End of The World: News of The Day

Dr Spencer Releases Original Recordings: Tribute to Gore (04:36 UTC 311209)

Dr Spencer was busy in his evil subterranean lab looking for signs of catastrophic global warming in the closing hours of the end of the first decade of the Last Millennium for mankind when he stumbled upon an archeological treasure in the form of his twin brother’s (Butch Spencer of EcoFreako fame) original cuts of their famous Al Gore tribute singles.

Lost Digital Treasure Recovered

Dr Spencer and Butch have generously decided to release this important historical EcoGreenCarbonNeutralGenderSensitiveHistoricallyRecontextualisedGlobal PostScientificArt to Civil Society for the salvation of all nongenderspecificspecieskind and as a special sacrifice to Mother Gaia on this post-tipping point day, the day of days, the day before the day to end all days.

DocRock writes,

"You might remember Live Earth. It was a worldwide string of concerts which frivolously wasted huge amounts of fossil fuels to help raise awareness of mankind’s frivolous waste of fossil fuels.

Now that Mr. Gore has moved on to other things such as winning Nobel Peace Prizes, it’s only appropriate that he should have a tribute band. At least that’s what my evil twin brother and rocker, Butch Spencer, told me. Butch and several of his musician friends got together a year or so ago and recorded a couple of songs (mp3’s and lyrics below) to honor Mr. Gore’s tireless efforts to Save the Earth.

The band was called EcoFreako, and it lasted about a week before everyone found better things to do with their free time. Since then, the songs have been wasting away on my computer until I re-discovered them when transferring files to my new, Energy Star-compliant desktop supercomputer."

Ahmen to that bro’. Go here to get your fix of these rockin’ baaaaaaaaaaadasss mp3’s.

Bishop Tutu On Going Down (05:02 UTC 311209)

Following a couple of shots of Viagra, Desmond Tutu opined with the following message; and a warning,

We are saying to the rich countries, “You are not going to be able to quarantine yourself, there is no place that’s going to be safe. If we go down, we all go down. We have the chance of survival, and more than just survival: we have the chance of building a new world.”

Those are reported to be the first democratic words uttered by Desmond since the fall of apartheid. Sorry Des, but you are not doing too well with your "new world" building in Africa so I think I'll stick with my old one.

Misogynist Scientists Prove Women Suffer More from Post Copenhagen Blues (05:05 UTC 311209)

And following on with the going down theme, here’s a picture of some cute EcoHotties on their way to Copenhagen.

All aboard to Copenhagen!

It was a different story after the party.

Post-Copenhagen Blues - Pic of glum EcoHottie listening to
 Obama in the dying hours of COP15 and in need of some luvin'

And just to prove that not all the hotties are deluded I present Miss Maria dos Santos.

Maria is a firm (some would say very firm) AGW skeptic. She refuses to date “any of those doomsday AGW morons. The climate is nothing to be afraid of,” says Maria. "I like to get out every day on the beach here at Ipanema and play. The weather here varies as much as 10 degrees in a day. Humans are adaptable. When it gets hot I just put on a skimpier bikini. No harm has every come from it.”

Way to go Maria!

Scientists Discover Temperature Anomalies Make Fish Real Mad (05:55 UTC 311209)

Temperature anomaly enraged Great White Shark

The year 2009 saw another important discovery by scientists. Rising temperatures makes good fish go bad.

Early Paleo-Climatologist Found (06:00 UTC 311209)

Scientists have just discovered the remains of what appears to be an early AGW climatologist in Africa. They believe they may have stumbled upon an early UN paleogabfest on anthropogenic global warming that was suddenly overtaken by a bliazzard,  tragically killing all in attendance. A computer reconstruction appears at left.

Scientists found other similar fossils in the area and the remains of numerous illegible placards together with scratchings in nearby ancient river clay deposits representing, according to archeolinguists, a draft document detailing a scheme to tax emissions from the then newly discovered cooking fire technology sweeping the rich developed homo clans of the region and all but impoverishing proto homos in the process who were forced to eat raw vegetables instead of juicy steaks. There were also provisions relating to fire technology transfer rights and a complex coconut reparations justice model.

Dr Mann of Penn State University is quoted as saying, “the evidence is undeniable; AGW was recognized by scientists then and now. This is clear proof of a body of evidence. There is no debate.” Unfortunately my interview with Dr Mann was cut short by a hearing he had to attend by the Penn State University Senate into his research. Damn.

Archeologists speculate that the early development of an unproductive activist “civil society” class by the as yet unnamed proto homo species was simply too much for their primitive technology and economy to sustain leading to the early extinction of the species. We will never know for certain but one thing that is certain is that much more funding and research into this remarkable find is required.

An alternative IPCC backed reconstruction of the digitised remains performed by CRU scientists using the University of East Anglia SuperDooper Computer Array which put the data through a 100,000 year 14th polynomial inverted contortion filter (patent pending) following Jones et al 1999 and smoothing and smearing the result yielded this:

Prof Jones' reconstruction using homogenised data

I know what I would rather believe. I think CRU's funding worries are over.

Gay Whale Molests Lesbian Greenpeace Eco Warrior (07:18 UTC 311209)

Reports are filtering in that a gay humpback whale has inappropriately “touched” a lesbian Greenpeace activist during a specially authorized US EPA close encounter research dive. The woman is reported to have filed a law suit against the US government for negligence in authorizing the dive. Damages could exceed the entire national US debt. Upon hearing the news the whale expelled such a quantity of noxious methane and carbon dioxide gases that the nearby Green Peace ship, Eco Something or Other sank in less than 3 minutes. An all female rescue crew has been dispatched from a yurt in Nepal to perform a gender sensitive rescue and is expected on the scene in less than 82 hours. The US Coast Guard is investigating claims that laughter was heard in radio transmissions allegedly originating in the area of operations of the Japanese whaling fleet.

Greenpeace broadcast the following video of a constipated angry child to the whales in an attempt to scare them from further hostilities.



A spokesperson for Greenpeace said, “if the whales see the kind of threats from children that we are prepared to release on our own species, they will know we mean business when it comes to dealing with them! The whales would be very unwise to underestimate either our capabilities or our resolve.” Garbled reports of a second Greenpeace ship just being sunk by a suspiciously odorous bubble in Copenhagen harbor have yet to be confirmed.

