Global Warming?

Hey Netghost!

You are right

to be concerned about pollution. I hope you never got the idea that I wasn't concerned about it myself. It is an

important issue. We humans are stupid enough to crap in our own nest then not able to figure out why it smells so

bad.

Yes and no regarding solar cycles. Some correlations have been noted but the research has been harshly

suppressed and funding denied. In my opinion, it is because it could refute parts of the global warming theory.

Without any real funding it is hard to do any real research though. I entioned it a couple times some pages back but

don't blame you for not wanting to dig for it. I didn't either.

Telegraph.co.uk

Article here

In

a startling new book, Christopher Booker reveals how a handful of scientists, who have pushed flawed theories on

global warming for decades, now threaten to take us back to the Dark Ages

"Next Thursday marks the first

anniversary of one of the most remarkable events ever to take place in the House of Commons. For six hours MPs

debated what was far and away the most expensive piece of legislation ever put before Parliament.

The

Climate Change Bill laid down that, by 2050, the British people must cut their emissions of carbon dioxide by

well over 80 per cent. Short of some unimaginable technological revolution, such a target could not possibly be

achieved without shutting down almost the whole of our industrialised economy, changing our way of life out of

recognition.

...no one has put the reality of the situation more succinctly than Prof Richard Lindzen of

the Massachusetts Institute of Technolgy, one of the most distinguished climatologists in the world, who has done

as much as anyone in the past 20 years to expose the emptiness of the IPCC’s claim that its reports

represent a “consensus” of the views of “the world’s top climate scientists”.



In words quoted on the cover of my new book, Prof Lindzen wrote: “Future generations will wonder in

bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally

averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly

exaggerated computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a

rollback of the industrial age.”


Such is the truly extraordinary position in which we find

ourselves. Thanks to misreading the significance of a brief period of rising temperatures at the end of the

20th century, the Western world (but not India or China) is now contemplating measures that add up to the most

expensive economic suicide note ever written.

How long will it be before sanity and sound science break in

on what begins to look like one of the most bizarre collective delusions ever to grip the human race?"

Does anybody here have any

thoughts on the subject of climate change and the emails that were hacked? I'm downloading the full file to my

computer right now and will not have a firm opinion until I get it read. It's 61 meg so will take me some time to

look it over.

On a first review of information I would guess that it is pretty devastating to the climate change

proponents. I'm not ready yet to say anything other than that it sure sounds like my arguments were correct right

along. It doesn't feel all that great to be right on something this big. It frankly scares the crap out of me.



If anybody wants a copy of the file I will be happy to put it on an FTP site where you can download it.

Wow...it's been a while since I

have lurked among these threads.Hi everybody!:wave: Global warming may or may not be happening.On the plus side of

the whole kerfuffle,it's all been done befor.recently in one of the Scandanavian countries(sorry I dont remember

which one) the uncovered an ancient copper mine that had been burried by a glacier for at least 1500 to 2000

years.The mine had apperantly been abandoned with tools left in place.Apperantly whoever was mining there had

expected the spring thaw would reveal the mine and they would go back to work...well...better late than never.



In the city of Pisa Italy an ancient dock was found complete with the remains of several small fishing boats near

La Bugnotta.Miles from the nearest shoreline(I heard about that one on NPR.)Sea levels have not always been what

they are today...nor have temperatures.Oxygen content in the atmosphere has changed considerably in the last several

thousand years as well.Did mankind do it?

We humans have a real knack for crapping where we eat and climate

change would be no exception to that old habbit.We have successfuly managed to contaminate many rivers and lakes and

mow down many forests.In the central pacific, biologists find that a cubic meter of water contains more plastic

residue than micro -oganisms.But are we the sole reason behind climate change?We give ourselves way too much credit

if we say yes.We may be helping but I think that learning how to live with our environments natural tendancy to

change is just as important as mitigating our impact uppon it.

Hey Tim! Good to see you.



Mostly I was looking for opinions on the ramifications of releasing all those documents showing evidence that

climate change is not as real or as urgent as the proponents claim it to be. Collusion, misrepresentation of facts,

attacks on other scientists and other issues casts a bad light on the researchers of AGW. It brings all their work

into question, something I have believed was an issue right along.

I do not claim the climate is not changing,

to expect it to remain static is foolish. However, most of their predictions have been wrong as to what will happen.

