Global Political Shenanigans

Molecular Fractionation in Ice

2010-12-08T06:24:00.000-08:00

UPDATE TO POST 6th Dec. 2011

Reading of the sad death of Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski reminded me that a further update to this article was long overdue. Jaworowski is respected by sceptics of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CAC) hypothesis for his persistent criticism of claims that air “trapped” in ice for decades, centuries and millennia provided a reliable record of past atmospheric composition. Despite the unfounded claims that his arguments had been refuted by scientists who support the CACC hypothesis, Jaworowski remained resolute in his rejection of the claim repeatedly that ice cores provide a “Gold Standard” (a claim repeatedly made by Dr. Richard Alley, an Evan Pugh Professor at The Pennsylvania State University Penn State University (also employer of Dr. Michael Mann, of “Hockey Stick” fame).

Professor Jaworowski is not the only scientist to challenge the “Gold Standard” but even those who support it acknowledge mechanisms that Jaworowski argued could distort the ice-core paleo-record over time. For example, in their 1993 paper “The Ice Record of Greenhouse Gases” (http://www.csun.edu/~hmc60533/CSUN_311/article_references/Sc_Feb93_IceRecordGHgases.pdf) Raynaud et al. acknowledged four of the processes that Jaworowski expressed concerns about QUOTE: ..
(i) .. physi .. and chemisorption of gases on the surfaces of snow and ice ..
(ii) .. the separation .. of gases in the firn ..
(iii) .. alteration of .. composition by formation of air hydrates .. or by drilling ..
(iv) .. alteration by chemical between the gases and the ice on long time scales ..
the second of which is relevant to this article.

Raynaud et al. dismiss the first concern (one still held by Professor Hartmut Frank – see my comment of 28/04/2011 at 19:50 on The University of Cambridge’s Naked Science forum - http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38675.50) on the basis that the ice core record for CO2 and CH4 can be made to align with the measurements made at Mauna Loa but don’t mention that this can only be achieved by assuming an age difference between the air and the ice in which it is “trapped” then guessing the age difference (another of Jaworowski’s concerns).

They dismiss the second by referencing a 1984 comment in a “Letter to Nature” by J. Schwander and B. Stauffer on the subject of “Age difference between polar ice and the air trapped in its bubbles” (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v311/n5981/abs/311045a0.html). Schwander and Stauffer said “Air entrapped in bubbles formed in cold ice has essentially the same composition as that of the atmosphere at the time of bubble formation”. Their letter did not refer to scientific papers that had been published after the scrutiny of peer review but to two other earlier “Letters to Nature”, (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v284/n5752/abs/284155a0.html and a contemporary draft paper. That paper “Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the last glaciation” by Stauffer B. Hofer H. Oeschger H. Schwander J. and Siegenthaler U. Based upon the claims in these references Raynaud et al. make the assumption that “ .. the air, just before being trapped at the base of the firn column, has a composition that departs slightly from the atmosphere at the surface of the ice sheet. These effects are generally small .. of the order of 1% .. for the gravitational effect .. and can be calculated with confidence .. ”.

The comment by Stauffer, Hofer et al. about “ .. just before being trapped … ” could imply a sudden transition from open firn to solid ice which is misleading. As Neftel et al. said in their 1994 article “Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Siple Station Ice Core” (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/siple.html) for Sipple Station, West Antarctica, “ .. the duration of the close-off process was 22 years .. ” (see FOOTNOTE). During that long period in which the firn, air pockets and interconnecting channels are squeezed smaller and smaller the larger air components like N2, O2, Ar, CH4, etc. will be trapped first, with the smaller ones like CO2, N2O, Ne, He, etc. (see the kinetic diameter sizes in the table) still being able to migrate through the closing lattice.

N2   O2 Ar CO2 CH4 Kr Xe Ne CO He   NH3
Collision * 3.8   3.5   3.5 3.9   3.8 3.7 4.0 2.8 3.7 2.6 2.6
Kinetic ** 3.64   3.46   3.4 3.3 3.8 3.6 3.96 2.75 3.76 2.6 2.6

    Cl2 HCl C2H2 N2O Br2 HBr CS2 H2S SO2 C2H4 NO H2 H2O
Kinetic ** 3.2   3.2 3.3   3.3   3.5    3.5    3.6 3.6   3.6 3.9 3.17   2.89 2.65

* From “Fractionation of gases in polar ice during bubble close-off: New constraints from firn air Ne, Kr and Xe observations” by Jeffrey P. Severinghaus and Mark O. Battle, Table 1 (http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/closeoff_EPSL.pdf).
** From “VUV absorbing vapours in n-perfluorocarbons” by E. Albrecht, et al. Table 3 (http://wwwcompass.cern.ch/compass/detector/rich/publications/NIMA510-262.pdf).

In their excellent 1992 paper “Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story?” (http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf) Professor Jaworowski et al. discuss the flaws in the claim of an ice-core “gold standard” and many of the physical/chemical processes that distort the composition of air during its long sojourn in the ice. They also challenge the manner in which the air/ice age difference is (gu)es(s)timated in order to fit with measurements at Mauna Loa.

In that paper Jaworowski et al. also make reference in Fig 9 to the escape of air components towards the surface down the pressure gradient due to gravity, saying “ .. The thermal gradient and gravitational compression of snow cause upward movement of gas. Some air escapes from snow and firn back to the atmosphere .. ”. What they did not appear to recognise was the similar process occurring in the deep firn as close-off is approached resulting in preferential fractionation of the smaller air components, particularly CO2 over the larger (and more prominent) components such as N2, O2, and Ar.

To those who argue that our knowledge of the processes that take place within the ice that could change the composition of the air that is eventually “trapped” in ice has improved significantly in the past 20 years I say that they are mistaken. I remind you that internationally recognised expert, Professor Eric Wolff, British Antractic Survey, said as recently as 2nd May 2011 “ .. I think that none of us has a definite molecular-level understanding of the physical process occurring at close-off, and it would be great if someone can do the experiments in the lab to understand that better .. ” (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38675.msg354373#msg354373).

FOOTNOTE:
Several articles have made reference to a 1984 paper by Schwander and Stauffer in which they claim that the duration of the close-off process was 22 years but I haven’t been able to track down the paper. Can anyone provide a link?

POST 15th Nov. 2011:
I have just heard the sad news about Dr. Jaworowski's death on 12th Nov. (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/sad-death-of-dr-zbigniew-jaworowski-nov-12th-2011-poland/#comment-10055).

What a tragic loss to honest science.

My condolences to Dr. Jaworowski's loved ones.

Pete Ridley

UPDATE TO POST 8th MAY 2011b

Size-dependent Molecular Fractionation of Air in Ice

This thread started last December as a special thread for discussing whether or not the attempts by scientists to reconstruct past atmospheric CO2 concentrations from air allegedly "trapped" in ice for decades, centuries and millennia really is what Professor Richard Alley calls the "Gold Standard".

The objective was to attract contributions that would shed light on how the molecules of the atmospheric gases, particularly N2, O2, CO2 and CH4 move within the snow, firn and ice, from flake formation through to "solid" compaction after "close-off". Of particular interest to me was the relevance of collision and kinetic diameters during the compaction process. It appeared to me that this is an important aspect of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) research that has been given inadequate attention.

Although no-one posted any relevant comments here, since last December I have had discussions with numerous scientists involved in ice core studies as well as with others. Consequently I remain of the opinion that there is poor understanding within the paleo-climatology community of the specific issue of how the size of the molecules of the different gases affects their movement through firn during the later stages of compaction.

The scientists with whom I have been discussing this issue by E-mail include Professor Alley, Professor Jeff Severinghaus, Professor Michael Bender and more recently Professor Eric Wolff of the British Antarctic Survey. On 13th April I took my question to the Science Forum of “The Naked Scientists … a media-savvy group of physicians and researchers from Cambridge University .. ” (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/about-us/)” under the thread title “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38675). I summarised my question as “why do paleo-climatologists use collision diameter in preference to kinetic diameter when considering the migration of air molecules through firn and ice?” and provided additional information to supplement the question.

They were unable to answer my question so on 20th April I contacted Professor Wolff but the thread was promptly closed by the moderator, even though the question remained unanswered. Professor Wolff responded on 26th, mentioning that he couldn’t post on the closed thread. There was significant continuing interest in the thread despite it being locked, evidenced by the viewing figures and after several requests I managed to get the site admin to re-open it and Professor Wolff posted several very helpful comments.

In his final submission on 2nd May, after having discussed my question with Professors Alley and Severinghaus, Professor Wolff said that “.. the specific answer is that they use collision diameter because this is what allows them to rationalise the data that they observe”. That fits with the responses I had previously been given by other specialists but I am still not persuaded by that argument on the basis that the use of collision diameter rather than kinetic diameter only fits their interpretation of the data, which may well be flawed.

In a nut shell I say that it can be flawed because the deep firn in an ice sheet is a nanoporous medium and expert practitioners in the movement of individual gas molecules in nanoporous media, such as zeolites, use kinetic diameter in their design analyses and in their models. Professor Zbiniew Jaworowski, who has repeatedly challenged the validity of the ice core record snce 1992, said in an E-mail last June that “I am also not versatile in diffusion, and writing my paper in 1994 I was advised and enlightened by a geologist from the Norwegian oil industry, who was specializing in diffusion, a subject of great importance for oil industry. This is a highly specialized field of science. My impression is that it is a terra incognita for glaciologists”.

That needs to be taken into consideration alongside Professor Wolff’s statement that “I think that none of us has a definite molecular level understanding of the physical process occurring at close-off, and it would be great if someone can do the experiments in the lab to understand that better. But it won’t alter the empirical facts”.

I can’t argue with that but if this process was properly understood it could change the way that those empirical facts are interpreted. I have just contacted an expert in the modelling of the porous structure of zeolites, Professor Christodoulos Floudas, Princeton University. NJ, USA. Hopefully he can make some time to add his expertise to the discussion.

Anyone interested in finding out more about the discussion with Professor Wolff should read the comments on the “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” thread. There is also another interesting set of related exchanges on another thread “What does Iain Stewart's "CO2 experiment" Demonstrate” http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723 (both of which have now been locked by The Naked Scientists admin team and my access rights removed) and on the Global Warming (or is it Global Cooling?) blog:
- “Hasn’t anyone ever heard of the Medieval Warm Period?” thread
http://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/globalwarmingorisitcooling/ and
- “SUZUKI ELDERS:-We’re doomed” thread http://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/suzuki-elders-we%E2%80%99re-doomed/.

Please drop in for a chat.

ORIGINAL POST 8th DECEMBER 2010

This is a special thread for discussing whether or not the attempts by scientists to reconstruct past atmospheric CO2 concentrations from air allegedly "trapped" in ice for decades, centuries and millennia really is what Professor Richard Alley calls the "Gold Standard".

Any and all constructive comments are appreciated that shed light on how the molecules of the atmospheric gases O2, N2, CO2 and CH4 move within the snow, firn and ice, from flake formation through to "solid" compaction after "close-off".
Of particular interest to me is the relevance of collision and kinetic diameters during the compaction process.

In 2007 I started researching the doctrine being pushed by the UN and environmental activists (that our continuing use of fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic global climate change/disruption) after reading a review of propaganda booklet “Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet” by Mark Lynas. I soon came across the 1992 paper “Do Glaciers Tell A True Atmospheric CO2 Story?” by Z. Jaworowski, T. V. Segalstad and N. Ono, along with several more recent papers by Jaworowski. Since then I have become increasingly interested in his concerns, especially after reading Andrew Montford’s excellent exposé “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, which set me wondering if the CO2 hockey stick might also be simply another illusion.

Consequently I have tried to discus this with numerous scientists and others, including those who give their full support to the doctrine. I started on science student Chris Colose’s “Richard Alley at AGU 2009: The Biggest Control Knob” in Dec. 2009, focussing on the preferential fractionation of CO2 due to its smaller kinetic diameter but was unable to make progress there and tried elsewhere.

In March I asked Josh Halpern (AKA Eli Rabbitt) on his "Rabett Run" blog if he could help on molecular diameter and he started a thread “How big is that molecule in the window”. He offered some basic physics and concluded “Think of this as the start of a discussion” which subsequently even involved a member of the (in)famous “hockey team’ support squad Realclimate, theoretical physicist Raymond Pierrehumbert (Raypierre). The discussion unfortunately did what the ice core experts do, obsessing on collision (Lennard-Jones) diameter, which for CO2 is larger than that of CH4, N2 and O2. This was despite the fact that Joshua had discussed briefly the smaller kinetic diameter of CO2 on another of his threads on 25th January in response to an enquiry from an “Anonymous former-chemist-mouse” (AKA Marcus) who was involved in the discussion on Chris Colose’s thread.

The results of my research so far have disclosed that as far as molecular diameter is concerned, for CH4, N2 and O2 there is little difference between collision and kinetic diameters at approximately 3.8, 3.8 and 3.6Å respectively. On the other hand, the collision diameter for CO2 is higher than any of the others (3.9Å) but its kinetic diameter is much smaller (3.3Å).

The question then was what significance does this have as far as possible preferential fractionation of CO2 during its wanderings within ice for decades, centuries and millennia. I have asked this question of numerous high-profile “disciples“ of the doctrine such as James Annan, Michael Tobis, William Connolley, etc. but no attempt was made by any of them to answer this other than to claim that Jaworowski had been refuted years before, which appears not to be so.

I have recently E-mailed one of the pioneers of ice core research, Professor Claude Lorius, one of his followers and prominent IPCC supporter, Professor Richard Alley, prominent sceptics Professor Hans Oerlemans and Dr. Roy Spencer asking if they would like to help clear up the remaining significant uncertainties when attempting to reconstruct past atmospheric CO2 concentrations from air allegedly “trapped” in ice vitually unchanged for milllenia. Professor Alley has been good enough to respond with a matter of hours with helpful comments and several references and I’ll shortly be posting an update about his response. I’ll advise if and when I get a response from the others, meanwhile, constructive comments are welcome from anyone who would like to help remove these uncertainties.

I ask respectfully that contributors avoid simply declaring that claims that the ice core record is flawed have been refuted. I’ve had these claims before with links to comments such as those of Hans Oeschger, Professor of Physics, University of Bern, purporting to do the refuting. All they do is reject, not refute. If you think that they refute then please be specific about how they are supposed to do it rather than simply providing a link or mentioning a name. I’ve wasted too much time already following up on such claims and finding that they were simply unsubstantiated criticisms or flawed inferences.

Best regards,

The UK's Government Office for Science

2010-12-01T09:23:00.000-08:00

A review of “The science of climate change” Web-pages

NB: This is a “work-in-progress” reflecting my first impressions as a sceptical lay person, so all constructive comments are welcome, not only from sceptics but from those who are convinced of the validity of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. All comments will be given fair consideration as to whether they should be incorporated into any updates. This draft issue has been copied to the Energy, Food & Environment Issues Team at the Government Office for Science for their consideration.
**************************************************************************************
Part 1. Background

On 17th September an article “Climate change website launched” was published on the “Public Service” Web-site of PSCA International Ltd. This article included comments attributed to Professor Sir John Beddington, the government's chief scientific adviser since 2008. Some of these comments, taken out of context, might sound reassuring for those of us who are sceptical of the doctrine that our increasing use of fossil fuels to power growth in developing economies will lead to catastrophic changes in the different global climates. For example, he said “ .. there is much we need to understand better .. ” .. uncertainty exists in climate science, as it does in other fields .. “ “ .. an appreciation of the nature and degree of uncertainty .. is critical if the science is to properly inform decision-making", but could sceptics expect the new Web-site to covered these deficiencies in the science in an openly critical manner? We shall see!