Weather (08:02 UTC 311209)

Eight inches of Global Warming fell in London

The UK Met Office released their forecast for New Year’s Day. They say there is a 51% chance that the weather tomorrow will be different from today.

“We have reached a broad consensus,” stated the director (snowbound on holidays in the Scottish Highlands) of the clandestine AGW First Response Climate Team operating undercover within the bureau. This could be the last snowfall we see for a millennium.”

Asked to explain how the lingering cold snap fits in with the AGW hypothesis the director was heard to say, “why don’t you flat earther’s just F### OFF!”

The director then hurled a large wad of homogenized climate statistics weighing in excess of 5 kilo’s at the reporter. UK prosecuting authorities are expected to lay charges against the director for assault in the next few hours. Latest information is that ambulances have been prevented from attending the scene due to impassible roads covered in deep powder snow.

Lord Monckton issued a statement that he would be willing to attempt a rescue with a 4WD Land Rover assuming relevant persmissions could be obtained from the newly incorporated UK Carboncops in time but he had almost used all his carbon allowance for the year and still had a new years party to get to in a neighbouring glen later this evening.

Have a great last day for 2009!

Nature Admits: There is No Real Evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming

Most would already know that there is not one paper, not one testable hypothesis, not one piece of hard scientific proof to verify the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming case despite billions of dollars being invested in the research to date. All we have are computer models which of course tell us exactly what they are asked to tell us.

Alan Cheetham, an engineer with extensive scientific training and who has published several papers on data modelling, has written an article on Climate Science Warming that examines this in some detail together with the evidence. Specifically he looks at a 3 December 2009 Nature editorial attempting to defend the AGW hypothesis. It seems that catestrophic global warming scientists "test" assertions by "running their models". This is an amazing admission from a Nature. Assertions are tested by running untested models. The models do not even simulate the 1930-1940's warming let alone the decline in average global temperature anomolies since the beginning of this century. As the models do not simulate historical climate it is beyond comprehension that they are used for what are coyly called future "projections". To quote a snippet from Alan:

The Nature editorial states: “Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.” It then mentions the usual symptoms: “glacier retreat, thinning and areal reduction of Arctic sea ice, reductions in permafrost and accelerated loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets … the global sea level is rising … spring is arriving earlier each year.”

So where are the “robust lines of evidence” for causation?

“Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. The strong implication is that increased greenhouse-gas emissions have played an important part in recent warming, meaning that curbing the world's voracious appetite for carbon is essential”.

That’s it – running model simulations. That’s all there is. No real evidence. The models don’t work without CO2. Just curb your appetite. If there was actual empirical evidence of CO2 causation they would have mentioned it.

It is essential that this article be read in full from Global Warming Science.

Models can aid in our understanding of systems but it is absurd to "test" an assertion by running an untested simulation or model that is clearly deficient. The models cannot be used as predictive devices nor as a means for testing assertions.

French Toss Carbon Tax

The French Carbon Tax was ruled as unconstitutional just days before it was to come into effect. Read all about it at WUWT.

Climategate Video

I am including a Finnish television documentary (English subtitles) which is a very good and will bring you up to speed quickly on Climategate which involves IPCC scientists being currently investigated by the prosecuting authorities. There are a few minor errors but overall it is very good.







Now why can't we get something like this from our publicly funded ABC in Australia? I am not being serious of course. We know the reason.

It’s Not the Weather, Stupid

I came across an interesting article and quote concerning Desmond Tutu at Copenhagen.

"At a candle light vigil, Tutu almost incoherently squealed:

“If you are responsible for most of the emissions, which are—look—look—look at the ozone layer. People are now suffering from all kinds of skin diseases, because we are thinning the ozone layer. Whoa! Whoa-ho!”

Getting straight to the point, Tutu importuned the wealthy West to fork it over:

“For your own sakes, rich people, please, for your own sakes, for your children’s sakes, for the sake of our world, be nice. Be nice, and pay up. Pay up, please. Please, for your own sake.”

Most prominent among the religious prelates in Copenhagen were Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and retired South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who solemnly told religious activists at a rally that an unidentified 300,000 people were “dying as a result of the poverty caused by all of the emissions coming from the rich countries.” Lest anyone misunderstand his target, Tutu pleaded: “Hello, rich people. Hello there, hello America.” Tutu did not mention how many hundreds of millions of people are alive and living with greater health and wealth because of Western industry."

Poor Desmond, not only does Desmond seem to be getting his global catastrophies mixed up (global catastrophy due to thinning ozone layer is so last century Des) but massively increasing aid by way of “climate reparations” to the tune of USD100 billion a year (see here), and that’s just for starters, is not the answer. Rewarding murderous and/or inept regimes with billions of dollars for their offshore bank accounts and incestuous business transactions is not a solution. It has never succeeded in the past and it will not succeed in the future.

Transferring wealth from the poor of the west to the rich of the despotic African nations by way of a climate tax will only extend the murderous regimes the people live under.

The problems of Africa have nothing to do with the weather. They have to do with corrupt and murderous African elites siphoning off the wealth of their nations and destroying their economies through either wanton malfeasance or willful incompetence. The biggest single factor in determining life-expectancy in poor nations is the amount of fossil fuels they burn. The more they burn, the more prosperous they become, and the less poverty and early death there is. This is because fossil-fueled electricity is nearly always the cheapest on the market, and is relatively low-tech, and is therefore very suitable for poorer countries that do not have the scientific or technical infrastructure to run nuclear reactors, for instance. Of course the global lunatics of the religious left either do not understand this or do not care about it and continue to support failed and regressive policies and ludicrous notions of a climate tax.

Tutu has become nothing but a global beggar. Sucking on the tit of the west will not secure investment for Africa nor will it sustain its future. Development and capitalism will. Your choice, your consequences Desmond.

No wonder Church attendances are down.

More Evidence CO2 Not Driving Climate

Professor Michael Asten of the school of geosciences at Monash University, Melbourne writes in today’s Australian that CO2 has a diminished role in global warming and points to non man made factors as drivers of changes in climate. In other words forget the IPCC and its pseudo science models and unfalsifiable “projections” and let’s get on with the real observational science.

Prof Asten writes,

“The Copenhagen climate change summit closed two weeks ago in confusion, disagreement and, for some, disillusionment. When the political process shows such a lack of unanimity, it is pertinent to ask whether the science behind the politics is as settled as some participants maintain.

