Is Climate Change really man-made?

[item8]

http://notrickszone.com/2012/06/03/wint ... -20-years/

Winter Hits Europe – Stockholm Has Coldest Day in 84 Years! Sweden Coldest Temperature In 20 Years!

By P Gosselin on 3. Juni 2012

Parts of Europe are being gripped by unusual cold, even though the calendar says it’s meteorological summer. Now children in Sweden are finding out what snow is like – in June! Strangest warming I’ve ever seen.

The English language The Local here writes that “Stockholm broke an 84-year-old cold record on Saturday, as the capital’s temperature only reached 6 degrees Celsius, the lowest June maximum daily temperature the city has seen since 1928.”

Indeed, you could be excused for thinking that the current chill is more like winter than summer. It was actually colder in the capital yesterday than on Christmas Eve. ‘The temperature was a degree lower than it was at Christmas in Stockholm, so it is colder. And it’s windier, too,’ said SMHI’s meteorologist Lisa Frost to newspaper Dagens Nyheter.”

Just two days ago The Local here reported that snow blanketed northern parts.

Residents in northern Sweden were forced to grab shovels rather than sun lotion on what was supposed to be the first day of summer, as much of the region was left covered in a thick blanket of snow on Friday. As much as 20 centimetres of thick, wet snow fell in parts of Västerbotten County, giving residents quite a shock when they woke up Friday morning.”

The mercury also dropped to minus 6 degrees Celsius in one town, making it the coldest June Sweden recording in 20 years. The Local adds:

The weather agency forecasts that the first weekend in June will feel more like the start of winter than the start of summer.”

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012 ... w-zealand/

Coldest Day On Record In Canterbury, New Zealand
Posted on June 9, 2012

Canterbury is finally thawing after a snowstorm which boasted the coldest day on record.

But the homeless are struggling to cope.

Last night in Christchurch, temperatures dropped to -2degC.

It was pitch black, bitterly cold, and “George”, as he wishes to be called, is heading home. He's not driving anywhere. He’s already home – in his van.

“It's not that I want to be like this all the time. It's just sometimes you've got work, and sometimes you don't,” he says.

George is embarrassed because most of his workmates, friends and family don't know he's living in a van.

The 56-year-old welder was forced out of his beloved home in Waitaki St after the earthquake last year.

“The place got really wrecked. There was only one door you could open in the house.”

It was pulled down. He couldn't afford the local rents, which skyrocketed. Suddenly, like so many others in Christchurch, he was homeless.

“I didn't really know where to go.”

So he bought the van.

“Got all the pots in there, plates. I use a little gas cooker from the gas place. But I hardly ever cook. I go to the fast food, fish and chips place – takeaways.”

Every night he parks at New Brighton beach around 8.30pm. He has his coffee, chats to the other homeless people, doing all he can to have a “normal life”.

“It is hard. It's extremely hard. You can't have a shower, and you have to go to the camping grounds. Council used to have showers but they have taken them away.”

This week has been particularly hard. Weather temperatures have dropped to record lows.

“When it was covered in snow I never got up until 12 o'clock. It was cold as.”

He is not the only one struggling. We drove around Christchurch, spotting similar blanketed-up vans and cars parked on the side of the road.

Snow still blankets the ground around them.

At night, George opts for a beanie, a sleeping bag and two duvets. Then it's lights out for another long, cold night.

Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Christchurch-hom ... z1xNIQrD5E

[item8]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ ... _junk.html

July 16, 2012
IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk
By Joseph L. Bast

On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had "complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world's science academies to provide advice to international bodies."

Hidden behind this seemingly routine update on bureaucratic processes is an astonishing and entirely unreported story. The IPCC is the world's most prominent source of alarmist predictions and claims about man-made global warming. Its four reports (a fifth report is scheduled for release in various parts in 2013 and 2014) are cited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and by national academies of science around the world as "proof" that the global warming of the past five or so decades was both man-made and evidence of a mounting crisis.

If the IPCC's reports were flawed, as a many global warming "skeptics" have long claimed, then the scientific footing of the man-made global warming movement -- the environmental movement's "mother of all environmental scares" -- is undermined. The Obama administration's war on coal may be unnecessary. Billions of dollars in subsidies to solar and wind may have been wasted. Trillions of dollars of personal income may have been squandered worldwide in campaigns to "fix" a problem that didn't really exist.

The "recommendations" issued by the IAC were not minor adjustments to a fundamentally sound scientific procedure. Here are some of the findings of the IAC's 2010 report.

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and "do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists -- a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers -- was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the "mainstream" of alarmist climate change thinking. "[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment's findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated," the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report "too political" (p. 25).

Really? Too political? We were told by everyone -- environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities -- that the IPCC reports were science, not politics. Now we are told that even the scientists involved in writing the reports -- remember, they are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves -- felt the summaries were "too political."

Here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the "consensus of scientists":

Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p. 25).

How can such a process possibly be said to capture or represent the "true consensus of scientists"?

Another problem documented by the IAC is the use of phony "confidence intervals" and estimates of "certainty" in the Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 27-34). Those of us who study the IPCC reports knew this was make-believe when we first saw it in 2007. Work by J. Scott Armstrong on the science of forecasting makes it clear that scientists cannot simply gather around a table and vote on how confident they are about some prediction, and then affix a number to it such as "80% confident." Yet that is how the IPCC proceeds.

The IAC authors say it is "not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty" (p. 34), a huge understatement. Unfortunately, the IAC authors recommend an equally fraudulent substitute, called "level of understanding scale," which is more mush-mouth for "consensus."

The IAC authors warn, also on page 34, that "conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of 'very high confidence' will have little substantive value." Yes, but that doesn't keep the media and environmental activists from citing them over and over again as "proof" that global warming is man-made and a crisis...even if that's not really what the reports' authors are saying.