On 30th September environmental activist charity 10:10, gave what environmental activist newspaper The Guardian called a scoop news item. The Guardian’s scoop “There will be blood – watch exclusive of 10:10 campaign's 'No Pressure' film” provided access to a vile short film which was subjected to so much adverse reaction from normal people word-wide that it was hastily withdrawn by the charity. The Guardian added the charity’s withdrawal statement as an update to its “scoop” that evening which attempted to laugh off the film as just a comedy gone wrong. Here is what they ended with. “At 10:10 we're all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn. Onwards and upwards, Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team”.

The charity’s founder is Franny Armstrong, a one-time pop drummer and self-taught director of her company Spanner Films, which produces scare-mongering films about global warming.

One might ask what the charity 10:10 and its dubious activities have to do with the Government’s chief scientist. Well, on 11th October, less that two weeks after this explosion of disgust from people around the world about the 10:10 charity’s film, the UK Government Office for Science proudly announced that Chief Scientific Advisor “John Beddington pledged his support for the 10:10 campaign”. Bear in mind that "the 10:10 campaign was founded by Franny Armstrong .. The idea came to Franny while walking through Regent’s Park in London on her way to a debate with UK Climate & Energy Secretary Ed Miliband. Two things sprang to mind: a recent George Monbiot article had laid out the kind of policies we’d need to cut the UK’s emissions very quickly, none of which sounded impossible. And the Climate Safety report had identified a 10% cut in the developed world's emissions by the end of 2010 as the kind of target we should be aiming for to maximise our chances of avoiding a climate catastrophe”.

What motivated such a senior government scientific advisor to give what can only be interpreted word-wide as his full support to a non-scientific charitable organisation and campaign that:
- was inspired by an article written by a staunch environmental activist and partnered by a newspaper that is dedicated to supporting environmental activism,
- fully supports the doctrine that our continuing use of fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic global climate change and
- sees fit to promote extreme violence against any, including children who reject this doctrine.

This is the same charity that was set up with the full support of the previous Labour Government’s international development and environment secretary Ed Milliband, who has been closely involved with its founder Franny Armstrong since at lease March 2009.

On 19th March 2009 the BBC reported that Sir John had made the following comments in his presentation to the government's Sustainable Development UK conference in Westminster “By 2030 the demand for resources will create a crisis with dire consequences. Demand for food and energy will jump 50% by 2030 and for fresh water by 30%, as the population tops 8.3 billion. Climate change will exacerbate matters in unpredictable ways. It's a perfect storm”. That BBC report ended with “He wants policy-makers in the European Commission to receive the same high level of scientific advice as the new US president, Barack Obama. One solution would be to create a new post of chief science adviser to the European Commission, he suggested”.

Those comments with reference to climate change, along with full support for the 10:10 objectives give the unmistakable impression that Sir John has already made up his mind that our continuing use of fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic global climate change.

This article is not intended to ask questions about the motives of the Office for Science giving its full support to an organisation like 10:10 but there could be other than scientific motivations behind support for the opinions expressed in “The science of climate change” Web-pages. There is no doubt in the minds of sceptics about the political motives that influence the manner in which the supposed science in the assessment reports of the UN’s IPCC is presented. The question to be addressed here is to what extent is the “science” presented in the Web-pages of the UK Government’s Office for Science similarly affected.

Here in full is what the “Public Service” article reported Sir John to have said about his “The science of climate change” Web-site. “Reporting on climate change science has often created more heat than light. The evidence is compelling that climate change is happening, that human activities are the major driver for this and that the future risks are substantial. At the same time, there is much we need to understand better; for example, the pace and extent of the changes we can expect, and regional impacts. The fact that uncertainty exists in climate science, as it does in other fields, does not detract from the value of the evidence. But an appreciation of the nature and degree of uncertainty, and of the likelihood and potential severity of risks, is critical if the science is to properly inform decision-making".

In the introductory page of “The Science of Climate Change” Sir John said “The evidence is compelling that climate change is happening, that human activities are the major driver for this and that the future risks are substantial. This evidence includes wide-ranging, long term and robust observations of changes that are taking place, and projections of possible future changes that are based on basic physical laws”. Sceptics argue strongly that there is no convincing evidence that “ .. human activities are the major driver for .. “ any significant changes to the different global climates that may be happening.

In saying “There are also many areas where major uncertainties remain and where more research and long term, reliable observations are required” Sir John shows that he understands such scepticism even if he disagrees with it. He goes on to say “In developing this section of the Government Office for Science website I have drawn upon the expertise of many leading scientists, including the network of Departmental Chief Scientific Advisers across Government. My consultations have included discussions with those sceptical or agnostic on aspects of the science”.

A few days after the announcement of their “Climate Change” Web-pages I asked the Office for Science for the names of the scientists, including sceptics, who had advised during the preparation of the pages. Two weeks later I was provided with a list;
Prof Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office
Prof John Mitchell OBE FRS, Director Climate Science, Met Office;
Dr Peter Stott, Head, Climate Monitoring and Attribution, Met Office
Dr Olivier Boucher, Hd Climate, Chemistry and Ecosystems, Met Office
Prof Keith P Shine FRS, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading
Dr Eric Wolff FRS, British Antarctic Survey
All of the scientists named are well known for their support of the UN-inspired doctrine that our use of fossil fuels would lead to catastrophic changes to the different global climates. All excepting Keith Shine are signatories of the Met Office's "Statement from the UK science community" just ahead of the UN's COP15 fiasco in Copenhagen.

Already there was evidence of overwhelming bias at the UK Government Office for Science in favour of the doctrine so I wondered if this bias also permeates the information provided on “The science of climate change” Web-site. After an initial review of what is offered on those Web-pages I concluded that it is totally biased in favour of the doctrine. As a result of a request from Sir John’s Energy, Food & Environment Issues Team I have a work-in-progress detailing what I consider demonstrates this bias.

This is presented in Part 2.

DEATH BY DROWNING - THE NEXT PHASE OF INDOCTRINATION? Part 2 29/09/2010

2010-09-29T07:07:00.000-07:00

Introduction

In Part 1 of this three-part article I talked about some of the earlier political propaganda promoting The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis and looked at possible motivation of one UK publisher of books by authors who support that hypothesis. This time I’ll talk about a book that is in preparation, the co-authors and a little about its USA publisher.

This additional potential “spin and scare” book “Rising Sea Levels” is being prepared for publication by McFarland & Co by co-authors Hunt Janin and Ursula Carlson. Let us take a closer look at the degree of expertise in the subject of “Rising Sea Levels” shared by this pair of ambitious writers. After all, it would seem to be reasonable to expect that they know something about a subject that they are writing about, especially one as contentious as sea levels claimed to be rising as a result of our use of fossil fuels.

Hunt Janin

Hunt is “a former US diplomat-turned writer” and “a published author of children's books and young adult books” (Note 1). In July I was surprised to receive an E-mail from Hunt, someone I had never heard of before, requesting help on this book. I considered it worthwhile helping him to write accurately about such an important subject so the next day I offered my assistance with suggestions about balance when commenting on measurement and modelling.

Hunt responded, acknowledging his state of ignorance on the subject and attaching a draft copy which I reviewed. Hunt’s response to my review comments included “I'm assuming that the deniers will not like what I write. That's OK with me: I'm writing for the British Library, not for them .. and will, I hope, remain there for a very long time -- long after the current generation of deniers is dead and buried...”. Those references to “deniers” gives an indication of the degree of balanced presentation to be expected in the book.

I heard no more from Hunt after that.

Ursula Carlson
Co-author Ursula Carlson teaches writing and literature at the community college of Western Nevada as Professor in the English Department. She has a B.A. in English from Michigan State University; an M.F.A. in Creative Writing from the University of Iowa and a Ph.D. in English from the University of Detroit - note that “creative writing” bit (Note 2).

The Nevada education authority’s Academic, Research and Student Affairs Committee commented recently (Note 3) that she is knowledgeable, scholarly, intellectual, well-grounded in her subject and stands for integrity. The committee makes no mention there of any expertise in sea levels or climate change, however, it does say that she is a published poet (hardly relevant to writing a book about rising sea levels).

I thought it possible that the committee had simply overlooked that area of her expertise so searched elsewhere for any reference to it. Ursula did write a couple of articles on the subject for publication by her local newspaper The Nevada Appeal. In the first article “Fresh ideas: Heed signs of a warming planet before it's too late” (Note 4) in June she gives the impression that she is knowledgeable on the subject of global warming and says such things as “ .. nearly every major glacier in the world is shrinking .. Oceans are not only warmer, but more acidic; the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures is decreasing; plants are blooming earlier (some by days, some by weeks) than they used to; animals are moving farther and farther toward the North and South poles .. ”.

Ursula concludes “In other words, as I understand it, by the time global warming is so obvious as to be potentially or probably catastrophic, climate change may be so much underway that there is little that can be done to mitigate it, much less reverse it”.

This is very scary, but how does she know all of this? Well, the note at the bottom of the article says “Ursula Carlson .. for this column referred to Elizabeth Kolbert's “Field Notes from a Catastrophe” published in 2006”. So that expression of her “understanding” is not from her own research into the subject but is second hand from Elizabeth Kolbert. Where have we seen that name before? Oh yes, she is author of one of the books published by Bloomsbury that I listed in Part 1 of this series. Elizabeth Kolbert, like Ursula Carlson, is not a scientist. She is a journalist who studied literature and moved straight into journalism (Note 5) and has been with the Obama-supporting New Yorker since 1999. The extent of her expertise in the numerous scientific disciplines that contribute to improving our poor understanding of global climate processes and drivers is from talking to scientists. This suggests that the extent of Ursular Carlson’s expertise in this area is even less than that of Elizabeth Kolbert and I have been unable to find any evidence to the contrary.

In the second article “Loss of permafrost provides visual proof of climate change” this month (Note 6) she is somewhat more cautious. Although she talks about global warming and greenhouse gases she avoids any suggestion that humans are responsible for any climate change or able to exercise any control over it. She does make the nonsensical statement that “Melting snow and ice seems reasonable in a world that is getting warmer, but the earth itself, the dirt, the soil, the permafrost is melting as well”. Although “Ursula .. is currently reading studies on climate change” she does need to do much more reading before she can be considered to be an authority on the subject.

The Co-authors
To sum up so far, Hunt Janin and Ursula Carlson appear to have only two things in common as far as writing a book relating to sea level rise or climate change:
1) they co-authored “Trails of Historic New Mexico: Routes Used by Indian, Spanish and American Travellers Through 1886.” (Note 7), which had nothing to do with the subject,
2) neither appear to have any demonstrated expertise in the subject.

On 1st September I wrote to Hunt and Ursula recommending that they read the article "South Pacific Sea Level: A Reassessment" by highly respected sceptic Vincent Gray (Note 8) but neither responded. I didn’t expect to get involved with either any more after that but I was drawn back to them via seemingly unconnected comment about political “spin”. This led me to checking the Internet for what, if anything, Hunt was doing about his book.

I found that Hunt is trolling Internet blogs - mostly of supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis - seeking help on the topic from anyone who is prepared to give it, regardless of expertise in the subject, e.g. realclimate, Profmandia, Open Mind, Design Observer, Scienceof Doom. As is to be expected, the responses on these blogs to the questions Hunt was posing are heavily biased towards supporting the IPCC’s position that our continued use of fossil fuels will result in catastrophic changes to global climates. The responses, which also refer Hunt to equally biased blogs, give an indication of the likely shape of the finished book As an example there is not a mention of sea level expert Nils-Axel Mörner (Note 9).

From this evidence Hunt and Ursula need help – a lot of it, but not from Internet blogs. A good starting point would be an interview with Mörner entitled “Sea-level Expert: It’s Not Rising” (Note 10).

This is enough to give you a feel for how biased that book “Rising Sea Levels” by Hunt Janin and Ursula Carlson will be. This begs the question of why would a respected publisher of non-fiction get involved with people who are writing a book on a subject about which they know virtually nothing?

McFarland & Co.
This publisher boasts of being “a leading U.S. publisher of scholarly, reference and academic books .. recognized for its serious works”. In June last year McFarland & Co celebrated 30 years of involvement in publishing (Note 11), that’s 7 more years than Bloomsbury, another highly successful publisher on the other side of the Atlantic. McFarland & Company, Inc.(Note 12) QUOTE:
.. was founded in the spring of 1979 by Robert McFarland Franklin. McFarland is located in Jefferson, North Carolina, .. The company is now one of the leading publishers of scholarly and reference books in the United States, .. McFarland is recognized for its serious works in a variety of fields,
.. From the beginning, McFarland has been a library-oriented publisher, producing comprehensive reference works and scholarly monographs on a variety of subjects, .. Librarians remain McFarland's traditional customers,. ..
.. McFarland welcomes proposals for nonfiction manuscripts on a wide range of subjects, .. Reference books are one of our specialties.
.. “We do not publish fiction, poetry, children's books”.
UNQUOTE.

Checking on previous titles I can find only one book on climate change/global warming/sea level and that is “Climate Change Policy in the United States The Science, the Politics and the Prospects for Change” by Dianne Rahm, a professor of public administration and policy, not a scientist. On the basis of the above claims that McFarland make about themselves it is not obvious how the company could possibly benefit from publishing a book on Rising Sea Levels” by Janin and Carlson?

As far as I can ascertain the major players at McFarland and CO. majority owner and Editor in Chief Robert Franklin, Executive Vice President Rhonda Herman and Assistant Editor Charles Perdue seem to have no involvement in the climate change debate. The only explanation of this publication on “Rising Sea Levels” by these co-authors that I could find comes in this report in 2008 (Note 13). QUOTE:
A “slow, but steady decline” is how Rhonda Herman , executive vice president at reference publisher McFarland & Co. Inc., characterizes the market for reference books. “We are cautious about sales and will feel lucky if sales remain flat.” The reality of an economic downturn is starting to sink in—McFarland’s volume is flat, Herman says, “but actual income is down 2 percent. The reason for this is that we are experiencing higher than normal overstock returns, which is not surprising in this market.” Both direct and indirect costs are hitting the bottom line at the Jefferson, N.C.-based publisher. Higher fuel costs are forcing up the price of paper and shipping.
.. To weather these difficult economic times, McFarland is focused on selling a large number of unique items in relatively small quantities, .. UNQUOTE.

Perhaps McFarland have decided to change its previous direction by publishing in areas other than “reference works and scholarly monographs” – is it as simple as “Any port in a storm”? I did invite McFarland & Co. to comment prior to publishing this article but had no response.

The first two parts of this series of articles has looked at the motives for the involvement in such a poorly understood field as global climate processes and drivers of two well-known publishers in the UK and the USA. The final part of this series of articles will look at the motives of the mainstream media.

