Sunday, May 30, 2010

Royal Society In Climate Warming Climbdown

Gerald Warner reports in the

"The latest institutional retreat from uncritical support of the AGW hypothesis is one that will chill warmists to the core: the Royal Society has announced it is to review its public statements on climate change. The Society now believes that its previous communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood.

It has appointed a panel to review its statements, assisted by two critical sub-groups, including a number of Fellows who have doubts about the received view on the risks of increasing CO2 levels.

In fact this review has been forced on the Society by 43 of its Fellows who demanded last January that the pamphlet Climate Change Controversies, produced in 2007 and published on its website, should be rewritten to take a less aggressive stance in support of AGW and respect climate change “agnostics”.

In such partisan activities the Royal Society has form: in 2005 it published “A guide to facts and fictions about climate change”, which denounced 12 “misleading arguments” which today, post Climategate and the subsequent emboldening of sceptical scientists to speak out, look far from misleading.

This development does not, of course, mean that the Royal Society is embracing climate scepticism. On the contrary, it is very reluctantly modifying its stance to accommodate some of its Fellows who take the very scientific position that a degree of agnosticism is good practice when hypotheses remain unproven. Yet this retreat from absolutist global warming orthodoxy will deeply dismay the AGW lobby. For years, there was no fiercer proponent of the AGW theory than the Royal Society. Its previous president Lord May notoriously stated: “The debate on climate change is over.”

That was about as unscientific a statement as you could get: even the theories of iconic pioneers such as Einstein are routinely revisited by scientists. Yet Lord May intolerantly declared: “On one hand, you have the entire scientific community and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots.”

Most major scientific advances have been achieved by a handful of people. That kind of dogmatic assertiveness brought great joy and comfort to the Al Gore cultists; to sceptics it was a reminder that the Royal Society’s founding members dabbled in alchemy – was the Society returning to its roots? Is carbon capture the new Philosopher’s Stone?

Clearly, that kind of blind commitment to the AGW cause will no longer be endorsed by the Royal Society. It is a sign of the times. Two months ago the Science Museum in London changed the name of its Climate Change Gallery to the Climate Science Gallery, as it began to distance itself from the partisan assumptions of the climate lobby.

In fact it was abashed by the derision to which its previous posture had been subjected by visitors. Its director said: “We have come to realise, given the way this subject has become so polarised over the past three to four months, that we need to be respectful and welcoming of all views on it.”

That same realisation is dawning on more and more institutions and individuals, as the AGW scam becomes ever more discredited. Scepticism is now the prevailing public sentiment: the onus is on the alarmists to prove, rather than assert, their increasingly untenable claims. The European and global financial crisis has also concentrated minds on the insanity of squandering $45 trillion on an imaginary threat, to make carbon traders billionaires.

Slowly but surely, the sceptical camp is winning. Daily the alarmists are forced to give ground. They will contest every inch of the way; it will be trench warfare against them for years; but the tide of battle has shifted decisively and the AGW superstition will ultimately be defeated."

Thursday, May 27, 2010

What a Wanted Add!

This one courtesy of Mickey's Muses, anti AGW blogger from the Land of the Wrong White Crowd.

Catch the Mick at:

Pope Catholic; Night Follows Day; IPCC Found Telling Pack of Lies About Sea Level Rises

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster for The Telegraph UK. His website is

Here is James' latest despatch from the Country of Climate Fibbers.

"IPCC lies, cheats, distorts again. Yes, all right, it is a bit of a “dog bites man” or “pizza found to contain mozzarella and tomato resting on dough base” kind of story. But on the day in which Britain’s new Prime Minister announced in the Queen’s speech that one of his government’s main goals is to “combat climate change”, it’s perhaps just as well to remind ourselves of the kind of junk science and misinformation that is inspiring his green policies.

This one comes from the great Canadian blogger Donna Laframboise, who has noticed that the most recent report (2007) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change liberally cited a scientific paper which wasn’t published until 29 months after the cut off date for submissions.

“Ah what’s 29 months between friends?” you might say. But as Laframbroise rightly observes it strips the process of its integrity.

If IPCC authors are to accurately describe the scientific literature, an agreed-upon cutoff date is required. If expert reviewers are to comment on the IPCC’s use of that literature, they must be afforded adequate opportunity to examine it.

More sinister still, though, is the way the IPCC report has twisted the paper – by one David G Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey – for its own ends. Here’s what Vaughan’s paper said about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS).

Since most of WAIS is not showing change, it now seems unlikely that complete collapse of WAIS, with the threat of a 5-m rise in sea level, is imminent in the coming few centuries.

Note that phrase “it now seems unlikely”.

Now see how the IPCC interprets Vaughan’s paper:

If the Amundsen Sea sector were eventually deglaciated, it would add about 1.5 m to sea level, while the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) would account for about 5 m (Vaughan, 2007).

Yes, yes, IPCC no doubt it WOULD. But as the report you cite to prove it made pretty explicit: IT AIN’T GOING TO HAPPEN.

Still, as the IPCC has twigged by now, tell a lie often enough and it becomes part of the “consensus”.

That’ll be why Vaughan’s paper appears to have become almost as big a poster child for the Fourth IPCC report as Mann’s hockey stick was for the earlier ones. Just see how many times Vaughan is cited:

  • Working Group 1, Chapter 4 lists a D. Vaughan (UK) as a contributing author
  • WG1, Chapter 10 lists a D. Vaughan (UK) as a contributing author
  • WG2, Chapter 15 lists a David G. Vaughan (UK) as one of two coordinating lead authors
  • WG2’s Summary for Policymakers lists a David Vaughan as a drafting author
  • WG2’s Technical Summary lists a David Vaughan (UK) as a lead author
  • Maybe the IPCC were hoping that if they wrote his name in slightly different ways we wouldn’t notice. Bad luck IPCC. We did.