In my opinion, it is due to poor modelling and use of unreliable tools and incorrect data. This belief seems to be

born out by the documents hacked from the university servers.

I spent several hours last night looking through

a lot of mundane stuff to find a few tidbits but have only scratched the surface. Nonetheless, what I have seen so

far seems to point to a conspiracy to mislead and frighten the general public. Since it is only my opinion, I am

offering the entire file to anybody else interested in reviewing it.

EDIT: Just a note on sea level variations.

The Saraha Desert was once a vast swamp and at another time was a great forest. Most of Texas, where I now live, was

under the ocean. The world changes and always will. There is no dispute about that.

Perhaps not as much to "mislead and

frighten the general public" but to distract the general public from other issues. And to find ways to "sell" pet

pork programs, and other goods and services (think insurance). (Am going to avoid the political motivations for

war... my heart wouldn't take it.)

Plus people in general seemed to get bored unless they get frightened and

excited once in a while. Witness movies like 2012. Little fact, much fiction, but it sure beats raking leaves or

mopping the floor or other mundane everyday tasks...

The AGW question has less to do

with science than it does money, ideology and politics. There has been a growing trend of scientists defecting from

the alleged "consensus" for quite some time now, and the media and ideologues do their best to either discredit or

ignore them. Why? Because AGW is just a vehicle that carries an agenda.

To your question Bel, I think this

email/document heist is potentially pretty damaging, but perhaps the AGW establishment is "too big to fail", to draw

an analogy to other failed institutions. :) There is a heck of a lot of real and political capital at stake here,

and a lot of vested interests will do all in their power to control the damage. It'll be interesting to watch.

Well...lets look at another

example of fear mongering for profit.The CDC and the WHO once uppon a time warned us about a pending global pandemic

in regard to the avian flu.They pointed to a number of people in China that had died from "resperatory distress" and

found antibodies of the avian influenza in thier blood stream and concluded..."BIRD FLU DID IT!" Later, several

imunologists got together and announced that having the antibodies in thier blood meant effectively nothing and they

also pointed out that one of the leading causes of death in China is...you guessed it...resperatory arrest.

Fast

forward to today.H1N1 or swine flu is all the rage.There is an absolute lack of evidence showing that it is any

worse than the average run of the mill flu.There are periodicly strains of influenza that realy kick alot of peoples

asses and kill alot of elderly and young people.That happens quite often actualy.But by blowing the issue out of

proportion to its real threat, the CDC can go to congress and demand money for "research" and safely tell congress

that if they dont kick down the cash there will be a world wide pandemic of biblical proportions.If that happens and

people find out it was because congress wouldnt pay up then what do you suppose thier odds of reelection are?No

congressman in his or her right mind would say no for fear of being crucified by the press and loosing a very

lucrative position.

Threats regarding the end of the world as we know it are a great way to get lots of federal

dollars.They did a very simmilar thing a decade ago with the near earth object project.The scientific community told

congress that we might get hit by a rock from space that could chip millions of windshields and they needed money to

study the problem.With alittle arm twisting and movies like Deep Impact and Armageddon congress decided that funding

should be provided.A great many starving astronomers now have beautiful homes, trophy wives and nice cars.And we

dont have a defence plan in place to stop an asteroid.Global warming is just another in a long list of scary stories

meant to motivate the uneducated to put pressure on the politicians to give money to the scientific community

At one time it was

"halitosis."
:blink:

Then diabetes.
:sick:

Then cholesterol.
:(

But now, let's not forget the

global pandemic of "erectile dysfunction" now lurking around every corner.
:eek:

Be sure to ask your

doctor.
:rasp:

Hey Belgareth, you turn up

anything interesting in your reading? I've read what's been printed in the few media stories I've found, and in

typical fashion the MSM is burying the story on page 11 or not covering it at all.

Also in true fashion, the

culprits are admitting no wrongdoing.

Here's a good opinion piece:



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

A

couple of quotes:

"The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated

with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science."



"The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage

doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is

circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same

peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science

is as indisputable as they claim."

And a view from the UK

here.

"Joe Public, coast-to-coast, now knows, thanks to the clowns

at East Anglia’s CRU, just how royally he has been screwed."