NOTES:
1) see http://www.jacketflap.com/persondetail.asp?person=63215
2) see http://www.wnc.edu/directory/ucarlson/
3) see http://system.nevada.edu/Board-of-R/Meetings/Agendas/March-2010/Academic--/ref-ARSA-10a.pdf
4) see http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20100630/NEWS/100629568
5) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Kolbert
6) see http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20100922/NEWS/100929957/1001&parentprofile=1
7) see http://www.allbookstores.com/Trails-Historic-New-Mexico-Routes/9780786440108
8) see http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6171
9) see http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
10) see http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf
11) see http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jefferson-NC/McFarland-Company-Inc-Publishers/68068646584#!/event.php?eid=78553723359&ref=mf
12) see http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/about.html & http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/authors.html
13) see http://www.bookbusinessmag.com/article/a-struggling-economy-changing-market-challenge-publishers-119081/1#utm_source=bookbusinessmag.com&utm_medium=search_results_page&utm_campaign=search_result

Best regards,

DEATH BY DROWNING - THE NEXT PHASE OF INDOCTRINATION? Part 1 09/09/2010

2010-09-09T11:23:00.000-07:00

Last October in the run-up to the UN’s COP15 climate change fiasco in Copenhagen the previous UK “New Labour” Government’s Department of Energy and Climate Change ran a £6M advertising “scare” campaign “Bedtime Stories” as part of its Act on CO2 initiative. Accoring to the BBC (Note 1) QUOTE: This was intended “to make adults feel guilty about the impact their carbon emissions are having on their children's future. .. The minute-long ad, which launched on 9 October, features a father telling his daughter a bedtime story about "a very very strange" world with "horrible consequences" for children. It then goes on to show streets and houses underwater, with cartoon animals and people drowning and a jagged-tooth monster in the sky, representing global warming” UNQUOTE..

That campaign back-fired, with the Advertising Standards Authority receiving hundreds of complaints about the ad. QUOTE: An ASA spokeswoman said: "It is not just about the issue of climate change in this particular case. We have had a huge number of complaints about the science but also whether the ad itself is scary for children" UNQUOTE (Note 1).

Eventually the UK’s telecommunications regulator Ofcom investigated (Note 2) QUOTE: “According to the Communications Act, the government is allowed to run advertising of a public service nature .. but is not allowed to run political ads that aim to "influence public opinion on a matter of public controversy". .. Ofcom's investigation comes after two months of allegations that climate-change scientists manipulated and withheld data. .. Some of the complaints argued there is no scientific evidence of climate change. Others claimed there was a division of scientific opinion on the issue and that the ad should therefore not have attributed global warming to human activity UNQUOTE.

In March the BBC announced (Note 3) QUOTE: Two government press adverts which used nursery rhymes to raise awareness of climate change have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). It said the advertisements went beyond mainstream scientific consensus in asserting that climate change would cause flooding and drought. .. The ASA ruled that the banned adverts .. made exaggerated claims about the threat posed to the UK by global warming. .. It noted that predictions about the potential impact of global warming made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "involved uncertainties" that had not been reflected in the adverts. .. UNQUOTE.

It should be noted that not all UK ministers supported the Government’s advertising campaign. In 2009 the Belfast Telegraph reported (Note 4) QUOTE: “Environment Minister Sammy Wilson has banned government television adverts in Northern Ireland warning of the effects of climate change, it emerged today. The DUP man said he was not prepared to allow “insidious New Labour propaganda” about the impact of climate change which would have been screened on UTV UNQUOTE.

That ill-considered campaign is behind us now but the propaganda machine keeps rolling out its distorted version of the facts, with a prime target being our children and youngsters. Al Gore’s “The Climate Project” organisation sponsors the “Inconvenient Youth” organisation (Note 5) which is spreading its tentacles cross the globe “spinning” the truth to those QUOTE: .. between the ages of 13 and 18 — but there are special sections “for adults” and “for educators” .. UNQUOTE in the way Al Gore did in his “An Inconvenient Truth”.

Al Gore and fellow “spinners” James Hansen and Tim Worth know all about spinning things to scare people. They are claimed (Note 6) to have started the process back in 1988 with a clever bit of preparation and “spinning” in their successful efforts to scare US Senators into thinking that catastrophic global climate change was just around the corner. It is suggested that they carefully chose the hottest day of the year and the meeting room windows just happened to be left open overnight so that the air conditioning system failed, ensuring that the audience and speaker were soaked in sweat.

In March Professor Bob Carter wrote an interesting article “Lysenkoism and James Hansen” (Note 7) which makes reference to Hansen’s 1988 presentation and says QUOTE:
Fifteen years later, in the Scientific American in March, 2004, Hansen came to write that "Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic" UNQUOTE
but Hansen has had to revert to type with spinning of the facts following the revelations of the Climategate and other IPCC-gate scandals. I do not see the general public being fooled for a second time. It would be like the UK voters bringing Tony Blair back into Downing Street.

Those of you who have strong stomachs may like to listen to Hansen and Wirth’s July 2008 WorldwatchInstitute audio/visual presentations (Note 8). Just as a warning, in the first one “Stop Using Coal” Hansen starts out with “We need to be honest … ”.

Hansen continued with his “spin and scare” campaign in his 2009 book “Storms of My Grandchildren – the truth about the coming climate catastrophe” (Note 9) published by Bloomsbury. Note that word “truth” then have a look at the extract provided. It really tears at the heart strings, just like the UK’s “Bedtime Stories” adverts did.

There is a beautiful quote claimed to be from Dr. Laurence I Gould, Professor of Physics, U of Hartford, CT, (a sceptic about The Hypothesis) which appears on several blogs QUOTE: Comparing climate alarmist Hansen to Cassandra is WRONG. Cassandra's (Greek mythology) dire prophecies were never believed but were always right. Hansen's dire prophecies are usually believed but are always wrong UNQUOTE.

Thinking about Gore’s “An Inconvenient truth” and Hansen’s “Storms of My Grandchildren .. ” I found it odd that Bloomsbury, arguably the most successful publisher in the UK, would be interested in publishing books on climate change, considering that this is such a niche market. I recognised Bloomsbury as the publishers of the top-selling Harry Potter stories and other works of fiction but nothing of significance about science. This led me to checking up on recent and past science publications. In the listing (Note 10) I found:
- Merchants of Doubt How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming by Erik M. Conway and Naomi Oreskes - August 2010,
- Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity - December 2009 by James Hansen
- Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis By Al Gore - November 2009
- The Hot Topic: How to Tackle Global Warming and Still Keep the Lights On By David King , Gabrielle Walker - January 2009
- Field Notes from a Catastrophe: A Frontline Report on Climate Change By Elizabeth Kolbert - August 2007
- An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming And What We Can Do About It by Al Gore - August 2006.
It is noticeable that all of those books are written by well-known supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis.

According to the Wikipedia articles (Note 11) “Bloomsbury .. was founded in 1986 by Nigel Newton .. Bloomsbury was originally founded to publish high quality fiction. It has since expanded into non fiction and children's books”. The Independent (Note 12) says of Nigel Newton QUOTE: One of his maxims is: "Out of uncertainty comes discovery" UNQUOTE and I expect that he fully appreciates the extent of the uncertainty surrounding those processes and drivers of global climates. He also appreciates the type of fiction that appeals to both children and adults so why would such a successful publisher invest resources in science (fiction) books that could be expected to make little if any return?

Is it that the company executives are more concerned about the wellbeing of the planet than about profit? (although this is not a common characteristic of ambitious business people). Could there be another reason for promoting The Hypothesis?

Is it just a coincidence that in 2006 (before the publication of Al Gore’s scare story about drowning polar bears etc.) the Environment Agency was considering the merits of allowing the Cuckmere Haven flood barriers to fall into disrepair, restoring the Haven to its natural tidal flood plane status, with the consequent flooding of any properties on that flood plain?

An article (Note 13) from 2006 about The Cuckmere River in SE England advised that “Local opinion is that there should be no hurry to address sea level rise in the Draconian and destructive way EA propose. A planning applications was made to raise the river banks by only 300 mm - one foot - to give roughly 50 years for mature thought as to the long term ‘geological time’ solution. The proposer of this latest scheme, Nigel Newton, suggest this will allow a more informed decision to be made, where, experts will know more about global warming and geostatic tilt. The decision will then be more informed”

Reading a little further we find in 2003 that “Millionaire publisher Nigel Newton, owner of one of the Coastguard Cottages at the Cuckmere Haven, called on the council to refuse permission. He said, 'The Cuckmere Valley is one of the most beautiful places, not just in Sussex, but anywhere on the earth. Let's make sure we all contribute as individuals to saving this spectacular creation of God and man.' Mr Newton said he has independently commissioned a study by maritime engineers ... In their report, the engineers say the removal of the shingle beach defences will result in the destruction of the coastguard cottages. It will also not bring about the environmental benefits suggested by the Environmental Agency (EA), they claim.
Mr Newton, who runs Bloomsbury, .. ”.

Then in 2008 we have (Note 14) suggestions that the valley be allowed to flood and QUOTE: .. Nigel Newton, the chief executive of Bloomsbury Publishing in London, who owns one of the coastguard cottages, sees it becoming a dreary mud flat resembling Passchendaele, the First World War battlefield. “I defy you to name a more beautiful place in the whole of England, but this school-geography-project-gone- wrong will wipe it out,” he says. The row over the Cuckmere valley is not a one-off. It is a harbinger of things to come right round England’s low-lying eastern and southern coastline, from the Humber to the Solent, as the impact of global warming becomes increasingly pronounced. .. Mr Newton disagrees vigorously. He accuses the Environment Agency of destroying beautiful habitats in the guise of returning them to nature merely to save money. “Managed retreat is embracing defeat,” he says. UNQUOTE.
.
A cynic might interpret concern for damage to property investments as explaining any support that any property owner might offer for scare stories about the impact of catastrophic global climate. If the local authority believed that sea level rise was going to be excessive then they might be persuaded to reconsider allowing the flood defences to collapse.

I have posed several questions here, the final one being does the maxim “if you want an answer follow the money” apply?

My next article will be about another potential “spin and scare” book, this one about “Rising Sea Levels” is being prepared for publication by McFarland & Co.

NOTES:
1) see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8317998.stm
2) see http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/feb/24/ofcom-climate-change-bedtime-stories
3) see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8571353.stm
4) see http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/environment--minister-sammy-wilson-bans-adverts-warning-of-the-effects-of-climate-change-14180104.html
5) see http://www.inconvenientyouth.org/ and http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/computers/stories/inconvenient-youth-is-the-new-one-stop-shop-for-teens-fighting-climate-
6) see http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/17534/stagecraft/chris-horner
7) see http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/hansenist-climate-alarmism
8) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzvegYdEQ8w
9) see http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/
10) see http://www.bloomsbury.com/Books/details.aspx?isbn=9781596916104
11) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomsbury_Publishing & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Newton
12) see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/nigel-newton-is-there-life-after-harry-you-can-bet-your-hogwarts-there-is-497327.html
13) see http://www.solarnavigator.net/geography/sussex/cuckmere_valley_exceat.htm
14) see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3864602.ece

Best regards,

CAN THERE BE AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF IPCC? update 06/09/2010

2010-09-06T01:12:00.000-07:00

In my articles of 13th May, 14th April and 30th March I commented on the politically inspired whitewashing of the UEA CRU following the leaking of E-mails in November. First there was the expected political whitewash by the UK’s Commons Science and Technology Committee following its perfunctory investigation over all of 4 weeks. Considering that UK politicians of all parties had given their almost unanimous support to the Climate Change Act 2008 nothing less than a whitewash could be expected.

Then there was the UEA’s “independent” review chaired by Lord Oxburgh, again a whitewash anticipated and sure enough, expectations were satisfied. After that we had the long-awaited report by the UEA’s own review team chaired by Sir Muir Russell.

The Internet was awash with extracts from the 9th July article in The Register (Note 1) which reported that QUOTE: "It's not a whitewash, but it is inadequate," is Labour MP Graham Stringer's summary of the Russell inquiry report. Stringer is the only member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology with scientific qualifications - he holds a PhD in Chemistry. .. Not only did Russell fail to deal with the issues of malpractice raised in the emails, Stringer told us, but he confirmed the feeling that MPs had been misled by the University of East Anglia when conducting their own inquiry. Parliament only had time for a brief examination of the CRU files before the election, but made recommendations. This is a serious charge .. UNQUOTE.

Plenty would argue that Stringer is only half correct and that it certainly was a whitewash, however, it has to be recognised that although he has a well qualified scientist

It is worth noting that according to The Public Whip (Note 2) Stringer was absent from the Commons during voting on those important 2nd and 3rd readings and other aspects of The Climate Change Bill in 2008. It should also be noted that there is debate about whether or not Stringer has a post-graduate degree (Note 3).

It must not be overlooked that none of these enquiries have investigated the most important aspect of this whole fiasco, the validity of the conclusions drawn by scientists about global climates, past, present and future. Even the Oxburgh enquiry, set up by the University of East Anglia with the help of the Royal Society, did not review the science. This is despite the declaration in the 10th February “Memorandum submitted by the University of East Anglia” (Note ?+2) that QUOTE: .. Alongside Sir Muir Russell’s Review, we have decided on an additional scientific assessment of CRU’s key scientific publications; an external reappraisal of the science itself. The Royal Society has agreed to assist the University in identifying assessors with the requisite experience, standing and independence UNQUOTE.

That was three whitewashes from within the confines of the UK but it has been no different on the other side of the Atlantic. Again, as to be expected, the Penn State’s internal investigation into Michael Mann’s activities was another whitewash (Note 4) just like the UEA’s internal enquiry.

There was a tiny glimmer of hope that the most recent investigation, by The Inter-Academy Council (Note 5), report “ into the IPCC would be thorough and unbiassed but these hopes were dashed when another whitewash appeared on 30th August (Note 6).

I don’t need to do more here than quote from an excellent Daily Telegraph article of 4th September “A cunning bid to shore up the ruins of the IPCC, led by Rajendra Pachauri, tiptoes around a mighty elephant in the room, argues Christopher Booker”. QUOTE:

Last winter, the progress of this belief – that the world faces catastrophe unless we spend trillions of dollars to halt global warming – suffered an unprecedented reverse. In Copenhagen, the world's leaders failed to agree a treaty designed to reshape the future of civilisation. This coincided with a series of scandals that blew up around the IPCC's 2007 report. Since then several inquiries, including three into the leaked "Climategate" emails, have tried to hold the official line, all following a consistent pattern. Each has made a few peripheral criticisms, for plausibility, while deliberately avoiding the main issue. Each has then gone on to put over the required message: that the science of global warming remains unchallenged.

At first sight, last week's Inter-Academy report on the "processes and procedures of the IPCC" seems to have played it more cleverly. It criticises the IPCC's abuse of its own procedures in very trenchant terms, and suggests some radical reforms to them. Passages on "conflict of interest", and a recommendation that top officials should serve only one term, seem to hint that Dr Pachauri, reappointed to serve until 2014 after presiding over the IPCC's last controversial report, should step down. But, as with the reports that preceded it, this one also tiptoes round a mighty elephant in the room, in order to put over the familiar message: the IPCC has generally "served society well", the science remains unchallenged. It is as one might expect of a report produced on behalf of bodies such as Britain's Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, which have long been leading advocates for the belief in global warming.

UNQUOTE.

Have a read of the full article then read A. W Montford’s excellent book “The Hockey Stick Illusion” for a thorough study of the background to this UN-inspired fiasco.

Maybe there is still a chance that a proper investigation will be undertaken, initiated by Virginia State Attorney Mr. Cuccinelli . Let's hope for a successful revised action which he is preparing following judge Paul M. Peatross Jr's recent ruling (Note 11).

