How do you know the Global Warming Scam is over?

[Air Marshall Eldritch]

Interesting article published in Feb by John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel. The chronicling of the timeline and who's who is very interesting: The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam By John Coleman February 11, 2009 The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens. How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us? The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle obtained major funding from the Navy to do measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting post war atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago. Suess was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle co-authored a scientific paper with Suess in 1957—a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. The thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time. Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures. Back in the1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well. But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. Roger Revelle’s research at the Scripps Institute had tricked a wave of scientific inquiry. So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement. Automobiles and power planets became the prime targets. Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere. The Keeling curve continues to show a steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41 hundredths of one percent by weight. And, by the way, only a fraction of that fraction is from mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The best estimate is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result of civilization. Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. As years have passed, the scientists have kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up. Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings. "Agent of Her Majesty" Maurice Frederick Strong Strong, the founding chairman of Petro-Canada (1976-78) and former chairman of Ontario Hydro (1992-95), both Crown Corporations, is "an agent of Her Majesty." In Canada, Crown corporations are wholly owned and operated by the Canadian monarch, Elizabeth II, as the corporation's sole shareholder. This follows the legal premise that the British Crown, as an institution, owns all the property of government at the federal and provincial level. As the Canadian Encyclopedia says, "A central rationale of crown corporations is that the commercial activities of government, to be performed successfully, must be shielded from government intervention and legislative oversight." Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations—a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). This was not a pure, “climate study” scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize. At the same time Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus. He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming." That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book “Earth in the Balance,” published in 1992. So there it is. Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause célčbre of the media. After all, the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling." The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too. But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer." And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain, and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge, negative impact on the economy, jobs, and our standard of living. Considerable controversy still surrounds the authorship of this article. However, I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer and he assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem. Did Roger Revelle attend the summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "Apparently.” People who were there have told me about that afternoon, but I have not located a transcript or a recording. People continue to share their memories with me on an informal basis. More evidence may be forthcoming. Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam. He might well stand beside me as a global warming denier. Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s mea culpa as the actions of a senile old man. The next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate. From 1992 until today, he and most of his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when asked about us skeptics, they insult us and call us names. As the science now stands, the global warming alarmist scientists say the climate is sensitive to a “radiative forcing” effect from atmospheric carbon dioxide which greatly magnifies its greenhouse effect on atmospheric warming. The only proof they can provide of this complex hypothesis is by running it in climate computer models. By starting the models in about 1980 they showed how the continuing increase in CO2 was step with a steady increase in average global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990’s and claim cause and effect. But, in fact, those last two decades of the 20th century were at the peak of a strong 24 year solar cycle, and the temperature increases actually may have been a result of the solar cycle together with related warm cycle ocean current patterns during that period. That warming ended in 1998 and global temperatures (as measured by satellites) leveled off. Starting in 2002, computer models and reality have dramatically parted company. The models predicted temperatures and carbon dioxide would continue to rise in lock step, but in fact while the CO2 continues to rise, temperatures are in decline. Now global temperatures are in such a nose dive there is wide spread talk from climatologists about an impending ice age. In any case, the UN’s computer model “proof” has gone up in a poof. Nonetheless, today we have the continued claim that carbon dioxide is the culprit of an uncontrollable, runaway man-made global warming. We are told that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint. And, we are told we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists for this sinful footprint. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US Congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course. We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by the prohibiting of new refineries and of drilling for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that, the whole issue of corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies, which also has driven up food prices. All of this is a long way from over. Yet I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it. Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is hijacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[M1M2M3]

cliff notes?

[Air Marshall Eldritch]

Originally Posted by M1M2M3

cliff notes?

The very man who thought up the whole CO2 issue in the 50's (50's!!), taught his theory at Yale to Al Gore, then later realized it was all crap and appealed to the community to back off the hysteria before he died.

[M1M2M3]

Originally Posted by Mister Brenton

The very man who thought up the whole CO2 issue in the 50's (50's!!), taught his theory at Yale to Al Gore, then later realized it was all crap and appealed to the community to back off the hysteria before he died.

holy cow, this stuff just gets worse every day.

