Biased reporting on Climategate

EDITORIAL
28th December 2009

Associated Press coverage raises eyebrows

With trillions of dollars at stake in the battle over global warming, now would be the time for the press to closely scrutinize the claims of those who would reorganize the world's economy from farm to factory and laboratory to living room. And the Climategate scandal - where leaked e-mails and dodgy computer programs from the University of East Anglia raise powerful new questions about the role of politics in climate science - would be the perfect opportunity to explore what is going on behind the scenes.

That's not happening. To judge by recent coverage from Associated Press, the Fourth Estate watchdog has acted like a third-rate pocket pet. Case in point is an 1,800-word AP missive that appeared in hundreds of publications, many carrying it on the front page of their Sunday, Dec. 13 issue with the headline, "Science not faked, but not pretty." AP gave three scientists copies of the controversial e-mails and then asked them about their conclusions. The wire service portrayed the trio of scientists as dismissing or minimizing allegations of scientific fraud when, in fact, the scientists believe no such thing.

The first scientist quoted in the article, Mark Frankel, is director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. AP quotes him as concluding that there is, "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'" While the article mentions that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and some Republican lawmakers are calling for independent investigations, AP doesn't note the views of the scientists they interviewed.

Science Corrupted

Video courtesy of iching64 @YouTube

French Revolution!

29th December 2009

Carbon Tax ruled unconstitutional just two days before taking effect

This new French carbon tax was scheduled to go into law on Jan1, 2010. The tax was steep: 17 euros per ton of carbon dioxide (USD $24.40).  In a stunning move, and surely a blow to warmists everywhere, the tax has been found unconstitutional and thrown out. Originally found here (Google Translation).

Lord Monckton was kind enough to assist me in deciphering the meaning of the ruling and writes:

In France, if at least 60 Deputies of the House and 60 Senators appeal to the Constitutional Council, it has the power to pronounce on the constitutionality of a proposed law – in the present case, the 2010 national budget of France, which contained enabling provisions (loi deferee) for a carbon levy. The Council found that these enabling provisions were unconstitutional on two grounds: that the exemptions contained within the provisions for a carbon levy vitiated the primary declared purpose of the levy, to combat carbon emissions and hence “global warming”; and that the exemptions would cause the levy to fall disproportionately on gasoline and heating oils and not on other carbon emissions, thereby breaching the principle that taxation should be evenly and fairly borne.

The Press release from the French Constitutional Council is here in English (Google Translated) and in original French

Here’s a Deustch-Welle news article on the reversal:

Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: The council said the tax had too many exemptions

France’s Constitutional Council says the country’s proposed carbon tax is illegal. This is a severe blow to French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s plans to fight climate change.

France’s Constitutional Council has struck down a carbon tax that was planned to take effect on January 1st. The council, which ensures the constitutionality of French legislation, said too many polluters were exempted in the measure and the tax burden was not fairly distributed.

It was estimated that 93 percent of industrial emissions outside of fuel use, including the emissions of more than 1,000 of France’s top polluting industrial sites, would be exempt from the tax, which would have charged 17 euros per ton of emitted carbon dioxide.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has argued the tax is necessary to combat climate change and reduce the country’s dependence on oil.

However, the council’s ruling is a severe blow to both Sarkozy’s environmental plan as well as France’s budget for 2010. The government now has to find a way to come up with about 4.1 billion euros in revenue that was expected from the tax.

Article courtesy of Watts Up With That?

>>>> discuss this topic @ Watts Up With That? >>>>

Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research

Environmental Effects of Increased

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road,
Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 [artr@oism.org]

ABSTRACT

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

SUMMARY

Political leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting human production of "greenhouse gases," chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2). They feared that CO2 would result in "human-caused global warming" – hypothetical severe increases in Earth's temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. During the past 10 years, many political efforts have been made to force worldwide agreement to the Kyoto treaty.

When we reviewed this subject in 1998 (1,2), existing satellite records were short and were centered on a period of changing intermediate temperature trends. Additional experimental data have now been obtained, so better answers to the questions raised by the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" are now available.

The Carbon Tax Deception

Video courtesy of setokaiba22 @YouTube

Global Warming Petition Project

by Neil Kerslake
29th December 2009

31,487 American Scientists have signed

this Petition (including 9,029 with PhDs)

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

It is evident that 31,486 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,486 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

Science, Politics and Global Warming

by Wallace Thornhill
23rd December 2009

In the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past.

-- Michael Crichton, "Environmentalism as Religion," (A lecture at the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA, September 15, 2003).

The Global Warming circus in Copenhagen was politics driven by a consensus that, by definition, has nothing to do with science. The apocalyptic nonsense that opened the meeting highlighted that fact. How many who attended or demonstrated at the meeting actually understand the (disputed) scientific grounds for the hysteria? Meanwhile, leading science journals allow skeptics of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to be labelled "deniers" and refuse them the right of reply. It is doctrinaire denouncement, not science. It is the journal editors who are denying the scientific method by censoring debate. It is they who are peddling ideology.

Despite the glossy media image, modern science is a mess. When the fundamental concepts are false, technological progress merely provides science with a more efficient means for going backwards. At the same time, government and corporate funding promotes the rampant disease of specialism and fosters politicization of science with the inevitable warring factions and religious fervor.

