Global-warming data sets 'simply made up'
http://www.onenewsnow.com/C...fault.aspx?id=791202

quote Christopher Monckton, a noted "climate skeptic," says the actions were criminal and should be prosecuted.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 11-30-2009).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Global-warming data sets 'simply made up' http://www.onenewsnow.com/C...fault.aspx?id=791202

That's your interpretation of his interpretation of someone's interpretation of the researchers interpretation of the data. Seems factual to me!

Oh you doubters

Here is an article from the National Post quoting the cogent emails

http://network.nationalpost.../23/climategate.aspx

This is very likely a Criminal Conspiracy under any western set of laws. I expect Her Majesty's Scotland Yard chaps will be paying a visit.

Arn

quote Originally posted by TK: That's your interpretation of his interpretation of someone's interpretation of the researchers interpretation of the data. Seems factual to me!

There isn't much interpretation going on. They conspired to hide data that hurt their cause, they said they'd destroy data to keep it from skeptics and to foil attempts at release through the freedom of information act, and Jones asked other scientists to delete data and emails that undermine their theory. It's pretty cut and dried...

EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling

There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"

In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.

Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones' institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it's difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.

We don't condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.

Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.

How about these quotes?

* From Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University, to Ray Bradley, Michael Mann, and Malcolm Hughes, three U.S. scientists who have produced the controversial “hockey-stick graphs” that purport to show rapidly increasing temperatures in recent decades. Nov, 16, 1999.

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

* From Kevin Trenberth, a lead author with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to Michael Mann, on Oct 12. 2009. The email, titled “BBC U-turn on climate,” laments a BBC article that reversed its long-held position on man-made global warming.


“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. ... Our observing system is inadequate.”

Read more: http://network.nationalpost...e.aspx#ixzz0YO0GSGH1

Time to break out the torches and pitchforks...damn mad scientists...and why don't we start auditing Al Bore's financial dealings, and see how much money he's made/stands to make off AGW?? (whistling as I paint a shiny red fence rail to escort him out of town on)

There are a ton of people who stand to make loads of money of this global warming bullshit. Why do you think they have been pushing this as being true? They want to pass the cap and trade bill and need this to help pass that bill.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 12-02-2009).]

The scientists ADMIT they tossed out the supporting data for their warming theory. The subject is SO IMPORTANT, the data was SO IMPORTANT, but they just couldn't figure out a way to store it? Anyone still unconvinced this whole thing isn't a croc?

Climate change data dumped

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

Tajiguy just posted this on another thread.

The real numbers still must be out there somewhere.

Arn

The Birkenstock crowd don't wanna see that, they can't blame the capitalists if it's a natural evolution....

Here are some very interesting quotes that tell you want the whole global warming thing is *really* about...

http://www.peopleforwestern...AdditionalQuotes.htm

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

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

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

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

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
- David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

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

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

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

“Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath the surface of the earth is a willful expansion
of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature.”
- Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

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

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
-Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

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

“All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and
behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
- Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
- Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
- Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions."
- Prof. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

"A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible."
- United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
- Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

"One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."
- Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
- Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
- Christopher Manes, Earth First!

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."
- David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
- Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

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

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

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

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

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

"The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level."
- Al Gore, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize

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

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis."
- David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive manager

"Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send out entire planet's climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced - a catastrophe of our own making."
- Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth

"By the end of this century, climate change will reduce the human population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic."
- Sir James Lovelock, Revenge of Gaia

"Climate Change will result in a catastrophic, global seal level rise of seven meters. That's bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis."
- Greenpeace International

"Climate change is real. Not only is it real, it's here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon - the man-made natural disaster."
- Barack Obama, US Presidential Candidate

"We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth."
- Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

"In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a 'master plan' is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years from today it will probably be too late."
- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

"The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation."
- UN Commission on Global Governance report

"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today's problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time."
- Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

"In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways."
- Dr. Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General

"Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises."
- Lester Brown, WorldWatch Institute

"A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income."
- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

"Adopting a central organizing principle means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, to halt the destruction of the environment."
- Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced - a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
- UN Agenda 21

"The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human sepcies has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution. Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature."
- Rene Dubos, board member Planetary Citizens

From a newsmax email.

Belief in Global Warming at All-Time Low — BEFORE Climategate

A new poll reveals that the percentage of Americans who believe carbon dioxide emissions will cause global warming has dropped dramatically in recent years.

And that poll by Harris Interactive was conducted between Nov. 2 and 11 — before the so-called “climategate” controversy erupted, calling into question the validity of some of the science supporting manmade global warming.