Well, so far, not a lot. I had

to do some digging to compare the charts in the hacked files to other charts the public saw and there are some

pretty big differences. Some of the reports seemed to be different from what I remember but the public versions are

no longer available so I can't say for sure.

The emails are a lot of work to dig through. I've been importing

them into word to make them more readable but there are thousands of documents. It is taking some time to go through

it. I didn't do anything on them over the holiday as I had other things to do.

Interesting reading though. Some

pretty incriminating stuff so far.

I read today that they've

thrown out all the raw data.

Read also that some of the massaged data is going to be released, but not for

months, after releases get signed off etc.

Five'll get you ten that the officially released stuff differs from

the hacked stuff.

That's a bet I won't take!

Want to bet that they don't throw out the raw data, after all? Too many years of work, they'll say. And I'll

partially agree with them. The problem will be filtering out the fact from the made up stuff. It should be

interesting to compare data with the raw I have now.

SCIENTISTS at the University

of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of

global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to

show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit

(CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.


The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of

variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper

and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.





http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

What I was talking

about with my comment (and bet) was just what you said. I think the hacked stuff you're reading will be far

different than whatever gets officially released after they bend it and choke it to fit their agenda.

And here's some not too

surprising news... the Chairman of the IPCC and the Obama administration are now on record as saying the hacked

information has no effect on the "consensus" that AGW is "real".



"The processes in the

IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that

bias will find its way into the IPCC

report,"

The White House on Monday made exceptionally clear that it wants nothing to do with the furor

over documents that global warming skeptics say prove the phenomenon is not a threat.

I can see where "Global Warming"

could be real. We've certainly had "Global Cooling" in the form of ice ages. And I can see "Climate Change" as a

natural state of things.

The real "hot points" are those that center around if these changes are being affected

by human activity or not, and by how much. And if these changes are really that detrimental. We've had climate

swings for eons. Who is to say the end result of the current trend is all that negative? We have no experience with

which to judge. Just "opinion" based on what little we know.

I have no doubt humans are messing the environment

up. But to scream that's whatever we are doing is certain doom at 12:07 on January 1st 2043 is just plain

fearmongering (or a way to sell whatever it is they are peddling - make money off the ignorant masses). We've gone

through crap like that before over and over again over the centuries.

Global climate change is real,

human intervention is the questionable part. From everything I've read and studied over the years, it seems most

unlikely that it is caused by man. I think the IPCC and most the AGW researchers know that as well, otherwise they

would not be falsifying data and suppressing research. Keep in mind that the polar bears were going to be wiped out

but they are increasing. Hurricanes were going to increase but didn't. Greenland was named for its lush landscape,

not for its icy current appearance. Zebras, lions and other equatoral animals used to wander northern Europe.



The climate changes due to many factors. The fact that the other planets climates are changing in the same

patterns and at the same rates tells us there is more to it than so called greenhouse gasses.

IMO its pure guesstomology to

try to prove that humans have caused one iota of difference in the world's climate. Like you say Rbt, temp

fluctuations have been far more severe than we're seeing now, and will continue to swing as nature sees fit.

Its

my understanding that science requires repeatable experimentation based on detailed data in a controlled

environment. The earth is most certainly not a closed environment and as a result any data put into a model can

only add up to hypothetical assumptions or, as one critic said, "implausible chains of reference". The sheer number

of variables in current climate study is staggering. To think that one can extrapolate causes and effects over

centuries is hubris, pure and simple.

The AGW establishment has no real interest in science beyond the point

where it will drive their agenda. Energy drives the world, and AGW is being used to gain control over energy

resources in the same way that health care "reform" is being used to snuff out personal liberties. The

redistribution of wealth and centralization of power are common threads in both of these scenarios.

One need only

look past what is being said and done among the governing elite, to the logical end result of their policies and

programs. AGW is a cornerstone, and they'll never let it go. Skilled propagandists, in concert with a willing

media, will spin their tale and most likely get away with it, all the while actually thinking no one is noticing, or

indeed, should notice.

Given just how "exact" even just

next week's weather forcasts often are, and those are based of some pretty intense, involved, constantly updated

computer models...

Just how accurate are "predictions" about a global weather/climate situation centuries (or

even just a few decades) in advance going to be? I suspect the $2.99/minute Psychic Hotline may do as well at

times...