Science has become religion! ..although religion may have borrowed some of the jargon of science, science, more importantly, has adopted the methods of religion. This is the worst of both worlds.

-- Halton Arp.

How 16 Ships create as much Pollution as ALL the Cars in The World

by Fred Pearce
21st November 2009

Last week it was revealed that 54 oil tankers are anchored off the coast of Britain, refusing to unload their fuel until prices have risen.

But that is not the only scandal in the shipping world. Today award-winning science writer Fred Pearce – environmental consultant to New Scientist and author of Confessions Of An Eco Sinner – reveals that the super-ships that keep the West in everything from Christmas gifts to computers pump out killer chemicals linked to thousands of deaths because of the filthy fuel they use.

Waiting game: Tankers moored off Devon waiting for oil prices to rise even further

We've all noticed it. The filthy black smoke kicked out by funnels on cross-Channel ferries, cruise liners, container ships, oil tankers and even tugboats.

It looks foul, and leaves a brown haze across ports and shipping lanes. But what hasn’t been clear until now is that it is also a major killer, probably causing thousands of deaths in Britain alone.

As ships get bigger, the pollution is getting worse. The most staggering statistic of all is that just 16 of the world’s largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world’s cars.

Because of their colossal engines, each as heavy as a small ship, these super-vessels use as much fuel as small power stations.

But, unlike power stations or cars, they can burn the cheapest, filthiest, high-sulphur fuel: the thick residues left behind in refineries after the lighter liquids have been taken. The stuff nobody on land is allowed to use.

The Sky Is NOT Falling !!

by Bill Huff
26th December 2009

Now what will you do Mr. Gore?

As Al Gore continues to put his mouth where his money is...

It is widely known that Al Gore stands to make billions on this ruse. While we thought of him as a stick in the mud, barely able to Macarena, socially speaking, he has drawn quite a crowd to his big faux green kiosk. And if you don't believe people are willing to buy useless junk, just scope out a few late night infomercials, or, for that matter, pharmaceutical ads. An Academy Award usually goes to the creator or an actor involved in a work of fiction. "An Inconvenient Truth" is looking more and more like extremely convenient fiction. Politicians occasionally lie to get elected. Scientists occasionally lie to acquire or retain grant money. We don’t know all of the pathology of Al Gore’s fantasies. But we can already see the pain train coming.

Whether Al is busy overselling the problem or profiting on the "solution," it seems he will not be relenting any time soon. Because their dreams and claims are not based on reliable science we can expect the climate superstitionists' "solutions" to wander further away from logic as time goes by. Even with all of the good intent in the world it is very difficult to solve problems that do not exist. In the meantime, resources will be diverted away from real, observable environmental problems that do exist. Example: Oozing landfills that are sitting over aquifers. We have real problems that need immediate attention. Ever hear of Yucca Mountain? Hanford? Of course I would advocate free market solutions to these – not restrictive and arbitrary regulations and bureaucracies to plague and tax the entire human race.

Read of yet another Goldman Sachs connection: Blood and Gore et Al?

At times the real Truth may be a bit Inconvenient – but it does come out sooner or later. As soon as it comes out, the true career liar, the real Pro, launches a well-prepared damage control campaign. Can you imagine the next round? They already went to Copenhagen to sew up the deal. Now they are going to need something like a full-scale attack from outer space. Watch the tabloids carefully over the next few months. Orson Welles would love it. When someone mounts an instantaneous visceral counterattack you tend to suspicion that they either have something they are well prepared to hide or they are "true believers [read delusional]" – either of which can produce disastrous and expensive results.

Good Science, Bad Politics

by Hans von Storch
22nd December 2009

Climategate reveals a concerted effort to emphasize

Scientific Results useful to a Political Agenda

"Frankly, he's an odd individual," a well-known climatologist wrote about me in a private e-mail to a friend in the U.K. On this, we agree—I am an odd individual, if by that we mean a climatologist whose e-mails would not document a contempt for such basic scientific virtues such as openness, falsifiability, replicability and independent review.

The colleague is a member of the CRU cartel—the influential network of researchers at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and their colleagues in the U.S.—whose sanctum was exposed last month when a whistleblower or hacker published e-mails and documents from the CRU server on the Internet. What we can now see is a concerted effort to emphasize scientific results that are useful to a political agenda by blocking papers in the purportedly independent review process and skewing the assessments of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The effort has not been so successful, but trying was bad enough.

We—society and climate researchers—need to discuss now what constitutes "good science." Some think good science is a societal institution that produces results that serve an ideology. Take, for instance, the counsel that then-Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave to scientists at a climate change conference in March, as transcribed by Environmental Research Letters: "I would give you the piece of advice, not to provide us with too many moving targets, because it is already a very, very complicated process. And I need your assistance to push this process in the right direction, and in that respect, I need fixed targets and certain figures, and not too many considerations on uncertainty and risk and things like that."

I do not share that view. For me, good science means generating knowledge through a superior method, the scientific method. The merits of a scientifically constructed result do not depend on its utility for any politician's agenda. Indeed, the utility of my results is not my business, and the contextualization of my results should not depend on my personal preferences. It is up to democratic societies to decide how to use or not use my insights and explanations.