    Oh and while we’re on the subject of things that could happen as a result of “Global Warming” but which aren’t going to, check out this story about Polar Bears. Apparently they’re all doomed – again – because a bunch of Canadian scientists have worked out that this is the sort of thing that might happen if you punch a few scary figures into a computer.

    Dr Molnar, Professor Andrew Derocher and colleagues from the University of Alberta and York University, Toronto focused on the physiology, behaviour and ecology of polar bears, and how these might change as temperatures increase.

    “We developed a model for the mating ecology of polar bears. The model estimates how many females in a population will be able to find a mate during the mating season, and thus get impregnated.”

    Ah. So it’s not actually based on counting real polar bears or noting how in the last 10,000 years they’ve survived much more drastic changes in global climate than the ones we’ve experienced recently.

    The latest US assessment of the conservation status of polar bears included the only two previous studies to assess the impact of climate change, but these extrapolated population trends, rather than directly modelling how the ecology of polar bears may alter.

    The new study by Dr Molnar’s team offers a way to improve these predictions, and suggests the potential for even faster declines than those found by the US assessment.

    “Canada has about two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, but their conservation assessment of polar bears didn’t take climate change seriously,” says Dr Molnar, a flaw noted by the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group last year.

    “Our view is that the Canadian assessment should be redone, properly accounting for climate change effects.

    “The status of polar bears is likely much more dire than suggested by the Canadian report,” he adds.

    Yes! Yes! I trust this man. He clearly knows what he’s doing. Let’s give him another research grant – a really big one this time. With enough money, I’m sure he and his team will be able to model the entire polar bear population off the planet by 2013 at the latest.

    And won’t that just teach all us sceptics a lesson we’ll never forget!!!!"

    Thank you James Delingpole and isn't it bloody great to see the Warmists spewing out more lies and bullshit in a feeble attempt to keep their little scam going? And its even better to see them get their silly heads knocked off when the fibs are uncovered.

    There's just something about liars, isn't there?

    Wednesday, May 26, 2010

    Lord Monckton Wins Global Warming Debate at Oxford Union

    The Oxford Union Debate Chamber

    Founded in 1823 at the University of Oxford, but maintaining a separate charter from the University, The Oxford Union is host to some of the most skillful debates in the world. Many eminent scholars and personalities have come and either debated or delivered speeches in the chamber. Monckton was invited as part of the formal Thursday debate.

    The Union is the world’s most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 182 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.

    For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that “global warming” is or could become a global crisis. The only previous defeat for climate extremism among an undergraduate audience was at St. Andrew’s University, Scotland, in the spring of 2009, when the climate extremists were defeated by three votes.

    Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the world’s premier debating society, carried the motion “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change” by 135 votes to 110. The debate was sponsored by the Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC.

    Serious observers are interpreting this shock result as a sign that students are now impatiently rejecting the relentless extremist propaganda taught under the guise of compulsory environmental-studies classes in British schools, confirming opinion-poll findings that the voters are no longer frightened by “global warming” scare stories, if they ever were.

    When the Union’s president, Laura Winwood, announced the result in the Victorian-Gothich Gladstone Room, three peers cheered with the undergraduates, and one peer drowned his sorrows in beer.

    Lord Lawson of Blaby, Margaret Thatcher’s former finance minister, opened the case for the proposition by saying that the economic proposals put forward by the UN’s climate panel and its supporters did not add up.

    It would be better to wait and see whether the scientists had gotten it right. It was not sensible to make expensive spending commitments, particularly at a time of great economic hardship, when the effectiveness of the spending was gravely in doubt and when it might do more harm than good.

    At one point, Lord Lawson was interrupted by a US student, who demanded to know what was his connection with the Science and Public Policy Institute, and what were the Institute’s sources of funding. Lord Lawson was cheered when he said he neither knew nor cared who funded the Institute.

    Ms. Zara McGlone, Secretary of the Oxford Union, opposed the motion, saying that greenhouse gases had an effect [they do, but it is very small]; that the precautionary principle required immediate action, just in case and regardless of expense [but one must also bear in mind the cost of the precautions themselves, which can and often do easily exceed the cost of inaction]; that Bangladesh was sinking beneath the waves [a recent study by Prof. Niklas Moerner shows that sea level in Bangladesh has actually fallen]; that the majority of scientists believed “global warming” was a problem [she offered no evidence for this]; and that “irreversible natural destruction” would occur if we did nothing [but she did not offer any evidence].

    Mr. James Delingpole, a blogger for the leading British conservative national newspaper The Daily Telegraph, seconded the proposition, saying that – politically speaking – the climate extremists had long since lost the argument. The general public simply did not buy the scare stories any more. The endless tales of Biblical disasters peddled by the alarmist faction were an unwelcome and now fortunately failed recrudescence of dull, gray Puritanism. Instead of hand-wringing and bed-wetting, we should celebrate the considerable achievements of the human race and start having fun.