This is also one reason I avoid politics. Same sort of crap. I don't need the personal stress.

When I was in college and in my

previous life as a corporate computer guru I did quite a bit of computer modelling. They were business trend models

but are conceptually pretty similar. It is an exact science provided your variables and assumptions are valid.

That's where the problem comes in. As we know, they fudged and adjusted data (the good old hockey stick, for

example) thus invalidating the entire model. Its kind of like the old explanation about chaos theory: A butterly

flapping its wings in China can lead to tornadoes in Kansas. Cause and effect are very slippery things and the

number of variable associated with climate are horrendous. A single invalid variable or incorrect assumption makes

for huge fluctuations.

In the end, liars figure and figures lie, so to speak. With a little nudge here and there

you can make a model do whatever you want it to do.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573

THE scientific consensus that mankind has caused

climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by

fraud”.

Professor Ian Plimer condemned the

climate change lobby as “climate

comrades” keeping the

“gravy

train” going.
In a controversial talk just days before the start of a

climate

summitattended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like

“fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.
He said carbon dioxide has

had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over

­billions of years.







http://cdn.images.dailyexpress.co.uk...tropheLeft.jpg
If you have to

argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.


http://cdn.images.dailyexpress.co.uk...ropheRight.jpg




Professor Pilmer



Prof

Plimer - author of Heaven and Earth: Global

Warming, The Missing Science - told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and

they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”

Its nice to see some

rationality coming into the discussion instead of just the unsupported claims of the global warming advocates. I'd

love to be a fly on the wall in some of the recent meetings of those groups.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow

at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the

Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the

agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

"I assume that what is

there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their

internal discussions about this."


The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its

data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later

changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.





http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-climate-data/

Most of the time I laugh at

conspiracy theorists, but in this case...

Here's your conspiracy: these

AGW guys are just in it for the free sex. :)

Prostitutes offer free climate summit sex

Copenhagen

Council and Lord Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard have sent postcards out to 160 Copenhagen hotels urging COP15 guests and

delegates to ‘Be sustainable – don’t buy sex’.

“Dear hotel owner, we would like to

urge you not to arrange contacts between hotel guests and prostitutes,” the approach to hotels says.



Copenhagen prostitutes are up in arms at the project saying that the council has no business meddling in their

affairs, and have now offered free sex to anyone who can produce one of the offending postcards and their COP15

identity card, according to avisen.dk.

http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article851637.ece

:rofl:

Now, that's funny!

:box:

Maybe if the hookers keep them busy they won't create as many problems with their summit. It kind of

makes me wonder what the climax of their meeting will be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belgareth

It kind of makes me wonder what the climax of their meeting will be.

---

:rofl:


I found the "Be

sustainable... don't buy sex" comment curious. What if you can only have sustainable sex with a hooker and a

hockey stick??

Blows like Hurricane to Climatic Climax! Global Warming? No problem, this week only!

Just thought i would share this

with you guys. All the following has been verified. While not complete proof, it sure smells bad.

Some of the

excerpts of emails within the archives (edited for brevity, emphasis added):

From Michael E. Mann (witholding of

information / data):

Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code

that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have

to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to

some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own

internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.


From Nick McKay

(modifying data):

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took

a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets

to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like

we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right

to you?


From Tom Wigley (acknowleding the urban effect):

We probably need to say more about this. Land

warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming

is real and important.

From Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results):

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 from

1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.


From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):

The fact is that we

can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in

the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our

observing system is inadequate.

From Michael Mann (truth doesn't matter):


Perhaps we'll do a simple update

to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t.

inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test)

in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable

accusations.

From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here!

... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting

hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that

the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

From Michael E. Mann (using a website to control the message, hide

dissent):

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral

climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what

comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On

the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue

and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d

like us to include.

From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also

IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.



If the emails and documents are a forgery, it would be an extremely large one that would likely have taken

months to setup. No doubt much more will be coming out about these emails and their possible authenticity. Stay

tuned to the Climate Change Examiner for updates as more information becomes available.

Update, 10:30am – Since

the original publication of this article, the story is gaining steam and now the BBC is reporting on it. They report

that a spokesman for the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), "We are aware that information

from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public

websites.”