Trees need CO2

by Mike Adams
21st December 2009

More CO2 in the Atmosphere leads to

accelerated growth of certain Tree Species

Scientists from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Minnesota at Morris have found that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have led to the rapid growth of certain tree species. The quaking aspen, a popular North America deciduous tree, has seen a 50 percent acceleration in growth over the past 50 years due to increased CO2 levels.

Trees are necessary climate regulators since they process carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. Humans process oxygen and give off carbon dioxide, working harmoniously with natural plant life to maintain proper atmospheric composition. Since natural forests represent about 30 percent of the earth's surface, they are highly effective at segregating greenhouse gases.

The quaking aspen is a vibrant, dominant tree found in both Canada and the United States. It is considered to be a "foundation species", meaning that it helps dictate the dynamics of the plant and animal communities that surround it. Roughly 42 million acres in Canada and 6.5 million acres in Wisconsin and Minnesota are composed of aspen trees.

Elevated levels of CO2 will naturally lead to increased plant growth since CO2 is a precursor to plant food. Tree-ring analyses verified that aspen trees have been growing at an increasingly accelerated pace over the years because of this phenomenon.

Because accelerated growth was not seen in other tree species like oak and pine, scientists admit they will have to further investigate the issue. Similarly, drier regions where the trees were found did not experience the same rapid growth rates as those found in the wetter regions.

An interesting side effect of increased carbon emissions by human activity is that plants will grow more quickly. CO2 is to plants as oxygen is to humans, so the more CO2 is in the atmosphere, the more quickly many plants can grow.

Of course, plants produce oxygen as the "waste" product of their respiration, and that's a poison to other plants, so there's a natural balancing effect that keeps oxygen and CO2 levels in balance over the long haul.

This is why greenhouse gases are called "greenhouse gases", by the way -- because they turn the planet into a really effective greenhouse where plants grow like crazy. Of course, the clear-cutting of rainforest in the Amazon (and elsewhere) kills any chance of those regions taking part in that accelerated plant growth. Even in a high-CO2 environment, human beings can destroy plant life with bulldozers.

It's interesting that plants and humans breathe the same air but extract very different chemical elements from it: Humans need oxygen while plants need carbon dioxide. For both species to survive, the air needs to contain both chemicals in balance. Currently, the oxygen content of the air is roughly around 20% (and falling).

Article courtesy of Natural News

>>>> discuss this topic @ Natural News >>>>

How controlling can a Freak get ??

by Gerald Warner
22nd December 2009

Now Gordon Brown wants to police the entire World

Quasimodo in Number 10, hunched, scowling over his desk, has devised yet another plan to police, to increase surveillance, to indulge his obsession with extending his short-lived control over as many people as possible. Gordon Brown, who now seems to have lost his last tenuous grip on reality, wants the European Union to police the carbon emissions of the whole world. That is the leitmotif of New Labour – and, by extension, all Westminster – government: control, bans, observation, intrusion, diktat.

Balked of a legal agreement on imaginary manmade global warming at Copenhagen, Quasimodo and Nicolas Sarkozy are working on plans to create a “European monitoring organisation” to oversee different countries’ actions on carbon emissions. Barack Obama – the leading control freak in the liberal pantheon – has suggested spy satellites could be used.

Quasimodo told reporters: “We’re in favour of transparency; we’re in favour of looking at what’s happening not just in our country and our own continent, but around the world.” That isn’t transparency: that is snooping. “We’re in favour of transparency” – from a New Labour Prime Minister! Goebbels, who always favoured the Big Lie, would have loved it.

Were Quasimodo and his colleagues in favour of transparency about weapons of mass destruction? Even now, are they in favour of transparency at the Iraq inquiry, where Tony Blair will give evidence in secret? Were they in favour of transparency when they voted to keep MPs’ expenses under wraps, until the courts overruled them?

The one fear the enforcers entertain is that their spy-in-the-sky snooping on carbon emissions might antagonise China, which resists surveillance (all those covert coal mines and other eco-naughties). When Red China begins to seem like an apostle of laissez-faire, relaxed freedom, we know that the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Meanwhile, unheeding of the coming tsunami of electoral extinction, Quasimodo lopes around his bell-tower (courtesy of Quentin Davies) and plans ever tighter restrictions on everybody else’s liberties. What a filthy regime this has been. Even now the Harridan is planning legislation effectively to outlaw Christianity. Who do they think they are?

When they crawled out from under that stone in 1997 they had just one ambition: to impose their will, their prejudices, their squalid vision of the world on the entire nation. That is always the badge of the inadequate, the owners of inferiority complexes, epitomised by the nail-biting, grimacing weirdo in Number 10. It is a pity that Scottish kirks do not go in for much in the way of ornamentation; otherwise, Gordon/Quasimodo could have built a secure career for himself as a gargoyle on a church tower, scowlingly overlooking the rest of humanity.

Gerald Warner is an author, broadcaster,
columnist and polemical commentator who
writes about politics, religion, history,
culture and society in general.