NOTES:
1) see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/09/stringer_on_russell/
2) http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Graham_Stringer&mpc=Manchester%2C_Blackley&house=commons&dmp=1030&display=allvotes
3) see http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/Memorandum
4) see http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/02/2943806.htm
5) see http://www.interacademycouncil.net/
6) see http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/
7) see http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/ReportNewsRelease.html
8) " (see http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/124207/

Best regards,

Statistical Shenanigans & the IPCC’s Assessment Reports

2010-06-28T08:37:00.000-07:00

Politicians are fully familiar with the phrase “Lies, damned lies and statistics” (the origin of which has been attributed to the UK politician Benjamin Disraeli – Note 1) and frequently use the powers of statistical manipulation to distort facts in order to present whatever self-supporting argument they are using at any particular time.

It is clear to anyone who has spent time researching The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis that statistical manipulation plays a major role in trying to unravel the enormous uncertainties underpinning our poor understanding of the extremely complex (almost chaotic) processes and drivers of global climates. This lack of clear understanding is acknowledged by scientists who are involved in climate research and in advising politicians about it. A good example is given by Adelaide University’s Professor Barry Brook (a biologist), Director of Climate Change Research (Note 2) in his criticism of the book “Heaven and Earth” (Note 3) by his sceptical Adelaide associate Professor Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology.

This disagreement between a biologist and a geologist at the same university appears to be representative of a wider level of disagreement between those two disciplines. A 2008 poll by The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta, Canada (Note 4) found that QUOTE: .. A 99-per-cent majority believes the climate is changing. But 45 per cent blame both human and natural influences, and 68 per cent disagree with the popular statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” .. UNQUOTE.

Experts within statistics and paleoclimatology, two more of those numerous disciplines that are contributing to improving our understanding of the processes and drivers of global climates, have disagreed vigorously for years. A significant part of this debate is about the validity of the statistical manipulations used by paleoclimatologists to reconstruct global temperature conditions during the past 1000 years. A graph of such by paleoclimatologist Michael Mann was prominently displayed in numerous places in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report. Significant support for the results of this and subsequent attempted reconstructions by paleoclimatologists considered to be part of Mann’s “hockey team” using similar data and statistical methods as Mann was still given in the 4th Assessment Report.

On the other hand scant consideration was given to the arguments of expert statisticians Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. These arguments were fully supported by a USA inquiry in 2006 by a team of statisticians chaired by recognised expert Edward Wegman (Note 5). A detailed study of this issue is given in “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrewe Montford of Bishop Hill blog fame (Note 6) which presents the facts behind the efforts by “The Hockey Team” to get rid of the Medievil Warm Period and the Little Ice Age through the use of inappropriate statistical manipulations. It’s well worth reading and you may be interested in the interview that he gave with The Register (Note 7) around the time of its publication. Also of interest are the reviews of the book available at Amazon (Note 8).

Another enquiry held this year in the UK into the “Climategate” scandal (the leaking of the University of East Anglia E-mails between members of the “hockey team”) included one statistician and concluded with the understatement (Note 9) QUOTE: .. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists .. UNQUOTE. In this area, where statistics plays such a major role, the involvement of expert statisticians has been shown to be an essential requirement, not only as members of teams undertaking the original research but also in teams involved in the auditing of the reports of such work.

Political and scientific supporters of the UN’s IPCC appear to have perfected the art of statistical manipulation in their attempts to convince us that our use of fossil fuels as a source of energy is causing significant (leading to catastrophic) global climate change. This is amply demonstrated in the IPCC’s 3rd and 4th assessment reports in 2001 and 2007. The IPCC is presently gearing up for its 5th assessment report (Note 10) with the following representatives being nominated for Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives.
Coordinating Lead Authors:- Valerie Masson-Delmotte (France) and Michael Schultz (Germany);
Lead Authors:- Ayako Abe-Ouchi (Japan), Juerg Beer (Switzerland), Andrey Ganopolski (Germany), Jesus Fidel Gonzalez Rouco (Spain), Eystein Jansen (Norway), Kurt Lambeck (Australia), Juerg Luterbacher (Cyprus), Tim Naish (New Zealand), Timothy Osborn (UK), Bette Otto-Bliesner (USA), Terrence Quinn (USA), Rengaswamy Ramesh (India), Maisa Rojas (Chile), Xue Mei Shao (China), Axel Timmermann (USA).
Review Editors:- Fatemeh Rahimzadeh (Iran), Dominique Raynaud (France), Heinz Wanner (Switzerland), De`er Zhang (China).

Although there are numerous names above that are familiar to anyone who has followed the “Climategate” scandal I cannot identify any expert statisticians among these so it looks as though the IPCC has chosen once again to ignore the advice of experts when preparing its assessment reports. While looking unsuccessfully for evidence of any expert statisticians being involved in the 5th assessment report I did come across an interesting comment relating to review editor Heinz Wanner (Note 11) QUOTE: .. Climate has changed substantially since the last Ice Age. Heinz Wanner will present the changes that have been deduced, and how these changes can be inferred from natural archives of past climate change. This indirect evidence records climate changes and other influences, and hence estimates of past climate change are uncertain UNQUOTE. It will be interesting to see how Dr. John Haslett (Note 12), Professor of Statistics, Department of Statistics, Trinity College, Dublin (and a Chartered Statistician I believe) QUOTE: .. explains how to explore and quantify the uncertainty .. UNQUOTE.

John Haslett would appear to be an ideal candidate for inclusion by the IPCC as one of its lead authors for Chapter 5 and I’m puzzled as to why the IPCC has not nominated him as an expert author for the 5th assessment report. Maybe it’s because he’s not a signed-up member of the Mann “hockey team”. When talking in his 2010 paper “Palaeoclimate Histories” (Note 13) about statistical manipulations relating to the “hockey stick” Professor Haslett discusses my favourite topic – uncertainty. QUOTE: .. Uncertainty in the discussion of climate is inevitable. But ignoring it – or using over-simple methods – is not. Modelling uncertainty (and indeed communicating it) is neither simple nor cheap; however it cannot be set aside. In fact, confidence about the handling of uncertainty not only pre-empts the sometimes sterile debate encouraged by unqualified (or poorly qualified) statements about climate change, past and future; but it goes further. It provides a basis for pooling the many different sources of information and thus for reducing the uncertainty associated with at least some statements. In this paper we discuss some of the challenges and look forward to the fruits of recent developments .. UNQUOTE.

I understand that to be expert statistician Professor Haslett confirming that earlier attempts to reconstruct past global climates are highly suspect and that much more research is required before worthwhile conclusions can be drawn and used as the basis for policy decisions by politicians – but I would think that wouldn’t I, because I’m a sceptic.

NOTES:
1) see http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies.htm
2) see http://www.adelaide.edu.au/environment/people/barrybrook.html
3) see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
4) see http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=1d688937-54b7-48f4-a4be-d6979dada5df&k=65311
5) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wegman
6) see http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/21/the-hockey-stick-illusion.html
7) see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/08/andrew_montford_interview/
8) see http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate-Independent/product-reviews/1906768358/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
9) see http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP
10) see http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm
11) see http://www.rse.org.uk/events/Diarymay10.pdf
12) see http://www.tcd.ie/Statistics/staff/johnhaslett.shtml
13) see http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ias/insights/Haslett3Mar.pdf

Best regards,

Propaganda & Evangelism

2010-05-29T10:26:00.000-07:00

Back in January at wattsupwiththat Anthony Watts presented an article concerning copyright and Peter Sinclair (much revered by gullible supporters of the UN’s human-made global climate change propaganda. That thread was referenced several times during the first half of March on Australian Senator Steve Fielding’s “Climate Change” thread (Note 1).

I dropped in at Wattsupwiththat (Note 2) and an article “Visualizing Arctic Coverage” caught my eye because of recent comments on Senator Fielding’s thread about the claimed catastrophic ice melt. After watching the UAHvGISSvHadCRUT animations I watched a Peter Sinclair A/V and decided to find out a little more about him. The first site that I came to (Note 3) described him as QUOTE: a radical environut who puts out a (usually) weekly series of YouTube video documentaries entitled “ Climate Crock of the Week” .. UNQUOTE. I soon understood why he was able to put across a very plausible presentation of climate change propaganda. He is not only a trained film producer but also a trained AGW propagandist, having been personally trained through The Climate Project by no less than global climate evangelist Al Gore.

The comment of a student (Note 4) illustrates how easily youngsters can be brainwashed by this sort of UN-inspired propaganda QUOTE: Sara Goodwin writes .. about a recent presentation at Andrews University .. by Peter Sinclair, a member of the organization, The Climate Project, .. I was a little skeptical at first since Sinclair is not a scientist, and neither is Al Gore (as much as I enjoyed his video, An Inconvenient Truth). But when he began his presentation by saying, “I am not a scientist — I am just a storyteller, reporting the facts as they have been given to me by the scientists,” I was satisfied UNQUOTE. It is to be hoped that Sara is not typical of today’s students. Decades ago when I was a young student we were encouraged to listen to but be sceptical of what others told us.

It doesn’t take much effort to research Sinclaire’s background and find his relationship with Al Gore. A month after the premier of his propaganda film “An Inconvenient Truth” Gore set up The Climate Project (Note 5). Through this organisation Gore has trained a 3000-stong band of global propagandists located in the US, Canada, Mexico, India, Indonesia, Australia, the UK and Spain. The next phase of Gore’s brain-washing (Note 6) started with the establishment in mid-2008 of his “An Inconvenient Youth” organisation (Note 7) QUOTE: a community of teenagers taking action to address the climate crisis UNQUOTE.

The structure of Al Gore’s climate change organisation bears a lot of similarities with Hitler’s NAZI party.

I was 7 when the war in Europe ended and only knew about the horrors of Hitler’s regime through later Pathe News items seen at the cinema. It was much later (1974) that I started taking a real interest in the subject, after reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by William L. Shirer (Note 8). Since then I have collected numerous video cassettes of recordings from BBC and other TV programmes dedicated to educating us about the evils that can spring from a blind acceptance of state propaganda. The BBC has a lot of articles on this (Note 9) one of which says QUOTE: Initially, Hitler saw himself as a political evangelist...rather than as a political leader UNQUOTE. In August 2007 The Huffington Post published an article (Note 10) QUOTE: A Nobel Prize for an Environmental Evangelist – Al Gore UNQUOTE. It is clear that I am not the only one to recognise the similarities between Hitler and Gore.

There are available some A/Vs on U-tube (Note 11) which I commend to the those who accept the UN’s propaganda on face value. It is often said that history has a lot to teach us. When I was at school I couldn’t see this at all and found the subject boring. Now that I’ve grown up I recognise how much w can learn from it. I am sure that many of today’s youngsters would ask what The Third Reich has to do with the UN’s promotion of the myth that through our use of fossil fuels humans are causing climate change leading to global catastrophe. The connection is summed up in that one word “propaganda”.

Hitler set up his “Hitler Youth” organisation. Gore set up his “An Inconvenient Youth” organisation. The recruits to Hitler’s organisation were so brainwashed that they were prepared to die for him. Similar brainwashing is being attempted by Gore through his “The Climate Project” and subsidiaries.

In 2002 the BBC published an article on Hitler’s propaganda film producer (Note 12) QUOTE: German director Leni Riefenstahl - best known for making films for Adolf Hitler .. Her two greatest films, Triumph of the Will and Olympia, were sponsored by Hitler's regime and are widely regarded as classic examples of political propaganda. .. German prosecutors announced they were launching a judicial inquiry into the film-maker on suspicion of "Holocaust denial" .. "She was happy to participate because she never made a secret of her fascination with Hitler, and she has told how she admired him, almost until the end of the war," UNQUOTE.

The following extract from the “AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH About The Film” (Note 13) is worth quoting in full. QUOTE: Two people who became entranced by Gore’s show are leading environmental activist Laurie David and movie producer Lawrence Bender. David hosted two of Gore’s sold-out presentations in New York and Los Angeles, where it had a transforming effect on her. “I felt like Al Gore had become the Paul Revere of our times,” says David, “traveling around the country calling out this vital warning that we really can’t ignore.” She also realized that Gore faced a daunting uphill battle in getting his message out into the zeitgeist. “Having researched this subject for some 40 years, nobody understands the issue
better than Al Gore and nobody can explain it more clearly and compellingly to the lay person,” notes David. “But he would have to be on the road 365 days a year to reach even a fraction of the people who need to be reached, and there just isn’t time.” “As soon as I saw Gore’s presentation, I knew it could make for the basis of an amazing film,” Lawrence Bender says. “We were all convinced that the moving truth of what Gore was demonstrating needed to be experienced on a much larger scale.” Inspired to act, David and Bender approached a long-time industry friend, Scott Z. Burns, a writer, director and Clio Award-winning veteran of creative advertising. The team also approached Jeff Skoll of Participant Productions – the new company focused on creating exciting motion picture entertainment around core social issues, which in 2005 released such acclaimed and thought-provoking movies as “Good Night and Good Luck” and “Syriana.” The entire quartet descended upon one of Gore’s shows and each felt equally compelled to kick the production into high gear UNQUOTE.

Let’s take a look at the producers of Al Gore’s film “An Inconvernient Truth” (Note 14) to see if there are any parallels.

Laurie David (Note 15) QUOTE: .. is devoted to stopping global warming. She founded the Stop Global Warming Virtual March at www.stopglobalwarming.org with Senator John McCain and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. that is engaging religious leaders, sports figures, elected officials from all sides of the aisle, business leaders, and every day Americans to urge the United States to address the ticking time bomb that is global warming UNQUOTE.

As for Scott Burns (Note 16) QUOTE: .. there is one subject that can get his blood boiling -- the environment. For years, Burns has been actively involved in Earth Day and The Nature Conservatory. He cites Dennis Hayes, often named as an instrumental figure in this country’s modern environmental movement, as his mentor. His passion for the subject even led Burns to his first producing credit. Along with Lawrence Bender and Laurie David, he helped turn Al Gore’s slide show about global warming into the feature film An Inconvenient Truth.
It’s the thing I think I’ll always be most proud of,” says Burns. “It is great that I am able to intersect my passion with my profession.” UNQUOTE.

Lawrence Bender is an environmental activist who features large in The Huffington Post (Note 17), often with regard to the nuclear threat but also regarding global warming QUOTE: Let me back up and just say it was only a few years ago that along with Arianna Huffington, Laurie David, Ari Emanuel, and Scott Burns, we shot a series of TV spots that said exactly that: America is addicted to oil and we had better kick that addiction quick. Why....for our National Security, for the problem of global warming, to help create millions of new jobs with renewable energy technologies, and for our health .. The problem is, this is the biggest issue facing not only us but the world right now. Our consumption of oil and its effect on National Security and global warming. UNQUOTE.

Although there are similarities between these four producers, with Leni Riefenstahl there is one significant difference – Riefenstahl was recruited by Hitler’s propaganda machine whereas Gore was recruited by the other three. I was always under the impression that the award for the film was to Al Gore, but apparently it was (Note 18) QUOTE: The best-documentary Oscar itself actually went to director Davis Guggenheim and producers Lawrence Bender, Laurie David and Scott Burns UNQUOTE. But Gore also claims to have invented the Internet doesn’t he (Note 19)? We are fortunate that Al Gore hasn’t yet achieved his ambition to become President of the USA (but there’s still the UN Secretary General post up for grabs after 31st of December 2011 – watch out Ban Ki-).

From the amount of hot air being spewed out on blogs all over the Internet by supporters of the UN’s propaganda they definitely has been brainwashed – almost to the point of being brain dead.