The poll found that the percentage of American who believe in global warming has dropped from 75 percent in 2001 and 71 percent in 2007 to just 51 percent.

At the same time, the percentage of those who do not believe in global warming has risen from 19 percent in 2001 and 23 percent in 2007 to 29 percent today, and the percentage who are unsure has climbed from 6 percent to 21 percent since 2001.

“The 51 percent who believe emissions will cause climate change is by far the lowest number recorded in any Harris Poll since we started asking this question 12 years ago,” Harris Interactive disclosed.

Opinions differed sharply along party lines — 73 percent of Democrats believe in manmade global warming, compared to 28 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of Independents.

As for the upcoming international conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, only 28 percent of those polled knew that the main topic to be discussed is global warming and climate change. Nearly 10 percent said the economic crisis would be the topic, while smaller numbers cited nuclear weapons, health and epidemics, terrorism, international trade, or drugs.

Six days after the poll closed, on Nov. 17, someone hacked a server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and disseminated more than a thousand e-mails and other documents.

Climate change skeptics charge that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to skew scientific information in favor of manmade global warming.

The leaked documents “show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of manmade global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and concealed apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law,” CBS News reported.

One climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research was quoted as saying: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

One more step in the march to utter madness...

EPA: Greenhouse gases endanger human health

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded greenhouse gases are endangering people's health and must be regulated, signaling that the Obama administration is prepared to contain global warming without congressional action if necessary.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson scheduled a news conference for later Monday to announce the so-called endangerment finding, officials told The Associated Press, speaking privately because the announcement had not been made.

The finding is timed to boost the administration's arguments at an international climate conference — beginning this week — that the United States is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation.
Under a Supreme Court ruling, the so-called endangerment finding is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from power plants, factories and automobiles under the federal Clean Air Act.

The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments under a formal rulemaking. The action marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had declined to aggressively pursue the issue.
Business groups have strongly argued against tackling global warming through the regulatory process of the Clean Air Act. Any such regulations are likely to spawn lawsuits and lengthy legal fights.

The EPA and the White House have said regulations on greenhouse gases will not be imminent even after an endangerment finding, saying that the administration would prefer that Congress act to limit such pollution through an economy-wide cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Nevertheless, the EPA has begun the early stages of developing permit requirements on carbon dioxide pollution from large emitters such as power plants. The administration also has said it will require automobile fuel economy to increase to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2016, another push to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The EPA's readiness to tackle climate change is expected to give a boost to U.S. arguments at the climate conference opening in Copenhagen this week that the United States is making broad commitments to reduce greenhouse gases.

While the House has approved climate legislation that would cut emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and about 80 percent by mid-century, the Senate has yet to take up the measure amid strong Republican opposition and reluctance by some centrist Democrats.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of the Senate bill, has argued that if Congress doesn't act, the EPA will require greenhouse gas emissions. He has called EPA regulation a "blunt instrument" that would pose a bigger problem for industry than legislation crafted to mitigate some of the costs of shifting away from carbon emitting fossil fuels.

The way was opened for the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to cut climate-changing emissions by the Supreme Court in 2007, when the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Act. But the court said the EPA must determine if these pollutants pose a danger to public health and welfare before it can regulate them.

I guess our American members need to contact their Senator and their Congressman and let them know what we think

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: I guess our American members need to contact their Senator and their Congressman and let them know what we think Arn

We have. They don't care. Anyway, the EPA ruling is intended to take action on CO2 if the Congress does not. In other words, the "end run" around our representatives is already in place, ready to go.

It's a Climategate Christmas!

...what a bunch of hyprocrits: http://www.nationalpost.com...tory.html?id=2339124

...add to the fact they they all flew there in private planes and had private limos ferry them around (can't find that link at teh moment). Should they not fly commercial air and use fuel cell powered shuttle buses?

found the car link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...d-caviar-wedges.html

[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 12-14-2009).]

BTW, Canada has been taking alot of heat over the oil sands where we mine the oil to send to our American neighbours.

But, when you look at CO2 emissions on their own, for arguements sake, (I don't believe it really matters when you get down to it) Canada looks pretty darn good. We account for only 1.9% of emissions for the world. And we have a pretty cold climate with huge distances to travel. In fact, there is another angle they don't talk about.

Here are the top 12 CO2 emitters in the world and percentage of total emissions. However when you compare country to country it is not entirely fair. Most comparisons make all countries equal regardless of size, location, and population. All countries are not equal.

When you examine the amount of CO2 produced per square kilometre of land the picture changes

Here is the chart for the top 12 CO2 emitters in the world. Please note that Canada's emissions are 1/3rd of India which is a more temperate climate. Also notice where the US rating goes on the second chart.