Article courtesy of Telegraph.co.uk

>>>> discuss this topic @ Telegraph.co.uk >>>>

DARPA: Hacking Nature to create Weapons of the Gods

by Katie Drummond
18th December 2009

Military Science: Hack Stormy Skies to Lord over Lightning

Photograph: Lawrence Livermore National Lab

The military’s scientific fringe has toyed with weather manipulation and geo-engineering for years. Recently, ideas like adding iron to the ocean, or covering the Arctic with dust, have been floated in a bid stave off global warming. But the Pentagon’s also got a long track record of plotting to screw with enemy climates and improve their own operational abilities.

Now, Darpa’s got a new target for geo-hacking science, and if they can make it work, we might see modern firearms making way for weapons of the mythological variety. The out-there research agency is soliciting proposals that would harness control over “the natural mechanism of lightning initiation” by coming up with a way to launch manmade lightning bolts, and prevent or redirect natural lightning strikes — and their accompanying destruction.

“Lightning causes more than $1B/year in direct damages to property in addition to the loss of lives, disruption of activities (for example, postponement of satellite launches) and their corresponding costs,” the solicitation notes. Until now, no one’s been too clear on how lightning is formed or how it travels, and the fact that most of the activity is going on inside thunderclouds doesn’t help. That’s why Darpa wants “rocket-triggered lightning” that can be shot off from the ground and then studied as it moves and touches down.

Once the natural mechanism of lightning formation and travel is understood, the agency wants a plan to predict lightning strikes — and then either stop the storms, or reroute them to a better strategic location.

And Americans everywhere should brace themselves for stormy skies, because Darpa wants the storm-brewing techniques to be tested nationwide:

The United States is home to thunderstorms of various type, duration, scale and intensity.  This program would like to capitalize on the unique geographic features of various locations across the CONUS [Continental United States] that offer an increased likelihood of intercepting thunderstorms that exhibit unique characteristics.

Article courtesy of Wired.com

>>>> discuss this topic @ Wired.com >>>>

Pushing Global Governance and Global Warming to Kids

"These are the videos now being pushed at kids which promotes, among other thing, the possible “cancellation of Christmas” because of Global warming. It’s the worst kind of propaganda as it’s designed to scare kids. This was commissioned by Build a Bear."

"Watch all three - it’s a whopper"

-- David Icke

Videos courtesy of The Liberty Guardian @YouTube


build a bear letter pdf -

>>>> Turning Children into Orwellian Eco-Spies >>>>
>>>> Doomsday Climate Cultists attempt to convert Kids >>>>
>>>> Climate Propaganda on the Sundance TV Channel: Carbon Cops >>>> 
>>>> Unprecedented Warming ?? - Science Shows Total Fraud >>>>
>>>> Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura: Global Warming >>>>
>>>> Global Warming Hoax planned in 1961 >>>>
>>>> Caught Green Handed >>>>

The corruption of Wikipedia

by James Delingpole
22nd December 2009

If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely don’t use Wikipedia. “Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy”, is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you’d ever guess it was a scandal from  the accompanying article. It reads more like a damage-limitation press release put out by concerned friends and sympathisers of the lying, cheating, data-rigging scientists

Which funnily enough, is pretty much what it is. Even Wikipedia’s own moderators acknowledge that the entry has been hijacked, as this commentary by an “uninvolved editor” makes clear.

Unfortunately, this naked bias and corruption has infected the supposedly neutral Wikipedia’s entire coverage of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. And much of this, as Lawrence Solomon reports in the National Post, is the work of one man, a Cambridge-based scientist and Green Party activist named William Connolley.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

Private Eye: Polar Bears

Turning Children into Orwellian Eco-Spies

by Frank Furedi
15th December 2009

Frank Furedi recalls being educated through fear

in Stalinist Hungary, and is disturbed that the same

tactics are now used by Environmentalists

There is a long and sordid tradition of trying to socialise children by scaring them. The aim of such socialisation-through-fear is twofold: firstly, to get children to conform to the scaremongers’ values; secondly, to use children to influence, or at least to contain, their parents’ behaviour.

When I was a schoolchild in Stalinist Hungary, we were frequently warned about the numerous threats facing our glorious regime. I also recall that we were encouraged to lecture our errant parents about the new wonderful values being promoted by our brave, wise leaders. The Big Brothers of the 1940s saw children as tools of moral blackmail and social control. Today, in the twenty-first century, scaremongers see children in much the same way, exploiting their natural concern with the wonders of life to promote a message of shrill climate alarmism.

If you want to know how it works, watch the official opening video of the Copenhagen summit on climate change (see below) entitled ‘Please Help The World’, the four-minute film opens with happy children laughing and playing on swings. A sudden outburst of rain forces them all to rush for cover.

The message is clear: the climate threatens our way of life. It then cuts to a young girl who is anxiously watching one TV news broadcaster after another reporting on impending environmental catastrophes. Then we see the young girl tucked into bed, sweetly asleep as she embraces her toy polar bear… but suddenly we’re drawn into her nightmare. She’s on a parched and eerie landscape; she looks frightened and desolate; suddenly the dry earth cracks and she runs in terror towards the shelter of a distant solitary tree. She drops her toy polar bear in a newly formed chasm and yells and screams as she holds on to the tree for dear life. The video ends with groups of children pleading with us: ‘Please help the world.’ You get the picture.

