared. Now a couple of different comments have appeared, both critical of his warmist agenda.
No doubt these will vanish too.
Geoffrey Lean doesn’t appear to like critical comment.

Winter has arrived in England. Suprise ,suprise; Global warming hasnt arrived in Scotland either.BA passengers dont think its worth while saving the world; they could have saved a few thousand Carbon foot prints if they had just stayed at home. Globespan management are good citizens of the world. No more flying for them.Now if the UK and USA would just ground
all their warplanes flying over Afghanistan they could save the world thousands of Carbon footprints. And thousands of Afghan lives as well.

Tom C

Oh, and your first link that you claim gives a balanced approach? They admit at the bottom that they took their balanced info from RealClimate, which most readers here know is the Pom-Poms for Michael “Hockey-Stick” Mann link. (if you like realclimate.com, then check out http://www.pomexpress.com/. You’ll love it!)

Every one of RealClimate’s arguments is either false or a straw-man debate. Really, this is your idea of balance?

Think how close the U.S. came to having that nutball Algore as President. Oh well, they have someone worse now. Man is not the cause of global change. All of the world’s ills are caused by Bush, says the social worker from Chicago Barack Hussein Obama. Actually, it’s the Sun stupid.

Sorry, Gerald was carried away by imperative to rub the Warmenistas noses in their collective cowardice.

Your article was beautiful. Danegeld. Al Gore, the Fat Controller. The comical “leaked document” that Louisa Gray, imagining herself to be be a modern-day Bernstein and woodward (whatever) revealed in the DT.

One of your DT readers made an astute comment to the effect that “Copenhagen is a dead horse”. That horse’s owner, the Duke of Wellington, once commended a blackmailing whore to “Publish and be damned”. In modern times, he might have been referring to the BBC.

If you can read Fortran code (or similar computer language) I urge you to read the Fortran source code of the climate model that was leaked with the emails. (Or perhaps get someone you trust who can.)

The code is a mish-mash of subroutines and algorithms – called in software a rats nest – that has little structure and very unclear annotation. It is difficult to follow and I doubt that Phil Jones and Michael Mann truly were able to follow the detailed workings of the their own model.

In one section I identified a clear attempt to bias the numbers in an upward direction. There was filtering of data to remove outliers. This is common practice, but only outliers that were on the low side were removed. Outliers on the high side were not filtered out. Hence the data has an upward bias.

The United Nations is run by “buffoons” and anything they do is laughable. American voters aren’t foolish enough to allow this “cap and trade” to pass. If you think there was trouble on the health care bill, wait until the U.S. public understands the consequences of “cap and trade.” We are broke and the Chinese have two trillion U.S. dollars in surplus. Just because the majority of Americans don’t want their economy ruined, doesn’t mean that they don’t want to reduce CO2. Technology and the market must be used.

Tom Chivers, I will not retract my observation, that the appeasing morons who applauded Mugabe were in the main “socialist scum”, the Nu-labour party is socialist scum, with exception of one or two, Frank Field is one.
Gordon Brown is socialist scum and total nutter, who has climbed down out of his tree.
He wants no requires this country to go for 40% CO2 cuts in emissions, do you have any idea what that would mean if it came to pass?
No! and most don’t either, I could say with no hesitation that is would saddle British Industry with unbearable costs and make us even more uncompetitive.