[S55inPA]

Originally Posted by Spartan

Hey S66InPA and Kaz,

Don't let the delusional hijack the thread into the usual "Ugly-American" rant.
Rather then getting dragged into the mud, let's enjoy the mud the mmgw are covered in.

How do you like the story on the IPCC "head scientist"? He is so currupt that obami nees to give him a hundred billion dollars and a czar position ASAP.

good points and advice as usual spartan.

this scam is all about money. extorting it, stealing it, taking it
by guilt and even taking it by association. that creep should be
locked up in a prison cell without heat at the south pole. that
will teach him for spreading lies and conning the many gullible
dummies that walk our planet.

[S55inPA]

Originally Posted by Mister Brenton

Interesting article published in Feb by John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel. The chronicling of the timeline and who's who is very interesting:


The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

By John Coleman
February 11, 2009

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle obtained major funding from the Navy to do measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting post war atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago. Suess was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle co-authored a scientific paper with Suess in 1957—a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. The thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Back in the1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.

Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. Roger Revelle’s research at the Scripps Institute had tricked a wave of scientific inquiry. So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement. Automobiles and power planets became the prime targets.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve continues to show a steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41 hundredths of one percent by weight. And, by the way, only a fraction of that fraction is from mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The best estimate is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result of civilization.

Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. As years have passed, the scientists have kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings.

"Agent of Her Majesty" Maurice Frederick Strong
Strong, the founding chairman of Petro-Canada (1976-78) and former chairman of Ontario Hydro (1992-95), both Crown Corporations, is "an agent of Her Majesty." In Canada, Crown corporations are wholly owned and operated by the Canadian monarch, Elizabeth II, as the corporation's sole shareholder. This follows the legal premise that the British Crown, as an institution, owns all the property of government at the federal and provincial level. As the Canadian Encyclopedia says, "A central rationale of crown corporations is that the commercial activities of government, to be performed successfully, must be shielded from government intervention and legislative oversight."

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations—a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). This was not a pure, “climate study” scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels.

Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize.

At the same time Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming." That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book “Earth in the Balance,” published in 1992.

So there it is. Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause célčbre of the media. After all, the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling." The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain, and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge, negative impact on the economy, jobs, and our standard of living. Considerable controversy still surrounds the authorship of this article. However, I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer and he assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "Apparently.” People who were there have told me about that afternoon, but I have not located a transcript or a recording. People continue to share their memories with me on an informal basis. More evidence may be forthcoming.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam. He might well stand beside me as a global warming denier.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s mea culpa as the actions of a senile old man. The next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate. From 1992 until today, he and most of his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when asked about us skeptics, they insult us and call us names.

As the science now stands, the global warming alarmist scientists say the climate is sensitive to a “radiative forcing” effect from atmospheric carbon dioxide which greatly magnifies its greenhouse effect on atmospheric warming. The only proof they can provide of this complex hypothesis is by running it in climate computer models. By starting the models in about 1980 they showed how the continuing increase in CO2 was step with a steady increase in average global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990’s and claim cause and effect. But, in fact, those last two decades of the 20th century were at the peak of a strong 24 year solar cycle, and the temperature increases actually may have been a result of the solar cycle together with related warm cycle ocean current patterns during that period.

That warming ended in 1998 and global temperatures (as measured by satellites) leveled off. Starting in 2002, computer models and reality have dramatically parted company. The models predicted temperatures and carbon dioxide would continue to rise in lock step, but in fact while the CO2 continues to rise, temperatures are in decline. Now global temperatures are in such a nose dive there is wide spread talk from climatologists about an impending ice age. In any case, the UN’s computer model “proof” has gone up in a poof.

Nonetheless, today we have the continued claim that carbon dioxide is the culprit of an uncontrollable, runaway man-made global warming. We are told that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint. And, we are told we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists for this sinful footprint. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US Congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by the prohibiting of new refineries and of drilling for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that, the whole issue of corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies, which also has driven up food prices. All of this is a long way from over.