The disappointment of Copenhagen is actually a reason to celebrate

Readers Letters
21st December 2009

After a decade of global cooling, we should

sigh with relief at Copenhagen's failure 

SIR – The only good news to come out of Copenhagen is that, in the words of Greenpeace: "There are no targets for carbon cuts and no agreement on a legally binding treaty."

Hooray! Along with tens of thousands of global-warming sceptics, the world can now breathe a sigh of relief and return to the sanity of real science, which counsels that carbon dioxide is not a poison, let alone likely to cause a heat-driven Armageddon.

We can now burn non-sulphurous coal again to ameliorate the effects of the colder climate that has already been with us for the past decade and is likely to stay for the next 30 years.

Dr David Bellamy
Bedburn, Co Durham

Copenhagen Births World Government Framework

Alex Jones breaks down the conclusion of the Copenhagen United Nations Conference on Climate Change (UNFCC), including the foundations of a new era of Global Governance-- as evidenced by quotes directly from the mouths of Al Gore, UN Head Ban Ki-Moon and bankster heir David de Rothschild.

Though new taxes have been levied and mechanisms for world regulation have been layed down, the Climate Change agenda has taken a lot of political damage. The beginnings of Climategate with the East Anglia CRU email leaks were just the beginning of a chain reaction of revelations that has fueled anger, doubt, denial and speculation worldwide. Compromised or fudged data have been identified from research centers in Russia, New Zealand, Australia and beyond.

Further, many leaders from Third World nations became angered at the 'Danish text leak' revealing plans to burden lesser-developed nations with greater emissions cuts and plans to levy a proposed $100 Billion in 'green' debt system. George Soros has proved to be at the center of what has been critiqued as 'Climate Colonialism' and would prove deadly to at-risk for starvation populations in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe, in particular. Already, growing ethanol in the place of food has been blamed for millions of deaths in the LDCs.

Alex also breaks down revelations about the carbon trading and other green schemes. It's not only players like Al Gore, the Rothschilds and George Soros who stand to make a killing. President Barack Obama-- with a great conflict of interest-- was a founding investment partner in the Chicago Climate Exchange alongside Maurice Strong, a top Rockefeller agent and leading climate change schemer. Chicago Climate Exchange is written into the architecture of many of the proposals for alternative energy credits, carbon derivatives and other green financial products and stands to enrich its membership.

In the end, the forced-incrementalism towards total world government, with complete dominance over money, debt, food, engery and resources, paid a price in exposure at COP15. Many politicians, journalists and people in general are now well aware that a scam has been forced down upon them-- and both their freedom and sovereignty are certainly at stake.

Video courtesy of The Alex Jones Channel @YouTube

Spy Drones to enforce CO2 Regulations

by Paul Joseph Watson
21st December 2009

European Union will act as “Global Warming Policeman” to mandate compliance

President Barack Obama has said that spy drones will be used to enforce CO2 emission regulations, while British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has outlined plans for the European Union to police compliance with carbon-cutting targets.

The final Copenhagen Accord included the provision that a global “governance structure” would be set up to control taxes on CO2 emissions and this is already starting to take shape after Gordon Brown announced that he is drawing up plans with French President Sarkozy for the EU to become a global warming policeman.

“Mr Brown and French President Nicholas Sarkozy now are working proposals for a “European monitoring organisation” that will oversee every country’s actions on emissions,” reports the Telegraph.

“I will work with President Sarkozy for a European organisation that will monitor the transparency that is being achieved not just in Europe and our own countries, but in every country around the world,” said Brown, adding, “I think people deserve for there to be international reporting at the highest standards of what is being done.”

In addition, President Barack Obama said that satellite technology would be used to check if countries like China are living up to their promises to cut CO2, a move that has been termed “eco-spying”. New advancements allow drones to monitor greenhouse gas emissions over a certain geographical area.

Copenhagen accord keeps Big Carbon in business

by Christopher Booker
19th December 2009

The Copenhagen Summit achieved its main aim, to maintain

the Carbon Trading System established by the Kyoto Protocol

Heads of state: protesters at the Copenhagen world summit mask themselves as world leaders,

including Australia's Kevin Rudd, Germany's Angela Merkel and President Obama 

Photograph: Casper Christoffersen/EPA

As fairy-tale snow gently descended on Copenhagen, the great global warming conference degenerated through pantomime, boredom, chaos and anger to its entirely predictable conclusion – a colossal pile of fudge with a very hard and nasty rock hidden at its centre. The "world summit" on climate change was never really going to be about saving the world from global warming at all. Even if the delegates had got all they wanted, it would no more have had any influence on emissions of CO2 – let alone on the world's climate – than the 1997 Kyoto Protocol before it.

As was argued in 1997 by Tom Wigley, one of Al Gore's trusted allies and formerly head of the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, or CRU (recently at the centre of the Climategate scandal over rigged temperature data), even if the world had implemented Kyoto to the full, it would only have delayed global warming by six years. In fact, as was revealed last summer by the German renewable energy institute IWR, CO2 emissions are now 40 per cent above their level in 1990, the baseline Kyoto was meant to return them to.