Earlier this month (The Australian, December 9) I commented on recently published results showing huge swings in atmospheric carbon dioxide, both up and down, at a time of global cooling 33.6 million years ago.

Some senior scientists, who are adherents of orthodox global warming theory, do not like authors publishing data that can be used to argue against orthodoxy, a point made by unrelated authors with startling clarity in the Climategate leaked emails from the University of East Anglia.”

It is interesting that Prof Asten sees fit to mention the Climategate leaked emails. Refer to yesterday’s blog entry for more on that matter.

He goes on to cite one of several recent studies.

“... as Pearson and his colleagues pointed out in their letter two weeks ago, "We caution against any attempt to derive a simple narrative linking CO2 and climate on these large time scales. This is because many other factors come into play, including other greenhouse gases, moving continents, shifting ocean currents, dramatic changes in ocean chemistry, vegetation, ice cover, sea level and variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun."”

Note to the IPCC; so the science is settled by a so called “consensus”? With more and more scientists coming out of the closet it is obvious the UN/CRU people really need to get out more. Of course I know they are busy fighting police and university investigations at the moment but when it’s all over take a break and get some air and talk to other scientists rather than corruptly trying to get them sacked or gagged. Who knows, maybe they’ll learn something.

It is very fortunate indeed that Tony Abbott stepped in at the last minute and saved us from a taxing regime, at least for now, that would ruin the Australian economy when all the while it would be based on a false premise that CO2 was a significant force for global warming. If correct of course the renders the models upon which the IPCC relies useless for both predicting future climate based on CO2 in the atmosphere and for setting policy. The whole IPCC process would be proved to be a sham. I wonder how the vested interests of the climate industry including the hoodwinked politicians and the CSIRO will be spinning this – they have their reputations riding on this and there is a lot at stake. We live in interesting times.

Hide the Decline Revisited

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temp[erature]s to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) a[n]d from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

Prof Phil Jones (Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) who has now stepped aside under investigation)

To investigate easily the actual text of the Climategate emails I recommend a site set up by Dr John Costella. He has set up the site with commentary to put emails into perspective for the uninitiated and all is linked to a data base containing all emails and computer code. Sure you can download all the files yourself but they can be difficult and time consuming to read. Set out cleanly on the web site it is a breeze to navigate.

Metastatistics on the Climategate emails - number of times words appear:

•Fraud: 79
•Falsify: 6
•Inflate: 14
•Conceal: 5
•Hide: 19

From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann" , "raymond s. bradley"
Subject: A couple of things
Date: Fri May 9 09:53:41 2008
Cc: "Caspar Ammann"

....

2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this.

And then there's this...

From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

Click the Read more link below for the full post.

Don’t fall for the MSM trick of trying to say the emails are harmless or insignificant or for Al Gore’s “misstatement” that they are ten years old. These emails discuss amongst other things, alteration of scientific data, and illegal deletion of data to avoid FOI demands. The most recent emails are dated October 2009. Just for a taste let us look at the notorious statement by Prof Phil Jones above on Dr Costella’s site. Commentary is by Dr Costella. Remember these people produced the data and graphs that fed straight into the IPCC reports. The IPCC was aware of what was going on or at least that there was a problem with the data because they wanted it fixed.

“September 22, 1999: email 0938018124

...In other words, tree rings had been proved to be completely unreliable thermometers.

It is with this scandal in mind that Keith Briffa writes to writes to Mike Mann, Phil Jones, Tom Karl, and Chris Folland, expression severe reservations about their contribution to the next Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, at that time in the revision stages:

“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the [temperature] proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of [temperature] proxies that come right up to [today] and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies) [have] some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.”

That is an understatement! Indeed, Briffa states his key opinion even more clearly:

“I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.”

This is a remarkable statement, which undermines the entire argument propounded by Briffa and his colleagues that global warming was “unprecedented”.

Mike Mann responds to this catastrophic development:

“[I w]alked into this hornet’s nest this morning! Keith and Phil [Jones] have both raised some very good points. And I should point out that Chris [Folland], through no fault of his own, but probably through me not conveying my thoughts very clearly to the others, definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in my own (Mann [and coworkers]) [results].”

In other words, Mann has no confidence in his own results!

Mann now engineers what became the infamous “green graph”—the green tree-ring line in the graph in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report that mysteriously passes behind the other lines at the year 1961—and never emerges on the other side. First, he needs to fiddle the data, to make sure that the lines all cross at right place:

“I am perfectly amenable to keeping Keith’s series in the [graph], and can ask Ian Macadam (Chris?) to add it to the [graph] he has been preparing (nobody liked my own color [and] [graph]ing conventions so I’ve given up doing this myself). The key thing is making sure the [lines] are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w[ith] the corresponding [average] values of the other [lines], due to the late 20th century decline.”

Satisfied with that solution, he then turns to the problem of that bothersome “late 20th century decline”:

“So if Chris and Tom (?) are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith’s [line] [to the graph]. That having been said, it does raise a conundrum: We demonstrate […] that the major discrepancies between Phil’s and our [line] can be explained in terms of [statistical excuses]. But that explanation certainly can’t rectify why Keith’s [data], which has similar [properties] to Phil’s [data], differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on[—]everyone in the room at [the] I[ntergovernmental] P[anel on] C[limate] C[hange] was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably con[s]ensus viewpoint we’d like to show w[ith] the Jones [and coworkers] and Mann [and coworkers] [results].”

In other words, there was no consensus at all at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—other than the participants’ universal agreement that there was a problem. Mann is here telling us, in his own words, that there was an agenda to present a “consensus viewpoint”, that simply didn’t exist in reality.

Mann now buries himself, by explaining what they should have done:

“So, if we show Keith’s [line] in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the [data] and the potential factors that might lead to it being “warmer” than the Jones [and coworkers] and Mann [and coworkers] series? We would need to put in a few words in this regard. Otherwise, the skeptics [would] have a[] field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the []estimates [from paleological data]. I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!”

In other words, Mann believes that all the lines should agree, but the actual data says otherwise; and he is loathe to give that “fodder” to the critics. He tries to pressure Briffa to come up with excuses why his data might not agree with the others.

Of course, we know that, ultimately, he gave up on this impossible task, and the troublesome “decline” was removed by an amazing technique, heretofore unknown in the history of science: white-out!

