1061 Greenscam (C.C.C.C.) doomsday video

COPENHAGEN CLIMATE CRIME CONFERENCE

I don't know why they played this at the opening of the conference. (Those jerks already believe this crap)

1063 Greenscam (C.C.C.C.) climategate

COPENHAGEN CLIMATE CRIME CONFERENCE

telegraph.co.uk

A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation , rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

Christopher Booker's The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? (Continuum, £16.99) is available from Telegraph Books for £14.99 plus £1.25 p & p.

1064 Greenscam (C.C.C.C.) human hater

COPENHAGEN CLIMATE CRIME CONFERENCE

Mike Church

And it wasn’t until Al Gore and Tim Wirth and the other human-haters came along and they went [mimicking Al Gore], “There’s a lot of money to be made in demonizing carbon. I mean, everything’s got carbon in it. If we can figure out how to make carbon a pollutant, just imagine the money we can make regulating it.” And I want to just touch on the ClimateGate emails for just a second here because this is important. Daniel Henninger wrote about this on the pages of The Wall Street Journal yesterday that the science community, if you want to call it that, has always been very cognizant and defensive against a recurrence of what happened to Galileo. Does everybody know what happened to Galileo? We had this thing called – it was part of this thing called the Inquisition. Galileo was called a heretic. They were going to burn the guy at the stake. “You can’t say those things. Wait a minute, no no no, everything revolves around Earth. No no no no, we’re the center of the universe.” Galileo almost died, he was almost killed because of his scientific discoveries because religious folks, the Church, the Catholic Church, didn’t believe it. It undermined their authority and their power.

And yet just one of us, just one, only the humans pose a threat. Does that make any sense to anyone? You mean to tell me whales eating too many plankton don’t pose a threat? Hmm? Who speaks for the plankton? You mean to tell me that bears crapping on clover don’t pose a threat to the clover? How’d you like to be covered in bear poo half the days of the year, hmm? I mean, I could go on and on. I think you get the point. Just think of the scientific validity of this, that only one of nature’s creations – now, let’s pretend that we’re all Darwinists. Right? Only one of nature’s creations poses a threat to the planet. Only one. That’s us. No other species. No other creation, just the humans. And as I have argued with egg-headed environmentalists for 18 years on the radio airwaves now, how do you know? “Oh, but you, Mr. Church, you and the humans, you created all these things. You made plastics. You made insecticides and all manner of destructive things. You polluted the environment. You, blah blah blah blah blah.” All that has been done is that molecules have been rearranged by a creation of the organic sphere known as Gaia back in the old days, and now Earth. That’s all that’s happened. Yet our rearranging of the organic sphere is viewed as unnatural, is viewed as somehow foreign.

Well, if we are a product of the same organic processes that created all the other things that we’re supposed to protect, how come the things that we make aren’t as natural a part of the now Earth ecosystem or environment as the other creations? “Well, because it’s plastic. It’s molded.” So? You ever heard George Carlin’s bit about this? About how maybe the plastic wanted to be liberated from the ground? Maybe the oil was just waiting for us to come along and take it out of the ground and turn it into plastic. Maybe the Earth has been smothered for 3 billion years. Maybe the Earth was swimming in oil, and it couldn’t breathe, and was just so thankful that man came along and started pumping the oil out. Finally, I can breathe. And Carlin’s point, the brilliant George Carlin, quite possibly the most underappreciated American Libertarian in the last half century, the brilliant George Carlin just demolishes environmentalism with comedy. And you can find those videos on YouTube.

And now the climate gooks, geeks, nuts, are out there insisting, “Oh, so what, we cooked the – ah, you can’t believe those emails. We need to investigate those guys.” You have a member of the United States Senate, Senator Babs Boxer, quite possibly the third largest disgrace in the history of the Senate, the first being Jabba the Senator from Michigan, Debbie Stabecow, the second being Jabba the Junior Senator from Missouri, Claire Mama Caskill, and then Babs Boxer Bouncer. [Mimicking Senator Boxer] “We need to have an investigation.” I’m sorry, the Hadley Research Unit is in England. What are you, queen of England now? An American, a United States Senator, representative from the state of California, thinks somehow we have – I guess we do rule the world now, literally, ladies and gentlemen, in the eyes of the Senate. We have the authority – oh, no, scratch that. We have the responsibility to go take over Scotland Yard, to put Barbara Boxer and her tree-hugging goons in charge and find out who these thieves were that busted the story. Who these thieves were that leaked out the real story of climate change.