Copenhagen was not about global warming but money. The cash that Hillary Clinton so dramatically plonked on the table, rising to $100 billion by 2020, which includes the £1.5 billion offered by Gordon Brown (money which of course he hasn't got) and which like a crazed gambler he last week upped to £6 billion (even more money he hasn't got), was merely a "sweetener" to persuade the developing countries to maintain the money-machine set in motion by Kyoto.

What’s liberal about booing off Johnny Ball ??

by Brendon O'Neill
17th December 2009

The jeering of a Climate Sceptic by supposedly

Liberal Atheists confirms that questioning

manmade Climate Change is the new blasphemy

Everyone hates the tabloid phrase ‘You couldn’t make it up’, I know, but there are times when no other form of words will do. On Tuesday night Johnny Ball, the veteran children’s TV presenter who introduced my generation (thirtysomethings) to the wonders of science and maths, was booed and slow-handclapped off stage in London for daring to express scepticism about manmade climate change. And who was in the audience, doing the booing, the jeering, the hissing and the chanting of ‘shame, shame, shame’ until a ‘shaken-looking’ Ball agreed to ‘leave the stage’? (1) Liberal atheists who claim to be allergic to orthodox beliefs, and campaigning scientists who have defended ‘free speech for scientists’. As I said, you couldn’t make it up.

Ball was invited to speak at ‘Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless People’, one of an increasing number of religious right-style get-togethers at which hundreds of individuals mock and pour scorn on the deluded masses - except the gathered individuals are self-styled rationalists rather than Bible-bashers, and their targets are the thickos who believe in God or receive chiropractic treatment rather than drunks or single mums. Ball, who presented the BBC kids’ science show Think of a Number from 1977 to 1984, decided to devote his stint on stage to singing a George Formby-style ditty about the English physicist John Dalton, before making a speech in which he criticised the ‘bad science’ of global warming and said that natural emissions from insects and spiders (‘spiders farting’) are more damaging to the climate than fossil fuels (2).

Bad move. The new collective of liberal atheists, of agitated ‘rationalists’, of Keepers Of The Scientific Truth As Revealed Unto Them By Richard Dawkins, can tolerate nothing so intolerable as someone taking the piss out of scientific theories about climate change. According to one report there were ‘slow handclaps, whistles and jeers’ (3). A blogger who attended the event said ‘a cry of “shame” from the audience broke the dam, the boos started, and a perplexed and shaken-looking Ball was finally forced from the stage’ (4). No wonder Ball looked perplexed: he thought he had been invited to a free, open-minded, rationalist ideas-knockabout and then found himself being ‘forced from the stage’ as if he were a tattooed Satanist who had gatecrashed a bishops’ tea party down Lambeth way.

Pentagon's role in Global Catastrophe

by Sara Flounders
19th December 2009

Add Climate Havoc to War Crimes

In evaluating the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen -- with more than 15,000 participants from 192 countries, including more than 100 heads of state, as well as 100,000 demonstrators in the streets -- it is important to ask: How is it possible that the worst polluter of carbon dioxide and other toxic emissions on the planet is not a focus of any conference discussion or proposed restrictions?

By every measure, the Pentagon is the largest institutional user of petroleum products and energy in general. Yet the Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements.

The Pentagon wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; its secret operations in Pakistan; its equipment on more than 1,000 U.S. bases around the world; its 6,000 facilities in the U.S.; all NATO operations; its aircraft carriers, jet aircraft, weapons testing, training and sales will not be counted against U.S. greenhouse gas limits or included in any count.

The Feb. 17, 2007, Energy Bulletin detailed the oil consumption just for the Pentagon's aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities that made it the single-largest oil consumer in the world. At the time, the U.S. Navy had 285 combat and support ships and around 4,000 operational aircraft. The U.S. Army had 28,000 armored vehicles, 140,000 High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, more than 4,000 combat helicopters, several hundred fixed-wing aircraft and 187,493 fleet vehicles. Except for 80 nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, which spread radioactive pollution, all their other vehicles run on oil.

Even according to rankings in the 2006 CIA World Factbook, only 35 countries (out of 210 in the world) consume more oil per day than the Pentagon.

The Climategate Code

by Thomas Fuller
18th December 2009

In addition to the more than 1,000 emails and assorted documents that were leaked to the public a month ago, there were several files containing software code, seemingly source code for the calculations the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia used for processing and adjusting temperatures for their calculations of global warming.

Immediately after the leak, attention was drawn to comments in the code's documentation that seemed to indicate that the programmers had difficulty understanding what had been done previously, did not feel capable of righting the programming wrongs, and on occasion invented weather stations to park data or even invented data.

Now, as computer scientists and programmers have had more time to analyse the code as well as the comments, programming errors that would change calculations or even cause the program to skip data are coming to light.

Copenhagen Accord Establishes Global Government Framework

by Paul Joseph Watson
19th December 2009

“Governance Structure” will be set up

to control Taxes on CO2 Emissions

Although the final Copenhagen agreement is largely being dismissed as a failure by both the mainstream media and climate skeptics, it does establish the framework for a global government which will control climate finances via taxes on CO2 emissions, as Lord Monckton warned on The Alex Jones Show this week.

Monckton said that the main goal of Copenhagen was to “establish the mechanism, the structure, and above all the funding for a world government.”