Yet I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is hijacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.

most excellent read

[mleskovar]

Originally Posted by Spartan

[COLOR="red"]..Pachauri stated that his only concern was finding out who was behind it, not if there are any problems with the science behind the manmade climate change theory or the scientists that formulated it. "I think this is an illegal act. The only issue that has to be dealt with as far as this occurrence is concerned is to find out who is behind it," he said....

Divulging public information is illegal? They don't even know if it was a hack yet. I'm still betting on an inside job by someone with an authorized password. This is just more smokescreen to divert attention from proper investigation.

[Kaz]

good points Spartan, it looks like the global warming profiteers are very familiar with government/business cronyism





It looks like some brilliant people are at work trying to solve this dilemma...

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ng.html?cat=15

The global warming solution proposed by Nathan Myhvold involves running a hose up to the stratosphere with balloons and using that hose to pump out enough sulfur particles to dim the sun's heat just enough to counteract the effects of global warming.




and the story of an ex-AGW kool aid drinker, just check out his conviction when he was writing alarmist articles, very cool

http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

[MotorWerkz]

Executive-secretary of the UN Climate Conference Yvo de Boer lets his frustration show on the final day of the summit. Photograph: Olivier Morin/AFP/Getty Images

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".

Shifting the blame

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

Strong position

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.
With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

China's game

All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.
Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

[mleskovar]

3 -2 -1 -....

[Spartan]

I couldn't care less if it was China, India or Martians who sank this malarkey. What is clear is that there is enormous peer pressure "group think" on countries this and if any country DARES to oppose it, the warmist will scream to high heavens like something out of a cheap science fiction movie.

~~~~~~

Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister....

Stephen Harper derided the global treaty and questioned the science of climate change in a 2002 fundraising letter sent to members of his now-defunct Canadian Alliance party.

“Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations,” says the letter, signed by Harper.

“Implementing Kyoto will cripple the oil and gas industry, which is essential to the economies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia . . .

“Workers and consumers everywhere in Canada will lose. THERE ARE NO CANADIAN WINNERS UNDER THE KYOTO ACCORD.”

He also blasted the treaty for targeting carbon dioxide — which he said is “essential to life” — and played down the science of climate change as “tentative and contradictory.”

Harper went on to promise a “battle of Kyoto” in hope of defeating the Chrétien Liberals’ efforts to implement the treaty legislation in the House of Commons.

“But we can’t do it alone. It will take an army of Canadians to beat Kyoto, just as it did to beat (the) Charlottetown (constitutional accord),” he wrote.

These days, Harper avoids criticizing the Kyoto accord, and simply dismisses its targets as unattainable.

~~~~~~~

Climategate and 100 billion a year prove that he was right beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The sane world desperately needs China and a Republican senate to shut down this malarkey.