Finally, the IAC noted, "the lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input" as well as "the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work. The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review" (p. 46).

Too bad, because these are both big issues in light of recent revelations that a majority of the authors and contributors to some chapters of the IPCC reports are environmental activists, not scientists at all. That's a structural problem with the IPCC that could dwarf the big problems already reported.

So on June 27, nearly two years after these bombshells fell (without so much as a raised eyebrow by the mainstream media in the U.S. -- go ahead and try Googling it), the IPCC admits that it was all true and promises to do better for its next report. Nothing to see here...keep on moving.

Well I say, hold on, there! The news release means that the IAC report was right. That, in turn, means that the first four IPCC reports were, in fact, unreliable. Not just "possibly flawed" or "could have been improved," but likely to be wrong and even fraudulent.

It means that all of the "endorsements" of the climate consensus made by the world's national academies of science -- which invariably refer to the reports of the IPCC as their scientific basis -- were based on false or unreliable data and therefore should be disregarded or revised. It means that the EPA's "endangerment finding" -- its claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and threat to human health -- was wrong and should be overturned.

And what of the next IPCC report, due out in 2013 and 2014? The near-final drafts of that report have been circulating for months already. They were written by scientists chosen by politicians rather than on the basis of merit; many of them were reviewing their own work and were free to ignore the questions and comments of people with whom they disagree. Instead of "confidence," we will get "level of understanding scales" that are just as meaningless.

And on this basis we should transform the world's economy to run on breezes and sunbeams?

In 2010, we learned that much of what we thought we knew about global warming was compromised and probably false. On June 27, the culprits confessed and promised to do better. But where do we go to get our money back?

Joseph L. Bast (jbast@heartland.org) is president of The Heartland Institute and an editor of Climate Change Reconsidered, a series of reports published by The Heartland Institute for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ ... z20oeQc2sx

[Disco_Destroyer]

So the next question is the cooling down to Geo Engineering or Mother Nature?

[Andrew.]

So the next question is the cooling down to Geo Engineering or Mother Nature?

How do you know it is cooling down world wide. And the erratic local weather we have had here recently is to be expected with climate change.

[Andrew.]

http://notrickszone.com/2012/06/03/wint ... stockholm- has-coldest-day-in-84-years-sweden-coldest-in-20-years/

Winter Hits Europe – Stockholm Has Coldest Day in 84 Years! Sweden Coldest Temperature In 20 Years!

By P Gosselin on 3. Juni 2012

http://www.thelocal.se/41060/20120526/
Just a week ago they were setting high temp records, see http://www.thelocal.se/41060/20120526/ -:

Swedes bask in record May highs

Published: 26 May 12 16:57 CET

Swedes were enjoying a real taste of summer heat on Friday with thermometers indicated record highs in some areas of the country, with more of the same promised over the weekend.

The mercury touched 29.8 degrees Celsius in Falun in central Sweden, the highest May temperature since records began in 1860.

[item8]

How do you know it is cooling down world wide.

The same way global warming alarmists "know" it was heating up. By looking at temperature readings from a variety of sources worldwide.

How do you know this "erratic local weather" is due to global warming? Sorry, I mean Climate Change. The "erratic" rainfall of June, creating a new record for the UK, was only a tiny amount more than that of a century ago and records show we have a similar sort of event routinely.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... re-drought see "UK yearly rainfall 1910 to 2010 "

The trouble with climate alarmists is they don't know the difference between climate and weather!

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/ukrainfall/

Like winter, changes in precipitation around summer are fairly uniform across the UK (Figure 6). With the exception of western Scotland, Northern Ireland, the westernmost tips of England, and the English east coast, there have been decreases in total rainfall, due to a combination of fewer wet days and less rain on wet days. When averaged across the UK, the time series of the contribution of heavy rainfall to the total summer rainfall (Figure 7) shows strong multi-decadal fluctuations. These strong variations make it difficult to identify any underlying trend. Osborn et al. (2000), for example, reported on the strong decrease of heavy summer rainfall from the peak around 1970s to the lows around 1995 (though they did note that rainfall earlier in the 20th century may have also been less intense). Recent measurements, however, have indicated a return to more normal conditions.

[Andrew.]

The trouble with climate alarmists is they don't know the difference between climate and weather! Very Happy

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/ukrainfall/

I'm not being an alarmist.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/ukrainfall/

UK rainfall and climate change
It is not yet possible to say whether these observed changes in UK rainfall characteristics can be attributed to man-made climate change, because (although they can have very significant impacts) the changes may not be outside the range of variation that could occur naturally. Nevertheless, it is possible to say that the changes are consistent with scenarios of man-made climate change, based on climate model simulations. These simulations indicate a trend towards larger rainfall totals during winter and reductions in summer (especially in southern UK), and an increase in the intensity of precipitation (especially during winter); see Jones and Reid (2001).

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/scen/

9: Climate Change Scenarios
Clare Goodess

Climate change scenarios provide the best-available means of exploring how human activities may change the composition of the atmosphere, how this may affect global climate, and how the resulting climate changes may impact upon the environment and human activities. They should not be viewed as predictions or forecasts of future climate, but as internally-consistent pictures of possible future climates, each dependent on a set of prior assumptions.

General circulation models (GCMs) (see Information Sheet 8 ) are complex, gridded, three-dimensional computer-based models of the climate system (developed from numerical weather forecasting models). They are considered to provide the best basis for the construction of climate change scenarios.

[item8]

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/07/is- ... ng-in.html

Monday, July 23, 2012
Is Galactic Perspective Missing in Climate Change Debate?
Nicholas West, Activist Post

The recorded history of mankind is incredibly limited vs. the vast time of Earth's existence and development. Those who question the man-made climate change argument remember well, for example, the U.N. and Al Gore's alarming hockey stick graph, which proved to be nothing more than a creative way to use a very limited data set to encourage a pre-determined conclusion.