Our industry and commercial sector are on their collective knees and Brown wants to make it infinitely worse by making cuts deeper then the world asks for!
After all we only contribute 2% of world CO2! -if you believe in that rot.
As I said “Socialist scum”, who little understand the commercial world and believe that taxing people of their hard earned cash and its redistribution to the worlds’ poor, while assuaging their ‘poor’ consciences will make things better, how naive/dangerous for us, is that?
Now back to some of the slightly dodgy conjecture you were referring to on an earlier post, you should be made aware of the post below from the estimable and unbiased site Whatsupwiththat, a good read for all, alarmists, true scientists and sceptics alike.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/
If you would take care to notice the ‘Holocene warming’ 10000/5000 BC and note that it dwarfs the MWP and today’s piffling natural rise in temperatures, the Holocene is noted by Archaeologists as a temperate time of plenty for man in Northern Europe and is not denied by Geologists either but maybe by climatologists in East Anglia who seem to do a lot of that sort of thing.
http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/251
http://en.allexperts.com/e/h/ho/holocene.htm
There have been many warm and cool periods and we say they are all natural occurrences, the science of the temperature records of the CRU and of the fixing of proxies and feeding in of real temperatures in cooking the books to drive the contention that man is effecting the climate change.
I studied Geology and Glaciology and Geomorphology, and I am not a climatologist but when this became a political football I became involved.
This socialist scum government is force feeding children AGW and that is WRONG morally and scientifically ergo they are scum.
Being likened to a ‘flat earth-er’ and holocaust denier and likened to someone who denies aids is a killer, is getting personal, don’t you think TOM??
If you need confirmation of socialists becoming personal, just look to the defamation of Dr. David Kelly, which was an evil and heinous character assassination.
That is the type of person the sceptics are up against, thus fire with fire.
Are we with the flow……… Tom?

Tom C

I’m not going to go through 18 cut-and-pasted points and debunk each one for you; if you haven’t got the time or inclination to make your own arguments, I don’t feel I should have to.

There’s that “cheek” again.

In fact you original “balanced” argument is nothing but a link to a bunch of RealClimate cut and paste.

Tom C

And I can’t let this one go.

The IPCC still draws on a vast body of work from tens of thousands of climate scientists, which overwhelmingly backs the AGW case.

tens of thousands?!?! That would be something in excess of 20,000… Like 40 to 50,000, say?

Where did you get that??

The leading international academic Earth/Planetary/Space society with sections covering geo/bio/chem/atmosphere/oceans/space and yes climatology, has only 50,000 members, total. Only a small fraction are in the relatively new discipline of climatology. And most if not all the climatologists on both sides of this issue are members.

It’s kind of another give-away when you throw numbers like that around. I don’t think there are that many climate scientists in the whole world.

@ pewkatchoo on Dec 18th, 2009 at 6:07 pm

It is simply not reasonable to be in denial about everything. Personally, I am agnostic on the AGW issue and would rather that manmade global warming was sheer fantasy. But we have to face the facts. There is a natural carbon cycle. Millions of years ago, atmospheric CO2 concentrations may have been more than 10 times today’s, but the climate probably would have been entirely different too. Through decaying vegetation and tectonic upheaval, fossil fuels were formed, taking millions of years to do. From 1960 onwards, there was a step change rise in CO2 emissions as the West and East industrialised even further. In a period of 50 years, CO2 levels in the air have increased from 315 to 384 ppmv. Clearly, the natural cycle can’t keep up with the extra emissions.
Whether CO2 is the sole culprit of the climate change that can be directly observed is another matter. In the past 200000 years since our species roamed the planet there have been major cooling and warming events, the mechanisms for which have not been fully explained, if at all. Thus other factors, perhaps the Sun’s solar wind, may be very influential. But the fact that glaciers have been receding at an unprecedented rate in recent years makes it highly suggestive that CO2 does affect the climate in a very immediate way, within 50 years or so.
I gave a ball-park figure of 50 years for fossil fuels “running out”. There are two points here: firstly, Africa, Central Asia, and many parts of South America, still have to industrialise placing demands on such fuels. Secondly, there are the costs of exploitation as the fuels become more difficult to access. At some point in time, perhaps in the 2020’s, the cost of using fossil fuels for energy will be greater than using alternatives. There is also the practical issue of being held to ransom by oil and gas producing countries. Finally, we must keep some of the carbon feedstock in reserve for chemical processes, such as iron smelting, cement production, and the plastics industry. Squandering fossil fuels on electricity generation and space heating makes no sense in the long term.

Does anybody read any of these many comments? Here in the US, the man-made global warming scare is now viewed as mostly leftist nonsense. The number of Americans who laugh at Al Gore is growing each day and the number of Americans who loathe this Obama is growing each day also. Get outside of the Washington DC beltway and you will see that this is true.

We have a consensus of politicians, businesses and religious leaders with a vested interest in the mega-business of global warming warning us of imminent catastrophe if we don’t cede control of our lives and our money to them. If we had half the independence of our ancestors we would gather a posse and track them all down and subject to them to some justice.

