Topic: WE'RE STUFFED!!!

[Michael]

Just to add - I heard an interview with a very thorough investigator of inter-government spy and intrigue cases. He followed many cases into the murky blackness. He said that this area, where Governments intrigue against each other or themselves, is one area where the further you dig, the muddier it gets - there never is any clarity resolution.

It's mud all the way down.

But one thing is for sure - the roses are blooming outside my window right now.

[Firestarter]

But one thing is for sure - the roses are blooming outside my window right now.

And lotuses always rise above the mud

[TIOTIT]

It's all a bit like religion.....pick a god any god....now kill everyone who doesn't
agree with your god....it's all about ego.....and ignorance....the need to justify
the madness......god made me do it....when the penny drops there will be a
few surprises. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2INIOXe_WI&feature=player_embedded

[TIOTIT]

Globalist minion Al Gore and the United Nations climate change shysters led by Phil Jones are in trouble. Last week hackers uncovered a pile of email and documents revealing what many of us already knew — the climate change agenda is based not only on easily debunked junk science, but outright lies and deception.

In the wake of the damning revelations exposed by these anonymous hackers, the climate change snake oil salesmen Gore and his complaisant entourage of now discredited scientists are in full retreat. Even the corporate media — guilty of peddling the fabrication of man-made climate change for years with the best propaganda money can buy — are desperately scrambling to put the best spin possible on the emerging travesty

[TIOTIT]

The heightened awareness of the IPCC's functioning seems precisely what now plagues the U.N.'s global warming frontman. So it's not surprising that, for all his insistence that the group's methods are spotless, he seems eager to change the subject from science. What he has chosen to talk about instead is instructive. It seems what most concerns Mr. Pachauri now is not climatology, or glaciology, or oceanography—but the way we live. "Today we have reached the point where consumption and people's desire to consume has grown out of proportion," he told the Observer, also on Sunday. "The reality is that our lifestyles are unsustainable."

Mr. Pachauri's actions speak even louder than his words. Last month, he branded the Indian environment minister "arrogant" after his office released a study that called into question whether climate-change is causing abnormal shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. The IPCC's line is that Himalayan glaciers could be reduced by 80% or disappear entirely by 2035—but for this factoid, it cites no scientists, only the activist group, World Wildlife Fund. Now, the meteorologist and expert IPCC reviewer Madhav Khandekar says on Roger Pielke Sr.'s blog that the 2035 date may have been derived from a typo, based on a 1996 paper on snow and ice edited by V.M. Kotlyakov, which estimates the glaciers could be severely depleted or gone by 2350.

Mr. Pachauri was not available for comment as of press time, but on his personal Website last week he made clear that the science, for him, comes second. Conceding that Copenhagen was "clearly not making much headway," he advocated a focus on "the larger problem of unsustainable development, of which climate change is at best a symptom."

In other words, if Mr. Pachauri is sanguine about the undermining of the IPCC's scientific methods, it's because his chief concern isn't the science at all. Rather, to judge by his recent public statements, he is more focused on an ideological economic agenda in which climate change is little more than a useful tool. Given the cover-ups exposed by the leaked emails, we'll take Mr. Pachauri's remarks as a welcome instance of full and voluntary disclosure.

[TIOTIT]

A case of cold feet...

Gore cancels on Copenhagen lecture – leaves ticketholders in a lurch
3 12 2009

It seems the uncertainty about Copenhagen is growing. When Al baby pulls the plug, you know it’s hosed.

From Berlingske: Al Gore cancels lecture during COP15

Former U.S. vice president has canceled his event, more than 3,000 Danes have purchased a ticket.

Looks like they will get a refund though. Might be worth more as a collectors item in ten years though.

I wonder how many people have shelled out $1200 to shake Al’s hand? Maybe not enough and he couldn’t cover the expenses for his private jet?

From the Washington Post:

    “Have you ever shaken hands with an American vice president? If not, now is your chance. Meet Al Gore in Copenhagen during the UN Climate Change Conference,” notes the Danish tourism commission, which is helping Mr. Gore promote “Our Choice,” his newest book about global warming in all its alarming modalities.

    “Tickets are available in different price ranges for the event. If you want it all, you can purchase a VIP ticket, where you get a chance to shake hands with Al Gore, get a copy of Our Choice and have your picture taken with him. The VIP event costs DKK 5,999 and includes drinks and a light snack.”

    Wait, what? How much is that in American dollars? The currency conversion says it all, too: 5,999 Danish kroners is equivalent to $1,209.