It is for this reason that we should not jump about in panic when we are faced with "nature gone wild" scenarios (such as the current U.S. drought) presented as solid indicators of why we need immediate, knee-jerk actions to be taken. Perhaps a much-needed galactic perspective is required, as is presented in the video below.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFpYlXPr ... r_embedded#![/youtube]

Commentary continues below ...

Regardless of what position we take as we are hit from both sides by scientific arguments and deliberate obfuscation, it is the current set of proposals to combat global warming that should makes us all cringe when we see the vast array of globalist institutions that are literally invested in convincing us that humanity is the main source of this supposed problem.



It might ultimately be most effective to continue our investigation, and debate the findings; realize that we are living on a volatile planet that is subjected to the fluctuations of the cosmos; and in the meantime endeavor to prepare ourselves as best as possible to survive the widest range of potential outcomes.

[item8]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... -tomorrow/

97 per cent of the world to be destroyed tomorrow!

By James Delingpole Last updated: July 28th, 2012

No, not really. It's just my little joke, based on pretending to take people like the BBC's resident climate activists David Shukman, Richard Black and Roger Harrabin seriously.

I'll tell you what doesn't amuse me, though. Here I am in Wales, on my holidays, enjoying the semi-sun, and suddenly I get emails from and Tweets from sensible people on my side of the argument saying: "Help! Help! The BBC has gone mad for this story about the NASA satellite showing that 97 per cent of Greenland has melted and apparently it's 'unprecedented'. What do we do?"

Sigh. The right thing to do on occasions like this, I find, is to head straight for Watts Up With That? Unlike, say, the BBC, or the Guardian, or the Independent or most of the rest of the MSM, WUWT's posts are grounded in actual science and real world data.

And, yep, WUWT makes two very simple points.

1. 97 per cent of Greenland hasn't melted. (If it had we'd be underwater by now)

I’m sure our readers don’t really need to have it pointed out that the melting event did not melt 97% of Greenland’s ice sheet, but rather occurred over 97% of the surface area of the ice sheet and that the melting event has ended. We will undoubtedly be treated to that 97% statistic for a long time to come.

2. "Unprecedented" is not a strictly accurate adjective to describe something that has happened before.

I had to laugh at the title of their press release, where they cite “Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt”, then contradict themselves when the main researcher goes on to say “melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889“. Do these guys even read their own press releases? Climatologist Pat Michaels concurs saying: “Apparently NASA should start distributing dictionaries to the authors of its press releases.”

Quite. But the broader point to be made is this: don't believe what the BBC (or NASA or the Royal Society or the Guardian or the Independent or the National Academy of Sciences or the Prince of Wales or Al Gore or any US TV broadcaster that isn't Fox) tells you about global warming, the environment, climate change, polar bears, sustainability, ocean acidification, glacier melt or Greenland, EVER.

If it's still not clear to you why, then you must read this book.

But if you haven't the time to read Watermelons (or its US version Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors or its Australian version Killing The Earth To Save It), then here is the very simple explanation:

Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming is a hoax. There is no real-world evidence whatsoever to suggest that the modest warming of around 0.8 degrees C which the planet has experienced since 1850 is in any way dangerous or unprecedented. Even the suggestion that it is mostly man-made is at best moot, at worst long since falsified by real world data and superseded by more plausible theories

So next time you hear the BBC (or similar) spouting some unutterable nonsense about some amazingly shocking new event/piece of research/paper showing that the glaciers or Greenland are melting faster than before, that polar bears or coral reefs are becoming more endangered, or that there's anything remotely worrying about the possibility that the planet has warmed by 1.5 degrees C since the Industrial Revolution, don't just take it with a huge pinch of salt. Treat it with about as much respect as you would a report from North Korea radio telling you that this year's bumper grain harvest has been more gloriously plentiful than ever before and that workers are now at severe risk of expiring due to an excess of nourishment, plenitude and joy.

[item8]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... w-big-lie/

'A sudden increase in extreme weather events': the new Big Lie

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: August 5th, 2012

Colorado fires: nothing whatsoever to do with 'climate change'

The Warmists are getting desperate. Their attempt to make much of the Muller non-story backfired horribly. Their yarn about melting Greenland turned out to be ludicrously overdone. Then, of course, there was Watts et al's paper showing that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – the US government department responsible for keeping tabs on America's temperature data – has been fiddling the data so as to exaggerate late 20th-century warming by 100 per cent.

So what ingenious ruse have the Warmists alighted upon to disguise the awkward fact that they are losing every important scientific argument going? Simple: they've now decided that whenever the weather does anything extreme anywhere in the world, it's another sign of Climate Change. (We saw BBC Horizon setting the template for this nonsense a few months back in their Global Weirding documentary.) (H/T Msher)

Those tempted to succumb to this unutterable drivel might do well, first, to listen to what Dr John Christy – Alabama’s State Climatologist, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville – had to say when he testified before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. (Wattsy has a link to his full testimony here – it's well worth reading)

It is popular again to claim that extreme events, such as the current central US drought, are evidence of human-caused climate change. Actually, the Earth is very large, the weather is very dynamic, and extreme events will continue to occur somewhere, every year, naturally. The recent "extremes" were exceded in previous decades.

He goes on:

“During the heat wave of late June and early July, high temperature extremes became newsworthy. Claims that there were thousands of records broken each day and that “this is what global warming looks like” got a lot of attention.

However, these headlines were not based on climate science. As shown in Figure 1.3 of my testimony it is scientifically more accurate to say that this is what Mother Nature looks like, since events even worse than these have happened in the past before greenhouse gases were increasing like they are today.