November 16, 1999: email 0942777075

That background now paves the way to our understanding the historic email that generations of schoolchildren to come will study as the catchphrase of the greatest scientific fraud in the history of mankind:

Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temp[erature]s to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) a[n]d from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Those thirty-three words summarize the hoax so magnificently succinctly that the Nobel Committee should consider retrieving their Peace Prize from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore, and re-issuing it as a Literature Prize to Phil Jones.

This email was sent less than two months after the one analyzed above. Clearly, Mike Mann’s problems with Keith Briffa’s data—that it didn’t agree with the real temperature measurements from 1961 onwards—had by this time spread to the data for the other “temperature proxies”, albeit only from 1981 onwards. Jones reveals that Mann did not address this problem by making honest note of it in the paper that he and his co-authors pubished in Nature, but rather by fraudulently substituting the real temperature data into the graphs, for the past twenty or forty years as required.
That Mann did so would, in and of itself, disqualify him and all of his research from any future consideration in the annals of science; but here we have the other leader of the field, Phil Jones, bragging that he admired the “trick” so much that he adopted it himself. Moreover, his email was sent to the major players who dominated this field. It is the silence of these conspirators over the intervening decade that has forever damned the field of “climate science” to a state of irreversible ignominy...”

Now that you have read and understood that, go to another very thorough analysis of these few emails (there are a thousand more to deal with in total) found here by Steve McIntyre.

I hope you enjoy Dr Costella’s resource as much as I have as well as Steve McIntyre's analysis. Steve was aware of this problem well before the Climategate emails came to light and wrote tot he IPCC asking them to correct it - they did not of course correct it. Just out of interest is there anyone that would trust any reports or "consensus science" that these “scientists” produce? If so please contact me I some expired options I need to dump.

Dr Kary Mullis - Nobel Price Winner in Chemistry Says Global Warming is Trash

Dr Kary Mullis won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for developing a way to copy a strand of DNA. (His technique, called PCR, jump-started the 1990s' biorevolution.) His discovery is hailed as one of the monumental scientific techniques of the twentieth century. He's known for his wide-ranging interests - and strong opinions. In this very interesting 30 minute video he looks in an entertaining way at the development of the scientific method starting back in the 17th century. He talks about his interest in backyard rocketry and then lets loose in the last 15 minutes at man made Global Warming. Use the slider to go straight to minute 15 if you don't want to watch the whole video but I do recommend the whole video for context.


Kary sure doesn't muck around. He talks about scientists who are not honest and the IPCC. He says the whole global warming theory is trash. So much for there being no debate and the science being settled.

Kary Miller is certainly very entertaining. It would be great if someone could get him out to Australia for a few sessions like the one in the video. I am sure it would be a huge success.

Terry McCrann Trashes ETS in The Australian

It seems like the mainstream media (MSM) are finally starting to catch on. Terry McCrann attacks the ETS, Copenhagen and carbon dioxide pricing in perhaps the most aggressive article I have seen to date here in The Australian newspaper concerning the climate fiasco. I have said all along that once people are asked to put their money on the table and actually pay for carbon dioxide they will run faster than rats from a sinking ship and it appears that is the case. Common sense makes a comeback in Oz! I think it is worthwhile reposting my ETS countdown timer I posted earlier.

Now of course the Australian is a high brow paper and the article is in the business section which even the chardonnay swilling urban coffee club members that routinely read the paper probably skip but it is a definite milestone. It appears that global alarmists will no longer be getting the free ride they have been in the MSM and I look forward to seeing carbon apologists scrutinised in the MSM not just on their beliefs and statements but also on the cost of implementing their draconian proposals. It is my hope that this fiasco will start to be defined in terms of its lefty “green” supporters v. everyone else – a simplified paradigm that is much more easily managed and dealt with strategically than the naive religious model of piety and “saving” oneself and the earth we have seen to date. Here are a few gems from Terry McCrann’s article, Let's face it: the ETS is dead:

“Tony Abbott almost singlehandedly put the Emissions Trading Scheme on life support. Now Copenhagen has killed it stone cold, motherless dead.

Climate change minister Penny Wong, who is too emotionally committed to it to accept that truth, will carry it into the new year.

A responsible prime minister would give the ETS a decent Christian burial. And it has to be a formal state funeral.

A Treasury that was not so absolutely compromised by a bizarre combination of religious zeal, institutional pomposity and basic incompetence would be gently but persistently and emphatically advising the government that the ETS was no longer a good idea. If indeed it ever was.” ...

“Two things simply cannot be denied about Copenhagen. Australia locking in its ETS wouldn't have made the slightest difference to the outcome. Not even Kevin Rudd is delusional enough to believe that if only he and Penny had been able to arrive with their bit of paper, China would have agreed to destroy its future.

Secondly, but for Abbott's aggression -- helped in no small part by Malcolm Turnbull's overweening arrogance -- we would have been locked into a bad policy and a disastrous process, which is even worse. The ETS.

It's time the business community woke up from its dozy slumber, with the doziest of all being the Business Council.

Now it would only be the certainty of the grave. That of carbon export and permit volatility and rip-offs.

That's the export of jobs, businesses and investment to other places that had no price on carbon dioxide. Those "other places" are essentially the rest of the world except for Europe -- which doesn't matter and in any event has totally debased the permits system, just as it has cynically approached the whole sorry climate saga, starting with Kyoto.

Our ETS could only work as part of a properly regulated and audited global system in which at the very minimum the US, the second-biggest emitter, participated. Even then it would still have been extremely volatile, open to manipulation and outright rorting(Ed: see links below): the very antithesis of certainty.”

And just in case the reader is still confused Terry shines more penetrating sunlight ont he issue,

“If we believe we have to join hands with the rest of the world in a mutual suicide pact, let us at least choose the more efficient method.”

Bravo. Well said Terry McCrann.

One thing Terry doesn’t give credit to in the Australian turnaround on ETS are the tens of thousands of people that personally contacted their politicians by telephone, mail, email and bloggs on the disastrous ETS proposal. That is the driver that led to the change and a hearty well done to the people that took the time to invest in their futures and the future of Australia by doing so. Already the mainstream public is starting to awaken thanks to your efforts, and awaken in a big way.

In case you missed it the arguement that Terry refers to regarding lack of certainty of any Cap in Trade scheme has already been superbly illustrated by the $USD 7.4 Billion (AUD 8.37 Billion) fraud that hit the international headlines only a week ago.