NOTES:
1) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/125/P7530/
2) see http://wattsupwiththat.com/
3) see http://www.littlegreenfootballs2.com/2009/08/11/peter-sinclair-global-warming-charlatan/
4) see http://adventist-environmental-advocacy.blogspot.com/
5) see http://www.theclimateproject.org/
6) see http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/08/17/inconvenient-youth-brainwashing-teens-climate-hysteria#comment-686517
7) see http://www.inconvenientyouth.org/about.php and http://www.inconvenientyouth.org/blog/
8) see http://uk.ask.com/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Third_Reich
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcmbQ2Evk2Y&feature=related etc.
9) see http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?go=toolbar&uri=%2Fhistory%2F&q=Hitler
10) see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/a-nobel-prize-for-an-envi_b_68867.html
11) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k56wFujOMOg ,
12) see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/2209547.stm
13) see http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2465858329/
14) see http://www.lauriedavid.com/bio.html
15) see http://www.mediamischief.com/The%20Mischief%20Starts%20Here/C8BCCC1C-8EF7-455C-9AE0-FA396D64FDF5.html
16) see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-bender/the-pusher-plagiarizes-ad_b_15160.html
17) see http://brucemulkey.com/2007/02/
18) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpxtKcLSFWw

Best regards,

CAN THERE BE AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF IPCC? – update 13/05/2010

2010-05-13T12:12:00.001-07:00

In my articles of 14th April and 31st March I commented on the politically inspired whitewashing of the UEA CRU following the leaking of E-mails in November. First there was the whitewash by the UK’s Commons Science and Technology Committee then another by the UEA’s “independent” review chaired by Lord Oxburgh. It looks as though we’ll soon have the media reporting a third, this one by the UEA’s own review team chaired by Sir Muir Russell.

Early in December, shortly after the Climategate scandal broke it was announced that the UEA would fund an independent enquiry (Note 1) into the leaking of CRU E-mails which would report in “the Spring”. The most recent entry at its Web-site (Note 2) was on 17th April and simply said QUOTE: "The Review team has read and noted all submissions, and is currently working towards its conclusions UNQUOTE. The enquiry team comprises:
- Sir Muir Russell l KCB FRSE,
- Professor Geoffrey Boulton OBE, FRS, FRS,
- Professor Peter Clarke F.InstP, C.Phys, F.IET, C.Eng,
- David Eyton M.A. M.IoM3 C.Eng,
- Professor Jim Norton FIET FBCS FIoD FRSA - Vice President BCS - Chartered Institute for IT

It was reported (Note 3) that Russel’s web-site says QUOTE: Do any of the Review team members have a predetermined view on climate change and climate science? No. Members of the research team come from a variety of scientific backgrounds. They were selected on the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues the Review is looking at UNQUOTE. Let’s find out for ourselves if this is the case. Following the previous “whitewash” enquiries it is important to look closely at the credentials of the members of the Russel team.

Muir Russell was appointed as a member of the Scottish Power Advisory Board in 2007 (Note 4). This company is owned by Spanish energy giant Iberdrola which is making significant (9Billion Euro during 2010-2012) investment in the wind energy sector, including Scottish offshore wind farms (Note 5). Muir Russell also has a background in Scottish political activities.

Geoffrey Boulton is reported (Note 6) as saying QUOTE: “The argument regarding climate change is over.” -- .. December 2005
“We have the evidence, we have a consensus on scientific interpretation, we have the investment, we know (Stern) that mitigation now rather than later is cheaper. But, we have not sorted out the politics and started to adapt behaviour to minimize risks. We cannot do this without public support. If we fail, we will be risking the consequences of catastrophic climate changes.” -- .. 29 October 2009 UNQUOTE. It is also reported (Note 7) on 7th October 2009 that QUOTE: Professor Boulton, who chairs the Energy Committee of the Royal Society (the world’s oldest national science academy) and is very active in European Union preparations for the landmark climate summit in Copenhagen, continued, “Coca-Cola Hellenic is taking responsibility and leadership by collaborating with a technology company ContourGlobal in reducing emissions. It represents an early step in responding to what is probably the most difficult challenge that the human race has ever collectively had to face, that of global climate and planetary sustainability” UNQUOTE.

David Eyton, Group Head of Research & Technology – BP, is reported to have originated a presentation given in April to “Stanford University Conference on Technology, Governance and Global Development” (Note 8) saying QUOTE: .. BP remains the largest oil and gas producer in the United States .. BP has one of the largest wind portfolios in America .. are the largest blender and marketer of biofuels in the United States. .. involved in three major Carbon Capture and Storage projects - in Algeria ..
That said, fossil fuels will still dominate the energy landscape for many decades to come. Even under the International Energy Agency's most ambitious scenario - which stabilizes atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions at 450ppm - the scale of the oil and gas business will be similar in 2050 to the one we have today.
UNQUOTE. On this basis BP is in a win-win position.

Peter Clarke, Professor of e-Science at the University of Edinburgh and director of the Institute for e-Science at Edinburgh appears not to have expressed strong views about global climate change either way, however, in 2008 (Note 9) Edinburgh University was angling for greater involvement in the modelling of global climates. It became custodian of HECToR (High End Computing Terascale Resources), a £115M Cray supercomputer to be used for research, including – climate modelling.

Jim Norton, Vice President BCS - Chartered Institute for IT appears not to have expressed strong views either way about global climate change however, he has significant involvement within political circles (Note 10) hence could be subjected to political influence.

It is clear from the above that all of the members of the review team could be considered to have vested interest in the continuation of acceptance of the UN’s climate change propaganda, whether arising from scientific bias, funding pressures or political influence. It looks as though there could well be another UK whitewash, although they do say “third time lucky”.

It should be noted that Sir Muir Russell said of the enquiry QUOTE: "However, it is not our role to re-appraise the CRU's scientific conclusions. Those will be examined by the Royal Society review announced today" UNQUOTE. I find it hard to accept that Lord Oxburgh’s team could have done justice to a review of the science in a review that was rushed to a conclusion in just a few weeks.

NOTES:
1) see http://www.cce-review.org/Biogs.php
2) see http://www.cce-review.org/News.php
3) see http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100025934/climategate-the-official-cover-up-continues/
4) see http://www.scottishpower.com/PressReleases_1612.htm
5) see http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/7757/iberdrola-creates-scottish-offshore-wind-energy-division/
6) see http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2010/02/more-scandal-in-climategate-review-another-panellist-biased.html
7) see http://www.coca-colahellenic.com/home/2009-10-07
8) see http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=98&contentId=7061445
9) see http://www.ucs.ed.ac.uk/bits/2008/october_2008/bits.pdf and http://www.hector.ac.uk/news-events/press/releases/2007-02-22.php
10) see http://www.profjimnorton.com/

Best regards,

Climate Change & Pension Funds

2010-05-06T13:29:00.000-07:00

Some time ago sceptical climate change commentator John O’Sullivan published a revealing article QUOTE: Follow the Money: BBC Exposed in Biggest Climate Racket on Planet UNQUOTE (Note 1). It is an excellent example of how pension fund investments in green/renewable energy technologies provided the financial incentive for mainstream media organisations like the BBC to give full support to the UN’s human-made global climate change propaganda.

That article discusses the involvement of The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (Note 3). I had a look at the organisations members and there are some big names in the pension fund investment field. I also looked at who is associated with The IIGCC (Note 4) and there we have the UN represented by three of its subsidiaries, not least UNEP (involved in setting up the IPCC in 1988) at the top of the page. That article ““Cannot Wait for a Global Treaty,” Investors Tell Congress and other Government Policymakers at United Nations Investors Climate Summit” could be seen as a panic measure by those investors following the UN’s COP15 fiasco in Copenhagen. Some large investors would seem to be getting very worried that the whole UN scam would blow up in their faces and were trying during the UN’s Investor Summit 2010 (Note 5) to gee the UN into action – looking for an intensification of the propaganda perhaps.

As reported (Note 4) QUOTE: On the heels of international climate treaty talks in Copenhagen, the world’s largest investors today released a statement calling on the U.S. and other governments to move quickly to adopt strong national climate policies that will spur low-carbon investments to reduce emissions causing climate change. UNQUOTE The big boys were there (see the photos): Al Gore, Generation Investment Management; George Soros, Soros Fund Management; Abby Joseph Cohen, Goldman Sachs; Kevin Parker, Deutsche Asset Management; Jeremy Oppenheim, McKinsey & Company; plus ; Timothy E. Wirth, President of the United Nations Foundation and all of the other UN hangers-on.

There were QUOTE: .. U.S., European and Australian investor groups representing $13 trillion in assets .. UNQUOTE including investors like Anne Stausboll, CEO, California Public Employees' Retirement System ($205B); Howard Jacobs, Trustee, Universities Superannuation Scheme; The Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC) which represents institutional investors operating in Australia and New Zealand, with assets around AU$500bn. There’s big big money riding on the back of and depend upon global acceptance of the UN’s propaganda. As most of us recognise, Gore and his cronies are prime promoters of this propaganda.
The motivating forces behind Gore, Soros and their UN buddies has nothing to do with the benefits of controlling global climates but plenty to do with the benefits of controlling global finances.

On 16th March 2007 Executive Intelligence Review published a feature (Note 6) “THE CULT OF THE OLIGARCHY The Gore of Babylon” by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (Note 7). Accepting the fact that not everyone appreciates the opinions of LaRouche, he is not very complementary about Gore. Here are some of LaRouche’s comments QUOTE:
.. the evil which Gore perpetrates today ..
.. today’s “globalization” scheme by former U.S. Vice-President Al
Gore, Jr., .. for replacing the sovereign nation-state by an imperial
Tower of Babel.
.. There is nothing accidental about this specific aspect of Gore’s moral rottenness, the personal malice against mankind permeating Gore’s expressed creed but, to understand any of this .., we must recognize the deep, and ancient, systemic, virtually hereditary roots of the evil which Gore perpetrates today UNQUOTE and on and on and on. I was delighted to see that LaRouche also lashes out at the UK’s former PM, Tony Blair who claimed to be ”an honest kind of guy” despite those non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Keep your eyes open for further revelations by John O’Sullivan on this aspect of the UN’s confidence trick

NOTES:
1) see http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/14373.html
2) see
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/tag/climate-change#cg/follow-the-money-bbc-exposed-in-biggest-climate-racket-on-planet
3) see http://www.iigcc.org/docs/PDF/Public/AboutIIGCC.pdf
4) see http://www.iigcc.org/docs/PDF/Public/Pressrelease14Jan10.pdf
5) see http://incr.com/investorsummit
6) see
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-13/pdf/04-23_713_feat.pdf
7) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

Best regards,

Political (Climate) Change Propaganda in Australia

2010-04-30T07:17:00.000-07:00

In my article “More Climate Change Propaganda in Australia .. ”on 15th April (Note 9) I talked about how Penny Wrong, the Australian Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water, used her skills in Hitler-style propaganda to push the UN-sponsored scare about catastrophic climate change from our use of fossil fuels. She did this with the whole-hearted support of Australian Premier Kevin Rudd who only five months earlier on 6th November had presented QUOTE: .. one of the strongest statements seen from a Head of Government of a ‘developed’ nation on climate change .. UNQUOTE (Note 1) to The Lowy Institute.

In this lead up to the UN’s COP15 fiasco in Copenhagen Rudd blustered QUOTE: My message to the climate change skeptics, to the big betters and the big risk takers is this:
- You are betting our children’s future and the future of our grandchildren.
- You are betting our jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our economy and our future on an intuition - on a gut feeling; on a political prejudice you have about science.
- That is too big a risk, too radical a departure from the basic conservative principles of public policy.
- Malcolm, Barnaby, Andrew, Janet - stop gambling with our future.
- You’ve got to know when to fold ‘em - and for the skeptics, that time has come.
- The Government I lead will act.
UNQUOTE.

On 29th April, only five months later, following the damning revelations of Climategate and all of the subsequent IPCC-gates, the Brisbane Times reports (Note 2) of Penny Wong that QUOTE: .. the government would not try to legislate the ETS even by its new delayed start year of 2013 unless there is ‘‘credible action’’ by the end of 2012 from countries such as China, India and the US. .. ‘‘We will only [legislate] if there is sufficient international action,’’ ..
When the Coalition proposed the same ‘‘wait and see’’ policy, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, described it as an ‘‘absolute failure of leadership’‘. Yesterday he said it was ‘‘a reasonable … and responsible course of action’’ in response to slower than expected progress at the United Nations Copenhagen talks UNQUOTE.

So what was then gambling with all aspects of our future now is a responsible course that the Australian Government, under the leadership of Kevin Rudd, will take. How’s that for a political about turn! Give me a used car salesman any day.

Rudd and his climate change team under Wong must be feeling extremely frustrated about the way the tide has turned since the Climategate scandal first broke as well as being very worried about their job security. This frustration was clearly evident from the reaction of Rudd’s chief advisor on climate sciences, Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide Uiversity (Note 3). Barry is a determined critic of his sceptical Adelaide University associate, Professor Ian Plimer (Note 4) and Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth”. After being banned from his site in June for questioning him repeatedly about his comment QUOTE: .. There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers. ..UNQUOTE (Note 5) I looked in again on 3rd March.

I was delighted to see that others had taken up the sceptical side of the debate with increased vigour, especially after “Climategate”. In the end Barry Brook (who had been unusually quiet) commented on 29th November QUOTE: .. Anyway, no more time on this thread for me. You’re nothing more than a conspiratorial looney, “John Berns”, so begone with you and the rest of the foetid trolls who have infested this thread. I edit morons, not data. Vangel, Berns, PeterW, JeffT, gianmarco, Wick: you’re all on moderation. UNQUOTE. Eventually Brook childishly resorted to QUOTE: Shorter Denis Maclaine: “Blah, di blah blah blah” UNQUOTE (13th December) and QUOTE: Bob Thomas: “Blah di blah blah blah. Go away, you conspiratorial crank. This blog is for serious discussion. UNQUOTE (18th Dec). Finally on 19th QUOTE: This thread has degenerated to the point where comments here are no longer serving any useful purpose. It has become infested by trolls and delusionists who are more interested in pushing ideology than discussing matters of science or evidence. Comments closed. UNQUOTE.

People like Rudd, Wong and Brook obviously welcome open and intelligent debate – just so long as it supports their own opinions. Anything that contradicts these is taboo. There are very good reasons why open debate is abhorred. “Climategate”, “Pacahurigate”, “Glaciergate”, Amazongate” and “Disastergate” (AKA “IPCCgate”) has exposed the UN-inspired propaganda about DAGW as a lie as potentially damaging to global democracy as were the lies of Hitler’s Third Reich.

Let’s now look at those to whom Rudd addressed his emphatic QUOTE: The Government I lead will act UNQUOTE. The Lowy Institute includes on its Board of Directors (Note 6) Mr Frank Lowy, Mr David H. Lowy, Mr Peter S. Lowy and Mr Steven M. Lowy. All of these are also on the Board of Directors of The Westfield Group (Note 7) QUOTE: .. which is the largest retail property group in the world by equity market capitalisation and one of the largest entities listed on the Australian Securities Exchange .. UNQUOTE. For someone looking no further than that there might appear to be no vested interest in climate change other than a natural concern for its impact upon human existence, but let’s look a little deeper.