Metric Tonnes of CO2 percentage of the total

World 28,431,741 100.0 %



- 1 China 6,103,493 21.5 %

- 2 United States[9] 5,752,289 20.2 %

- 3 European Union[10] 3,914,359 13.8%

- 4 Russia 1,564,669 5.5 %

- 5 India 1,510,351 5.3 %

- 6 Japan 1,293,409 4.6 %

- 7 Germany 805,090 2.8 %

- 8 United Kingdom 568,520 2.0 %

- 9 Canada 544,680 1.9 %

- 10 South Korea 475,248 1.7 %

- 11 Italy[11] 474,148 1.7 %

- 12 Iran 466,976 1.6 %



Now here is a list of the same data but in order of
number of square kilometres of land vs metric tonnes of CO2 produced per sq km



1 South Korea 475,248 @ 98,480 sq km or 4.8258 Tn/sq km

2 Japan 1,293,409 @ 377,835 sq km or 3.4232 Tn/sq km

3 United Kingdom 568,520 @ 244,820 sq km or 2.3221 Tn/sq km

4 Germany 805,090 @ 357,021 sq km or 2.2550 Tn/sq km

5 Italy[11] 474,148 @ 301,230 sq km or 1.5740 Tn/sq km

6 China 6,103,493 @ 9,596,960 sq km or .6359 metric tonnes/ sq km

7 United States [9] 5,752,289 @ 9,826,630 sq km or .5854 Tn/sq km

8 India 1,510,351 @ 3,287,590 sq km or .4594 Tn/sq km

9 European Union[10] 3,914,359 @ 10,176,246 or .3846 Tn/sq km

10 Iran 466,976 @ 1,648,000 sq km or .2833 Tn/sq km

11 Russia 1,564,669 @ 17,075,200 sq km or .0916 Tn/sq km

12 Canada 544,680 @ 9,984,670 sq km or .0545 Tn/sq km

In fact, if you expand the list to the top 50 you'll find that Canada is a stand out example of how to properly use our resources and the US looks pretty darn good and still better than China.

Does this not show that Canada is a better steward of the land and a better steward of our environment than South Korea, Japan, UK, Germany and on down? In fact so is USA by this comparison

FYI

Arn

[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 12-16-2009).]

Hahahahaha! Who knew we could count on President Emptysuit to tank at Copenhagen?

Barack Obama's speech disappoints and fuels frustration at Copenhagen
US president offers no further commitment on reducing emissions or on finance to poor countries

Barack Obama stepped into the chaotic final hours of the Copenhagen summit today saying he was convinced the world could act "boldly and decisively" on climate change.

But his speech offered no indication America was ready to embrace bold measures, after world leaders had been working desperately against the clock to try to paper over an agreement to prevent two years of wasted effort — and a 10-day meeting — from ending in total collapse.

Obama, who had been skittish about coming to Copenhagen at all unless it could be cast as a foreign policy success, looked visibly frustrated as he appeared before world leaders.

He offered no further commitments on reducing emissions or on finance to poor countries beyond Hillary Clinton's announcement yesterday that America would support a $100bn global fund to help developing nations adapt to climate change.

He did not even press the Senate to move ahead on climate change legislation, which environmental organisations have been urging for months.

The president's speech followed the publication of draft text, obtained by the Guardian this morning, that reveals the enormous progress needed from world leaders in the final hours of the Copenhagen climate change summit to achieve a strong deal. The draft says countries "ought" to limit global warming to 2C, but crucially does not bind them to do so. The text, drafted by a select group of 28 leaders – including UK prime minister, Gordon Brown – in the early hours of this morning, also proposes extending negotiations for another year until the next scheduled UN meeting on climate change in Mexico City in December 2010.

In his address, Obama did say America would follow through on his administration's clean energy agenda, and that it would live up to its pledges to the international community.

"We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say," Obama said.

But in the absence of any evidence of that commitment the words rang hollow and there was a palpable sense of disappointment in the audience.

Instead, he warned African states and low island nations who have been resisting what they see as a weak agreement that the later alternative — no agreement — was far worse.

"We know the fault lines because we've been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation," he said.

"Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year – all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible."

He also took a dig at China, drawing attention to its status as the world's biggest emitter and reinforcing America's hardline on the issue of accountability for greenhouse gas emissions.

The lacklustre speech proved a huge frustration to a summit that had been looking to Obama to use his stature on the world stage – and his special following among African leaders – to try to come to an ambitious deal.

The president was drawn into the chaos within minutes of his arrival at Copenhagen, ditching his schedule to take part in a meeting of major industrialised and rapidly emerging economies.