    Lord Whitty, a Labor peer from the trades union movement and, until recently, Labor’s Environment Minister in the Upper House, said that the world’s oil supplies were rapidly running out [in fact, record new finds have been made in the past five years]; that we needed to change our definition of economic growth to take into account the value lost when we damaged the environment [it is artificial accounting of this kind that has left Britain as bankrupt as Greece after 13 years of Labor government]; that green jobs created by governments would help to end unemployment [but Milton Friedman won his Nobel Prize for economics by demonstrating that every artificial job created at taxpayers’ expense destroys two real jobs in the wealth-producing private sector]; that humans were the cause of most of the past century’s warming [there is no evidence for that: the case is built on speculation by programmers of computer models]; that temperature today was at its highest in at least 40 million years [in fact, it was higher than today by at least 12.5 F° for most of the past 550 million years]; and that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic [no one has asked them].

    Lord Monckton repeatedly interrupted Lord Whitty to ask him to give a reference in the scientific literature for his suggestion that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic. Lord Whitty was unable to provide the source for his figure, but said that everyone knew it was true. Under further pressure from Lord Monckton, Lord Whitty conceded that the figure should perhaps be 92%. Lord Monckton asked: “And your reference is?” Lord Whitty was unable to reply. Hon. Members began to join in, jeering “Your reference? Your reference?” Lord Whitty sat down looking baffled.

    Lord Leach of Fairford, whom Margaret Thatcher appointed a Life Peer for his educational work, spoke third for the proposition. He said that we no longer knew whether or not there had been much “global warming” over the 20th century, because the Climategate emails had exposed the terrestrial temperature records as defective. In any event, he said, throwing good money after bad on various alternative-energy boondoggles was unlikely to prove profitable in the long term and would ultimately do harm.

    Mr. Rajesh Makwana, executive director of “Share The World’s Resources”, speaking third for the opposition, said that climate change was manmade [but he did not produce any evidence for that assertion]; that CO2 emissions were growing at 3% a year [but it is concentrations, not emissions, that may in theory affect climate, and concentrations are rising at a harmless 0.5% a year]; that the UN’s climate panel had forecast a 7 F° “global warming” for the 21st century [it’s gotten off to a bad start, with a cooling of 0.2 F° so far]; and that the consequences of “global warming” would be dire [yet, in the audience, sat Mr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, whose landmark paper of 2008 had established that not one of 539 scientific papers on “global climate change” provided any evidence whatsoever that “global warming” would be catastrophic].

    Lord Monckton, a former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the UK, concluded the case for the proposition. He drew immediate laughter and cheers when he described himself as “Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, scholar, philanthropist, wit, man about town, and former chairman of the Wines and Spirits Committee of this honourable Society”.

    At that point his cummerbund came undone. He held it up to the audience and said, “If I asked this House how long this cummerbund is, you might telephone around all the manufacturers and ask them how many cummerbunds they made, and how long each type of cummerbund was, and put the data into a computer model run by a zitty teenager eating too many doughnuts, and the computer would make an expensive guess. Or you could take a tape-measure and” – glaring at the opposition across the despatch-box – “measure it!” [cheers].

    Lord Monckton said that real-world measurements, as opposed to models, showed that the warming effect of CO2 was a tiny fraction of the estimates peddled by the UN’s climate panel. He said that he would take his lead from Lord Lawson, however, in concentrating on the economics rather than the science.

    He glared at the opposition again and demanded whether, since they had declared themselves to be so worried about “global warming”, they would care to tell him – to two places of decimals and one standard deviation – the UN’s central estimate of the “global warming” that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The opposition were unable to reply. Lord Monckton told them the answer was 3.26 plus or minus 0.69 Kelvin or Celsius degrees. An Hon. Member interrupted: “And your reference is?” Lord Monckton replied: “IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2.” [cheers].

    He concluded that shutting down the entire global economy for a whole year, with all the death, destruction, disaster, disease and distress that that would cause, would forestall just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 Kelvin or Celsius degrees of “global warming”, so that total economic shutdown for 41 years would prevent just 1 K of warming. Adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective.

    Mr. Mike Mason, founder and managing director of “Climate Care”, concluded for the opposition. He said that the proposition were peculiar people, and that Lord Monckton was more peculiar than most, in that he was not a real Lord. Lord Monckton, on a point of order, told Mr. Mason that the proposition had avoided personalities and that if Mr. Mason were unable to argue other than ad hominem he should “get out”. [cheers] Mr. Mason then said that we had to prepare for climate risks [yes, in both directions, towards cooler as well as warmer]; and that there was a “scientific consensus” [but he offered no evidence for the existence of any such consensus, still less for the notion that science is done by consensus].

    The President thanked the speakers and expressed the Society’s gratitude to the Science and Public Policy Institute for sponsoring the debate. Hon. Members filed out of the Debating Chamber, built to resemble the interior of the House of Commons, and passed either side of the brass division-pole at the main door – Ayes to the right 135, Noes to the left 110. Motion carried.

    Monday, May 24, 2010

    Where have All the Warmists Gone, Long Time Passing?

    It is getting increasingly harder to find moronic stupidities put forward as facts by AGW flips!

    Even The Baron of Bullshit, good ole Al Gore himself, seems to have gone underground with his scam as every time he opens his mouth people, well most people, realize what is dribbling out.

    Now all this AGW quietitude is getting a bit disturbing as one begins to wonder why this is happening. It is bloody hard to write a blog on the Global Warming Fraud when the fraudsters and their lackies ( Hi Kevin!) have shut up shop.

    With this in mind I have decided to ramble off in another direction.

    AGW was just another plank in the picket fence of deception that many successive governments have thrown up around our lives. If you really are interested in where Australia, as a nation, is heading then you just have to study recent and ongoing American History.