See for example the New York Times, Europol: $7.4 Billion Lost from Carbon Trading Fraud in Europe, and

Fox News, Fraud in Europe's Cap and Trade System a 'Red Flag,' Critics Say. The top cops in Europe say carbon-trading is an organized crime scheme that has robbed the continent of $7.4 billion.

What a hoot.
Happy Holidays.

45,000 Delegates, Lots of hot air, Cop15 Agreement Failure, Priceless

It began like this:

“THOUSANDS of politicians, bureaucrats and environmental activists have arrived in Copenhagen for the global climate summit with all the bravado and self-regard of a group of commandos convinced that they are about to save the world.”

But how did it end?

Barack Hussein Obama, US President, described the Cop15 agreement at a press conference just before he left Copenhagen thus:

"Today we've made meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen."

Only a week later the Barack seems to have had a change of heart in this interview with Jim Lehrer of Newshour saying,

“I think that people are justified in being disappointed about the outcome in Copenhagen. What I said was essentially that rather than see a complete collapse in Copenhagen, in which nothing at all got done and would have been a huge backward step, at least we kind of held ground and there wasn't too much backsliding from where we were."

Uhhh no Mr President that is not in fact what you essentially said only 5 days ago in Copenhagen. You see what you said was in the press release referenced in the first link above and we have this thing called the internet where we can download it and see exactly what you said. What you said (essentially, indeed exactly) was "Today we've made meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen." That is nothing like what you are saying you said now, not even close. The meaning is totally different. One statement points north and the other 180 degrees south.

Seems everyone associated with disastrous man made global warming is as slippery as an eel. The Hockey Team "scientists", the IPCC, the chair of the IPCC and politicians supporting the process. One would think that if the science was so certain the process would be crsytal clear, there would be no deleted original data by the Climatic Research Unit (the subject of Climategate affair), there would be release of original raw data and code, there would be a transparent methodology open to intense scrutiny, there would be no breach of ethics in the peer review process, no debunked hockey stick graph, no embaressing data expunged from the tree ring graph, no breach of FOI laws currently under legal investigation, no elimation of the widely recognized (in the scientific literature) Medieval Warm Period nor of the Little Ice Age.... and the list goes on and on and on. Tomorrow I will post a video of a Nobel Prize winning scientist who pulls no punches criticising the IPCC process and the scientists associated with it blasting the whole man made global warming hypothesis as trash. Watch for it as it is both entertaining and informative.

In the mean time lets look at what actually came out of Cop15. The accord itself is non-binding as some countries declined to endorse it. That means that conference organisers can only "take note" of the accord - it has no force as a UN agreement such as this requires unanimous endorsement.

The text of the unedited advance version of the COP15 accord as it currently stands:

Decision -/CP.15
The Conference of the Parties,

Takes note of the Copenhagen Accord of 18 December 2009.

Copenhagen Accord

The Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, and other heads of the following delegations present at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen: [List of Parties]

In pursuit of the ultimate objective of the Convention as stated in its Article 2,

Being guided by the principles and provisions of the Convention,
Noting the results of work done by the two Ad hoc Working Groups,
Endorsing decision x/CP.15 on the Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action and decision x/CMP.5 that requests the Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments of Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol to continue its work,

Have agreed on this Copenhagen Accord which is operational immediately.

1. We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We emphasise our strong political will to urgently combat climate change in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. To achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention to stabilize greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, we shall, recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius, on the basis ofequity and in the context of sustainable development, enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change. We recognize the critical impacts of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures on countries particularly vulnerable to its adverse effects and stress the need to establish a comprehensive adaptation programme including international support.

2. We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity. We should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries and bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries and that a low-emission development strategy is indispensable to sustainable development.

3. Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures is a challenge faced by all countries. Enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required to ensure the implementation of the Convention by enabling and supporting the implementation of adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing countries, especially in those that are particularly vulnerable, especially least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. We agree that developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries.

4. Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted in the format given in Appendix I by Annex I Parties to the secretariat by 31 January 2010 for compilation in an INF document. Annex I Parties that are Party to the Kyoto Protocol will thereby further strengthen the emissions reductions initiated by the Kyoto Protocol. Delivery of reductions and financing by developed countries will be measured, reported and verified in accordance with existing and any further guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties, and will ensure that accounting of such targets and finance is rigorous, robust and transparent.

5. Non-Annex I Parties to the Convention will implement mitigation actions, including those to be submitted to the secretariat by non-Annex I Parties in the format given in Appendix II by 31 January 2010, for compilation in an INF document, consistent with Article 4.1 and Article 4.7 and in the context of sustainable development. Least developed countries and small island developing States may undertake actions voluntarily and on the basis of support. Mitigation actions subsequently taken and envisaged by Non-Annex I Parties, including national inventory reports, shall be communicated through national communications consistent with Article 12.1(b) every two years on the basis of guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties. Those mitigation actions in national communications or otherwise communicated to the Secretariat will be added to the list in appendix II. Mitigation actions taken by Non-Annex I Parties will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification the result of which will be reported through their national communications every two years. Non-Annex I Parties will communicate information on the implementation of their actions through National Communications, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions seeking international support will be recorded in a registry along with relevant technology, finance and capacity building support. Those actions supported will be added to the list in appendix II. These supported nationally appropriate mitigation actions will be subject to international measurement, reporting and verification in accordance with guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties.

6. We recognize the crucial role of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals of greenhouse gas emission by forests and agree on the need to provide positive incentives to such actions through the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus, to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries.

7. We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets, to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote mitigation actions. Developing countries, especially those with low emitting economies should be provided incentives to continue to develop on a low emission pathway.

8. Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding as well as improved access shall be provided to developing countries, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, to enable and support enhanced action on mitigation, including substantial finance to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD-plus), adaptation, technology development and transfer and capacity-building, for enhanced implementation of the Convention. The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 . 2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation. Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. New multilateral funding for adaptation will be delivered through effective and efficient fund arrangements, with a governance structure providing for equal representation of developed and developing countries. A significant portion of such funding should flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund.

9. To this end, a High Level Panel will be established under the guidance of and accountable to the Conference of the Parties to study the contribution of the potential sources of revenue, including alternative sources of finance, towards meeting this goal.

10. We decide that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programme, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacity-building, technology development and transfer.

11. In order to enhance action on development and transfer of technology we decide to establish a Technology Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation that will be guided by a country-driven approach and be based on national circumstances and priorities.