“They are going to take from the western countries the very large financial resources required to do that.” Monckton said, adding “They will disguise it by saying they are setting up a $100 billion fund for adaptation to climate change in third world countries, but actually, this money will almost all be gobbled up by the international bureaucracy.”

The final text of the accord states that funds obtained from climate financing will be controlled by a “governance structure,” and that a “High Level Panel” will be appointed to decide where the money will come from. In effect, this means that a UN-controlled structure of global governance will override the sovereignty of nation states in collecting and doling out funds obtained under the justification of climate change.

The World Bank’s Carbon Trade Fiasco

by Mary Tharin
11th February 2009

The World Bank and Climate Change:

Sustainability or Exploitation?

In the name of environmental protection, the World Bank is brokering carbon emission trading arrangements that destroy indigenous farmlands around the world.

The effort to coordinate global action to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions began with the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted in 1997 and now has been ratified by 183 nations…

In accordance with the Kyoto Protocol, many governments have established “caps,” or limits, on the greenhouse gas emissions that can be produced in their countries. Industries can respond to these government-imposed limits by responsibly reducing their emissions, or they can bypass this process entirely by purchasing “carbon credits” from other industries in other parts of the world who, through Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) investment brokered by the World Bank, trade emission reduction “credits” in order to “offset” excessive emissions. Joris den Blanken, a climate change specialist with Greenpeace, says, “Offsetting means exporting responsibilities to the developing world and removes the incentive for industry to improve efficiency or to invest in renewable energy.”

While the World Bank claims that this system “supports sustainable development . . . and benefits the poorer communities of the developing world,” the program in reality has become little more than a corporate profit-boosting enterprise. In fact, many transnational corporations are using cap and trade programs not only to avoid emissions responsibility, but to further profit by developing environmentally and socially destructive industries in less developed countries.

In Latin America, where a long history of corporate exploitation has already taken a steep toll, environmentalists and indigenous communities are beginning to speak out about the dangers of the CDM. Because of a myopic focus on greenhouse gas reduction only, and a lack of accountability to local communities, many projects are producing other environmental and social ills that are diametrically opposed to the program’s stated objectives.

Most Important Paper in The World ??

by Gerald Warner
18th December 2009

Copenhagen Climate Summit: 'Most Important

Paper in The World' is a glorified UN Press Release

When your attempt at recreating the Congress of Vienna with a third-rate cast of extras turns into a shambles, when the data with which you have tried to terrify the world is daily exposed as ever more phoney, when the blatant greed and self-interest of the participants has become obvious to all beholders, when those pesky polar bears just keep increasing and multiplying – what do you do?

No contest: stop issuing three rainforests of press releases every day, change the heading to James Bond-style “Do not distribute” and “leak” a single copy, in the knowledge that human nature is programmed to interest itself in anything it imagines it is not supposed to see, whereas it would bin the same document unread if it were distributed openly.

After that, get some unbiased, neutral observer, such as the executive director of Greenpeace, to say: “This is the single most important piece of paper in the world today.” Unfortunately, the response of all intelligent people will be to fall about laughing; but it was worth a try – everybody loves a tryer – and the climate alarmists are no longer in a position to pick and choose their tactics.

But boy! Was this crass, or what? The apocalyptic document revealing that even if the Western leaders hand over all the climate Danegeld demanded of them, appropriately at the venue of Copenhagen, the earth will still fry on a 3C temperature rise is the latest transparent scare tactic to extort more cash from taxpayers. The danger of this ploy, of course, is that people might say “If we are going to be chargrilled anyway, what is the point of handing over billions – better to get some serious conspicuous consumption in before the ski slopes turn into saunas.”

Climategate Expanding

by Bob Ellis
18th December 2009

Climategate Expanding, including Russian

Data and another Research Center

The apostles of the religion of anthropogenic global warming desperately want people to believe their flimsy theory about the earth warming due to human activity is based on science, “settled science” they tell us, where there is “consensus” of all scientists with no disagreement in the scientific community.

We already knew that was total bunk, since there are more than 31,000 scientists who are on record stating they don’t buy the theory of anthropogenic global warming.  There are several groups of scientists who have gone on record in different areas of the world against this silly theory, and while AGW true believers desperately want us to ignore these scientists, the facts are difficult things to ignore.

Besides, the whole idea–when compared to the power of the sun and historical data of natural, cyclic climate change going back thousands of years–just doesn’t pass the smell test of credibility.

Then came the leaked emails, computer code and other documents from the Climate Research Unit in Englad a few weeks ago, and the lid was finally off their sealed pot of stonewalling propaganda.  We got to see first hand their own talk of using “tricks” and “fudge factors” in their climate models to “hide the decline” in recent temperatures.  We also found out they had trashed a lot of their raw data and could no longer produce the original information upon which they base their summaries.  How convenient.

Final Copenhagen Text Includes Global Transaction Tax

 by Paul Joseph Watson
18th December 2009

Obama set to bypass Congress and approve

massive transfer of wealth to World Government

The final Copenhagen draft agreement which was hammered out in the early hours of Friday morning includes provisions for a global tax on financial transactions that will be paid directly to the World Bank, as President Obama prepares to bypass Congress by approving a massive transfer of wealth from America into globalist hands.