    This may allow you to stop staring at the fence and look between the planks! Always look at the gaps, that's where the truth lies. Anything can be painted on the fence but it is bloody hard to paint over the gaps.

    We will look at that portion of the fence that deals with illigal immigrants.

    Let the spin begin! Under Yes Minister guidelines that term is way too harsh for soft brain politics of both persuasions. Change it to Boat People. Soft label provided by a soft brain.

    Previous to the name change they had committed an offence, they must have as they were "illegal". According to the Macquarie Dictionary "illegal" is defined as "not legal". So if they were "legal" they would be "appointed, established, or authorised by law". They were not authorised by Australian Law to enter Australia. Illegal immigrants, pure and simple!

    So, by becoming boat people they are no longer illegal?

    I don't think so.

    Are you starting to see the gaps between the palings now?

    Why are we bringing unskilled people into this country and why is the Obama Administration allowing millions of unskilled Mexicans to cross the border into the US?

    Gordon Duff a 100% disabled US Marine Vietnam veteran has a fair idea and would like to share it with you. He has been a featured commentator on TV and radio including Al Jazeera and his articles have been carried by news services around the world. He has been a UN Diplomat, defense contractor and is a widely published expert on military and defense issues.

    He is active in the financial industry and is a specialist on global trade. Gordon Duff acts as political and economic advisor to a number of governments in Africa and the Middle East. Gordon Duff is currently working on economic development projects in Pakistan and Afghanistan to counter the effects of poverty and global extremism. When you read his report note the similarities with what is happening in "The Lucky Country". Here is Gordons report:

    "Millions of illegal aliens, thousands of members of dangerous drug gangs, have taken over city after city, state after state. Do you really think our government couldn’t have closed the border in days? The illegals are here for a purpose. They killed trade unions, suppressed the minimum wage, worked as slaves for corporate agriculture, filled our prisons and courts, all of this and more was part of a plan. Follow the money. Illegal immigration is a product of lobbyists who fought to protect it, the National Association of Manufacturers and the US Chamber of Commerce in particular. Big agricuture spent millions to keep our borders open and their hero, California Governor Ronald Reagan, chief “coyote” of all time.

    Give us one division out of Iraq and the border will be closed in 3 days, not just “talked about” but closed. This will never happen as long as massive illegal immigration hurts only America’s working classes, the only people actually paying taxes, actually working and fighting for America. Real Americans don’t matter, haven’t for years. It didn’t happen overnight but Americans are now slaves in their own country. We all know it but our slave masters are now the people telling us who to blame.

    In order to be slaves, we had to be conditioned to become slaves. This was done in increments, causing us to distrust each other, put our reliance on charismatic leaders, all of whom have turned out to be sociopaths, professional liars and thieves, mouthpieces for a very real conspiracy against the American people. Part of that conditioning was confusing Americans to the point where we would blame each other, one imaginary enemy after another, all blamed for our failures, our poverty, our decline while, when we weren’t looking, our economy drained into the foreign bank accounts of the few and our jobs flushed into Mexico, then China.

    It’s time we stopped looking at politics and blaming each other and noticing the truth. We don’t have a government. We don’t have courts. We don’t have anything but a criminal conspiracy working for foreign interests, banksters, oil thieves, and the phony medical maniacs. Fronting for them is the biggest lie machine in world history, dwarfing anything Stalin or Hitler could imagine, storytellers, fabricators, imagineers of the worst kind, creating an illusion of “liberal” against “conservative” where one reality actually exists, the enslavement of America by a criminal enterprise, unnamed but well organized.

    “They” have a few bastions of power that are hard to hide. Israel is the safe haven for many, New York and London are their battlefields, where they rob the world blind. Washington is their playground where stolen money buys power to send armies around the world, thuggish diplomats, massive networks of spies, mercenary killers and disinformation specialists, loaded with counterfeit cash from the Federal Reserve and backed by Predator drones, the worlds largest military force and 6000 nuclear weapons.

    None of this is American, not by a far cry. Even our “conspiracy” crowd gets it wrong, having long ago been infiltrated by the gangsters. One day we blame the Illuminati, the next “liberal elitists” and the day after Freemasons.

    The classic of all time is 9/11. When a conspiracy guy says the CIA was responsible, the answer is, “9/11 was too technically complicated for the CIA to have been able to put all the pieces together, they just don’t have that kind of capability.” Every time I hear this I run my head into a wall. So, I am told that the CIA/Mossad, the thugster wing of the groups who “billionaired out” on 9/11, with their massive resources couldn’t have done it. Then it is obvious, some guy in a cave with a sat phone that the NSA heard every word from, planned the whole thing, beating the Israeli run airport security, getting NORAD to stand down, all of it. If you can sell this, one of the weakest lies in history, you can sell anything.


    The complete destruction of America wouldn’t be possible without components of our society, some out of stupidty and greed and some out of pure hatred and evil, to become tools of class warfare against decent working Americans. Each of these groups is massively complicit, utterly cynical and totally corrupt.

