Monckton: Caught Green Handed

Cold facts about the hot topic of global temperature change after the Climategate scandal by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, published by SPPI (pdf format)

Read it.

Where's the CO2?

Via Science Daily: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

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.

h/t: Drudge

IBD: Five Decades Of Cooling Ahead

Global warming? A Canadian scientist gives us good reason to question the "CO2 causes global warming" mantra. My favourite line is the quote from Groucho Marx: "Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?"

A peer-reviewed study by a respected Canadian physicist blames the interplay of cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons for 20th-century warming. The CFCs are now gone, and so is warming — perhaps for the next 50 years.

[...]

Qing Bin-Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy at Canada's University of Waterloo, is a believer in the value of drawing conclusions from observable data and not from selective data fed into computer models that are based on false assumptions and include "fudge factors."

In a peer-reviewed paper published in the prestigious online journal Physics Reports, Lu, who holds a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Newcastle, reports that CFCs, the compounds once widely used as refrigerants, and cosmic rays, which are energy particles originating in outer space, are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Global Warming or a lot of hot air?

Video of Sunday Night's special: Global warming or a lot of hot air with host Bret Baier of Fox News. Here's part 1:



Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6.
Watch these while you can. I suspect that YouTube may pull them.

The new carbon currency

Some insight into how the new environmentalism and carbon trading in particular fits in to the new world order. From a post called "The credit crisis is not over" by Bob Chapman at GlobalResearch.ca

The Chicago Climate Exchange is 10% owned by Goldman’s Hank Paulson and former Treasury Secretary, 10% by Generation Investment Management, owned by Al Gore and 10% by Goldman Sachs. The exchange has been operating for several years.

Generation Investment was founded in 2004 by Al Gore and David Blood of London. GIM’s investment approach is based on the idea that sustainability factors, economic, environmental, and social and governance criteria will drive a company’s returns over the long term.

The focus of GIM is on the key drivers of global change, including climate change and environmental degradation, macroeconomics, poverty and development; water and natural resource scarcity; pandemics and healthcare and demographics, migration and urbanization.

It is our belief that this vehicle could be used in the future for a new carbon currency, as envisioned at Copenhagen by the UN and the World Bank. This is what we think they are shooting for. We know this sounds unusual, but this is where we believe the Illuminists are headed.

Blood and Gore. And Paulson. Well, thanks in no small part to "climategate", these scoundrels are having a bit of trouble getting their new carbon currency to float.
h/t: sda

Fox News: Global Warming or a lot of Hot Air?

Fox News Reporting: Global Warming or a lot of Hot Air?

Trillions at stake, global power on the line & allegations of faked research! What's the truth about climate change? Hosted by Bret Baier.


Fox News channel will take a look at global warming at 9:00 pm tonight. It should be worth tuning in. Expect to see Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts interviewed.

Conflict of Interest?

Say it isn't so! The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies, Christopher Booker and Richard North write in the Telegraph.

No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies which play a leading role in what has become known as the international ‘climate industry’.

Read it all here.

Copenhagen in a nutshell

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen and reproduced here in its entirety from SPPI.

The mountains shall labor, and what will be born? A stupid little mouse. Thanks to hundreds of thousands of US citizens who contacted their elected representatives to protest about the unelected, communistic world government with near-infinite powers of taxation, regulation and intervention that was proposed in early drafts of the Copenhagen Treaty, there is no Copenhagen Treaty. There is not even a Copenhagen Agreement. There is a “Copenhagen Accord”.

The White House spinmeisters spun, and their official press release proclaimed, with more than usual fatuity, that President Obama had “salvaged” a deal at Copenhagen in bilateral talks with China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, which had established a negotiating bloc.

The plainly-declared common position of these four developing nations had been the one beacon of clarity and common sense at the foggy fortnight of posturing and gibbering in the ghastly Copenhagen conference center.

This is what the Forthright Four asked for:

Point 1. No compulsory limits on carbon emissions.

Point 2. No emissions reductions at all unless the West paid for them.

Point 3. No international monitoring of any emissions reductions not paid for by the West.

Point 4. No use of “global warming” as an excuse to impose protectionist trade restrictions on countries that did not cut their carbon emissions.

After President Obama’s dramatic intervention to save the deal, this is what the Forthright Four got:

Point 1. No compulsory limits on carbon emissions.

Point 2. No emissions reductions at all unless the West paid for them.

Point 3. No international monitoring of any emissions reductions not paid for by the West.

Point 4. No use of “global warming” as an excuse to impose protectionist trade restrictions on countries that did not cut their carbon emissions.

Here, in a nutshell – for fortunately nothing larger is needed – are the main points of the ”Copenhagen Accord”:

Main points: In the Copenhagen Accord, which is operational immediately, the parties“underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time”; emphasize their “strong political will to urgently combat climate change”; recognize “the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 C°” and perhaps below 1.5 C°; aspire to “cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible”; acknowledge that eradicating poverty is the “overriding priority of developing countries”; and accept the need to help vulnerable countries – especially the least developed nations, small-island states, and Africa – to adapt to climate change.

Self-imposed emissions targets: All parties will set for themselves, and comply with, emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted to the secretariat by 31 January 2010. Where developing countries are paid to cut their emissions, their compliance will be monitored. Developed countries will financially support less-developed countries to prevent deforestation. Carbon trading may be used.