Responding to Obama's speech, a British official said: "Gordon Brown is committed to doing all he can and will stay until the very last minute to secure a deal... but others also need to show the same level of commitment. The prospects of a deal are not great."

Many reactions were strongly critical of Obama. Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, described Obama's speech as "ridiculous" and the US's initial offer of a $10bn fund for poor countries in the draft text as "a joke".

Tim Jones, a spokesman for the World Development Movement, said: "The president said he came to act, but showed little evidence of doing so. He showed no awareness of the inequality and injustice of climate change. If America has really made its choice, it is a choice that condemns hundreds of millions of people to climate change disaster."

Friends of the Earth said in a statement, "Obama has deeply disappointed not only those listening to his speech at the UN talks, he has disappointed the whole world."

The World Wildlife Fund said Obama had let down the international community by failing to commit to pushing for action in Congress: "The only way the world can be sure the US is standing behind its commitments is for the president to clearly state that climate change will be his next top legislative priority."

The extent of crisis in the talks has taken leaders by surprise. The Brazilian leader, Lula da Silva, told the conference that the all-night negotiating sessions took him back to his days as a trade union leader negotiating with his bosses.

This is no accident and no incompetence. It was very carefully planned and executed. If you don't respect Obama, do respect his handlers and speech writers who are no slouches.

Any bets that in private the President has been told that Global Warming is a conspiracy and a fraud? Any bets he is trying to distance himself without appearing to distance himself? Any bets that Al Gore is quietly going "oh sh*t" and scrambling desperatley to maintain his investments?

Worth watching over the next few months IMHO

Arn

http://www.americansolution...epas-blackmail-1.php

quote With the Copenhagen Climate Summit failing to produce any meaningful agreement thus far, the battle against energy taxes and bureaucratic power grabs continues to rage here at home. And there is no bigger front than the Environmental Protection Agency's power grab over the American economy with its recent endangerment finding.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: This is no accident and no incompetence. It was very carefully planned and executed. If you don't respect Obama, do respect his handlers and speech writers who are no slouches. Any bets that in private the President has been told that Global Warming is a conspiracy and a fraud? Any bets he is trying to distance himself without appearing to distance himself? Any bets that Al Gore is quietly going "oh sh*t" and scrambling desperatley to maintain his investments? Worth watching over the next few months IMHO Arn

Yeah, after all the doomsday talk from the President until now, his flowery and empty rhetoric at Copenhagen was most interesting. I was thinking the same thing, that maybe he's trying to backpedal. It's difficult to tell with this guy whether he's being calculating or just incompetent.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Hahahahaha! Who knew we could count on President Emptysuit to tank at Copenhagen?

He had no choice. He has finally begun to realize, how difficult it is going to be from now on to spend huge bundles of non-existant money.
The left cannot exist or survive without the wealth of the right, and after the poor showing Citi had with their stock offering, Obama and Co. realize the right is not exactly eager to invest in anything connected to this administration's whoring out of America. The deficit looms, inflation is a distinct possibility, jobs aren't there because industry is still unsure how heavy Obama is going to tax them on energy consumption, the polls show the country is unhappy with what has transpired thus far, that a majority of the US doesn't buy this global warming hocus pocus, most believe he is on the wrong track, and Obama realized he cannot just go over to Copenhagen and give away the farm if they want to keep a majority in congress and get reelected in 2012. They will be very very lucky just to get a very much watered down healthcare bill passed--much less cap & trade.

In other words, the petals have fallen off the stinking rose in less than 12 months. Obama and the libs are in trouble with the middle and the right--as well as with a growing # of liberals--and they know it.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: In other words, the petals have fallen off the stinking rose in less than 12 months. Obama and the libs are in trouble with the middle and the right--as well as with a growing # of liberals--and they know it.

I heard one commentator (might have been Hannity) that said people have seen the left govern and they said "whoa, I don't think so!". The left - not just the near left, but the far left - has nearly absolute power, and the vast majority in this country doesn't like what they see coming out of it. Look for a *bloodbath* in next year's elections.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Look for a *bloodbath* in next year's elections.

I wouldn't count on that bloodbath just yet. Several things will have to happen for that to come true.

1. The right will have to coelesce--that is, the "TEA Party" and conventional GOP will have to come together united. There is a difference in the 2 groups--a big difference, and the right cannot go into Nov 2010 or 2012 as a split group.