More relevant to the UN’s climate change propaganda, QUOTE: Westfield also manages assets on behalf of institutional and other investors. This investment is undertaken .. with partners such as AMP Capital Investors, Australian Prime Property Fund (APPF), DEXUS Property Group, Forest City Enterprises, JP Morgan Asset Management Real Estate Investment Management, Morgan Stanley Real Estate Management, the Perron Group and Prudential Plc, or as an investor in other forms of property-owning vehicles such as limited partnership arrangements in the United Kingdom with the Possfund and BT Pension Scheme, which are managed by the Hermes Group UNQUOTE.

That is where the alarm bells should start to ring. What is it that those investors consider worth ploughing their money into in order to get the best return? Could it be anything to do with climate change – perhaps renewable energy generation (like wind turbines, solar mirrors, solar panels), distribution (like cable, towers and other “green” investments? Well, if the UN has anything to do with it – Yes.

Pension Funds Online said in 2008 in its “The Future of Pension Funds: Sustainable Investment” article (Note 8) QUOTE: The Board members of the United Nations-backed Principles for Responsible Investment Initiative (PRI) represent some of the world’s largest pension funds from five different continents including France’s Fonds de Réserve pour les Retraites, PREVI in Brazil and the UK’s BT Pension Scheme. They take a similar view. Donald MacDonald, Chair of the PRI Board, has said ““As clients and part owners of the financial institutions at the core of this crisis, institutional investors should accept some shared responsibility for the behaviours that led to the crisis.” and “We believe this current crisis could have a catalytic effect of shifting the mainstream investment sector towards more responsible investment practices.” UNQUOTE.

Now there is an interesting area of research for the UN and its supporters to put a little of those enormous funds they have available and I’m sure that the findings would be much more revealing than the research into global climate processes and drivers has been so far.

NOTES:
1) see http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/11/06/australian-pm-rudd-takes-global-warming-deniers-to/
2) see http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/rudds-ets-flipflop-sparks-climate-chaos-20100428-tsgu.html
3) see http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/barry.brook#Biography/%20Background
4) see http://www.ecms.adelaide.edu.au/civeng/staff/iplimer01.html
5) see http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1
6) see http://www.lowyinstitute.org/Board.asp
7) see http://westfield.com/corporate/about-westfield-group/board-of-directors/
8) see http://www.pensionfundsonline.co.uk/articles/uksif.aspx

Best regards,

More Climate Change Propaganda in Australia on 12th April

2010-04-15T05:31:00.000-07:00

Australian Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water Penny Wrong gave a “Faculty of Law Public Lecture Series” presentation (Note 1) at the Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane on 12 April 2010. It certainly was a beautiful piece of political propaganda, using much of what Hitler used in Germany and what many religions use today. It had it all, the warnings of avoidable catastrophe, the finger pointing at the culprits (the common enemy), the sacrifice necessary to avoid the catastrophe, the promise of reward for compliance, the mingling of truth with fiction and of course, the “messianic words” to be trusted unquestioningly. You covered many main points but may I add a few observations.
1) Mingling truth and fiction QUOTE: The CPRS is grounded in unavoidable truths UNQUOTE.
The truths:- QUOTE: The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence confirms that climate change is real and we have to do something about it. .. Any effective climate change response now also needs to address the question: how do we adapt to the impacts of climate change that we cannot avoid? UNQUOTE. We can’t argue with those!
The fiction:- QUOTE: To do something about it you have to address the cause of climate change: carbon pollution. UNQUOTE.
The catastrophe:- QUOTE: This means that Australian jobs, businesses and livelihoods will be lost, alongside environmental damage of massive proportions.” .. If we fail to tackle climate change, we have a lot to worry about UNQUOTE.
The common enemy:- QUOTE .. to make polluters pay a premium if they want to keep polluting .. And that as well as making polluters pay, we have to put a limit on how much pollution we will allow to be produced UNQUOTE.
The sacrifice:- QUOTE: To reduce our carbon pollution, we need to put a price on carbon pollution .. UNQUOTE
The rewards:- QUOTE: .. and create the reward for clean development. .. This is driving innovation and green jobs in Australia’s car industry .. But there is much to be gained if we act. Already, the economic opportunity is great, .. Already .. global climate revenues rose 75% in 2008 to USD530 billion. .. The number of employees engaged in climate-related activities since 2004 has more than doubled from just over a million to approximately 2.4 million globally UNQUOTE..
The “messianic word”:- QUOTE: The Rudd Government’s policies get Australia out of the blocks in a global race – for the first time. … There are four main ways the Rudd Government is driving this change. The third way the Rudd Government is driving change is through an expansion in clean energy .. The simple truth is it is a policy that works .. And it works not just by enforcing a limit on emissions. By putting a price on carbon – by making polluters pay - it creates an economic incentive to pollute less. It will be the single biggest driver in clean development in the coming decades. UNQUOTE.

That speech was a most beautifully crafted piece of propaganda and deserves a special award. Let’s hope that the Australian voting public give it the response that it deserves at the next Federal Election, due before 2011. If the March elections in South Australia are an indicator there is a significant swing (7% - Note 2) away from Labour and it’s ludicrous Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme towards the Liberals.

NOTES:
1) see http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/minister/wong/2010/major-speeches/April/sp20100412.aspx
2) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_state_election,_2010

Best regards,

CAN THERE BE AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF IPCC? – update 14/04/2010

2010-04-14T08:43:00.000-07:00

Further to my article of 26th March, following the politically inspired whitewash of the UEA CRU by the UK’s Commons Science and Technology Committee, we have the media reporting on another UEA CRU whitewash.
In my earlier article I said QUOTE: On the basis of the above only Professor Hand may be “Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others”. The remainder could well be exposed to such influence UNQUOTE.

It looks as though Professor Hand insisted in getting his opinion included in the report, although the Guardian’s biased report (Note 1) chose to headline “Scientists cleared of malpractice in UEA's hacked emails inquiry” this, whereas the Telegraph (Note 2) headlined “'Climategate' scientists criticised for not using best statistical tools”. Media reports do point out that QUOTE: The panel did raise doubts about the statistical input into scientific papers authored by researchers at CRU. “We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians,” it concluded UNQUOTE.

In it’s attempted face-saving response UEA QUOTE: .. noted: “Specialists in many areas of research acquire and develop the statistical skills pertinent to their own particular data analysis requirements. However, we do see the sense in engaging more fully with the wider statistics community to ensure that the most effective and up-to-date statistical techniques are adopted and will now consider further how best to achieve this.” UNQUOTE. Honest scientists should have done this without being forced into it by the leaking of E-mails. As a consequence of their reluctance to involve expert statisticians no credence can be placed in the findings of UEA CRU scientists until all of the statistical manipulations it used to arrive at its research findings have been independently reviewed by such experts.

Next we’ll have the expected whitewash by the IPCC enquiry. As we all well know, politicians do not allow or encourage open, honest and independent enquiries into their misdemeanours.

I still haven’t seen anything recently about the UEA’s Muir Russell review – does anyone know what stage it is at?

NOTES:
1) see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/14/oxburgh-uea-cleared-malpractice
2) see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7589715/Climategate-scientists-criticised-for-not-using-best-statistical-tools.html

Best regards,

"Ecocide" - The UN’s Next Scam? After all, "Trees Have Rights Too"

2010-04-12T08:07:00.000-07:00

Mainstream Media headlines, Wednesday April 1st 2020 “Stangler Figs on Trial in Nuremberg for Mass Tree Slaughter in Australia” (see Note 11 for information on the “strangler”).

If you see this as the ramblings of a mad person you should try reading about attempts to persuade the UN Security Council to introduce a fifth “crime against peace” (Note 1). This is the “crime” of ECOCIDE (Note 2) dreamed up by “Trees Have Rights Too” campaigner Polly Higgins (Note 3). The Ecologist says QUOTE: Visionaries: Polly Higgins – Ecologist, 1st April 2009 ‘The planet is currently enslaved to humans abusing its inherent rights – the right not to be enslaved or polluted,’ says environmentalist and barrister Polly Higgins UNQUOTE but note the date of that release – April Fools’ day leading up to the UN’s COP15 fiasco in Copenhagen, fools indeed.

The Gaia Foundation (Note 4), the UK Environmental Law Association (Note 5) and the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawers (Note 6) appear to fully support Polly (Note 7) in her attempts to persuade the UN of the merits of what she calls (Note 8) her QUOTE: .. ‘hard law’ – the Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights. She will also be unveiling her next step, the rolling out of the ‘soft law’ – the Universal Declaration of All Beings, more commonly referred to as The Peoples’ Declaration. UNQUOTE

In the dream natural world of these activist environmental movements all life on earth has rights which humans have a duty to protect. What they fail to recognise that in the real natural world the only right is the right to fight for the survival of their specie and use other species to that end. The only form of life to dream up the notion of “rights” is the human specy and for most of us it is the survival of humans that is paramount.

Posted all over the Internet on 11th April was the comment QUOTE: The proposal for the United Nations to accept “ecocide” as a fifth “crime against peace”, which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins UNQUOTE. I thought that the “significant human-made global climate change” scam was mad – but this one takes the biscuit!

On 11th April I sent a comment to Polly’s “The Lazy Environmentalist - Trees Have Rights Too” blog but it hasn’t appeared yet on her “Launch of thisisecocide.com” thread (Note 9) so I attach it as an appendix here. Her thread starts QUOTE: Mass destruction of ecosystems is a crime on a par with genocide, which is why I am calling on the UN with another proposal. This time it is to put in place ecocide as a 5th Crime Against Peace. UNQUOTE

This comment applies equally to all of her supporters. Maybe they’d all like to take a look at the A/V of a dead tree’s funeral (Note 10) arranged by Americans who appear to share Polly’s feeling about trees rights. This is how people like myself view her and her supporters.

NOTES:
1) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_peace#cite_note-black_book-0
2) see http://www.redstate.com/veronicaestrada/2010/04/11/uns-ecocide-a-wake-up-call-worse-than-cap-and-trade/
3) see http://www.theecologist.org/investigations/natural_world/270378/visionaries_polly_higgins.html
4) see http://www.gaiafoundation.org/
5) see http://www.ukela.org/
6) see http://www.haldane.org/socialistlawyer/54/climate_change54.php
7) see http://www.gaiafoundation.org/documents/WildLawWkshp2009.pdf
8) see http://www.treeshaverightstoo.com/news/2009/10/16/21-10-09-gaia-foundation-evening-wild-law-in-action/
9) see http://thelazyenvironmentalist.blogspot.com/2010/04/launch-of-thisisecocidecom.html
10) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygY57FdRcr0&feature=player_embedded
11) see http://www.mongabay.com/04strangler_fig.htm

Best regards,

APPENDIX: - comment submitted to Note 9 above but not yet posted by Polly.
QUOTE:
Polly, although I have great respect for those who do their bit to protect the environment and try very hard myself to leave it as I find it, don't you think that it is time for you to have a re-appraisal of your stance and your actual lifestyle. You are in danger of letting your enthusiasm turn you into a blind extremist akin to religious extremists.

The vast majority of us reject extremism, including the extremism within the UN, the real agenda of which is:
- redistribution of wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies,
- establishment of a framework for global government,
- enhancement of the finances of a privileged few.

Do you support those agenda? More importantly, have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, you are a hypocrite? Looking at your different blogs, your presentations and the other information that you present about yourself leads me to think that you might be. Let me present a few examples of why I am suspicious about your motives when making that ludicrous claim that “trees have rights too”. How many trees had their “rights” denied because of the following:

- (Note 1); manufacturing the hair products, the make-up, the clothes, the education and training, the living accommodation in London, all of those interests (like wine, long walks in accessible countryside)
- (Note 2); clearing that lovely field, travelling there from London, manufacturing those walking shoes/boots, clothes, rucksacks
- (Note 3); that “remarkable journey” to Edinburgh in June 2008, not to forget that journey to Northern Ireland to address the United Nations on the need for a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights,
- (Note 4); travelling to Anchorage, Alaska in May 2009,
- (Note 5); travelling to Munich in July 2009 to the Desertec extravaganza
- (Note 6); last but by no means least that journey to the UN’s COP15 fiasco in Copenhagen.

I am sure there is much more travelling (and use of all of those wonderful communications and other facilities that humans have developed at the expense of trees rights) to be done, all in the name of protecting the rights of those trees. By the way, why stop at trees. There are all of those poor rats, mice, scorpions, snakes, mosquitoes, termites, etc, that need their rights protecting. Oh dear, I nearly forgot, don’t germs, viruses, etc. have rights too.

After due consideration Polly, I’m almost convinced – that you might well be a hypocrite.

I have posted a comment relating to this on the site of Senator Steve Fielding which you may be interested in seeing. See Page 51 comment # 756 of http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/795/P750/

NOTES:
1) see http://www.blogger.com/profile/06426446366175195351
2) see http://wildlaw-pp.blogspot.com/
3) see http://thelazyenvironmentalist.blogspot.com/2009/07/matrix-of-life.html
4) see http://thelazyenvironmentalist.blogspot.com/2009/05/redrawing-map-of-world.html
5) see http://thelazyenvironmentalist.blogspot.com/2009/07/desertec-industrial-initiative.html
6) see http://thelazyenvironmentalist.blogspot.com/2009/12/planetary-slavery-alive-and-well-in.html

Best regards, Pete Ridley
PS: If you don’t feel like posting my comment that’s OK. I’ll put it on other blogs.

UNQUOTE.

Politics, The Media & The UK's “Climategate” Enquiries

2010-04-07T07:03:00.000-07:00

On 31st March the BBC News TV channel enthusiastically announced the Commons Science and Technology Committee’s whitewash of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit’s scientific practices. I then published my article “Can There be an Independent Investigation of IPCC?” (Note 6) concentrating on the UK enquiries - although there are others going on elsewhere which may be less of a whitewash, e.g. in the USA.

An associate asked today QUOTE: are people in the UK all that aware of what has happened in UAE & Hadley CRU ? Are they aware of the fuss that it has caused in the rest of the world ? Are they aware of the Enquiries/Reviews, the results of the 1st & the world's reactions to these ? How much of it is driven by political expediency & need to retain 'integrity' of the CRU data ? UNQUOTE. Here is a summary of what I found about UK mainstream media reporting of the ludicrously short (one month) Commons Science & Technology Committee enquiry into the UEA CRU’s “Climategate” activities.

Other than their presenting chosen facts about the committee’s expected political whitewash report, here are some additional comments from components of the mainstream media that I found particularly interesting.

The Telegraph’s (Note 1) James Delingpole on 31st March:-
In contrast to environment correspondent Louise Gray’s laclustre article “University of East Anglia refused to share information on global warming” on 30th March, Dellingpole’s article “'Lying, cheating, defrauding taxpayer are all OK' announces panel of MPs” ignores the political propaganda and addresses the real issue. He concludes QUOTE: How entirely typical that a body representing the most corrupt, money-grubbing taxpayer-funded roach pit of the lot – our Houses of Parliament – should have found it so very easy to exonerate the Climategate scientists of all wrongdoing.UNQUOTE.

Timesonline’s Ben Webster, Environment Editor on 31st March (Note 2):-
In “Climate-row professor Phil Jones should return to work, say MPs” Webster says QUOTE: An MP on the committee told The Times that, before this month’s public hearing, the members had agreed not to question Professor Jones too closely because of his fragile condition. UNQUOTE.