    • The Media; This group comes in a variety of flavors, all of them poison. The biggest group is the corporate/Zionist media, making up from 75 to 90 percent of what we see and hear. Their message is always the same. They tell us that the “other media,” is controlled by the “liberal elitist press,” a mysterious group of communists, Jewish elitists and illegal aliens who spent billions each year controlling broadcast networks and newspapers owned, in fact, by the people pointing fingers at the “liberal elitist press.”
    • The Catholic Church; One day the pope rants about the evil of legalizing homosexual union but the truth is, he runs the largest organization of sex criminals in the history of mankind. With the church falling in line with the right wing, a group that originated the pseudo-science of eugenics, the theories Hitler based his beliefs on, we ended up with a coalition of anti-abortion supporters and those who have, for nearly a century, supported mass sterilization and abortion on a worldwide scale. Burying a century of history was easy, the media helped every step of the way.
    • Christian Zionists; Peddling a religion remotely related to Christianity, this group prides itself on its loyalty to Israel. That loyalty is based on seeing the Jews returned to the “Holy Land” so they can all be converted to Christianity and the world burned to a cinder in a nuclear war. Right wing extremists in Israel love the support but look on this group as clinically insane and a total laughing stock.
    • AIPAC/Israel lobby; With massive financial power and virtual control of America’s media and the ability to bully congress, this group, really agents for a much less friendly foreign power than we think, runs a massive intimidation campaign protected from laws meant to stop this kind of activity. Their “special relationship” with America is much like Al Capone’s “special relationship” with Chicago politicians during the 1920s.
    • The NRA; This is another cynical group of Washington insiders, making millions on scare tactics about imaginary “gun seizures.” Using the most advanced communications network in the world, the NRA has actually invented the “anti-gun” movement. 95% of Americans would never see or hear a single word of “anti-gun” anything were it not for the NRA. Shame!
    • Veterans Groups; The “chartered” veterans groups profess millions of members but are actually a small Washington “insider” group that parrots divisive scare tactics from the gang pulling the strings in Washington. They continually drumbeat about immigration and patriotism but, when faced with tough issues, turn their backs. Their primary purpose seems to be to keep veterans deaf, dumb and blind.
    • Think Tanks; 90% are paid stooges of the anti-American gangsters pushing America under the boot. The tops are the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation but most are fully culpable and need to be registered as foreign interest groups. They sure aren’t working for America. America would be better off being cluster-bombed than getting “position papers” from these organizations.
    • Political Parties: “Tweedle dumb” and Tweedle dumber” or as we know them, the Dumocrats and the Republi’cons, have one purpose in life. The parties work in close concert to close off political life from anything remotely American, having built a political process designed to suck as much money as possible into the pockets of office holders who are answerable only to powerful special interests, the most powerful of which are Israel, oil companies, banksters, medical thieves, war mongers and Israel. Decent and independent human beings that slip through the cracks are rare and are either pushed out by floods of laundered money or die in mysterious plane crashes. "
    See all of Gordon Duff's article at:

    Ok. so have a great day and never look at that picket fence the same way again!

    Or go back to watching Dancing With the Stars.

    Sunday, May 23, 2010

    Greenies: the Red, the Dumb and the Angry

    The Warmists really are a malign and spleen-filled bunch. As of course you would be if the science was against you, the public were growing increasingly sceptical, and all you really had left to defend your cause was bullying and bluster.

    Here is an article writen by James Delingpole of the Telegraph Uk concerning a debate he recently participated in at Oxford University in Britain.

    "Just back from the Oxford Union where, last night, we debated the motion: This House Would Put Economic Growth Before Combatting Climate Change. Though I wouldn’t necessarily say I sucked, my performance definitely wasn’t as strong as the one I gave at Heartland. Luckily I had the benefit of a blindingly good team in the form of Lord Lawson of Blaby, Lord Leach and Viscount Monckton – who temporarily ennobled me to Lord Delingpole of Blogosphere so I didn’t feel too left out.

    Much to my surprise the motion carried. (133 Ayes; 110 Noes) I suppose I oughtn’t to be surprised, what with all the arguments so obviously in favour of our side and none in favour of theirs. But you never quite know with undergraduates – even frightfully clever Oxford ones – because, never having inhabited the real world, they can all too easily incline to dreamy idealism combined with an utter failure to grasp economic reality.

    What really struck me about the occasion, though, was the unspeakable direness of the opposition. I don’t mean the nice girl from Trinity College: as an officer of the Union, she had to take whatever side of the debate she was given to argue. I mean the three others, who embodied pretty much everything wrong with the green movement: its crypto communism; its woeful ignorance; and its sphincter-popping rage.

    Representing the ignorance camp was Lord Whitty – a nice chap with a moustache, but totally out of his depth on science, economics or indeed anything else. When you consider that this man was until quite recently our Environment Minister, this is rather worrying.

    At one point he tried to claim that Earth’s temperature was the hottest it had been in 14,000 years. “What about the Medieval Warm Period?” I asked. No, what he meant, he said was “If temperatures go on rising then by the end of the century we could be experiencing the hottest temperatures in 14,000 years.” This is such unutterable drivel, it’s not even worth deconstructing. Yet this was the guy – I said it before but it bears repeating – in charge of Britain’s Environment Policy. Still, better him than the lethal Chris Huhne, I suppose.

    I shan’t bother describing the young man representing the Red faction. Suffice to say that as he rambled away about equality, injustice, the evils of growth, capitalism etc, I leaned across to Lord Lawson and said: “Jesus. If this is the **** you had to put up with from the opposite benches I’m bloody glad I was never an MP.”

    Finally, we were introduced to a fellow named Mike Mason, founder and managing director of something called ClimateCare. Mike was angry. Very, very angry. He showed this by having a go at us, one by one, dismissing Lord Lawson as a “failed chancellor”, or some such, casting aspersions on Viscount Monckton’s title and describing me as a “right wing hack.” I suppose, yes, “right wing hack” is one way of describing me.