Now, it gives some people great comfort to offer a quick and easy answer when the weather strays from the average rather than to struggle with the real truth, which is, we don’t know enough about the climate to even predict events like this.

A climatologist looking at this heat wave would not be alarmed because the number of daily high temperature records set in the most recent decade was only about half the number set in the 1930s as shown in my written testimony. I suppose most people have forgotten that Oklahoma set a new record low temperature just last year of 31 below. And in the past two years, towns from Alaska to my home state of California established records for snowfall. The recent anomalous weather can’t be blamed on carbon dioxide.

You can watch a video of John Christy's stellar testimony here. If only it were shown in schools as often as Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

[item8]

http://www.hangthebankers.com/the-6-qua ... mate-scam/

The $6 quadrillion cost of the climate scam

22 Aug 2012

The capture of the once-pure environmental movement by the hard left is far from cheap for the rest of us. I have just told the annual planetary-emergencies conference of the World Federation of Scientists that on the basis of the lunatic anti-CO2 policies now fashionable among scientifically illiterate governments, it would cost $6 quadrillion to prevent the 6 degrees Fahrenheit of predicted “global warming” that will not happen anyway.

Professor Antonino Zichichi, one of the world’s top six particle physicists (he discovered a form of anti-matter 40 years before the multi-billion-dollar Large Hadron Collider did), is the most famous Italian scientist since his hero Galileo. He founded the Federation half a century ago and, at the age of 83, is its president to this day.

CLIMATE CHANGE CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON

Nino looks like a proper scientist. Imagine giving his friend Albert Einstein an electric shock, and that is what his hair looks like. He is fitter than me and attributes his good health to walking an hour every day, not drinking alcohol and not eating lunch (that’s for wimps). He lives in a medieval stone house in the unspoiled, monastic village of Erice, Sicily, perched high on a 2,500-foot crag overlooking the blue Mediterranean.

He is an angry man. Angry because he, like me, was brought up in the Classical tradition, which insists that the duty of every “seeker after truth” (Al-Haytham’s beautiful phrase for the scientist) is to be logical and rational. He founded the Federation at the height of the Cold War to remind scientists of their moral responsibility to use their craft for good, not for ill, and of their intellectual obligation to adhere rigorously to the scientific method.

Nino is furious at the politicization of climate science. Science these days is a monopsony. There is only one paying customer: the State. Scientists increasingly produce the results their political paymasters want rather than seeking after truth.

Nowhere is the buying of desired results by governments clearer than in Nick Stern’s now-discredited report of 2006 on climate economics. The U.N.’s absurd climate panel had already at least tripled the true (and harmless) rate of warming to be expected from our adding CO2 to the air. Stern, to please his socialist paymasters, tripled it again without the slightest justification. Then he divided by 10 the true cost of making global warming go away and multiplied by 10 the true cost of not acting to Save The Planet (memo to Old Nick: The planet was triumphantly saved 2,000 years ago and doesn’t need saving again).

Tony Blair, the shifty socialist prime minister of the day, was so delighted with this nonsense that he gave Stern a peerage and installed him as head of the Grantham Institute, a lavishly funded propaganda institution promoting fear of climatic Armageddon and hatred of the West.

Using Old Nick’s report as a pretext, Blair (with the near-unanimous support of all parties, including Call-Me-Dave Cameron’s Not-The-Conservative-Party) introduced the biggest tax increase in human history. With only three votes against, the Climate Change and National Economic Hara-Kiri Act was passed on the very night when the first October snow for 74 years was falling outside in Parliament Square.

With the help of the Italian Government, which takes an intelligent interest in science, Nino Zichichi bought three redundant monasteries in Erice and turned them into a center of scientific excellence, where the world’s finest minds come throughout the year to attend courses and seminars and to exchange ideas.

The crème da la crème come to the annual seminars on planetary emergencies every August. This year, at my suggestion, the Federation’s climate panel organized a discussion on climate economics. None of the distinguished speakers had a kind word for Old Nick and his silly report. In particular, he was criticized for his wild exaggeration of the supposed threat. After 15 years without any global warming at all, his conclusion that there is a 10 percent chance the world will end this century because of global warming now looks sad and dated.

President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic gave the keynote lecture. At the U.N.’s Save-The-Planet climate conference in 2007, he had been the only leader to speak out publicly against the climate scam. A dozen other world leaders told him privately that they agreed with him but did not dare say anything publicly.

President Klaus demanded a hard-headed rational approach to climate policy-making, as did Lord Lawson, Margaret Thatcher’s former finance minister. Professor Ross McKitrick, who had exposed the U.N.’s fraudulent attempt to abolish the medieval warm period in 2001, said climate models and the policies based on them should be adjusted to take account of the failure of temperature to rise as predicted.

Using Australia’s new carbon dioxide tax as a case study, I demonstrated that it is 48 times more expensive to try to make global warming go away than to let it happen and enjoy the sunshine.

Nino, having heard the arguments, announced a new permanent panel to monitor developments in climate economics. Now hear this, if you are thinking of writing a bogus report like Old Nick’s to please your government paymasters: We are watching.

President Klaus’ lectio magistralis to the Federation is available here. My paper is here.

They demonize capitalism and freedom … and it’s working! Read Brian Sussman’s latest book, “Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America”

Source: http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/the-6-quadri ... mate-scam/

[item8]

http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/195

Blue Planet in Green Shackles. What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?

Knihy, 2. 6. 2008

The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Global warming has become a symbol, and example of this clash. The one politically correct truth has already been established, and opposing it is not easy.

Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.

The advocates and promoters of the global warming hypotheses are mostly scientists who profit from their research, both financially and in the form of scientific recognition, and also politicians (and their fellow travelers in academia and in the media) who see it as a political issue attractive enough to build their careers on.