2. That coalition will have to have something substantial to offer, both on issues and in candidates.

3. The right MUST get out in absolute droves and vote--in every state and district.

4. The moderates will have to remain unsatisfied with current handling of the economy and foreign policy.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I wouldn't count on that bloodbath just yet. Several things will have to happen for that to come true. 1. The right will have to coelesce--that is, the "TEA Party" and conventional GOP will have to come together united. There is a difference in the 2 groups--a big difference, and the right cannot go into Nov 2010 or 2012 as a split group. 2. That coalition will have to have something substantial to offer, both on issues and in candidates. 3. The right MUST get out in absolute droves and vote--in every state and district. 4. The moderates will have to remain unsatisfied with current handling of the economy and foreign policy.

All very true. I don't know if you saw this, but a poll was taken which asked for the favorability of the TEA party versus Republicans and Democrats. The TEA party beat both the R's and the D's.

If the Republican party doesn't get it's act together and embrace the TEA party principles and/or the TEA party folks can't take over the R's, then there is a distinct risk of splitting the vote and we end up with the same dipshits who are currently running the country into the ground.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I wouldn't count on that bloodbath just yet. Several things will have to happen for that to come true. 1. The right will have to coelesce--that is, the "TEA Party" and conventional GOP will have to come together united. There is a difference in the 2 groups--a big difference, and the right cannot go into Nov 2010 or 2012 as a split group. 2. That coalition will have to have something substantial to offer, both on issues and in candidates. 3. The right MUST get out in absolute droves and vote--in every state and district. 4. The moderates will have to remain unsatisfied with current handling of the economy and foreign policy.

Very true. A failure on any of those points could leave us with the current status quo. But if that all comes together, it could be a perfect storm that radically flips the balance of power.

We all have to remember that Obama can't sign any agreements, with other countries, without Congress' approval. This whole thing was a meaningless fiasco and rightly so.

Snowball fight with Al Gore

AT reader Jackpine Savage has an animated videogame enabling you to throw snowballs at Al Gore, what with all the global warming that has been falling all over the east.

Play it here.

This one made me laugh. I hope they can prove their allegations, NOT!
http://online.wsj.com/artic...d=wsj_share_facebook

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 01-04-2010).]

Scientist Predicts 50 Years of Cooling. So which is it? Are we warming up or cooling down? Anyone else remember CFCs?
This is an article from a Newsmax email I received.

quote Scientist Predicts 50 Years of Cooling A university professor challenges the widely held notion that carbon dioxide is responsible for climate change — and says the Earth will continue to cool for the next half-century. Rather than carbon dioxide, cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) — already implicated in depleting the Earth’s ozone layer — are to blame for changes in the global climate, according to a paper by Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Waterloo in Canada. CFCs are compounds once widely used as refrigerants, and cosmic rays are energy particles originating in outer space. Lu’s peer-reviewed paper, published in the prestigious journal Physics Reports, states: "My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century. "Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming." The total amount of CFCs decreased around 2000, Lu said, and “correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate." Lu found that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002, and his research indicates that the cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years. Lu based his research on data from laboratory and satellite observations, according to the Insciences Web site. He previously published work on the ozone layer along with researchers from Rutgers University in New Jersey.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 12-29-2009).]

John Coleman

video

Great video, buy (<- "buy"? what was I drinking? ) a guy who knows. Thanks,

Arn

[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 01-12-2010).]

I watched a good show the other night about the mini iceage that hit the earth between 1300 and 1850.
So one would assume we might still be warming back up to pre 1300 temperatures.

Once we have "made man green", how will we then do the same for mother nature.

These ants literally made a co2 engine.

Its official, the new fad used to sell t shirts is global cooling. Instead of us all moving north, we'll all have to move south. pffft
The new consensus: global cooling (New consensus!, yes new, but we all agree now right?)
http://blogs.news.com.au/he...ensus_global_cooling


Real climate science?
http://www.realclimate.org/...global-cooling-myth/
:
"Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends – and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted."

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-12-2010).]

I may be accused of being a broken record, however if you go to http://spaceweather.com/ and put it in your favorites, you can check your sunspot activity daily. We are in a solar minimum. We have one lonely sunspot and if you go back several weeks you can see the pattern. If the sun does not snap out of the minimum, we will continue to cool down, notwithstanding El Nino and La Nina. Are we going to have another ice age? We don't know this any more than Al Gore knows islands are going to sink into the sea.

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: We are in a solar minimum. We have one lonely sunspot and if you go back several weeks you can see the pattern. If the sun does not snap out of the minimum, we will continue to cool down, Arn

Yep, the sun does it...and if it does snap out with a SNAP!, we might have nasty solar flares. Those things can be nasty.

so.. the 2012 thing...the year without electricity?

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-12-2010).]