Analysis of the emails and documents in the archives continues. We must stress that the authenticity

has not been proven however there have been no denials of such by the climate center. Some of the more recent

revelations include:

From Phil Jones (destroying of emails / evidence):

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.

However, I found this to be

especially disturbing.


EXCLUSIVE – British Peer: Copenhagen Summit Has Established A World

Government

Amid all the mainstream media reports of the talks in Copenhagen “limping” to a close and having

failed, Lord Christopher Monckton, reporting from the summit, has stated that the only goal of the conference was to

implement the framework and the funding for a world government – which he asserts has been achieved.

EXCLUSIVE

British Peer: Copenhagen Summit Has Established A World Government 181209globe“That is the one thing that they are

definitely going to succeed in doing here and they will announce that as a victory in itself, and they will be right

because that is the one and only single aim of this entire global warming conference, to establish the mechanism,

the structure, and above all the funding for a world government.” the British politician, business consultant,

policy adviser exclusively told the Alex Jones show yesterday.

“They are going to take from the western countries

the very large financial resources required to do that.” Monckton said, adding “They will disguise it by saying they

are setting up a $100 billion fund for adaptation to climate change in third world countries, but actually, this

money will almost all be gobbled up by the international bureaucracy.”

“The first thing they will do, and the one

thing I think they were always going to succeed in doing at this conference is to agree to establish what will be

delicately called ‘the institutional framework’. Now that is a code word for world government.”

Lord Monckton

explained that although the word “government” has been dropped from the treaty, all the interlocking bureaucratic

features of a world government are still present in the final draft of the treaty, which also legislates for a

global tax on financial transactions that will be paid directly to the World Bank.

And one last post on the

subject for today:


December 15 2009



HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the

European
Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:



1) There is "no real scientific proof"

that the current warming is caused by
the rise of greenhouse gases from man's activity.



2) Man-made CO2

emissions throughout human history constitute less than
0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the

mantle of the earth
during geological history.



3) Warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800

years before rises
in CO2 levels.



4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions

but
global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.



5) Throughout the Earth's history, temperatures

have often been warmer than
now and CO2 levels have often been higher - more than ten times as high.



6)

Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout
geologic time.



7) The 0.7ºC increase in

the average global temperature over the last
hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established,

long-term,
natural climate trends.



8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable

reviewers
not the 4,000 usually cited.



9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in a scandal

known as
"Climate-gate" - suggest that data has been manipulated to exaggerate global
warming



10) A large

body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible
for the greater share of climate change during the

past hundred years.



11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of
global

warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the
last ice age 10,000 ago



12) Philip

Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of
Oriental and African Studies in London says climate

change is too
complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds



13) Peter Lilley MP said

last month that "fewer people in Britain than in
any other country believe in the importance of global warming.

That is
despite the fact that our Government and our political
class-predominantly-are more committed to it than

their counterparts in any
other country in the world".



14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind

farms will do very
little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions



15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and

Earth Sciences at the
University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in
the atmosphere,

accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility
for climate change, is an "absurdity"



16) A

Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said
he is "embarrassed and puzzled" by the

shallow science in papers that
support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by
global

warming.



17) The science of what determines the earth's temperature is in fact far
from settled or

understood.



18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse
gas, unlike water

vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can't
even pretend to control



19) A petition by

scientists trying to tell the world that the political and
media portrayal of global warming is false was put

forward in the Heidelberg
Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize
winners,

from 106 countries have signed it.



20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a

dangerously
fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global
temperature rise has been between

1ºC and 2ºC per century - within natural
rates



21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific

Council of the
Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the
earth's temperature has

more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2
concentration in the atmosphere.



22) There is strong

evidence from solar studies which suggests that the
Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by

climatic cooling over
the next few decades



23) It is a myth that receding glaciers are proof of global

warming as
glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries



24) It is a falsehood that

the earth's poles are warming because that is
natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting

somewhat
warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder



25) The IPCC claims

climate driven "impacts on biodiversity are significant
and of key relevance" but those claims are simply not

supported by
scientific research



26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world's species does not

make
sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they
have all been through hundreds of

climate cycles



27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming
would cause

catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice
Sheets.