The current – so unfairly and irrationally led – debate about the environment and about global warming in particular is increasingly becoming a fundamentally ideological and political dispute.

The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the end of the 20th and at the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism or communism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism. This ideological stream has recently become a dominant alternative to those ideologies that are consistently and primarily oriented toward freedom. It is a movement that intends to change the world radically regardless of the consequences (at the cost of human lives and severe restrictions on individual freedom). It intends to change humankind, human behavior, the structure of society, the system of values – simply everything.

Even through environmentalism boasts about its scientific basis, it is, in fact, essentially a metaphysical ideology that refuses to see the world, nature, and humankind as they really are. It has no regard for spontaneous evolution and takes the current state of the world and nature as an untouchable standard, any changes to which would be a fatal jeopardy.

The environmentalists’ attitude toward nature is analogous to the Marxist approach to economics. The aim in both cases is to replace the free, spontaneous evolution of the world (and humankind) by the would-be optimal, central, or – using today’s fashionable adjective – global planning of world development.

What is at stake is not environment. It is our freedom.

Václav Klaus

Title: Blue Planet in Green Shackles. What Is Endangered:
Climate or Freedom?
Author: Václav Klaus
Publisher: Competitive Enterprise Institute
ISBN: 1-889865-09-5
ASIN: B001A3W3BK
Language: English
Paperback: 100 pages
First published: 2007 (in Czech language)

The book can be ordered here.

[item8]

http://tipggita32.wordpress.com/2012/08 ... rosperity/

Carbon Tax Now Destroying Australian Economic Prosperity

August 22, 2012 by bjjangles

Written by Andrew Puhanic

Carbon Tax Destroying Aussie Farmers and their ViabilityA CARBON TAX is now responsible for destroying the economic prosperity of a nation.

With less than two months since the Gillard Government introduced the carbon tax in Australia, businesses are beginning to feel the pain of increased costs that are directly associated to the carbon tax.

Prior to being elected, Australia’s Prime Minister promised that the Australian Labor Party would not introduce a carbon tax. Ms Gillard was quoted “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. Even the Treasurer of Australia was quoted as saying “certainly we reject this hysterical allegation that we are moving towards a carbon tax”. Click here to see them lie for yourself.

Before July 1 2012 when the carbon tax began, I posted a series or articles that argued why carbon taxes should be abolished.

Now that Australians have been paying carbon taxes for almost two months, evidence for the abolishment of this economically destructive tax is now clearer than ever.

Cost of the Australian Carbon Tax

In the Goulburn Valley of Victoria, a fruit packaging business has declared that it will have to start SACKING staff after paying a power bill, one month after the carbon tax was introduced, of more than $10,500 above average. (Source: ABC)
Local sporting clubs are being forced to reduce vital community programs due to the increase in electricity bills. One local sporting operation is facing a $100,000 increase in electricity bills over the coming year. (Source: Courier Mail)
A national survey of over 180 small businesses has found that 50 per cent are experiencing increased costs due to the carbon tax, but only 33 per cent are passing on the cost. Therefore, small business are being forced to absorb costs associated with the carbon tax to remain competitive. (Source: COSBOA)
A butcher in Brisbane has declared that he is unable to compete with the big supermarkets due to increased electricity bills. The butcher was quoted as saying “It was easier for me and my business to survive when I could keep my prices close to supermarket prices, but with meat prices going through the roof it’s hard – the carbon tax is the main reason”. (Source: News.com.au)
In the south-west region of Sydney, retailers are already feeling the pain of having to pay carbon taxes. One fruit retailer was quoted as saying that “the price of cucumbers have risen from $4.99 (kg) to 8.99 (kg) and tomato’s have risen from $5 (kg) to 8.99 (kg)”. Another retailer who owns a hair salon has said that his first carbon tax electricity bill had risen by $350 in the first quarter. (source: Adelaide Now)
CARBON TAXES are being blamed on the increase cost to feed children as school. Canteens / tuck shops are beginning to increase their prices as electricity bills begin to erode their viability. Some Canteens / tuck shops have increased their prices by as much as 10%. (Source: Courier Mail)
In South Africa, a country that only emits just over 1% of global c02 emissions, economists have warned that if they implement a carbon tax, the prosperity and growth of the South African economy will be severely restricted (Source: Mail & Guardian
The cost to run Victoria’s public transport systems will increase by as much as $53 million because of the carbon tax. (Source: Eco-Business.com)
A recent survey of over 110 firms from around the world found that they were 41 per cent less likely to invest in the Australian economy then 12 months ago (Source: News.com.au)
Markets in Sydney will have to absorb the costs of the carbon tax to ensure it’s retailers remain competitive. It has been estimated that they will have to absorb over $500,000 in costs. (Source: Inner West Courier)

IF you live in South Africa, or under any other globalist dictatorship that will soon introduce a carbon tax, then your only hope to convince your elected officials is to heed the above experiences from Australia.

[item8]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... vid%2BRose

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

By David Rose

PUBLISHED: 22:42, 13 October 2012 | UPDATED: 02:21, 14 October 2012

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.

Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.

Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts.

At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.

Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?

You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.

From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.

Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.

The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.

They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it is being imposed for only one reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.

Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.

And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock.

It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy.

This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.

But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.

‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’

Headache: The evidence is beginning to suggest that global warming may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed - a conclusion with enormous policy implications for politicians at Westminster, pictured

Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’

Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.

Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’

He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was ‘unlikely’. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 – that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record – he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote.

Why all this matters should be obvious. Every quarter, statistics on the economy’s output and models of future performance have a huge impact on our lives. They trigger a range of policy responses from the Bank of England and the Treasury, and myriad decisions by private businesses.

Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both the statistics and the modelling are extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding date three months’ hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast.

Few people would be so foolish. But decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century – and this despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’.