    But I don’t recall, when I took the floor, referring to Mike Mason as a “typical, ranty green libtard who stands to make loads of money fleecing the gullible something rotten by selling carbon offsets.” Of course I do ad hom, now and again. But not in formal Oxford debates. It’s just rude and unnecessary and exposes – as poor Mike went on most impressively to demonstrate – the abject poverty of your arguments.

    Both at Heartland and Oxford we were followed by a film crew who are making a documentary about the war between Warmists and Sceptics. The director, who was a very keen Green when he started the documentary, admitted he’d altered his position quite markedly since talking to both sides. What struck him about deniers/sceptics/realists – or whatever you want to call them – was their courtesy and their thoroughness. What struck him about the warmists was their eye-popping rage."

    Catch the article at:

    Friday, May 14, 2010

    US Cap & Trade Bill to be Called American Power

    I guess the "powers that think they be" in the US regard the majority of their citizens as bog stupid!

    What else could they be thinking as they attempt to push through the American version of a carbon trading scheme that the US public emphatically don't want?

    Perhaps Kerry (a Bonesman) and Lieberman believed the US people had been indoctrinated enough by the media to fall for it. Call it American Power and the nationalistic heart of the US will swell with pride and swallow the ruse lock, stock and barrel.

    What really worries me is that Rudd the Dudds advisers (read controllers) will be watching this one with interest as many Australian politicians think the Australian electorate is as silly as the US electorate. I think they are pretty close to the mark unfortunately.

    Here is a report from The American Spectator:

    "Today at 1:30 pm Eastern time Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) will host a press conference announcing the fifth Senate reinvention of "cap-and-trade" global warming legislation since 2003, the "American Power Act". Call it the American Power Grab Act, instead, for reasons that will become obvious momentarily.

    The orchestrated spectacle, with a cast expected to be in the dozens which massive alignment of special interest groups is apparently supposed to persuade you of the justness of their cause, is in fact a manifestation of all that is wrong with Washington and what Americans have become increasingly enraged by.

    At this press conference, Sens. Kerry and Lieberman have both already indicated, they will insist that their scheme isn't "cap-and-trade" because... they aren't going to use that term this time around.

    Kerry has even said that "this is not an environment bill."

    It seems that the public aren't buying that argument, either, so it's really about whatever appeals to you. Just not what it was about the previous four times they've tried to slip this Power Grab past you. Except that a summary of the bill makes plain it is, too, cap-and-trade. And worse. It includes billions of dollars each year in gas tax revenue to underwrite the wealth transfers these companies are so in favor of.

    For this latest effort to hide an enormous tax and wealth transfer -- a unilateral move that guarantees jobs will be shipped to China, India, Philippines, Mexico and elsewhere -- -- these lawmakers will be surrounded by numerous representatives of the Greens.

    That includes not just the wealthy pressure group industry but many among "Big Business", numerous of whom are the benefactors enabling those pressure group chiefs' huge salaries and vast PR budgets to scare you into accepting an agenda that uses the state to, oddly enough, enrich these same companies. Huh."

    Catch the full article on how stupid US politicians think the American people are at:

    Thursday, May 13, 2010

    Food and Ethanol Shortages Imminent as Earth Enters New Cold Climate Era

    The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), the leading independent research organization in the United States on the subject of the next climate change, issues today, May 10th 2010, the following warning of imminent crop damage expected to produce food and ethanol shortages for the US and Canada:

    Over the next 30 months, global temperatures are expected to make another dramatic drop even greater than that seen during the 2007-2008 period. As the Earth’s current El Nino dissipates, the planet will return to the long term temperature decline brought on by the Sun’s historic reduction in output, the on-going “solar hibernation.”

    In follow-up to the specific global temperature forecast posted in SSRC Press Release 4-2009, the SSRC advises that in order to return to the long term decline slope from the current El Nino induced high temperatures, a significant global cold weather re-direction must occur. According to SSRC Director John Casey, “The Earth typically makes adjustments in major temperature spikes within two to three years. In this case as we cool down from El Nino, we are dealing with the combined effects of this planetary thermodynamic normalization and the influence of the more powerful underlying global temperature downturn brought on by the solar hibernation.

    Both forces will present the first opportunity since the period of Sun-caused global warming period ended to witness obvious harmful agricultural impacts of the new cold climate. Analysis shows that food and crop derived fuel will for the first time, become threatened in the next two and a half years. Though the SSRC does not get involved with short term weather prediction, it would not be unusual to see these ill-effects this year much less within the next 30 months.”

    Wednesday, May 12, 2010

    White House Aims to Use Deepwater Disaster to Win Votes for US Climate Bill

    Suzanne Goldenberg of The reports:

    "Senators are set to take a last run at producing a climate and energy law tomorrow, betting on the spectre of environmental disaster raised by the BP oil spill to build support for a comprehensive overhaul of America's energy strategy.

    But despite a strong push from the Obama administration, there are concerns the debate about the energy future could be lost in the wrangling about offshore oil drilling permits.

    The official roll-out by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman caps eight months of negotiations with political figures and industry executives aimed at getting broad support in Congress for shifting the economy away from coal and oil and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Climate legislation passed by the US Senate could unblock a major obstacle which prevented agreement on a binding global deal at last year's Copenhagen summit.

    The White House is also trying to use the disaster to make a case for a bill. "This accident, this tragedy, is actually heightening people's interest in energy in this country and in wanting a different energy plan," Carol Browner, the White House climate adviser told Bloomberg television at the weekend."

    See the full item at:

    Tuesday, May 11, 2010

    The Yanks Never Give Up! Well Some of Them Anyway.