@ walter12 on Dec 18th, 2009 at 9:38 pm

That’s because CO2 reduction is being sold on the wrong “soapbox”. With Western trade deficits at an all time high on top of fragile economies, is it reasonable to continue to import vast quantities of crude oil and LNG? Would it not be better to try to achieve some sort of energy self-sufficiency by exploring other sources? It doesn’t have quite the same impact as a doom scenario. On the other hand, it doesn’t divide the nation into eco-fanatics and petrolheads.

See here just who will ‘Love’ the Environment for you, the Human Race.

https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Programmes/Pages/Sig-Investor-List.aspx

https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Programmes/Pages/overview.aspx

And see here the Warmists who disagreed with the official line

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/global_warming_protesters.jpg

walter12 on Dec 18th, 2009 at 9:38 pm

You may be right that ‘most Americans’ can see this is bullshine, but I am watching the BBC 10pm News and Obama is the main man at the Christmas party known as ‘Copenhagen’ and the entire British media is slavishly focused on this topic like it’s World War III.

Whether you and your fellows believe in it, we are all going to be skinned alive financially and our freedom to do anything , removed.

You are being naive if you are deluded that once in 4 yrs , your 48 hrs of ‘democracy’ gives you the power to change anything; ALL politicians are signed into this giant scam which makes Madoff look like a kid stealing candy.

“The IPCC still draws on a vast body of work from tens of thousands of climate scientists, which overwhelmingly backs the AGW case.” – Tom C

Of course the facts that you can’t get funding to do any climate research that isn’t “into the effects of AGW” – or (as Climategate showed) would get it gratuitously blocked from publication if you did have no bearing whatsoever on why they have so many names of scientists “backing” their case.

Alas, you can “prove” anything with science when the “gatekeepers” care only that you’re getting the right answer. (Look up the saga of Mann and the inverted sediments – it’s a scream. He got it wrong not once but twice, in peer-reviewed publications, and the second time AFTER he’d been told about the first!)

dwightvan,

we are not in denial of everything. But consider the fact that solar climate variability is not included in any of the current climate models. That is why so many scientists are rattled and skeptical.

If solar activity is taken into consideration the model looks very different:

solar cyclical activity drives the temperature that drives CO2.

Also, the idea by climatologists that a gas can store heat is against the laws of basic physics.

Who are the flat-earthers here?

Sigh. Groupthink.

Peace & love

loony weirdy right wing libertarian thingy. mabob

Peace & love

Well said Mr. Warner, BUFOONS all and I would use the word un credentialed for the POTUS so that he will one day show us all his birth certificate and explain to us all why his SS# is so out of whack, along with the thirty nine others he can explain in Federal court on 1/26/10…maybe then we can really see how smart he is by seeing his school records and find out just how he applied for student aid.

So along with the mysteries of climate indetermination and the remaining fact that politicians lie and so do political scientist for that matter, we will just have to let the snowfall where it may and wait until spring for global warming to take place again.

MERRY CHRISTMAS ALL YOU COPENHAGEN SNOW BUNNIES!..AND THANK YOU GOD FOR THE LITTLE JOKE.

The Copenhagen International Treaty on Climate Change is dead!! That’s good news for everyone concerned about national sovereignty and carbon credit scams.
The “non-binding” agreement (compromise) is now being called the Copenhagen Accord. Which raises the most important question – what happens to all those carbon credits in 2012 when Kyoto expires?
President Obama ran into a brick wall with China but he put a good face on things by declaring the “accord” a victory and went back to Washington. The Senate Bill on Copenhagen hasn’t been agreed to yet, and that great soap opera on healthcare isn’t settled yet either.
Isn’t it interesting that Hillary Clinton proposed $100 billion to help the world reduce carbon emissions. It is exactly the same amount that George Soros proposed!
Some Santa Claus, some Christmas!

This is a great article Mr Warner; thank you.

The Danish plods didn’t only sort out the ’smellies’, they managed to hurt Lord Monckton too, not with a truncheon but by pushing him over when his back was turned. Disgraceful.

KRS-One & Professor Griff Tell it like it is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUNylW4bC1I&feature=related

The BNP Wants to Steal My Passport on Dec 18th, 2009

“loony weirdy right wing libertarian thingy. mabob”

oops. I missed out reactionary.