    “If you do not want to spend that much money, but still want to hear Al Gore speak about his latest book about climate challenges, you can purchase general tickets, ranging in price from DKK 199-1,499 depending on where in the room you want to sit,” the practical Danes advise. “There will be large screens, so that everyone will get a good view.”

Yah, such a deal.

[Michael]

I have just been listening to an interview on this whole area.

There is no certainty the release of documents from IPCC is from hackers. It may well be a disgruntled employee who was not happy with IPCC's response to FOI requests.

Anyway the comment from some who are closely involved, is that what has been revealed is not something that can be easily swept under the carpet with references to 'out of context'. However nothing that has been revealed from these leaks changes the evidence of global warming - one only has to look at the renewed ocean rising data only just released, the glacier melting (which has been disputed by India's own research, about which there is considerable scepticism in the scientific community), and the melting ice-caps.

Where the real debate is firing, is not on the basis of global warming, but on the economics. I have just read that even Dr Hansen is saying it would be best if nothing came of Copenhagen. He along with many others are begining to speak up that the whole idea of a 'trading' mechanism is going to be too cumbersome and insufficient.

Also open to far too many rorts from the rich nations and the big polluters. I have also read an interesting article about how the rich nations are ripping off the poor in this whole Climate Talk sequence of conventions.

One of the problems is that the economics is based on the concept of 'carbon pollution', but that the science behind this, although stated at 90% sure, and you could knock a bit off that for safety - say 80%, is still not fully comprehensive. So we may be altering the economics on the basis of inaccurate science.

My own view is that to sit and do nothing is stupidity.

I feel that the problem has occurred because we are in an inbetween state. For most people, the impact of earth changes hasn't hit hard enough. What has happened is too easily assumed as within historic variation.

So until it really slams into us, I don't expect much to change.

[TIOTIT]

This was gearing up to be a bllion dollar industry...when fame and fortune are
on offer anything can happen....tweak...tweak....who let that canary in here?


We reported on Saturday that among the most revealing of the "hacked" e-mails released last week was one dated November 1999, in which CRU chief P.D. Jones wrote these words to Hockey-Stick-Team leaders Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes:


I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Predictably, the suggestion of a climate-related data-adjusting "trick" being employed by such alarmist bellwethers ten years ago instantly raised more than a few eyebrows. And with similar alacrity, the Big Green Scare Machine shifted into CYA gear. 


Almost immediately after the news hit on Friday, Jones told Investigative Magazine’s TGIF Edition  that he "had no idea" what he might have meant by the words "hide the decline" a decade prior:

[Michael]

It was curious for me to see Jahn's comment about his neighbour who was more focused on the CO2 levels, while Jahn was more focused on the climate.

For myself, the issue is not the CO2 levels - I really don't have much of an idea what they are talking about, although I get the gist of it. As for climate, I look at the extreme weather patterns, and even there I would not be able to say these are not more than extremes within long term global patterns. It does look odd, but then there have been many odd weather patterns even in recorded history.

The items that have caused my concern are the scientific studies of ocean temperature, sea levels, glaciers, polar ice-caps and so forth. But even with these, I am guided by the findings of the scientific community. As distinct from the sceptics community, I don't hold scientists in disdain.

The IPCC has from my observations always been ultra-conservative in their reports. They have to be because they are scrutinised and influenced by very high powered bodies - the IPCC has a political arena to report into. The scientific reports from peer-reviewed journals are giving an image far worse than what comes out of the IPCC. Study after study, with vast amounts of data, are painting a picture of sheer terror.

I recently read of Clive Hamilton in Australia, who attended a conference in Oxford on trying to imagine a world 4 degrees hotter. He said when away from the 'expert's forum', when relaxed and personal, these scientists told stories of not being able to sleep at night for the frightening future that is moving swiftly towards us.

The truth in all this is that thousands of people highly trained in measuring and analysing the indices of global changes, are to a person reporting that something of unbelievable consequences is accelerating on this planet. I recently heard a scientist claim that of all the sceptics he has seen, not a single one is involved in actual data collection/analysis - they are all arm-chair experts.

If these thousands of people deeply involved are even 10% sure, we would have a serious situation. I don't expect any calamity to befall my house - possibly put the risk at .01%, and yet I pay hundreds of dollars in house and contents insurance every year. But they are claiming 100% certainty of global warming, and 90% certainty of human/CO2 causality.

As George Monbiot says, who was personally rocked by the 'hacked' documents recently - don't take your advice from internet sites, open any issue of a peer-reviewed scientific journal if you wnat to know what is happening.