New bureaucracies and funding: Under the supervision of a “High-Level Panel”, developed countries will give up to $30 billion for 2010-12, aiming for $100 billion by 2020, in “scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding” to developing countries via a “Copenhagen Green Fund”. A “Technology Mechanism” will “accelerate technology development and transfer” to developing countries.

And that’s it. Expensive, yes. Unnecessary, yes. But earth-shaking? No.

The disconnect between the gaseous halations of various grandstanding “world leaders” about the supposedly urgent need to “Save The Planet Now” and the puny outcome of the Copenhagen Non-Event is dazzling. And it is welcome.

For all the rhetoric – or the flatulence that passes for rhetoric these days – it has begun to dawn on the “leaders” of those nations that subject them to regular recall and re-election that the people no longer believe the mad scientists are telling them the truth. And the people are right.

What is more, after the failure of the mainstream news media to report what the malevolent and unpleasant scientists involved in the Climategate affair had written to one another about those with whom they disagreed, or about what they had done to invent, fabricate, contrive, fiddle, tweak, alter, massage, conceal, hide or even destroy scientific data for the sake of protecting and peddling the pseudo-science in which environment correspondents had so readily and so ignorantly believed, the people no longer trust the media.

And that is bad news for a governing class that has come to develop a far-too-cosy relationship with the mainstream media. It is also very bad news for the mainstream media themselves, which are now rapidly losing circulation and ad revenue as the people rightly desert them for the Internet, where - notwithstanding various expensive attempts by the over-funded international Left to interfere with Google and Yahoo searches - the truth is still available if you know where to look.

Copenhagen was the last-chance saloon not for the planet, which does not need saving, but for the UN’s world-government wannabes. They blew it, big-time, by believing their own overspun propaganda about planetary peril and thinking they had “world leaders” where they wanted them. They overreached themselves, and have paid the price.

Even though next year is an el Nino year accompanied by fast-recovering solar activity, 2010 may not, after all, set a new global-temperature record to overtop that which was set in 1998, the year of the Great el Nino. By the time the next yackfest takes place in Mexico City in December 2010, the steam will have gone out of the “global warming” scare. We should not let our guard down, but Copenhagen is more than the end of the beginning for Green fascism: it is the beginning of the end. The eco-Nazis’ attempt at global bureaucratic coup d’etat has failed, and no such attempt is likely to succeed again. Too many of you are watching.

The hoards of protesters at the gates in Copenhagen

Via Peter Foster in the National Post on James Hansen, Maurice Strong, the IPCC and the "mob rule" strategy employed by global warm-mongers.

Like Mr. Gore, Mr. Hansen recommends direct action. In his new book, Storms of My Grandchildren, he writes: "As in other struggles for justice against powerful forces, it may be necessary to take to the streets to draw attention to injustice. Civil resistance may be our best hope. It is crucial for all of us, especially young people, to get involved. This will be the most urgent fight of our lives."

[...]

Mr. Strong himself hasn't been so prominent since the Iraqi oil-for-food fiasco, but he is involved in something called The Global Observatory, GO, an organization designed to act as "a catalyst, bridging the gap between those responsible for making the decisions at [Copenhagen] and the public."

GO was set up by Jose Maria Figueres, a former President of Costa Rica. Exactly what Mr. Figueres has in mind when he talks about "bringing the public into negotiations" is clear from a clip available on YouTube, in which he frankly admits that the key to getting the "right" decisions is using NGOs to assemble mobs to pressure politicians. Mr. Figueres says that he's not willing to leave the future of his children in the hands of the 1,500 negotiators at Copenhagen, so his plan was to set up a "tent" at the meeting in which there would be scientific experts (He mentions Mr. Hansen). If such scientists declared that, say, Costa Rica was "backtracking," then GO would get on the phone to select NGOs, who could have a mob outside the presidential palace in 45 minutes.

Be sure to watch the video at the link above. You'll better understand how the hoards of protesters wound up at the gates in Copenhagen.

The IPCC meets Lord Moncton

Lord Monckton reports on the Copenhagen presentation by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC.

Pachauri was just a couple of seats away, so I gave him a letter from me and Senator Fielding of Australia, pointing out that the headline graph in the IPCC’s 2007 report, purporting to show that the rate of warming over the past 150 years had itself accelerated, was fraudulent.

Would he use the bogus graph in his lecture? I had seen him do so when he received an honorary doctorate from the University of New South Wales. I watched and waited.

Sure enough, he used the bogus graph. I decided to wait until he had finished, and ask a question then.

Pachauri then produced the now wearisome list of lies, fibs, fabrications and exaggerations that comprise the entire case for alarm about “global warming”. He delivered it in a tired, unenthusiastic voice, knowing that a growing majority of the world’s peoples – particularly in those countries where comment is free – no longer believe a word the IPCC says.

I would score this one Moncton 18, IPCC 0. Read the whole thing at Watts Up With That?

It's not obvious what it's doing and why it's doing it

What you won't see reported in the Canadian media. A professional programmer is interviewed by the BBC on the Climategate computer code.



h/t: Kate.

The Hockey Stick over time

The IPCC has made much of Professor Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph. It's been a staple of the warm-mongers. Well, I invite you to take a look at this short video produced by Doc over at the Autopsy.



This kinda puts thing into perspective. And even if Mann's hockey stick graph was was true, I think it shows that we have more to worry about from cooling than we do from warming.

h/t to Anthony and Kate.

Update: this animation is from Watts Up With That? and includes a comparison to Mann's hockey stick.