Peace & love

Here’s the facts on climate changes, as best I can determine from reading over a dozen studies.
1. Carbon dioxide levels are .038 percent of total atmosphere, less than 1/10 of that is produced by humans.
2. Carbon dioxide levels have gone up-and-down in the past.
3. The axial rotation (wobble) of the earth causes climate change over a 26,000 year cycle (the tilt of the axis gives us summer and winter so it’s only natural to assume it’s not a constant rate).
The Precession of the Equinoxes was known in ancient times (but not understood) because buildings aligned to the sun remain so for only 72 years. Multiply 72 by 360 degrees, and you get the figure of 25,920 years.
The Lake Vostok study indicates CO2 levels rose 19 times over the past 400,000 years. Since they rise for just 21,000 years within the rotation period, and since the last ice age was about 18,000 years ago, we can expect another 3,000 years of global warming – even if we reduce all greenhouse gases to zero but since most of it is water vapor, that would be insane.
Someday people (possibly our grandchildren) will again be able to grow grapes in Greenland, and Canadians will forget how to play ice hockey.
Will small island nations end up under water?
Noah built an ark, surely we can do better than that!

Error: I mean stars not “sun” in second line of the second paragraph from the bottom.

@ jonathan
thanks for the video link man.

I meant buildings “aligned to the stars” not sun.
For a very interesting read on Precession, go to this link.
Incidently, it’s a very jealously-guarded “secret” by the Masons for some reason. December 21, 2012 is also the first day of the Age of Aquarius (the movie notwithstanding, it won’t be a disaster)
Also, did you know that every astronaut who walked on the moon was also a Mason?
I have my sources!
http://ancientegypt.hypermart.net/royalarch/
And further to the axial rotation, this excellent article from the University of Melbourne should be required reading in every classroom on the planet!
http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/n-119

Being serious for a moment, you have to ask “why haven’t the Tories ’sealed the deal’”? Let’s face it, I’m a natural (Old) Labour voter and I REALLY don’t want another New Labour government – I will only vote Labour this time if there is a BNP candidate in my constituency. Trust me, I’m not the only one.

Peace & love

I need to say just one more time before I go to bed

loony weirdy right wing libertarian thingy. mabob

Peace & love

…… and reactionary

Peace & love

Green is the new Red, and its fitting really since envy is what Socialism is really all about.

I see posting youtube links is the new blue. In that spirit, this says all we need to know

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7OSz4uK7yQ&feature=related

Peace & love

BNP, you douche-nozzle,

Why don’t you go check out the pulling of hair and the rending of garments at the Grauniad over this “meaningful” event.

‘What a bunch of buffoons’…..

What more can be said?

Gerald Warner…The Telegragh would be wise to give you FAR MORE STATUS…

You see….there’s a lot to be said for the Truth…and the ppl are starved for it.

But the ‘elite’ would never want you to know.

‘What a bunch of BAFFOONS’ !!!

The “smoke” that comes out of Obama’s mouth contains rare gases that help replenish the ozone layer and neutralize the industrial pollution.

Gerald?….thank you for the fresh drink of Truth…a truth that many are aware of. There’s a group of ‘elite’ who have set themselves (i didn’t vote for them – did you?) who speak words that claim “you and i MUST obey them” – just because they say-so.

It doesn’t matter that the things they stand for are CORRUPTION….to enrich themselves (follow the money)…So long as they are successful in taking advantage of all…..stealth mode … (they know nothing else)

They know no patience, no kindness, no mercy. Those virtues were never taught to them. (pity)

No wonder that it was written…

Psa 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

1Cr 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

And when the chips fall….brace yourselves for the inevitable ear-deafening blame (a common theme these days – have you noticed? and the chips haven’t even fallen – Yet)

It’s their nature. A leapord can not change its spots.

I live in Australia and have suported Senator Steve Fielding who helped block a thieving Emission Trading Scheme. He says that Copenagen is a “total mess”.
These new statements are just political posturing to appease the Hoopleheads.

Bidibidi . . Game Over

These jokers need a good kick in the backside and then sent off into obscurity, they have had their 15 minutes.