Let me say something to you bark-humping wackos out there. Your days are numbered, buddy. By the time this is over, and by the time the numbers are added up of the destruction that you and your frog-licking ecomania have wielded and have visited upon the heads of innocent people out here who are just as much a part of this environment and have just as much a claim to living in it as the stupid frogs and fish that you want to protect. Your days are numbered, pal. There is an ass-whipping coming your way. If I were you I’d take the green crap off my car because I know what you’ve cost us. I know the liberty and the economic malaise you have singlehandedly caused, the misappropriation of resources that you have engendered with your hysterical religious beliefs. “Mike, no, no, it’s about science.” No, it’s not. You’re the antithesis to science.

A scientist would approach everything they do with great skepticism and would not make a “consensus” until they could unequivocally replicate their results in a laboratory. Can you replicate the climate models in a laboratory? Are they infallible? Do they return the same result every time? “Well, no, but they go in the right....” No, they don’t. They don’t even go in the right direction. Al Gore said we’d be cooking by 2010; remember? In 2002 we had [mimicking Al Gore] “exactly eight years left to save the planet, folks. We don’t do it in eight years, we’re gone. I’m outta here. I’m going to Mars or somewhere because we’re dead, all of us.” Really. And here it is 2010. Oh, I’m still alive, imagine that. They’re still sending Discovery Channel cameras out to the Galapagos to find new species.

1065 Greenscam (C.C.C.C.) intro

COPENHAGEN CLIMATE CRIME CONFERENCE

Mike Church
And it wasn’t until Al Gore and Tim Wirth and the other human-haters came along and they went, “There’s a lot of money to be made in demonizing carbon. I mean, everything’s got carbon in it. If we can figure out how to make carbon a pollutant, just imagine the money we can make regulating it.”

(see the rest of this tomorrow)

U.N. Climate Conference Opens in Copenhagen

COPENHAGEN — The largest and most important U.N. climate change conference in history opened Monday, with organizers warning diplomats from 192 nations that this could be the best, last chance for a deal to protect the world from calamitous global warming.

The two-week conference, the climax of two years of contentious negotiations, convened in an upbeat mood after a series of promises by rich and emerging economies to curb their greenhouse gases, but with major issues yet to be resolved.

Conference president Connie Hedegaard said the key to an agreement is finding a way to raise and channel public and private financing to poor countries for years to come to help them fight the effects of climate change.

Hedegaard — Denmark's former climate minister — said if governments miss their chance at the Copenhagen summit, a better opportunity may never come.

"This is our chance. If we miss it, it could take years before we got a new and better one. If we ever do," she said.

Denmark's prime minister said 110 heads of state and government will attend the final days of the conference. President Barack Obama's decision to attend the end of the conference, not the middle, was taken as a signal that an agreement was getting closer.

The conference opened with video clips of children from around the globe urging delegates to help them grow up in a world without catastrophic warming.

At stake is a deal that aims to wean the world away from fossil fuels and other pollutants to greener sources of energy, and to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars from rich to poor countries every year over decades to help them adapt to climate change.

Scientists say without such an agreement, the Earth will face the consequences of ever-rising temperatures, leading to the extinction of plant and animal species, the flooding of coastal cities, more extreme weather events, drought and the spread of diseases.

"The evidence is now overwhelming" that the world needs early action to combat global warming, said Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an U.N. expert panel.

He defended climate research in the face of a controversy over e-mails pilfered from a British university, which global warming skeptics say show scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence that doesn't fit their theories.

"The recent incident of stealing the e-mails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC," he told the conference.

Negotiations have dragged on for two years, only recently showing signs of breakthroughs with new commitments from The United States, China and India to control greenhouse gas emissions.

The first week of the conference will focus on refining the complex text of a draft treaty. But major decisions will await the arrival next week of environment ministers and the heads of state in the final days of the conference, which ends Dec. 18.

"The time for formal statements is over. The time for restating well-known positions is past," said the U.N.'s top climate official, Yvo de Boer. "Copenhagen will only be a success it delivers significant and immediate action."

Among those decisions is a proposed fund of $10 billion each year for the next three years to help poor countries create climate change strategies. After that, hundreds of billions of dollars will be needed every year to set the world on a new energy path and adapt to new climates.

"The deal that we invite leaders to sign up on will be one that affects all aspects of society, just as the changing climate does," said Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen. "Negotiators cannot do this alone, nor can politicians. The ultimate responsibility rests with the citizens of the world, who will ultimately bear the fatal consequences if we fail to act."

A study released by the U.N. Environment Program on Sunday indicated that pledges by industrial countries and major emerging nations fall just short of the reductions of greenhouse gas emissions that scientists have said are needed to keep average temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C (3.6 F).