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by Kaz

http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

synthetic datasets with manufactured biases

Wow, just wow....how can anyone believe therse a-holes. How anyone with half a brain not see that they are sharing and fixing data when they SPELL IT OUT in their own e-mails? How can anyone with even a pretense of intelligence not see that this is nothing more then a collaboration to derive an outcome?

~~~~~~~~~

June 17, 1998, from Michael Mann to Phil Jones,

“Dear Phil,

Of course I’ll be happy to be on board. I think the opportunity for some direct collaboration between us (me, and you/tim/keith) is ripe, and the plan to compare and contrast different approaches and data and synthesize the different results is a good one. Though sidetracked by other projects recently, I remain committed to doing this with you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic datasets with manufactured biases/etc remains high priority. It sounds like it would all fit into the proposal you mention. There may be some overlap w/proposals we will eventually submit to NSF (renewal of our present funding), etc. by I don’t see a problem with that in the least.

Once the collaboration is officially in place, I think that sharing of codes, data, etc. should not be a problem. I would be happy to make mine available, though can’t promise its the most user friendly thing in the world.

In short, I like the idea. Include me in, and let me know what you eed from me (cv, etc.).
cheers,

mike”

[Glasgow Gold]

Originally Posted by Mister Brenton

Interesting article published in Feb by John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel. The chronicling of the timeline and who's who is very interesting:


The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

By John Coleman
February 11, 2009
[LEFT][COLOR=#000000]

While I'm not a big fan of the "one-world" accusations (tends to bring out the conspiracy freaks, which the anti-warming side doesn't need at all), but overall this is an excellent piece.

Once again, the involvement of the U.N. is deep and completely inappropriate. I wish the U.S. would cease funding this corrupt organization and let it die the death it so richly deserves.

[MRAMG1]

Although I could care less which country blocked it. I can say that I am very glad that it did not reach a conclusion. Thank you China.
All these nuts are going to do, is shift MORE companies out of the US, to build their factories in countries that don't place insane restrictions on them. That should really help with our economy and unemployment. Way to go Dem's.

[M1M2M3]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_holiday_storm more global warming lol.

[Kaz]

Have you guys seen climatedepot? its kind of like the drudgereport but on climate news

http://www.climatedepot.com/

[Spartan]

I often hear from the idiots about "the scientist siad". Gee, like they are some kind of priests of higher truths. All seeing, all knowing and beyond questioning.


Here are some comments by James Hansen, one of the HIGHEST priests of the Church of Glaobal Warming. Yeah, the guy who runs NASA.

In his article....

"carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning remains in the climate system for millennia."

The BIGGEST effen lie and misdirection EVER. His is simply distorting the fact that gas molecule distribution is so large and chaotic that a infinitesimal tiny fraction of them will wonder around a long time before plant life uses it. Theoretically, a single CO2 molecule can be around since the birth of the planet. Of course, this brilliant "scientist" omitted the fact that CO2 is recycled since the beginning of plant life on earth.

This is a NASA scientist?

Anywho, you guys should read it because he is advising that POS in the WH and it looks like the direction that POS will take to satisfy the malarkey.

Main points.....

We need a rising price on carbon applied at the source (the mine, wellhead, or port of entry). The fee will affect all activities that use fossil fuels, directly or indirectly. The entire fee collected from fossil fuel companies should be distributed to the public.

Basically, the government will collect TRILLIONS at entry points or well heads to re-distributre as they wish.

And then THIS.....

In this fee-and-dividend approach people maintaining a carbon footprint smaller than average will receive more in the dividend than they pay via increased energy costs. The monthly dividend, deposited electronically in their bank account or on their debit card, will stimulate the economy and provide people with the means to increase their carbon efficiency. All that governments need do is divide the collected revenue by the number of shares, with half-shares for children, up to two children per family.

Basically, through the use of carbon tax, the government would have ABSOLUTE control over our lives. Everything needs energy and EVERYTHING would cost more. Think about it this way, EVERYTHING will rise by 20%-40% and that spread is now DIRECTLY taxed and controlled by the government. The old Russian central planning committees on steroids. Socialism is defined as the government controlling the means of production, this would be "Carbon Socialism"....through the government controlling the cost of energy. "Carbon Socialism" ....you read it here first.

The international framework must define how proceeds from import duties are used to assure fairness. Duties on products from developing countries will probably dwarf present foreign aid to those countries. These funds should be returned to developing countries, but distributed so as to encourage best practices, for example, improved women's rights and education that helps control population growth. Fairness also requires that distribution of the funds takes account of the ongoing impacts of climate change.

"The funds should be returned", doesn't that sound soooo neutral? BULL*****. Those "funds" are the monies Americans will pay and they will be redistributed to the world as the government sees fit. You no longer have any say in it as there is no local or state representation. If all said and done, it will be through "international" agreements that overide national parties or priorities.

What this piece of *****, who advises the other piece of ***** in the WH does not say is that it will be a MASSIVE burden on American and American jobs. Basically, it will strip trillions of dollars out of the economy to be redistributed as the elite want. Without a shred of doubt, it will DESTROY any manufacturing that remains AND destroy the future of our children....and their children.

Sadly, THIS is where I thought we will land up when I first read about their "sky falling" malarkey. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with any "climate change" but rather, using carbon as the ULTIMATE weapon in social control.

This malarkey MUST be stopped. Our future and our childrens future depends on it.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-opportunities

[BenzBoy12]

Well I was ready to come in fists swinging and everything, but after this page, I honestly don't see how the hell anybody with a positive IQ value could even think for one second that this is not, as Coleman put it, "the greatest scam in history". Of course, I've been calling it that (and so have a lot of others) for years now. It just angers me so much that we even have to argue about it, it's like 2+2 = 4 at this point, except 35-40% of the population is screaming that it equals 5 because they were told so, and refuse to look at any evidence contrary to that.

[alewifebp]

Originally Posted by BenzBoy12

it's like 2+2 = 4 at this point, except 35-40% of the population is screaming that it equals 5 because they were told so, and refuse to look at any evidence contrary to that.

You hit the nail on the head. What you are seeing is that so many people have invested so much time and energy in to a scam, and they really don't want to be told that they are wrong. It was a lot of wasted effort on their part. The people with less skin in the game have already switched over to the enlightened side. It will take some time, but they will convert. Of course, this would be a lot easier if the MSM was actually truthful.

[BenzBoy12]

Originally Posted by alewifebp

You hit the nail on the head. What you are seeing is that so many people have invested so much time and energy in to a scam, and they really don't want to be told that they are wrong. It was a lot of wasted effort on their part. The people with less skin in the game have already switched over to the enlightened side. It will take some time, but they will convert. Of course, this would be a lot easier if the MSM was actually truthful.

I really hope so, I think once things like this start to get out, people will realize what a scam it is. For the continued success of it, there will be more and more money, effort, and lying needed. I'm hoping it will get to the point where the purveyors of GW will just not be able to keep it up anymore. I just hope sooner rather than later, just saw a few days ago that Ferrari is working on a 599, the next GT-R will be a two-ton hybrid, and we literally have people worshiping the Prius and the Volt. Anybody who needs a reminder, just watch the final piece of the Top Gear summer 09 series, where JC takes out the V12 Vantage. Really makes you think if the days of the car as we know it are over. Also, the potential for government taxation is beyond disgusting. For all these people they say are struggling, and that we need to give out welfare too, what the hell do they think will happen when we raise their energy prices 30%? The cost of most durable goods they buy by 20-25%? The fact that it has even crossed their minds shows that they are either complete morons or simply bent on destroying the country for their own gain.

[Spartan]

Now there is a smear campaign against China. These POS have smear campaigns down to a science. Scream, spit and yell to draw attention and anyone who is not following in lockstep to the malarkey? ATTACK.

If indeed it was Chinese hackers then THANK YOU!