The Guardian’s Fred Pearce, environment writer, on 31st March (Note 3):-
In “Hacked climate email inquiry cleared Jones but serious questions remain” he said QUOTE: Climate inquiry has dodged key questions in its rush to clear the name of the harangued head of the Climate Research Unit. .. Phil Jones is the fall guy for the wider failings that triggered the hacked climate email scandals. But at its hearings into the affair a month ago, the Commons science committee was kind to the director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU), but short-tempered with his grinning sidekick, the University of East Anglia's vice-chancellor Edward Acton. ., Jones gets the benefit of a few doubts. At their final drafting meeting last week, only the MPs' in-house cryptosceptic, Graham Stringer, voted against a sentence saying that, on the evidence they had, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". Instead, the university administration gets chastised for presiding over a culture of secrecy and possible illegality within the CRU that led to a public relations meltdown UNQUOTE.

Regarding the second of the three UK enquiries, that for the UEA, chaired by Lord Russell, Pearce more significantly said QUOTE: The MPs agree.. that Russell's inquiry should conduct his interviews and hearings "in public wherever possible". Unless Russell has spoken to nobody in the past four months, he evidently is not doing that. They say his inquiry should "publish all written evidence on its website as soon as possible". Yesterday, a month after the deadline for submissions closed, none had been posted.
.. the MPs have given him long list of things to investigate or rule on, such as deciding whether emails were deleted in breach of FOI law .. coming up with rules for CRU on sharing data .. deciding whether Jones "subverted the peer-review process" .. a test of how truly independent the Russell inquiry is will be whether it gives the UEA an advance copy. This story is far from over yet UNQUOTE.

The Guardian article and others by Pearce are worth further reading.

BBC Environment analyst Roger Harrabin’s blog on 31st March (Note 4):-
In “Climate science must be more open, say MPs” he says QUOTE: But Dr Evan Harris, science spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, disagreed and said that scientific inquiries were, by their nature, sceptical. Setting up oppositional positions within a committee tended to hinder its work, he said. 'Scientists are human'
Labour MP Doug Naysmith said he hoped the committee's report would prove to be a "corrective" to climate sceptic hysteria UNQUOTE.
Harrabin did give the last word to sceptics with QUOTE: Climate sceptics on the sceptic website Bishop Hill ridiculed the MPs' findings. One asked: "Is it April fools already?" Another commented: "No-one with half [a] brain cell will view this conclusion as anything other than a hasty and not very subtle establishment cover-up." UNQUOTE.

BBC Science Correspondent Susan Watts on 31st March (Note 5):-
In “Why 'Climategate' may be good for climate science” she says QUOTE: The MPs acknowledge throughout their report that they have had to rush through this inquiry, with no time to explore all of the questions that they might have wished to UNQUOTE.
She also deals with the more general need for openness about political activities. It concludes QUOTE: Importantly, the MPs threw down a challenge for lawmakers under the next government, post election. They want a change in the Freedom of Information laws themselves. At the moment if someone breaches the FoI Act, but this comes to light more than six months later, they cannot be prosecuted. The committee found prima facie evidence that CRU has breached the FoI Act, but it appears to be too late for prosecutions. This needs resolving, the MPs say, and want the law itself revised whatever the outcome for the CRU. A neat ending then, if the machinery of FoI itself gets a shake up now that it has dealt with MPs and their expenses and climate scientists and their data UNQUOTE.

There is always clear bias in support of the UN’s propaganda about our use of fossil fuels causing catastrophic global climate change in the reports by the BBC but one comment from 31st March is worth repeating QUOTE: There remain plenty of questions for the other two teams. Sir Muir Russell's UEA inquiry into how CRU operated, and the other under Lord Oxburgh, which will examine any implications for climate science itself.
The MPs acknowledge throughout their report that they have had to rush through this inquiry, with no time to explore all of the questions that they might have wished to UNQUOTE. Of course, the question still remains “Can There be an Independent Investigation of IPCC?” (Note 6).

In conclusion, I see the only useful comment coming out of this enquiry was the call by the committee that the Freedom of Information Act’s time bar of 6 months after the offence to be removed. As for awareness among the public, the information was made available in the media with each component demonstrating expected bias but the impression that I get from discussions with friends and family is that the majority have far more important matters to worry about. Even the politicians no longer seem to consider that global climate change is “the greatest global challenge of our time”. Political interest has moved on to greener pastures since December 2009 and the UN’s COP15 fiasco in Copenhagen.

The most reassuring thing is that among the interested general public, the overwhelming majority reject the UN’s propaganda. The comments by readers of the media articles demonstrate this quite clearly and not only in the most popular UK newspaper the Mail (despite its weak commentary on the committee’s findings – Note 7). Hopefully this will be reflected in the voting at the general election. Politicians of all of the three major parties have paid lip service to the UN’s propaganda. Only the smaller parties like UKIP have been prepared to speak out against it.

NOTES:
1) see http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100032293/lying-cheating-defrauding-taxpayer-are-all-ok-announces-panel-of-mps/
2) see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7081921.ece
3) see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/31/hacked-climate-email-inquiry-phil-jones
4) see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8595483.stm
5) see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2010/03/why_climate_science_must_becom.html
6) see http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/03/can-there-be-independent-investigation.html
7) see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262403/Climategate-university-condemned-unacceptable-culture-secrecy.html

Best regards,

CHANGE IN GREENPEACE’S POLITICAL TACTICS

2010-04-06T05:10:00.001-07:00

Greenpeace purports to be a believer in using peaceful action to influence political and public opinion, but it looks as though that claim may be shown to have little substance. This is mainly because of the fact that since the revelations of Climategate and the subsequent and incessant IPCC-gates people around the globe are starting to realise just how much of a confidence trick the UN and its supporters are trying to pull with the claim than humans are causing catastrophic global climate change through using fossil fuels. Greenpeace fanatics are becoming more and more frustrated, with the threat of punitive action being taken against those of us who dare to reject their doctrine.

There has been a lot of Internet reaction recently about a two-part article on the Greenpeace blog “Will the real ClimateGate please stand up?” (Notes 1 & 2) by Gene Hashmi from (Note 3) QUOTE: .. Bio Sandalista. Climber. Bluesman. Writer. Hippie Ninja. Father. Sometimes all at once UNQUOTE. In Part 2 of the article Gene concludes QUOTE: We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few. UNQUOTE and this has been highlighted by sceptics and used to suggest that Greenpeace is encouraging law-breaking (even terrorist activities). An insert to that article says QUOTE: Gene's blog entry is about encouraging PEACEFUL civil disobedience - the kind of peaceful methods that liberated Gene's country (India) from imperialism. Peaceful direct action is part of our core values. Hear Gene talk about his own activism... FYI - Press release about the 2007 protest is here. -- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer) UNQUOTE

I have taken a deeper look into this and conclude that Andrew, recognising the bad press that was bound to follow the article, is simply trying to divert attention from those final paragraphs. These start with QUOTE: Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light: "The politicians have failed. Now it's up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It's not working. We need an army of climate outlaws." .. UNQUOTE. If it wasn’t for that starting quote about “an army of climate outlaws” then the closing “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.” would not be so ominous. Although “a rider on horseback” provides a link in to Greenpeace International’s Brian Fitzgerald, I cannot find anything to confirm that Fitzgerald made that comment (can anyone help on that?).

My initial read of Gene’s article led me to believe that too much was being read into it and Gene was simply a misguided but peaceful environmentalist who has convinced himself that humans are causing significant global climate change through using fossil fuels. He is so convinced of this that he was prepared to go to jail for his cause. OK, he may have broken some Indian law when climbing a 260ft chimney at a coal-fired power station but I don’t recognise this as a serious terrorist threat. Looking more closely into it, I have changed my mind and recognise Gene’s comments as being a genuine threat of violence. It may well be a threat that he would not actually act upon but it is a clear threat and an encouragement to others to act, which Greenpeace should not be defending but should instead be rejecting out-of hand.

In the video (Note 2) there are comments by Gene and five other Indians who did the same 260ft tower climbing stunt.. It is noticeable that all of them are relative youngsters who can have no real personal experience of climate change. They may well have experienced changing weather conditions year-on-year but no more than that. None of them claim to be scientists, so can only have arrived at their opinions on claimed human-made climate change because they have accepted what they have been told by other environmental activists. This doesn’t make them bad people, only misguided. It would be wrong to brand them as being vicious law-breakers because of it.

The actions of these six environmentalist was trivial and endangered only themselves. Other actions by Greenpeace are far more sinister, one of which is their attempt to whitewash Gene’s article and another is their policy of refusing to debate the scientific uncertainties which form the fragile foundation of their faith.

NOTES:
1) see http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/03/will_the_real_climategate_plea.html - Part 1
2) see http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html - Part 2
3) see http://twitter.com/genehashmi

Best regards,

THE LATEST UK (& AUSTRALIAN) SHENANNIGANS – ELECTIONEERING

2010-04-05T10:19:00.000-07:00

The last few days have seen an intensification of the electioneering propaganda by the three major UK political parties, so let’s take a closer look at some of the empty promises being made by our not-so-honourable representatives. (If you’re puzzled by that last phrase I remind you of the politicians expenses scandal so beautifully exposed by the Daily Telegraph - Note 1. The bottom line for me on that one is that regardless of whether or not a particular PM personally abused the expenses/allowances system, they all new what was going on, did nothing to stop it therefore were all culpable).

You may recall that in the months leading up to the UN’s COP15 climate change fiasco in Copenhagen last December there was significant global intensification of political propaganda about what was claimed to be “the greatest global challenge of our time”. These precise words or similar were used to describe climate change by Gordon Brown (17th December - Note 2), David Milliband (Oct/Nov 2006 – Note 3) Baroness Shephard of Northwold (6th December 2007 - Note 4) ( Margaret Beckett (26th March 2006 - Note 5), Nick Clegg (23rd Sept 2009 – Note 6)

Similar words were also used by Australian PM Kevin Rudd at the annual summit of South Pacific leaders (6th August 2009 – Note 7), Ms Hilde Frafjord Johnson, Norway’s Minister of International Development, back in 2002 (Note 8) and by the UN (Note 9), but that long time ago it was QUOTE: Eradicating poverty is the greatest global challenge facing the world today UNQUOTE. For David Cameron QUOTE: the greatest challenge this country faces today is reversing the social breakdown we see all around us UNQUOTE (18th June 2007 - Note 10)

Of course, just like Hitler, our politicians recognised the importance of indoctrinating out young folks, more open to persuasion than more mature individuals. Not only were today’s youth targeted (Note1) but even our children (Note 12 – but this is more truthful Note 13)

No less an expert in global climate processes and drivers than Prince Charles said QUOTE: Climate change is the greatest threat facing mankind UNQUOTE (6th May 2009 – Note 14).

UK (and Australian) political opinion seems to have changed in the last four months. Listening to the current electioneering propaganda it seems that climate change is now seen as being far less important, although lip service is being paid to it from time to time (usually only squeezed in as an afterthought because all parties need those taxes would be much more readily paid by a conned electorate).

Talking about being conned, I don’t think that many will be conned by the “hand on heart” promises made today by Ed Balls at the NUS conference. It may have appeased the teachers but I believe that the voting public are now much more aware of the reason why the UK is one of the last developed economies to be still in the depths of a recession. It’s time that Labour (new of old versions) recognised the relevance of basic household economics. If you borrow in order to spend on what you can’t afford and don’t really need then the time for payback comes eventually and you’ll be hurt by your recklessness.

Of course, a word of warning is needed. Once the elections are over it will again be full speed ahead with money raising taxation schemes like taxing greenhouse gas (especially carbon dioxide) emissions. How long will it take before they start hinting at a taxing us on our – how shall I put it - flatulating?

NOTES:
1) see http://parliament.telegraph.co.uk/mpsexpenses/home
2) see http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/coppm/coppm.aspx
3) see http://www.cer.org.uk/articles/50_miliband.html
4) see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/71206-0003.htm#07120641000004
5) see http://forum.downsizer.net/viewtopic.php?t=11613&start=0
6) see http://www.libdems.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?title=Speech:_Nick_Clegg_delivers_his_speech_to_Autumn_Conference&pPK=8751593d-e92b-47fa-b6d3-61cd48e7d55d
7) see http://www.thefreelibrary.com/United+states+:+Small+Pacific+islands+call+for+big+carbon+cuts.-a0205209128
8) see http://www.grida.no/publications/et/ep4/page/2632.aspx
9) see http://www.un.org/jsummit/html/documents/summit_docs/131302_wssd_report_reissued.pdf
10) see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1948680.ece
11) see http://www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/en/ambition/achievements/december/youth-question-time
12) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dOfBEm5DZU
13) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkPQU3UDBM0
14) see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1177524/Prince-Charles-Harrison-Ford-star-film-save-worlds-rainforests-needs-happy-ending.html

Best regards, Pete Ridley

CAN THERE BE AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF IPCC?

2010-03-31T11:26:00.001-07:00

As expected, following the “Climategate” revelations arising from the leaking of EUA CRU files back in November, the limited enquiry by the UK’s Commons Science and Technology Committee has ended up as a whitewash as far as the science is concerned (Note 1). The report says QUOTE: The MPs' report acknowledged that Prof Jones "must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew - or perceived - were motivated by a desire to seek to undermine his work" .. "Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the reputation of Professor Jones and the CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is induced by human activity UNQUOTE.

Is anyone surprised at that last sentence? That was bound to be the conclusion drawn by UK politicians since virtually all of them supported the introduction of our ludicrous 2008 Climate Change Act. (DEFRA was proud to announce QUOTE: The Climate Change Act 2008 makes the UK the first country in the world to have a legally binding long-term framework to cut carbon emissions. UNQUOTE – Note 2). I fully expect the enquiries by the CRU or the IPCC to reach similar conclusions, not because of the evidence but because of the real political agenda – but maybe I’m just a sceptic.

On 10th Feb. the CRU issued a memorandum summarising the “independent” review by Muir Russell that it had announced on 3rd Dec. The memorandum also announced that they would set up QUOTE: an additional scientific assessment of CRU’s key scientific publications; an external reappraisal of the science itself. The Royal Society has agreed to assist the University in identifying assessors with the requisite experience, standing and independence. UNQUOTE but how "independent" of political or financial influence are the members recommended by the Royal Society?

The most recent CRU bulletin announced QUOTE: ..we decided to augment the Muir Russell review with an independent assessment of CRU’s key publications in the areas which have been most subject to comment. We are delighted that .. Lord Oxburgh has agreed to chair this very strong independent panel ..” UNQUOTE.

That panel may well be “independent” of the UEA CRU however is it independent of the UN’s political influence in support of the “consensus” opinion on The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis or of financial influence? Let’s take a closer look at those panel members.

CRU announced the panel as:

- Lord Oxburgh, a former chair of the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, would chair but didn’t mention that Lord Oxburgh was president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association in 2009, when he said that the USA, China and India, having some of the largest coal reserves, would be using that coal and the measures used to mange the emissons must include CCS (and the West would likely have to pick up the bill).

- Huw Davies, Professor of Physics at the Institute for Atmospheric & Climate Science but overlooked that he is a member of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), and on the executive committee of the the UN’s well-funded WMO THORPEX programmes. The NERC is totally committed to The Hypothesis and fully supports the UN’s IPCC. It is worth noting that Professor Davies’ associated Professor Alan Thorpe, NERC Chief Executive, was a founding co-chair of the WMO’s THORPEX Programme and is an assessor on the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs's (Defra) Science Advisory Council.

- Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology UNQUOTE; is quoted extensively as supporting the opinion that increased warming of the oceans due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases causes increased hurricane/storm intensities and occurrences. The Tyndal Cenre for Climate Change Research report “Climate Change and Disaster Losses Workshop” May 2006 report claimed that he concluded: "My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential". In August 2005, just two weeks before Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, Emanuels article in ‘Nature’ was published, pointing out, that he had discovered statistical evidence that hurricanes were indeed affected by global warming. As recently as 15th Feb Professor Emanuel posted an article in the Boston Globe which shows that he fully supports The Hypothesis.