    Brian Sussman of The American Thinker, May 10, reports that an attempt is underway in the US to put Cap & Trade back on the agenda. If this is successful then Rudd the Dudd will be instructed to resurrect his (?) Emissions Trading Scheme.

    One of the proponents is unsuccesful Presidential candidate John Kerry.

    What is it about these Presidential failures?

    Liar Liar Pants on Fire Al Gore is the other Presidential failure.

    Anyway enough of my ravings. Here is the article. It can be read in full at:

    "On Wednesday, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) plan to introduce legislation designed to inflate the cost of energy, strain family budgets, and decimate America's manufacturing sector -- all in the name of supposedly saving the climate.

    Kerry and Lieberman have been revamping legislation that narrowly passed the House of Representatives last year. The House bill imposes oppressive limits on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and establishes a complex cap-and-trade scheme in which the federal government determines how much CO2 a business may emit.

    If a business exceeds its allowance, it may purchase additional "carbon credits" from an exchange, where the credits will be traded like a commodity. Rules for the exchange of carbon credits, including the trading of carbon derivatives, are addressed in the House bill, and my sources tell me that the Senate version will include these same stratagems.

    My insiders also say the new Kerry-Lieberman proposal will keep the House bill's goal of attaining a 17-percent reduction of greenhouse gases (below their 2005 level) by 2020. Apparently the Senate bill will allow cap-and-trade to hit power companies first, and then within six years include the manufacturing sector.

    Presently, 40 percent of CO2 emissions in the United States are derived from electricity generation, 35 percent from transportation, and 25 percent from business, industry, and natural gas to heat homes.

    So where will the 17% cut come from, especially given that (according to U.S. census projections) there will be an additional 30 million people in the United States by 2020?

    If the cuts are distributed proportionately, the biggest blow will be to electricity production. Since 50 percent of our nation's electricity is derived from coal, that industry and its customers will be hit hardest. Coal plants are going to have to be shuttered. And what will replace that energy resource? Nothing.

    Some might counter that the House bill touts complex tax credits for wind and solar development. However, when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, those two alternatives don't provide a watt of energy -- they're simply enhancements, not baseload providers.

    Further straining the family budget, a new set of fees and taxes will be imposed on all sectors of the economy that produce greenhouse gases. This will include transportation, farming, livestock production -- even restaurants that cook barbecued chicken and ribs over an open flame and bottling companies that sell fizzy drinks.

    To absorb the increased cost of doing business, companies large and small will be forced to raise their prices. Already pinched personal bank accounts will be further hammered, as virtually everything is going to cost more.

    The Kerry-Lieberman bill is also a job-killer. To meet the demands of the new emissions limits, the few manufacturing businesses that remain in the United States will be further shipped overseas.

    This is a part of an elitist plan to redistribute America's wealth abroad. In other words, this legislation will purposefully execute the loss of well-paying domestic jobs, so that those in third world and underdeveloped nations have a chance to improve their standard of living -- at our expense."

    How Edmund de Rothschild Managed to Let 179 Governments Pay Him for Grasping Up to 30% of the Earth

    In 1987, Edmund de Rothschild creates the World Conservation Bank which is designed to transfer debts from third world countries to this bank, and in return those countries would give land to this bank.

    These nations will then gradually come under the control of the IMF as they struggle to pay the interest, and have to borrow more and more.

    The IMF will then decide which nations can borrow more and which will starve. They can also use this as leverage to take state owned assets like utilities as payment against the debt until they eventually own the nation states.

    After Edmund de Rothschild's statement, without basis, at the 4th World Wilderness Congress in 1987, that CO2 is the cause of a non-existent global warming - and that combating it needs money (our money), he founded the World Conservation Bank for this reason.

    In 1991 its name was changed to The Global Environment Facility (GEF). The purpose of this facility is to lend money to the poorest countries, printed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) out of thin air, and with the guarantee of our governments. The facility takes wilderness areas with mineral riches as security. The GEF money is then to flow back to governments as reimbursement for paid loans.

    When a country cannot repay loans to the GEF it must give up a piece of its territory to the Rothschild banks (GEF, IMF, World Bank) - up to 30% of the Earth is in GEF hands or at risk of being so!

    If land cannot be offered as collateral the country must starve (Haiti, Argentina and others). Rothschild´s stroke of genius was that he had his GEF smuggled into the UN system at the Rio UN Summit in 1992 by his friend, Maurice Strong.

    So now high-ranking ministerial officials from 179 countries are on the council of the bank - blessing Rothschild grabbing the world! The GEF is to manage the money just promised to the developing countries in Copenhagen (100 billion dollars a year from 2020 - 30 billion dollars over the next 3 years) with the help of the World Bank.

    However, Rothschild does not leave it there. He and his henchmen are now joining the race of certain governments (China, Saudi Arabia), to buy up large areas of farmland in developing countries, having the crops transported to other countries. This leaves the locals, already starving, with much less crops available - with food prices rising rapidly - which is exactly Rothschild's expectation.

    This makes people flee from Africa to Europe. Food prices have doubled in the past year or so - so that many people in Haiti before the earthquake, could not even afford to buy mud pies with minimal nourishment. And so it goes on. This is the ultimate goal of Rothschild's New World Order.

    For the full report see

    Wednesday, May 5, 2010

    The Worst Case of Mass Hysteria the World Has Known.

    James Delingpole is an author and journalist with He is the author of the following blog. His website is

    "How can we possibly stop the environmental and energy policy of our government being based on what US meteorologist Dr Roy Spencer calls “the worst case of mass hysteria the world has known.”?