The most depressing feature of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.

So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.

[TonyGosling]

Average temperature doesn't have as much significance as you might think.
The ice caps melt as the Earth warms up, cooling it down again.
It's called 'latent heat'.

Potential for climate disaster should more correctly be monitored by looking at the total quantity of, and temperature below freezing of, ice on the poles. A much better measure than global temperature.
Specific Latent Heat of Liquification of Water is 334 Kj/Kg
Specific Heat Capacity of Water is 4.1813 J/(g·K)

Annoyingly the units for energy and mass appear to be different for the two
The first looks like KiloJoules per Kilogram to melt the ice
The second looks like Joules per gramme to heat it 1 degree Kelvin (same as Celcius)
Attempting to align the two measurements by multiplying both the SHC units grammes and Joules by 1000:
Specific Latent Heat of Liquification of Water is 334 Kj/Kg
Specific Heat Capacity of Water is 4.1813 KJ/(Kg·K)

Now if this is correct the melting of polar ice is the equivalent of 80 degrees celcius change in temperature.
Now that surely can not be right but illustrates the point that we need to work out how many degrees in temperature is the equivalent energy taken up by ice as it melts???

Measurements of SLH and SHC for water and melting ice should both be in
Joules per kilogramme (per degree kelvin)
Any answers????

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

Trouble is of course this could all be an oil industry ruse

[Andrew.]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTv ... el&list=UL[/youtube]

This is part 5 which also has a summary of the 5 parts but all are worth watching.

[item8]

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

This is part 5 which also has a summary of the 5 parts but all are worth watching.

Worth watching to see how distorted and infantile an argument the climate alarmists present.

Just ignore the Met Office statistics published this month (they are after all just a puppet of big oil) and post a straw man "argument" about Monkton made over 18 months ago but strangely appropriate to be posted now. The behaviour of "climate alarmists" gets more and more desperate with each passing year that proves its all a pack of lies. How many people are going to starve because of wasting crops to make biofuels on account of this drivel? The situation is becoming desperate but still there are those who will believe anything. The connection between the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks and the subsequent wars on Islamic countries as well as the engineered banking "crisis" are all a part of a concerted attack on humanity by sociopaths and the "man made climate change" nonsense is a major part of it. How anyone can claim to have the discernment to recognise the 9/11 hoax but fall for the climate change rubbish is beyond belief. Literally!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnnKxUOZyf4[/youtube]

For subtitles watch on youtube and click cc at bottom right on the youtube site

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

So the question is.....
How many degrees of warming does ice 'absorb' as it melts??
It could be that enormous temperature changes on planet earth are being quietly 'absorbed' by the specific latent heat of melting ice.
I've looked for an explanation from the so called climate scientists of this but found none at all & am feeling somewhat astounded at the lack of information.

Average temperature doesn't have as much significance as you might think.
The ice caps melt as the Earth warms up, cooling it down again.

Measurements of SLH and SHC for water and melting ice should both be in
Joules per kilogramme (per degree kelvin)
Any answers????

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

Trouble is of course this could all be an oil industry ruse

[Andrew.]

Just ignore the Met Office statistics published this month

using the HadCRUT3 data published by the Met Office on its website

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute ... -1997.aspx
But what 'sceptics' always fail to point out is that, based on their logic, manmade global warming has actually 'stopped' nine times since 1970, in 1972, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1995, 1996 and 1997. And they fail to mention that the underlying anthropogenic warming trend is clear and unambiguous when temperature data for the past four decades are taken into account.

Here is a graph of global average annual temperature since 1970, using the HadCRUT3 data published by the Met Office on its website - the vertical axis shows values of temperature anomaly - the difference between the annual global average temperature and the mean value from the period between 1961 and 1990.

Using simple linear regression (ordinary least squares) we can detect and measure a clear trend over the 42-year period between 1970 and 2011, indicating an average temperature increase of 0.151°C per decade. This trend is statistically significant at the 95 per cent level, the standard test which means the probability that there is no warming trend at all in the data is less than 5 per cent.

It is important to note that simple linear regression using ordinary least squares is not really the most appropriate method for assessing these data as it depends on assumptions which are violated by global temperature measurements. Nevertheless we consider simple linear regression here as it is often used by many 'sceptics' to underpin their claims that global warming has 'stopped'.

So now let us look at just the last 15 years of annual average global temperatures, plotted in the graph below.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

As I said, temperature is missing the point
We need to know how much ice has been melting and absorbing the temperature rise!

See Specific Latent Heat & Specific Heat Capacity
Melting ice is absorbing vast vast amounts of energy and if it melts much more we WILL head off down a temperature cliff.

[Andrew.]

.

UPDATE on the update The National Snow and Ice Data Center announced today (August 27th, 2012) that the 2007 record has now been broken by their more conservative 5-day running average criterion. They also note that “The six lowest ice extents in the satellite record have occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012).”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... c-sea-ice/

As I said, temperature is missing the point

What?

See Specific Latent Heat & Specific Heat Capacity
Melting ice is absorbing vast vast amounts of energy and if it melts much more we WILL head off down a temperature cliff.

The first part of the sentence makes sense, but the second part doesn't.


Thermodynamics: heat goes into cold things, not cold into hot things. (To equilibrium of heat energy.

[Andrew.]

Measurements of SLH and SHC for water and melting ice should both be in
Joules per kilogramme (per degree kelvin)
Any answers????

Freezing = 0oC = 273.15 K

Boiling = 100oC = 373.15 K

That is the Cecilius scale: (heat capacity of water is 4.1813 joules/gram kelvin)



http://www.conversion-website.com/energy/energy.html

The Celsius heat unit is the energy required to increase the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Celsius (or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) at a constant pressure of one atmosphere. One Celsius heat unit is equal to 1.8 British thermal units (1 CHU = 1.8 BTU).




http://www.asknumbers.com/HeatCapacityC ... IAYtlJ0lS4
Specific Heat Capacity Conversion

Specific heat capacity is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a particular substance of mass (kilogram, gram, pound) by 1 degree (celsius, fahrenheit, kelvin).