28) Despite activist concerns over

CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our
best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing

population



29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around
700 million years

ago



30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is
entirely consistent with

well-established, long-term natural climate cycles



31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2

levels of some
so-called "greenhouse gases" may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and
global cooling, not

warming



32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the
last three decades have

not shown any significant change in the long term
rate of increase in global temperatures



33) Today's CO2

concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most
of the earth's history - we actually live in a

carbon-deficient atmosphere



34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because
greenhouse

gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2
constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere



35) It

is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause
significant global warming because computer

models can be made to "verify"
anything



36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that

global
warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes



37) One statement deleted from a UN report

in 1996 stated that "none of the
studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the
observed

climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases"



38) The world "warmed" by 0.07 ± 0.07ºC from 1999 to 2008,

not the
0.20ºC
expected by the IPCC



39) The IPCC says "it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons

and
hurricanes) will become more intense" but there has been no increase in the
intensity or frequency of tropical

cyclones globally



40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a
negligible effect

on the Earth's many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a
positive help to many organisms



41) Researchers

who compare and contrast climate change impact on
civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and

cold periods
harmful



42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began
but this

is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is
cyclical



43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant

growth and make plants more resistant
to drought and pests



44) The historical increase in the air's CO2

content has improved human
nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years



45) The increase of

the air's CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human
lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial

Revolution



46) The IPCC alleges that "climate change currently contributes to the
global burden of disease

and premature deaths" but the evidence shows that
higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global

populations



47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report
concluding that the Kyoto

Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.



48) The "Climate-gate" scandal pointed to an expensive public

campaign of
disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that
CO2 emissions were

causing climate change



49) The head of Britain's climate change watchdog has predicted households
will need

to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the
Government is to meet its ambitious targets for

cutting carbon emissions.



50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind
power

industry argues that there are "no direct subsidies" but it involves a
total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh

which falls directly on electricity
consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind

power
targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.



51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce

energy. The British Wind
Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 % back-up power is
required.



52)

Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at "at
the top end of IPCC estimates"



53)

Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the
oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University

in Norway , and others, have
noted that the composition of ocean water - including CO2, calcium, and
water - can

act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.



54) The UN's IPCC computer models of

human-caused global warming predict the
emergence of a "hotspot" in the upper troposphere over the tropics.

Former
researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said
there is no evidence of such a

hotspot



55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused
by human activity is

the argument of flat Earthers.



56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress

to
order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire
international decision-making process has

become with regards to
emission-target setting.



57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National

Climate Centre and a
consultant to the WMO, wrote "the likely extent of global temperature rise
from a doubling of

CO2 is less than 1ºC. Such warming is well within the
envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000

years and
insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million
years, when Earth has been

predominantly very cold and covered by extensive
ice sheets."



58) Canada has shown the world targets derived

from the existing Kyoto
commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.



59) In the

lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous
climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and

Kyoto in 1997 that many had
promised greater cuts, but "neither happened", but we are continuing along
the same

lines.



60) The UK 's environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55
billion, before taking

into account the impact on its economic growth.



61) The UN's panel on climate change warned that Himalayan

glaciers could
melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at
Ontario Trent

University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got
the date from an earlier report wrong by more than

300 years.



62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success,
while actually

increasing emissions by 13%, according to Lord Lawson. In
addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing

"offsets" from
countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy
atmospheric pollutants, such as

CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in
order to be destroyed.



63) It is claimed that the average global

temperature was relatively
unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will
increase by

several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn
State University researcher Michael Mann. There is

no convincing empirical
evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in
average global

temperature were unusual or unnatural.



64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that

the
Mediæval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which
contrasts with his earlier work which

produced the "hockey stick graph"
which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so
followed

by a recent dramatic upturn.



65) The globe's current approach to climate change in which

major
industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2
emissions by a given date, as it has

been under the Kyoto system, is very
expensive.



66) The "Climate-gate" scandal revealed that a scientific

team had emailed
one another about using a "trick" for the sake of concealing a
"decline" in
temperatures when

looking at the history of the Earth's temperature.



67) Global temperatures have not risen in any

statistically-significant
sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The
"Climate-gate"

scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at
the fact global warming was contrary to their

predictions and admitted their
inability to explain it was "a travesty".



68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer

planet will lead to more extreme
weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over
the

last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more
rapid warming than any time in the past two

millennia, the world did not
experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme

weather
events.