The two appendixes are blank. Apparently they will be filled in later. When that happens I will post a pdf of the final agreement.

A stunning achievement for a meeting comprising 45,000 attendees including 190 self inflicted "Leaders of the World". Basically nothing more than a non-binding agreement to make an agreement sometime plus of course despite achieving nothing on emissions it locks in the "transfer" of hundreds of billions of dollars from developed countries to other countries to "assist" with "climate change" (see para 8). I'll have more to say about the aptly named REDD plan referred to often in the above document and I'll show where you can dowload a copy of their book, called The Little REDD Book. Apparantly modelling a book title after a Mao Tse-tung's Little Red Book, a man responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of his own countrymen, is somehow a fitting thing for the enviromental movement and the UN (and Obama) to entertain. Others would call it sickening and somewhat frightening. Anyway, keep up the hard work fellas and you might get there by 3010.

The non-outcome of COP15 is of course something of which we should be thankful. I hope we get to see a full acounting for not just the actual total cost of the conference but also the cost of various billion dollar pledges to other nations being thrown around with gay abandon. I won't be holding my breath.

One earnest 20-something that expelled vast quantities of carbon dioxide to travel from Australia to Copenhagen had this to say,

“Perhaps it’s because today I finally got more than a few hours of uninterrupted sleep, or perhaps it’s the sense of hope that was infused into the air at the vigil that civil society held tonight as we sat with candles and listened to strong young leaders from the climate movement around the world speak words more powerful and with more emotion than I could ever hope to represent in writing.

Mostly it’s too hard to find the words to describe how I feel about climate change. This is even more so here in Copenhagen. Yesterday at a talk by George Monbiot he pointed out that climate change is too benign to describe what’s happening to the world… it’s like describing an invasion as “unexpected visitors”. To be young and alive today is to witness our Earth breaking and see our “leaders” demonstrate a spectacular failure of leadership. As Alex Steffen wrote, “to be young and aware today is to see your elders as cannibals with golf clubs”.”

And in a later blog entry,

“Today, humanity, all species, all nations and all peoples’ survival hung in the balance as negotiators bargained... about what kind of world we will live in in 2050.”

There you have it. An indoctrinated climate clown who sees her “elders as cannibals”. I wonder if that includes her parents or is it just other people’s parents that are cannibals? Her references to “elders” are also interesting. From her posts we see Ana went to university in 2003. If she graduated that year at 21 that means she is now 27. She is hardly a youth and is indeed about to become a junior member of the “elder” club. I do hope she has some immunity from that cannibal virus she seems to think infests the population at a certain age. Time to grow up Ana. You are not a “youth” and haven’t been for a decade. There is no danger of extinction of life on planet earth due to AGW. No scientist is pushing that barrow; not even the discredited CRU Hockey team or the IPCC. Breath deeply, take a Bex and have a nice lie down and you'll feel better in the morning.

Merry Christmas

OK so I stole the link from Borepatch (a great Blog to check out BTW) but being a dog lover this one really hits the spot.

Merry Christmas to all my readers.

Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christensen Addressing Concerns to the BBC

A letter from Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christensen to the BBC is reproduced below. Sonja is Reader Emeritus, Hull University, editor of Energy & Environment (Multi-science), and a former Senior Research Fellow, Science Policy Research Unit, Energy Group. She is addressing concerns she has with a programme on the BBC concerning global warming.

Sir,

As an ‘expert’ on the science and politics of global warming since the late 1980s and the editor of a journal that has long given climate ’sceptics’ a voice, I would like to complement the BBC for attempting, this morning on Radio 4 , an open-minded discussion of the science and politics of man-made global warming. Two sides were demonstrated. However, a number of outright mistakes and omission created enough bias to turn the programme into sophisticated UK government propaganda.

Here are the main faults:

1. The IPCC was NOT asked to research the “for and against” of the man-made warming hypothesis, as claimed. It was set up(at a time when fossil fuel prices collapsed again after a long period of very high prices) to support the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change. This states, as international law, that man-made climate change exists, is dangerous and can be mitigated by reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. However, only a few developed countries accepted the obligation to reduce emissions, the UK among them. This treaty was de facto an energy policy agenda directed against carbon fuels. IPCC working group III provided the solutions to a problem that working group I was asked to demonstrate more precisely. The IPCC did not seriously evaluate alternative theories. It set out to discredit them, perhaps correctly, but this remains to be decided. Its brief was and remains to ‘underpin’ a major international political agenda with far-reaching economic implications.

2. By no stretch of the imagination can Bob Watson, John Houghton and Nick Stern be considered independent scientists or academics. At best they are loyal civil servants with a background in science or economics. All held major policy or management positions in the UK, EU, World Bank, Met Office or World Meteorological Organization. It was indeed a major conclusion of my three-year research project on the IPCC, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, that the institutions of science and their managers were a major political actor in global environmental politics, and that they had chosen the language of environmentalism to further their causes. (I researched the IPCC as a Senior Research Fellow and a member of the energy group of SPRU (University of Sussex). I observed the strong links between the environmental rhetoric and energy policy objectives. I also interviewed Houghton and Watson and followed their careers. The former saw it as his religious duty to warn us against global warming, the latter ‘promised’ me (in the mid-1990s when working for the IPCC in Washington) that the IPCC would publish majority and minority science reports, rather than the negotiated (with governments) consensus of government-funded science. Minority reports were never published.

3. The financial interests in the decarbonisation agenda are now very extensive indeed and, to the best of my knowledge, include the BBC, the UK Royal Society, and most academic institutions in the UK and elsewhere, not to mention individuals like Al Gore and the current head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, as well as former civil servants in the Department of the Environment. There is of course nothing illegal in having such ‘interests’, but they may colour belief and the interpretation of ‘the science’.

4. Oil interests may not like giving carbon dioxide a price and then trading it, but this does not apply to natural gas. In general, it is not true that the energy industries are opposed to ‘decarbonisation’. Enron, for example was a major supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. In any case, if carbon capture and sequestration becomes eligible for carbon trading, taxpayers would have to pay for the ‘evil’ gas to be injected (at huge cost) back into depleting gas and oil fields, thereby increasing their yield. Subsidies for ‘renewables’ have also made energy companies more friendly towards more expensive energy. The nuclear people were a major supporter of the global warming scare, for obvious reasons. They may even have ‘invented ‘ it originally.