    Dr Spencer, formerly senior scientist for climate studies at NASA, now leads the US science team for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSRE) on NASA’s Aqua satellite.

    He co-developed the original satellite method for precise monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites. He’s just the kind of egghead the IPCC claims to represent when it tells us the world is getting dangerously warmer, it’s man’s fault – the result of CO2 emissions – and it must be urgently addressed.

    Except Dr Spencer doesn’t agree with any of that. He thinks it’s all nonsense, based on a very elementary error he describes in his new book The Great Global Warming Blunder. I summarise his arguments in this article.

    Climate change, he shows, is an almost entirely natural process on which human influence is negligible.

    Of course, sceptics have been making this point for years, arguing that the quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by man are so tiny that even if they were to double there would still be no dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

    What they have been unable to answer convincingly until now, though, is the alarmists’ counterargument that CO2 emissions are exaggerated by “positive feedbacks”.

    One type of positive feedback often cited by alarmists is cloud cover. When CO2 causes the world to warm, they argue, it reduces the number of clouds. Clouds are what help protect our planet from the burning heat of the sun, by reflecting solar radiation.

    So even if the effect on climate of CO2 is relatively small, the potential knock-on effect is vast. This is why the predictions of temperature rises made by the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports are so large and terrifying.

    But according to Spencer, these alarmists have got completely the wrong end of the stick. The mistake they have made is to confuse cause with effect. It’s not man-made global warming that is causing cloud cover to grow thinner, leading to a spiral of ever-rising temperatures. Rather, it’s natural variations in cloud cover that are helping to cause global warming."

    Saturday, May 1, 2010

    IPCC - More Lies Uncovered!

    Another shoe has dropped from the IPCC centipede as scientists in Bangladesh say their country will not disappear below the waves. As usual, the U.N.'s climate charlatans forgot one tiny detail.

    It keeps getting worse for the much-discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which seems to have built its collapsing house of climate cards on sand or, more specifically, river sediment.

    After fraudulent claims about Himalayan glaciers, African crop harvests and Amazon rain forests, plus a 2007 assessment report based on anecdotal evidence, student term papers and nonpeer-reviewed magazine articles, the panel's doomsday forecast for Bangladesh has been exposed as its latest hoax.

    According to the 2007 report, melting glaciers and polar ice would lead to rising sea levels and just a three-foot rise would flood 17% of the low-lying country of Bangladesh by 2050 and create 20 million refugees.

    Now comes a study from the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) that says the IPCC forgot to factor in the 1 billion tons of sediment carried by Himalayan rivers such as the Ganges and the Brahmaputra into Bangladesh every year.

    CEGIS director Maminul Haque Sarker told AFP that "studies on the effects of climate change in Bangladesh, including those quoted by the IPCC, did not consider the role of sediment in the growth and adjustment process of the country's coast and rivers to the sea level rise." Even if sea levels rose according to IPCC predictions, Sarker says, natural sediment deposits would cancel the effect of any rise.

    Apocalyptic changes forecast by climate change alarmists, according to Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the International Commission on Sea Level Change, are not in the cards. Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years."

    If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10 cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm."

    Six times he and his expert team visited the Maldive Islands to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has, if anything, dropped in recent decades. Venice, Italy, has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr. Morner.

    IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri defended his organization's predictions by warning that "on the basis of one study one cannot jump to conclusions." Yet he and the IPCC jumped to the conclusion that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 based on unsubstantiated student theses and anecdotes from a magazine for mountain climbers. These claims have been withdrawn amid much laughter.

    $10 Trillion Climate Fraud (cont.)

    Scandal: Obama, Gore, Goldman, Joyce Foundation CCX partners to fleece USA

    Glenn Beck of Fox News US breaks the biggest corruption story of the century yesterday and it doesn’t appear on a Front Page anywhere. Beck points the way to the 15 Trillion dollar scam that has some amazing players.
    (See full transcript here)

    Glenn tells us that a watchdog has steered him to the collusion between Barrack Obama, George Soros, Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, Franklin Raines (super crooked Fannie Mae head), CCX, and Generation Investment Management (GIM-London based co-founded by AL Gore).
    Know the crooks and their roles:

    George Soros, Joyce Foundation and connection to CCX.
    What is CCX, the Chicago Climate Exchange, projected to gross 10 Trillion a year is Cap-N-Tax passes. Obama played a pivotal role in the formation of the CCX. (Click here for expose)
    Barrack Hussein Obama, Board Member of the Joyce Foundation, funded the formation of the CCX. (Valerie Jarrett is still on the board, Obama’s top adviser.) Obama sat on board and funneled money to Ayer’s brother (wild huh, just a guy in his neighborhood) and to form the CCX.

    AL Gore--Goldman Sachs-- GIM: Hold on to your britches, London-based Generation Investment Management sees the Trillion and they purchased a huge stake in Chicago Climate Exchange (fifth largest shareholder.) The founder of GIM is none other than former Vice President Al Gore along with Goldman people. For example other founders are David Blood (former Goldman executive), Mark Ferguson (Goldman) and Peter Harris (Goldman) to name a few. “

    Franklin Raines, mega crooked banker and bust Fannie Mae head, uses Fannie Mae (taxpayers money) to buy the technology to measure and manage carbon. The patent was award the day after Obama and Dems won the election.
    Goldman Sachs owns ten percent of the CCX and its 10 Trillion a year potential. (CCX is 10% owned by Goldman Sachs (GS) and 10% owned by Generation Investment Management (GIM).) Gore, Goldman, and Cap and Trade - Tangled Web of Corruption