- Lisa Graumlich, Director of the School of Natural Resources and the Environment at The University of Arizona is another of those experts in reconstructing ancient temperature changes from tree-rings. In a WILD9 plenary session on Global Connectivity A/V presentation Professor Graumlich clearly demonstrates her acceptance of The Hypothesis, the evidence offered by the IPCC and the need to mitigate against its effects. Professor Graumlich also features in those CRU “Climategate” E-mails.

- Herbert Huppert, Professor of Theoretical Geophysics at the University of Cambridge but didn’t mention that he is involved in research into various aspects of fluid mechanics and has interests in research into carbon capture. Comments that he made during an interview in Aug. 2008 indicate that he accepts The Hypothesis.

- Michael Kelly, Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge but chose not to mention that he is also Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department for Communities and Local Government, since July 2006. It is significant that Cambridge University is very closely involved with the production of the UN’s IPCC Assessment Report AR4.

David Hand, Professor of Statistics in the Department of Mathematics at Imperial College UNQUOTE about whom I can find nothing to suggest that he is other than independent of the UN’s political influence regarding climate change.

On the basis of the above only Professor Hand may be “Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others”. The remainder could well be exposed to such influence.

The Muir Russell review, which was also proclaimed by the CRU on 3rd December to be “independent” is scheduled to be completed “in the Spring” but I have not found any recent report on its status. Do any of you have an update on this?

In my previous comment on this subject I promised to look at what’s behind the InterAcademy Council (IAC) to see if it can be any more independent than the CRU enquiries.

The UN, panicking over the damage done by all of those IPCC-gates, is proposing to have an “independent” enquiry by a panel of members chosen by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) but how independent is the IAC? It would be nice to hope that enquiries into all of those damning IPCC-gates would be independent, open and honest, but do any of us really expect that from any enquiry set up for politicians (and financiers) by politicians (and financiers) or by those dominated by political (or financial) influence? Let’s take a look at what’s behind the IAC organisation to see if it is any more independent than the University of East Anglia CRU’s current “independent” enquiries.

The IAC was founded by The InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP – Note 3) which QUOTE:..is a global network consisting of over 100 national science academies. .. Founded in 1993, its stated goal is to help member academies advise the public on the scientific aspects of critical global issues UNQUOTE. To understand the motivations of the IAC we have to understand first those of the IAP. The motives relating to the activities of the UN’s IPCC are found in its various statements (Note 4)

For example, buried in the IAP 1994 report (Note 5) “Population – joint statement signed by fifty-eight of the World’s Scientific Academies (1994)” QUOTE: The Problem .. Increasing greenhouse gas emissions .. indicate how the natural systems are being pushed ever closer to their limits. UNQUOTE. Then again, in its 1996 report “THE CHALLENGES OF AN URBAN WORLD” it says QUOTE: .. The rapid expansion of computational power over the past two decades has permitted the construction of intricately detailed models of the behavior of the Earth's atmosphere on both global and regional scales. These models have improved steadily in recent decades and are now in worldwide use, proving better and more sophisticated understanding of the world's climate system. … parks may serve as lungs to process vehicle emissions .. UNQUOTE.

In its May 2000 report “transition to sustainability in the 21st century: the contribution of science and technology” is said QUOTE: Global trends in climate change .. are growing concerns .. Humanity now can change the environment on a global scale, as it has with the composition of Earth's atmosphere and may be doing with its climate .. UNQUOTE

Also in these statements are indications of the motivations of the IAP with regard to UN agenda in aid of which The Hypothesis propaganda originated, i.e:
- redistribution of wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies,
- establishment of a framework for global government.
but these are not relevant to this thread.

NOTES:
1) see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8595483.stm and http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2010/03/video-phil-jones-at-the-uk-parliamentary-select-committee/
2) see http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climate/legislation/
3) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterAcademy_Panel_on_International_Issues
4) see http://www.interacademies.net/CMS/About/3143.aspx
5) see http://www.interacademies.net/?id=3547

Best regards

Bay of Bengal and Rising sea levels

2010-03-26T12:38:00.000-07:00

Since 24th march the Internet has been awash with reports about climate change causing catastrophic flooding in the region around the Bay of Bengal, the implication being that this is being caused by our use of fossil fuels. As usual, this is pure propaganda pushed relentlessly by the UN’s IPCC. The region is at the boundary of the Indo-Australian tectonic plate which scientists agree has been moving northwards for the past 50M years and is now being forced beneath the Eurasian plate. It is the sinking of the earth beneath the Bay of Bengal rather than the sea level rising which is causing the problem. Similar ground movements are occurring elsewhere around the globe and have nothing to do with our use of fossil fuels.

It is reported that (link) QUOTE: When two adjacent plates collide, the one with ocean crust tends to lodge under the other. Portions of individual plates that extend down into the mantle and under an adjacent plate are called subducting slabs. .. the subduction zone between the Indo-Australian and Eurasian plate borders UNQUOTE.

In another report (link) QUOTE: The north-east side of the Australian plate forms a subducting boundary with the Eurasian plate on the borders of the Indian Ocean from Bangladesh, to Myanmar (former Burma) to the south-west of Indonesian islands of Sumatra and Borneo. UNQUOTE

In "Indo-Australian Plate. A Dictionary of Earth Sciences. 1999” (link) science writers Ailsa and Michael Allaby say QUOTE: One of the present-day major lithospheric plates, which is having new material added to its south and south-west along the Carlsberg Ridge and the south-east Indian Rise, but its other margins are the collision zone of the Himalayan orogenic belt, subduction zones (e.g. in the E. Indies), or transform faults (e.g. the Alpine Fault in New Zealand). It is thought this plate may now be breaking into two separate plates along the line of the 90° E Ridge. UNQUOTE.

Related to this natural occurrence within the earth’s crust, for which humans have no responsibility and over which no control, are catastrophes such as the Asia 2004 earthquake and tsunami disaster (link) QUOTE: The India Plate is part of the great Indo-Australian Plate, which underlies the Indian Ocean and Bay of Bengal, and is drifting northeast at an average of 6 cm/year (2 inches/year). The India Plate meets the Burma Plate (which is considered a portion of the great Eurasian Plate) at the Sunda Trench. At this point the India Plate subducts the Burma Plate which includes the Nicobar Islands, the Andaman Islands and northern Sumatra. The India Plate slips deeper and deeper beneath the Burma Plate until the increasing temperature and pressure turns the subducting edge of the India Plate into magma which eventually pushes the magma above it out through the volcanoes (see Volcanic arc). This process is interrupted by the locking of the plates for several centuries until the build up of stress causes their release resulting in a massive earthquake and tsunami. The volcanic activity that results as the Indo-Australian plate subducts the Eurasian plate has created the Sunda Arc. UNQUOTE.

Another excellent article on the disappearance of islands in this area is presented on the Climate Change Fraud site (link).

Is it at all surprising that sea levels are changing in relation to earth surface levels? Of course this change in relative levels, like any other fact of life, is at the mercy of distortion by politicians, environmentalists, financial investors, etc. for propaganda to support whatever real agenda they have.

Best regards, Pete

Ocean acidification and coral reefs

2010-03-26T11:32:00.000-07:00

Growth of Reef Corals and Sea Grass Around Shallow Water Geothermal Vents

Another of the IPCC-gate scares has been commented on recently, this one being the scare over increased atmospheric CO2 from our use of fossil fuels causing global ocean acidification leading to the destruction of coral reefs like the Australian Great Barrier Reef. Dr. Walter Starck (link), QUOTE: received a PhD in marine science from the University of Miami in 1964. He has over 40 years worldwide experience in reef studies and his work has encompassed the discovery of much of the basic nature of reef biology. UNQUOTE Dr. Starck draws attention to the evidence that shows that corals live happily within ocean environments where much higher than normal concentrations of CO2 exist, i.e. in the vicinity of geothermal vents.

He says (link) QUOTE: A never ending litany of purported environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef has maintained a generous flow of funding for several generations of researchers and the reef salvation industry now brings about $100 million annually into the local economy in North Queensland. Although none of these threats has ever become manifest as a serious impact and all of the millions of dollars in research has never found any effective solution for anything, the charade never seems to lose credibility or support. The popular threat of the moment is ocean acidification from increasing atmospheric CO2. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority cite research claiming that coral calcification is in rapid decline from acidification despite the obvious contradiction of surprisingly rapid recovery from storm and bleaching damage. They also propagate predictions that oceanic pH may decrease (i.e. become less alkaline) by as much as 0.4 of a pH unit by 2100 and that this will be disastrous for coral calcification. .. oceanic pH would then be about 7.8 ..

Geological evidence indicates they thrived when CO2 was at 5-10 times current levels. This is far higher than we might reach before running out of fossil fuels. In some areas modern day reefs with healthy corals flourish where the pH is as low as 7.8 and disaster for the GBR at this level is more the perverse hope of alarmists than it is a probability. .. The Climategate affair and its ongoing revelations have exposed a deep systemic corruption at the heart of climate science. Unfortunately this corruption is not restricted to climate science but is endemic across the environmental sciences which have become more of an ideology and a scam than they are a science. It is time for society to wake up and begin to realise that we have been repeatedly and blatantly lied to. .. UNQUOTE.

The ICECAP blog (link) provides excellent bulletins on the sceptical scientists’ counters to the climate science propaganda presented by the UN through its IPCC, with the validity of the sceptical arguments are becoming increasingly recognised by the global community. ICECAP presents articles and opinions from many of the sceptics who are experts in many of the disciplines that are contribute to our better understanding of those highly complex global climate processes and drivers (link).

Regards, Pete

Politicization of Climate Change & CO2

2010-03-25T13:32:00.000-07:00

You may be interested in looking at this paper (click on the “Sundry Papers” page below).

Abstract

For several decades vested interest groups of politicians, financial investors, environmentalists. etc have been distorting the inadequately understood processes and drivers of global climate change in order to further their own causes. Because of the numerous scientific uncertainties surrounding these processes and drivers scientists cannot reliably predict global, regional or even local climates, computer models have significant limitations, hence the model projections are flawed. This makes global climate change an ideal basis for political propaganda.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change (IPCC) is a politically motivated organisation, not a scientific one. The IPCC's politicised assessment reports distort the few elements of science that are reasonably understood and speculate in those areas of the science which still require considerable research. The IPCC set a deadline of December 2005 for papers accepted for consideration in the most recent assessment report on the science (Assessment Report AR4, 2007). This required papers to be accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal by approximately 15th December 2005, consequently AR4 did not take into consideration research suggesting that increasing atmospheric CO2 content has an insignificant affect on global climate. The AR4 summaries for policy makers are merely a political interpretation The proposed reductions in consumption of fossil fuels will do nothing about controlling climate change but will horrendously impact the economic well-being of many of the world's most deprived communities.

Best regards, Pete.

Much More Scary than Human-made Global Climate Change Shenanigans

2010-03-25T13:14:00.001-07:00

For any of you who are interested in a genuine scare try this article “How Edmund de Rothschild Managed to Let 179 Governments Pay Him for Grasping Up to 30% of the Earth” (Note 1).on the Euro-Med site. It is all about global government, just like the UN’s dangerous/catastrophic human-made global climate change propaganda.

It covers the subject of implementation strategies for developing a global government starting with QUOTE: 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 IMF out of thin air, and with the guarantee of our governments. UNQUOTE. “Powers that be” such as Rothschild, Maurice Strong, David Rockefeller, William Pizer, James A Baker III, Oleg Deripaska, George Soros, Obama, even The Devil, are all mentioned in the article.

Have a read as I’m sure that you’ll find it interesting.

NOTE 1) see http://euro-med.dk/?p=13656

Best regards, Pete R.

Are Politicians Competent

2010-03-24T13:17:00.000-07:00

Without inspired leaders and competent managers an enterprise will fail to be competitive. Countries can be likened to very large enterprises, so do they have the required inspiration and competence? Let’s look at one example of a developed western country that is failing to be competitive – Australia (I’ll explain more about why I’ve singled out Australia during the development of my “Home Page”).

An Australian E-mailed the following item to me today and I think it appropriate to quote it here on the UK’s Budget Day. Does anyone have similar statistics for out political representatives?

******************* QUOTE ***************
I pass this on for you to consider. Regardless of your political leanings, these facts need your consideration. Quoted by : Ross Greenwood of Money News
(More on Greenwood: http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_homepage&id=28&Itemid=323)

Right now the Federal Government is at pains to tell everyone - including us the mug-punters and the International Monetary Fund that it will not exceed its own, self-imposed, borrowing limits. How much? $200 billion. And here's a worry. If you work in a bank's money market operation; or if you are a politician; the millions turn into billions and it rolls off the tip of the tongue a bit too easily. But every dollar that is borrowed, some time, has to be repaid. By you, by me and by the rest of the country.

Just after 5 o'clock tonight I did a bit of maths for Jason Morrison. But it's so staggering its worth repeating now. First though; here's what Chairman Rudd has been saying about - what he calls - these temporary borrowings. Remember Those Words : Temporary Deficit. but the total Government debt could end up around $200 billion. So here's a very basic calculation ... I used a home loan calculator to work it out ... it's that simple. $200 billion is $200,000 million (using the US version of billion).
The current 10 year Government bond rate is 4.67 per cent. I worked the loan out over a period of 20 years.

Now here's where it gets scary .... really scary. The repayments on $200 billion come to more than one and a quarter billion dollars - every month - for 20 years. It works out we - as taxpayers - will be repaying $154 billion in interest and principal every year ... $733 for every man woman and child - every year. The total interest bill over the 20 years is - get this - $108 billion. Remember, this is a Government that just 18 months ago had NO debt . NO debt. In fact it had enough money to create the Future Fund to pay the
future liabilities of public servants' superannuation ... and it had enough to stick $20 billion into the Building Australia Fund last year ...

Money News Presenter, Ross Greenwood

Who were the dick-heads who voted these spin-doctoring bozo's into office?
________________________________

Alan Jones Comment - this is frightening: Hmmmmm??

He continues... a note that was sent to me which explains that the six leading members of the Government from Mr. Rudd down, the top six have a collective work experience of 181 years, but only 13 in the private sector.

We must take out of those 13 years the number that were spent as trade union lawyers, that total = 11, ergo, of the 181 years only two years were spent in the private sector.

So the people who will rack up a net Federal debt of a minimum of $188 billion, the highest in our history, have virtually no experience in business.

So out of those 181 years:

- no years spent running their own business
- no years spent starting their own business
- no years spent as a director of a family business or a company
- no years as a director of a public company
- no years in a senior position in a public company
- no years in a senior position in a private company
- no years working in corporate finance
- no years in corporate or business restructuring
- no years working in or with a bank
- no years of experience in the capital markets
- no years in a stock-broking firm
- no years in negotiating debt facilities with banks
- no years running a small business
- no years at the World Bank or IMF or OECD
- no years in Treasury or Finance.

But these people have plunged Australia into unprecedented debt, and now threaten to torpedo employee share schemes which they plainly don't understand.

Well, in a way you can't blame them. It's clear the electorate did not do their homework, because this Government is there by right.

If you have read this you may like to pass it on to your friends as you, they and I, will be repaying the above.

******************* UNQUOTE ***************

Best regards,