5. Lastly, you paid too little to attention to a major consequence of the prevailing blame game. The accusation that global warming is the alleged responsibility of the rich and the ‘West’, is already leading to bribery, dubious aid streams and the ignoring of other factors causing poverty and disasters in poor, badly-governed nations.

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen,

Click Read More link for more information.

Some interesting points made in the above letter, especially point 1. I will be posting a little more on the IPCC and why and how it was set up over the next week. For now however it is important to note that the IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is not a scientific organisation, It is a political and policy organisation that does not conduct scientific research. Its head is Dr Rajendra Pachauri who is not a scientist but a railway engineer currently under intense scrutiny for monetary conflict of interest.

COP15 A Failure: Kevin Rudd Expected to Visit Australia

With the failure of the Copenhagen climate fiasco Australia is bracing for a visit from its PM Kevin Rudd. Kevin was excluded from the inner circle at Copenhagen for final deliberations which would have hurt especially since Rudd was an official "Friend of the Furniture" at Copenhagen. The talks failed even with the bribes on offer to poorer nations. All in all a good outcome for common sense. Australians need to now take stock and make sure clowns like Kevin Rudd will not attempt to destroy their national economy and way of life in a vain attempt to stop the climate changing.

Well it sure has been fun watching the unproductive antics of the climate fools. What better way of getting oneself into the festive spirit than watching Global Climate Lunatics live on YouTube. It started with delegates freezing for 8 hours in a queue to get into the conference and ended with massive amounts of hot air being expended by politicians and their lackeys just before a cold snap in Copenhagen, the UK, US and Australia. President Obama landed in the US to be greated by a massive snow storm. That is poetry. To top it all off no binding agreement was reached. King Canute would have been proud.

COP15 was the world's last chance according to climate alarmists; well at least until next time. See you all in Mexico for a replay!

Housekeeping Update: Due to a hard drive failure this blog will be a little slow for the next couple of weeks as I put together a more robust and massively redundant system. I will also be "upgrading" a lot of software.

One thing is very obvious with Windows 7 v. XP - I need to "upgrade" nearly all my software which is going to cost several thousand dollars just to be able to do the same thing I did before. I will be investigating some open source alternatives however so all may not be lost.

Dr Roy Spencer Discusses Cloud feedback Model at AGU Conference

Dr Spencer is a former NASA scientist and currently is the principle research scientist in UAHuntsville’s Earth System Science Center. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. If Dr. Spencer is right then the climate models used by the IPCC to predict disastrous man made global warming are wrong. It concerns me that his simple questions remain unanswered and yet governments continue to push for trillions of dollars in additional tax upon their citizens based on perhaps flawed models.

“There seems to be great reluctance to consider the possibility that these computerized prophets of doom, which have required so many scientists and so much money and so many years to develop, could be wrong. I come along with an extremely simple climate model that explains the behavior of the satellite data in details that are beyond even what has been done with the complex climate models…and then the more complex models are STILL believed because…well…they’re more complex.

Besides, since my simple model would predict very little manmade global warming, it must be wrong. After all, we know that manmade global warming is a huge problem. All of the experts agree on that. Just ask Al Gore and the mainstream news media.”

“I am arguing that we can’t measure feedbacks the way people have been trying to do it. The climate modelers see from satellite data that warm years have fewer clouds, then assume that the warmth caused the clouds to dissipate. If this is true, it would be positive feedback and could lead to strong global warming. This is the way their models are programmed to behave. My question to them was, ‘How do you know it wasn’t fewer clouds that caused the warm years, rather than the other way around?’ It turns out they didn’t know. They couldn’t answer that question.

What we have found is that cloud cover variations causing temperature changes dominate the satellite record, and give the illusion of positive feedback.

Using satellite observations interpreted with a simple model, Spencer’s data support negative feedback (or cooling) better than they support positive feedback.

This critical component in global warming theory – cloud feedback – is impossible to measure directly in the real climate system. We haven’t figured out a good way to separate cause and effect, so we can’t measure cloud feedback directly. And if we don’t know what the feedbacks are, we are just guessing at how much impact humans will have on climate change.

I’m trying to spread the word: Let’s go back to basics and look at what we can and cannot do with measurements of the real climate system to validate both climate models and their predictions.”

Read more about Dr Spencer’s ongoing research on his web site.

Obviously Dr Spencer does not consider that “the science is settled”.

What is more Dr. Spencer seems to be adopting a very measured and responsible approach by recommending that basic metrics be established for validating models. Now that's not something you will see every day from the Hockey Team scientists.

Connie Hedegaard Resigns as President of Copenhagen Climate Summit

From the UK Guardian,

“A spokesperson for the British prime minister, Gordon Brown, said that the move was not a surprise and had always been planned. He confirmed that Brown, Rasmussen and the Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, had discussed it during a three-hour meeting last night. The three had decided that Rasmussen taking over was the right thing to do to "ramp up" the urgency of the talks for the final three days.”

Photo: Mogens Engelund, Wikipedia

What a bunch of clowns the Leaders of the World are that attend Copenhagen. They couldn’t run a successful school cafeteria. With Connie resigning (i.e. pushed out) and hundreds being arrested the Climate Circus at Copenhagen is a snapshot of what the future will be like under the control of these self appointed leaders of the new CO2 Restricted World. This is how they run their affairs. Imagine how much worse it will be when they run yours.

Meanwhile another World Leader jets into Copenhagen - President Mugabe, leader of Zimbabwe gets a free pass from Western countries banning him from foreign travel this being a UN meeting and all. No doubt Mugabe will be able to Save the World with his buddies at Copenhagen. He’s doing such a bang up job of saving Zimbabwe I’m sure he’ll be well worth listening to – bring your note pads. If only Dr Phil Jones could have made it to COP15 the circle would be complete. Unfortunately Phil and a few of his Hockey Team mates have been distracted by another small matter. I wonder how Phil feels being shunned by Copenhagen whilst Mugabe gets welcomed. After all Phil only hid the decline, not corpses. I guess when you play with the big boys you can’t expect to be on the run on team for the whole game when your only a fill in.