For example, the heat capacity of water is 4.1813 joules/gram kelvin which means the heat energy required to raise the water's temperature by 1 kelvin is 4.1813 joules per gram.

Common units are kilojoule per kilogram celsius, joules per gram kelvin and btu per pound fahrenheit.

Average temperature doesn't have as much significance as you might think.
The ice caps melt as the Earth warms up, cooling it down again.
It's called 'latent heat'.

?

I see the analogy: like an ice cube in a glass of water. As the ice melts in the warmer water and air (heat going into the cold) until it reaches equilibrium. So although the water will get cooler the average temperature (heat energy) will remain the same (of the ice and water together). But will depend on any further energy (gain or loss) in the (system) glass, such as say sunshine (gain).

[item8]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29 ... n_refusal/

Who were the SECRET 28 who ended all climate debate at the BBC?

'Campaigners, NGOs, communications types - and scientists'

By Andrew Orlowski
Posted in Science, 29th October 2012 16:44 GMT

Far from the Jimmy Savile scandal, the director of BBC News Helen Boaden took the witness stand in London today.

A squad of Beeb legal staff, including two barristers, crammed into a small court room to support the £354,000-a-year news chief against her opponent, a North Wales pensioner who was accompanied only by his wife. The case is a six-year freedom of information battle in which the BBC is refusing to disclose who attended a seminar it held in 2006.

This seminar is historically significant. The BBC's global reputation for news reporting stems from its unshakable impartiality; even in wartime its commitment to maintaining evenhandedness has occasionally enraged British politicians (and sometimes servicemen). Following that 2006 seminar, however, the corporation made a decision to abandon impartiality when covering climate change - and that's according to the BBC Trust. This was an unprecedented decision for the BBC in peacetime.

On what basis was this made? In June 2007, the Trust, which governs the gigantic publicly-funded broadcaster, published a report with the gnomic title From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel [PDF]. That document gives us this clue:

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].

Blogger Tony Newbery was curious as to the identity of these "scientific experts", and filed a Freedom of Information Act request, as he outlines here in an introduction to the saga.

The BBC merely confirmed to Newbery that the seminar took place but not who attended. Rather surprisingly, the "best scientific experts" - who you may think would want the world to know who they are - have not volunteered the information. This baffled our blogger.

"Advising such a body − or in the BBC’s words, providing training − at a formal seminar with a title such as 'Climate Change – the Challenge to Broadcasting' can in no way be considered to be a private matter of the kind that could reasonably fall within the scope of the Data Protection Act," he argues. "It is a very public act and those involved could hardly be unaware of this. It is a very long way from the kind of privacy concerning medical records or personal finances that the Data Protection Act is intended to safeguard. It is unreasonable for anyone who embarks on such an exercise to expect to be anonymous."

The BBC disagreed and, at great expense, continues to refuse to disclose the names of the participants. All we know is that in Boaden's words, the 28 "external invitees" were "representatives from business, campaigners, NGOs, communications experts, people from the 'front line', scientists with contrasting views and academics".

To cut a long story short, and fast forwarding to today, Newbery's probing has reached an Information Rights Tribunal; the case heard is titled Tony Newbery vs the BBC and the Information Commission.
'Individuals wanted to share their views but didn't want it widely known that they were there'

The corporation has refused to hand over the requested information, defending its inaction using two arguments: one is that the refusal is justified for the "purposes of journalism", the other is that the attendees of a meeting held under the Chatham House Rule must not be named. [A more usual interpretation is that no quotes, statements etc can be individually attributed to such people - Ed*]. Newbery maintains that the BBC, as an organisation bankrolled by the public and operating under a Royal Charter, must reveal its guest list as a matter of legitimate public interest. Boaden took the witness stand at shortly after 10am today.

The two BBC arguments appear to be contradictory, Newbery argued. The BBC insisted that the details of the seminar "cascaded down" the organisation but Boaden claimed on the witness stand that there was no information to disclose: "There was no collective note," she said. This is a paradox that needs unraveling.

Boaden explained that she had approved of the 2006 meeting in order to broaden the experience of Beeb hacks so that "journalists remain curious and are up-to-date".

"The seminars bring together individuals who want to share their views but don't want it widely known that they're there," said Boaden. She added it was unfair to disclose the list of participants because they could not speak frankly if they were identified.

The BBC's director of news said she was particularly impressed by the testimony of a representative of the insurance industry at the 2006 seminar. For Boaden, this attendee's belief that cost of climate change will increase carried enormous weight. This is an odd statement: since profit-seeking insurance companies pocket revenue from premiums, they materially benefit from the higher premiums that accompany predictions of catastrophic climate change. Without the warnings of catastrophe, there is no need for higher premiums, so it's not an impartial observation.

Boaden confirmed there was no record of the meeting at the BBC at the time of Newbery's enquiry nor had she kept any notes. Anyone who had, she surmised, had kept them as personal memoirs.

When it came to a cross examination by Newbery, David Marks QC, the presiding tribunal judge, threw a thick protective cloak around the BBC's star witness, refusing to allow the blogger to pose many of his questions to Boaden directly. As a result, most remained answered.

"If the BBC had no record of what was said," remarked Newbery, "the first part of the Chatham House Rule doesn't apply. I can't request it. It doesn't exist."

The judge sternly reminded Newbery that any line of enquiry that allowed the identity of the attendees to be inferred should not be allowed. Marks also stepped in where he thought Boaden may not have been able to answer. Marks even intervened to prevent one line of enquiry very germane to Newbery's case: the blogger wanted to know if the attendees were there in a private or public capacity.