Anyway, here is a segment for a recent article from George, for your enjoyment:

But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory?(8,9) Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email which confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn’t have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.

“From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk
Sent: 29th October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic

Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called “the ordering of men’s affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man”, which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.

The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master’s initial thesis - that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere - had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master’s rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to “demonstrate” the Master’s thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.

More resistence was encountered (and swiftly despatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master’s second grand law - that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet’s atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.

Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.

The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the ten warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001(10). From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.

Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic Circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world’s glaciers.

Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world’s wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world’s biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, bird-watchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.

The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W. Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly-capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master’s third grand law has been accepted: world government will be established under the guise of controlling manmade emissions of greenhouse gases.

Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse’s head turned up in James Hansen’s bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus?

Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.

Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.”

This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that manmade climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.

www.monbiot.com

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/

[Michael]

But the economics is now the big issue - the problem has been accepted, but the solution is now in high debate.

thus I was interested to note that just recently a scientist resigned from Australia's CSIRO (the government science body) claiming inteference in his work. He wanted to publish an article claiming the 'cap and trade' approach to emissions was wrong. But this was what the Australian government is pursuing. So as his paper was deemed 'political' they censored it (until the Greens and some others in Fed parliament found out).

Thus I was curious to see Dr Hansen claiming the same thing:

A leading scientist acclaimed as the grandfather of global warming has denounced the Copenhagen summit on climate change next week as a farce.

James Hansen, the director of Nasa’s Goddard Insitute for Space Studies, told The Times that he planned to boycott the UN conference because it was seeking a counter-productive agreement to limit emissions through a “cap and trade” system.

“They are selling indulgences there. The developed nations want to continue basically business as usual so they are expected to purchase indulgences to give some small amount of money to developing countries. They do that in the form of offsets and adaptation funds.” he said...

...He decries the cap and trade system envisaged by governments trying to “seal the deal” at Copenhagen as ineffective in stemming carbon emissions. Under such systems, governments set limits on overall emissions and polluters trade quotas among themselves.

“The fundamental problem is that fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy. As long as they are, they are going to be used,” he said. “It’s remarkable. They refuse to recognise and address the fundamental problem and the obvious solution.”

He dismisses government announcements of national targets for greenhouse gas emissions as promises that will not be kept, noting that even Japan missed its goals under the Kyoto Protocol. He said that it would be better for the summit to fail rather than reach the type of cap and trade-based system envisaged.

“If they sign on to anything like they are talking about then it’s definitely counter-productive. Any time you start down that path, it’s time wasted. We would do better taking a year time-out and figuring out a better path.”

Dr Hansen, an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute in New York, argued that the only effective way to control global warming was to institute an increasing “carbon tax”, not “cap and trade”.

“We are going to have to move beyond fossil fuels at some point. Why continue to stretch it out longer?” he said. “The only way we can do that is by putting a price on carbon emissions. The business community and the public need to understand that there will be a gradually increasing price on carbon emissions.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6941974.ece

[Michael]

as for global cooling

Climate sceptics get it wrong

[TIOTIT]

The comments beneath the article were interesting ...
from what I understand the concerne was over a logo.

[TIOTIT]

There are so many facets to this event so many players with
their own agendas....one thing in common is their willingness
to distort the facts to obtain their outcomes......I guess that's
the story of humanity....Trust me I'm a climatologist!!!

From Their Own Mouths: Global Warming is a Fraud

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

[Jahn]

It was curious for me to see Jahn's comment about his neighbour who was more focused on the CO2 levels, while Jahn was more focused on the climate.

Well, my neighbour is a professor and director at the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research at our University. He and 21 other members of that centre will attend the meetings in Copenhagen.

http://www.liu.se/news-and-events/startpage?l=en&newsitem=96841



http://www.cspr.se/?l=en&sc=true

The one and only lecture of his that I have attended was good, but not much news for me and I think that he was too focused on the CO2-level. Now that is understandable because his research area is Policy or Political issues related to the global warming. And then you talk in terms of CO2 pollution and regulations, trading rights to pollute and costs related to the CO2 emissions. 


He (Björn-Ola Linnér) is really a nice guy and has promised to report from the climate conference in Copenhagen in our local newspaper. He got an award this week from the students as the best favorite coach for PhD students this year.

[Michael]

This is very dramatic visual of global temperatures from 1880 to 2008:

http://www.smh.com.au/multimedia/environment/changing-global-temperatures/20091202-k5vv.html