As Lord Monckton, Alex Jones and others warned, the notion that the globalists would achieve nothing at Copenhagen has likely been a ruse all along. The elite look set to ram through the lion’s share of their agenda, which would include a massive global government tax at a cost of at least $3,000 a year for American families already laboring under a devastating recession, double digit unemployment and a reduction in living standards.

Hillary Clinton arrived yesterday to rally global leaders around a resolution and Barack Obama is set to be portrayed as the savior of the world by rescuing what was pitched all along as a conference doomed to fail.

Lord Monckton Reports From Copenhagen's Tax and Fraud Fest

Alex Jones welcomes back to his Radio Show Christopher Monckton, the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, British politician, business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, inventor and ardent critic of the bogus scientific consensus on climate change.

Climate scam guru Al Gore has for years refused to accept Monckton's repeated challenge to a public debate on global warming. Monckton has warned the proposed UN Climate Change Treaty Obama is expected to sign along with other world leaders in Copenhagen will cede US sovereignity to the UN.

Videos courtesy of The Alex Jones Channel @YouTube

>>>> Caught Green-Handed >>>>
>>>> Lord Monckton reveals Scientific Fraud at Copenhagen !! >>>>
>>>> Lord Monckton Reports on Pachauri’s Eye Opening Presentation >>>>
>>>> Copenhagen Accord Establishes Global Government Framework >>>>
>>>> Alex Jones on Climategate: Hoax of all time a Global Ponzi Scheme >>>>
>>>> Alex Jones: Secret Copenhagen Documents Leaked >>>>

Environmentalism in the Third Reich

by Jurriaan Maessen
15th December 2009

With COP15 well underway, we are witnessing the complete mutilation of freedom worldwide. When lord Christopher Monckton was rudely interrupted by chanting automatons the other day, he was quite right to refer to them as “Hitler Youth”. Why? Because they too blindly served a system that had a murderous and tyrannical apple-core, resulting in the deaths of tens of millions of people. The same applies to the current world government being constructed at the expense of developing nations, but (horribly ironical) implemented in the name of those same developing nations. The endgame was, is and always will be the extermination of a great many people. It is the New World Order’s intent to shake the tree of liberty so furiously, that most apples fall to the ground to rot and die. If the world government will be ratified, it will also snap the trunk.

It has been elaborately pointed out how the device of environmentalism is especially favoured by tyrants as a means of controlling their subjects. The current ‘green’ movement, as we know, is no exception. It has been nurtured from its very conception as a systematic eugenics operation by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller- and Ford Foundations. Throughout the 20th century there have been multiple examples of tyrants implementing a very strict environmental policy to which their subjects had to conform; sometimes through the collection of taxes, sometimes at the barrel of a gun- usually a subtle mixture of the two. During an  ENESCO-conference in October 1977 held (bizarrely) in Soviet Russia, the then Director-General of UNESCO, Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow ‘paid tribute to the Soviet Union and to the spectacular results achieved since the October Revolution in all areas of economic, social and cultural life, particularly in education and science, and, more especially, in environmental education.’

Here the good Director-General pays tribute to a then 60-year old regime responsible for murdering many millions of people in death camps and deliberate mass-scale starvation-operations. Yes, ‘environmental issues’ were very high on the agenda of the USSR, very high indeed.

It is a well documented though seldom highlighted fact that the Nazis were also very much into environmentalism- not for environmentalism’s sake of course, but rather as a means of oppression and control. As it turns out, environmentalism fits the form of tyranny like a well tailored suit.

US Resorts to Bribery to get a Deal signed at Copenhagen

by Soraya Roberts
17th December 2009

US to contribute to $100B Climate Fund to

help developing countries: Hillary Clinton

Hilary Clinton announced US support of an annual $100 billion climate protection fund

The planet may be saved after all, and it will only cost $100 billion.

Just as the Copenhagen climate summit appeared to be on the verge of unraveling, the United States Thursday announced its support of an annual $100 billion climate protection fund, the Associated Press reports.

“The US is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

Lord Monckton Reports on Pachauri’s Eye Opening Presentation

by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
17th December 2009

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.

The Green Hypocrites

By Rebecca English and David Derbyshire
16th December 2009

Prince Charles and Gordon Brown take separate jets...

to lecture The World on Global Warming

Prince Charles and Gordon Brown were accused last night of ‘green hypocrisy’ after jetting into Copenhagen to lecture the world about global warming.

Charles used the £1,019-an-hour Queen’s Flight so he could deliver a keynote speech to the climate change conference, flying back after less than three hours.

The Prime Minister chartered a 185-seat Airbus to take him and 20 aides to Denmark for their four-day trip.

Among Mr Brown’s team was his senior adviser on climate change, Michael Jacobs, who was at the summit at the weekend but flew back to London to join his boss on the flight.

By using private planes, both Charles and Mr Brown produced more carbon emissions – which is blamed for global warming – than would have been generated by taking a scheduled flight.

Hampshire-based Carbon Footprint Limited said the prince’s round trip would have produced around 6.4tons of carbon dioxide – 5.2tons more than if he had used a commercial flight.

They also estimated that the amount of CO2 generated by Mr Brown’s flight is likely to be double that of the prince’s.