”It could be both,” mused the judge. “I'm reluctant to allow Ms Boaden say anything about this. I doubt if she can add anything to what is a submission by you. You’re under a severe warning from me not to go anywhere near the question.”

The Beeb's climate change seminar had been organised by the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme (CMEP), established by activist Joe Smith and BBC reporter Roger Harrabin. CMEP received funding from the hardline green organisation WWF and the UK government's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It later transpired that £15,000 was also received from the University of East Anglia - the institution at the heart of the Climategate scandal. (Smith explains CMEP on his own blog here, pointing out that attendees were typically invited in a private capacity.)

The tribunal hearing was a surreal occasion, particularly as the Savile sex scandal has put the corporation's opaque decision-making in the spotlight. What is not in doubt is that a journalist's confidential sources should remain confidential and beyond the scope of Freedom of Information requests. Hence the exception for journalistic purposes in data protection legislation.

But is this an appropriate comparison? Was this seminar journalism or policy-making? With its six-year legal battle, conducted at great expense, the BBC has effectively made "the best scientific experts" into anonymous sources, and handed an arsenal of ammunition to its critics.

But it was about to get even more surreal.

The second witness on the stand was another BBC executive. After she had finished, I asked her for the correct spelling of her name. She reeled and stepped back a pace, then emitted the universal signal of distress for Beeb bosses in trouble: rapid eye blinking. A member of the legal team rushed over asking if they could help me. I repeated that I hadn't caught her name, and would like to spell it correctly. The flunky provided it as the executive looked on. Phew.

A member of the legal team spelled the name of the BBC witness
for me with the witness, Frances Weil, standing by my side.

The case continues, but like Boaden, I had other pressing matters to attend to. We've asked for how much the bizarre six-year saga has cost you, the telly licence payer. ®

[TonyGosling]

yes, too much control freakery here and hardly ever an unbiased documentary these days - just a tool in the battle for the mind
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29 ... n_refusal/

[Andrew.]

Seems as though its to do with this:

CLIMATE OF DOUBT (PBS FRONTLINE) Aired: 10/23/2012
FRONTLINE explores the massive shift in public opinion on climate change.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMTVGBGs_40[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMTVGBGs_40


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... -of-doubt/

[outsider]

White ice reflects a great deal of the light/heat back out towards space (though some will get absorbed by the clouds, natural or artificial).
When the ice cover over the poles melts, the exposed land (or even exposed sea) will absorb much more light/heat; also, the permafrost begins to defrost, releasing huge amounts of trapped carbon dioxide and methane, which further exacerbates 'global warming'.

Seems fairly simple to me. We are on the way to hell in a toboggan (they tend to be a tad faster than a hand-cart), just as we are with poisoning the seas, land and air with DU, radioactivivity in general, pesticides, herbicides, GMO's, Geoengineering, heavy metal and plastic contamination, deforestation, and chemical and biological warfare agents, including viruses.

Eat and be merry, for tomorrow we die!!
(But the day after tomorrow, comes Judgement Day).

[item8]

Seems fairly simple to me.

That's what the hoaxers rely on.

[Andrew.]

Seems fairly simple to me.

That's what the hoaxers rely on.

Its just that if you put something into a system its going to have some effect, measuring that may be difficult and hard to verify for the public.


But lying about the very obvious fact that there has to be some "cause and effect" is down right evil and dangerous.

It would not ruin the economy, it would not need taxes, we could all be better off financially, and still be green. But the so-called ptb wont give up their hegemony, they turn it around and say that it would ruin the economy.

[item8]

Its just that if you put something into a system its going to have some effect, measuring that may be difficult and hard to verify for the public.


But lying about the very obvious fact that there has to be some "cause and effect" is down right evil and dangerous.

Lying about the extent of the effect and inventing statistics to back up the lies is evil. The hoaxers lies and invented statistics have been exposed. The unnecessary "fight" against the myth of man made climate change IS ruining economies and Australia is an example of what the banksters are going to do to the rest of the industrialised world. By the way, the "effect" of man's activities would be more likely to be beneficial to life by raising temperature as higher temperatures have in the past coincided with a spread of human and plant life. Larger areas would be open to cultivation as was the case in history. Unfortunately in spite of all mankind's efforts the effect is so infinitesimely small it is utterly insignificant.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0d_RGu9P1w[/youtube]

[Andrew.]

Lying about the extent of the effect and inventing statistics to back up the lies is evil.

Of course it is, but there are many that deny it outright, and has as been repeated over and over on this thread there are some that intentionally over exaggerate it to set up straw man arguments and then the out right deniers come along and knock down the straw man arguments and make the false claim that there is no problem.

Its one of the oldest tricks of the so-called ptb in all that they do.

And your doing for them, because you are saying there is no problem at all, and that there is no cause and effect, which is a lie.

And the old trick of CO2 is good for plants, well so is water, but they can drown like men can too (crop failure etc). So saying that the warming and CO2 is good is a school boy howler with regards to cause and effect and science (measuring effects and so forth).

Its probably the only science that has/could been used for any good, but the results have been ignored along with all the other science that shows how bad that pollution is in all its forms.

Unfortunately in spite of all mankind's efforts the effect is so infinitesimely small it is utterly insignificant.

Is it? they (Scientists) have only said about 2 degrees C. And around that figure it can start to cause problems with crop failure etc. ( too wet, too dry; desertification, flooding), let alone with all the GMO's, and Chemicals used on the land and else where.

Also as outsider mentioned there is the feed back of permafrost, lack of reflection, and I'll add CO2 released from warming seas as they act as a sink (Carbonic acid; effect on ecosystems) or adding more to the atmosphere.