It is interesting isn’t it that with the technological know how and unlimited money at their disposal the only thing the self appointed Leaders of the World at Cop15 seem to be able to come up with to Save the World is another tax i.e. wealth distribution. For the mentally challenged wealth distribution is a euphemism for taking an asset by force (ultimately at the pointy end of a gun) from the rightful owner and giving it to someone else. In the case of Cop15 much of the ill gotten stolen loot looks likely to end up in the hands of the elites in such notable places as Africa where I am sure they will hand it all over to their down trodden peoples to install solar powered sewerage systems and the like. Of course emptying your wallet always was and always will be the answer when people invent problems for you and then present you with the solution. Wealth misappropriation is the nocturnal wet dream of all statists. The new Green Religion is their means of getting you to hand them the keys.

I don’t blame the poor countries for co-opting the Copenhagen Circus to extract money. That is what their talents lay. They were promised glittering bagfuls of treasure by the incompetent fools leading the western world as carbon reparations. Who could blame them for squealing a little when the feed trough was removed before the got to sup?

Legislators Quizzing Penn State on Dr Mann Investigation

It looks like the pressure is building for Climategate scientist Prof Mann. Below is a jpeg of a letter by Senator Piccola to the President of Penn State University. Notice how there is strong funding implication in this letter with the clear meaning that if a proper investigation is not carried out into Prof Mann the funding for the university itself may be questioned by some legislators. The letter states in part,

“The allegations of intellectual and scientific fraud like those made against Dr. Mann are serious against anybody involved in academics, but the impact in this case is significantly elevated. The work of Dr. Mann and other scientists at the CRU is being used to develop economic and environmental policies in states and countries across the world. Considering the saliency of the work being conducted by the CRU anything short of the pursuit of absolute science cannot be accepted or tolerated.”

I strongly suspect the noose is tightening on all involved. If the public mood on global warming is changing and it clearly is, as soon as politicians sniff an electoral backlash there will be about faces and searches for scapegoats. Copenhagen is a circus and it will, as expected, merely result in an agreement to meet again to make an agreement. Recall that in 1989 the UN said the world only had ten years to avoid total global catastrophe. OK well it has been 20 years and I have my life raft pumped up and am still waiting. Don’t they teach the child’s moral about the boy who called wolf anymore?

So just how many times are we going to be told by our aspiring "world leaders" that this is the very last chance to avoid catastrophe.... until next time. I don't recall a WORLD election electing these "leaders of the world" (as I saw them called on a UN web site). Does that mean they are now a collective world dictatorship without a democratic process? How dare they even pretend to be leading the world when they are merely national politicians and leaders of political parties suposedly representing their national electorate or dictatorship depending upon their country of origin.

Click the image of the letter to view a full size version.

Post of the Week

Derek D over at WUWT made a good post putting earth's climate and our observation records into perspective. It is one of the best posts I have seen regarding data and climatology.

"The earth has major geologic events every 50-100 million years. It has a 100,000 year orbital precess in which the both the radius from the sun and axial tilt go from a maximum to a minimum. This causes ice ages and interglacials on a 20,000/80,000 year cycle. Within this time there are 800-1000 year warming and cooling cycles where temperature and CO2 levels rise and fall in oscillating intervals. The deep Atlantic ocean currents oscillate in multidecadal cycles while the Pacific oscillates on decade cycles. Typical sunspot cycles run ~11 years, El Ninos and La Ninas happen in ~4 year cycles, and cloud formation changes randomly by the minute. This in addition to the fact that the sun, our main energy input, goes through internal energy cycles that we cannot fully predict. To think that 100 years of sketchy temperature station data is going to lead to an accurate composite prediction of future climate and temperatures within fractions of a degree is pure foolishness. The complex and differential forces acting on the earth in different timescales deserve more than just an extrapolated straight line. Its an insult to our intelligence no matter what the conclusion.

Much ado about nothing."

Click the read more link for the full post.

***************************************

Derek D (18:57:49) :

john (16:52), I’ll explain. All statistics are junk science. They are laden with human assumption and never represent facts. Statistics are not needed to calculate the speed of an object in motion, determine if a building will stand, or tell you what you see in a microscope. That is science. Observation, measurement, mechanisms and reproducibility. What you’re seeing is the opposite and that is the precise reason why you question it.

What constitutes “the data” here is a choppy dataset from a hodge podge of weather stations, arranged in disproportionate number around the coasts of a continent the size of the US. A dozen different people have come along and applied their own unique set of assumptions to massage the data in a manner that they are sure is the ‘right’ way. And be they alarmists or skeptics each will claim the high ground, and a scientific ‘truth’ thus hinges on who can massage better or scream louder. Many have already pointed out that Eschenbach’s assertions about the proximity of other weather stations are embarrassingly and verifiably wrong, but the whole exercise ceased to be scientific long before that.

The earth has major geologic events every 50-100 million years. It has a 100,000 year orbital precess in which the both the radius from the sun and axial tilt go from a maximum to a minimum. This causes ice ages and interglacials on a 20,000/80,000 year cycle. Within this time there are 800-1000 year warming and cooling cycles where temperature and CO2 levels rise and fall in oscillating intervals. The deep Atlantic ocean currents oscillate in multidecadal cycles while the Pacific oscillates on decade cycles. Typical sunspot cycles run ~11 years, El Ninos and La Ninas happen in ~4 year cycles, and cloud formation changes randomly by the minute. This in addition to the fact that the sun, our main energy input, goes through internal energy cycles that we cannot fully predict. To think that 100 years of sketchy temperature station data is going to lead to an accurate composite prediction of future climate and temperatures within fractions of a degree is pure foolishness. The complex and differential forces acting on the earth in different timescales deserve more than just an extrapolated straight line. Its an insult to our intelligence no matter what the conclusion.

Much ado about nothing.

SBS Greenhouse Documentary from 1990

I was sent a link to an old documentary by SBS from 1990 on global warming (or greenhouse effect as it was known then). This is a very interesting documentary to view now as it helps put things in their historical perspective. If you want to see where the greenhouse debate was 20 years ago this video is just the ticket. It also illustrates the same problems with the global warming model that are still in serious dispute today e.g. that there is a simple linear relationship between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature. I found this documentary to be of great interest and recommend that it to anyone wanting to get an overview of the subject. The 5th video is a must see if nothing else as it deals with the influence of funding. Tom Wigley has great difficulty answering a question as to the influence of funding on the science of climatology. With the benefit of hindsight you can see the Climategate affair lay down its roots 20 years ago. The documentary comes in 6 parts available on YouTube.

Let me know if you found these videos useful. I know it is a bit of a download on slower connections with 6 of them in the series but I think it is worth the wait.