They were going to agree to “limit the rise in the earth’s temperature to 2 degrees Celcius by 2050″
What is really pitiful about this whole issue is that grown, seemingly intelligent people actually believe that we humans are capable of making a commitment like that. We can no more control the temperature of the earth than we can control the orbit of the moon. How utterly idiotic? It is amazing that a bunch of psuedoscientific bureaucrats and politicians lead by a few narcissistic grant-happy scientists doing a lot of climatological SWAGing (Scientific Wild A$$ Guessing) could culminate in a grand, world-wide conference of thousands where hundreds of billions of dollars and the futures of millions would be at stake. Utterly amazing!!! P. T. Barnum was right—a sucker is truly born every minute. Never before has the world seen so many gathered in one place.

sonofapigandamonkey on Dec 19th, 2009 at 4:33 am

“BNP, you douche-nozzle,

Why don’t you go check out the pulling of hair and the rending of garments at the Grauniad over this “meaningful” event”

Because I’m not an idelogue S old son. Can you say the same?

Peace & love

sonofapigandamonkey on Dec 19th, 2009 at 4:33 am

“BNP, you douche-nozzle,

Why don’t you go check out the pulling of hair and the rending of garments at the Grauniad over this “meaningful” event”

Because I’m not an ideologue S old son. Can you say the same?

Peace & love

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOIxgbOpOWU

BNP, whatever, the sooner someone DOES steal your passport, the better for all of us. Kindly put a sock in it, you left wing loony.

BNP:

“not an idealogue” ….Riiight.

How ’bout those eurotrash trains stuck under the Chunnel due to the weather. That’s the sound of God laughing at you

If the Copenhagen Summit is classed as a trumph by climate change scientists (the tiny few who believe in AGW), then it only shows what an easily deluded bunch they are.

Can’t they get anything right ?

khazi on Dec 19th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
“BNP, whatever, the sooner someone DOES steal your passport, the better for all of us. Kindly put a sock in it, you left wing loony.£

haha

I’m an old hippie son. I’ve realised that all the hate to put out there revisits you. Karma if you like

Peace & love

“Put a sock in it”

A right-wing political activist debating current affairs. Oh dear

Peace & love

A useful guide to understanding the goings on at Copenhagen and the AGW movement in general there is no better book than the well known

“Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” by Charles Mackay

The book covers the great collective lunacies that have gone before like the dutch Tulip saga and the South Sea Bubble. Recommended excellent background reading to fully understand the current AGW mania.

The AGW nonsense is bigger, of course, because of globalization and the far reach of the modern media that even allows tin pot dictators like Mugabe and Chavez to get in on the act.

The BNP Wants to Steal My Passport on Dec 19th, 2009 at 3:24 pm

“I’m an old hippie son. “

Ah, the dreaded black microdot strikes again!

Catweazle on Dec 19th, 2009 at 3:40

“The BNP Wants to Steal My Passport on Dec 19th, 2009 at 3:24 pm

“I’m an old hippie son. “

Ah, the dreaded black microdot strikes again!”

Haha! remember Woodstock – stay off the brown acid!

Peace & love

I’m a little delirious today to be honest. I could be disappointed but that would be a little self-indulgent. The truth is people like me have failed (dismally) to convince people like you that this is a serious problem – its a huge defeat for (as I say) people like me.

I guess I’ll just fire up a fat one and watch the sun go down (figuratively speaking). We’re all on the same life raft so we may as well be civil to each other.

Peace & love

Just saw Greg Clark, UK Shadow Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change spewing the Tory line saying yes, we too are Globalists….. IF WE get into government there would BE NO CHANGE in direction from Labunist climate policy!!!!!

TRUE TORIES BEWARE, THEY TOO WANT TO SELL OUT THE UK TO THE GLOBAL STATE…

UKIP AND BNP, GET SOME SECRETARIES HIRED, I THINK YOU MAY NEED THEM

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3g97f_cartman-in-respect-mah-authoritah_fun

Climate Change…or, as I call it…The Seasons.

Tom C on Dec 18th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

Blog on alleged Wikipedia ‘adjusted’ climate articles:

http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/12/wikipedia-is-is-controlled-by.html

Mediaeval warming global extent:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/

Svalbard’s fullscale CLOUD project in progress at CERN as of mid November. Background evidence:

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073