~~~~~~~~~~~

Chinese Hackers May Have Leaked ‘Climategate’ E-mails

The hacking of computers containing climate change-related e-mails may have come from China, in the hopes of scuttling the Copenhagen climate talks, suggests an article from the Daily Mail.

The hack-job that came to be called “Climategate” initially had been attributed to Russia, which in addition to China had little to gain from a successful Copenhagen.

However, the Russian security service released information that allowed the original e-mail traffic to be retraced. According to the article, the e-mails went through a computer company in Siberia, but originated from a computer in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

An open-access server run by Malaysian telecom firm Telekom Malaysia Berhad, which supplies internet access to nearby China, was the source of the e-mail leak.

Because the open server does not require a password, the company said that it could not identify the sender. That has not stopped speculation that China was behind the leaked e-mails.

The IP address used to post the messages is linked to one used by a Chinese environmental institute, the Research Institute of Forest Ecology and Environment Protection, reports the Daily Mail.

Several professors from that institute have shared a platform with the University of East Anglia experts whose e-mails were hacked, according to the Daily Mail.

Many countries and analysts blame China for blocking the adoption of a climate change treaty in Copenhagen in December. The Copenhagen meeting resulted in a non-binding agreement with specifics to be determined in 2010, which angered the poorest nations and some Western groups who wanted an ambitious commitment.

One journalist wrote that China blocked the open negotiations for two weeks and then made sure that the “closed-door deal” made it look like the West failed to help the world’s poor again.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2...egate-e-mails/

[Spartan]

Here is a detailed chart of the climategate e-mails and how the malarkey scientist spun the numebrs. Don't bother unless you are really interested in the details.

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Clim...ails-available

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warm...year-timeline/

[Air Marshall Eldritch]

Those emails were "stolen", therefore they do not exist.

You never saw them.

[chiphomme]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1230184221.htm




"To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades."

[Kaz]

Standard profile of green zealots

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html?ITO=1490