69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently
experiencing, the Met

Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate
predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were

decade-long
standstills but none for 15 years - so it expects global warming to resume
swiftly.



70) Richard

Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, wrote: "The
notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to

the history of the
Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria over global
warming simply

represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public,
the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of

repetition for
truth."



71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol's status as the flagship of the fight
against

climate change it has been a failure.



72) The first phase of the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which

ran
from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute
led to a collapse in the price of

carbon from ?33 to just ?0.20 per tonne
meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.



73) The EU

trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed
and actually allows European businesses to duck

out of making their
emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to
be made overseas

instead.



74) To date "cap and trade" carbon markets have done almost nothing to
reduce emissions.



75)

In the US , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon
emissions and will impose huge costs upon

American citizens via a carbon tax
on all goods and services produced in the US. The average family of four

can
expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is
predicted that the US will lose more than

2 million jobs as the result of
cap-and-trade schemes.



76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at

the University of
Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models
tracked by the IPCC the

differences in warming exhibited by those models is
mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud

feedback - and
that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the
last 50 to 100

years.



77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally
competitive world to a false and

ill-defined problem, while ignoring the
real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease

or
terrorism.



78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years
demonstrates that

temperature increases have come before, and not resulted
from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.



79)

Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in
actual fact very little we can do about it.

(We are still not able to
control the sun).



80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate

scientists on the UN's
IPCC, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change
and man-made

global warming, were found to have serious concerns.



81) The UK's Met Office has been forced this year to

re-examine 160 years of
temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on
man-made global

warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.



82) Politicians and activists push for renewable

energy sources such as
wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially
about money -

under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money
is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It

amounts to £1 billion a
year.



83) The "Climate-gate" scandal revealed that a scientific team had

tampered
with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.



84) The "Climate-gate" scandal

revealed that a scientific team had
campaigned for the removal of a learned journal's editor, solely because

he
did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.



85) Ice-core data clearly show

that temperatures change centuries before
concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be

little
evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause
of past temperature and climate

change.



86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2
concentrations can fall in a

few centuries without falling temperatures - in
fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2

concentrations,
which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas
most readily absorbed by

water.



87) The Government's Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase
in electricity generation

by wind power costing around £4 billion a year
over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5

billion
overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of
between eleven and seventeen

times.



88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and
otherwise, just as they have

throughout history, the CO2 content of the
atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial

revolution,
and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.



89) It is a myth that CO2 is a

pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our
atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either:

CO2 is
no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.



90) Politicians and climate

activists make claims to rising sea levels but
certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong

that is
subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea
level.



91) The accepted

global average temperature statistics used by the IPCC show
that no ground-based warming has occurred since

1998.



92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and
large volcanic eruptions,

lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature
measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period

over
which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %).



93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut

emissions by 2050 to equal
those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be
420 million

Americans, so Obama's promise means that emissions per head will
be approximately what they were in 1875. It

simply will not happen.



94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to
2020,

compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30
percent. However, these are unachievable and

the EU has already massively
failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually
rose by 0.8%

from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto
goal.



95) Australia has stated it wants to slash

greenhouse emissions by up to 25%
below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the
country's

Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the
Opposition's Party leader has now been ousted by a

climate change sceptic.



96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20% compared with 2006 levels by
2020,

representing approximately a 3% cut from 1990 levels but it
simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions

and its record as one
of the world's highest per-capita emissions setters.



97) India plans to reduce the

ratio of emissions to production by 20-25%
compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist

that
since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has
to emit, because the economy is

driven by carbon.



98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said:
"We - along

with many of our fellow citizens - are apprehensive about the
climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan,

in December 1997" and
"based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the
politically inspired

world view that envisages climate catastrophes and
calls for hasty actions."



99) A US Oregon Petition

Project stated "We urge the US government to reject
the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan

in December,
1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse
gases would harm the

environment, hinder the advance of science and
technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is

no
convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other
greenhouse gasses is causing or

will, in the foreseeable future, cause
catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the

Earth's
climate."



100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
concluded "We

find no support for the IPCC's claim that climate observations
during the 20th century are either unprecedented or

provide evidence of an
anthropogenic effect on

climate."



http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138





Warmest Regards



B0n

oz



"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and

the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is

distinct
from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville