ClimateGate busts things wide open

jackspratt wrote:Is this the same Christopher Booker who believes asbestos and passive smoking are not dangerous to human health, and also supports the theory of "intelligent design"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker

I suppose he is a holocaust denier also!!!!

Jack - which bit of what he wrote do you think is wrong, and on what basis?

Next month sees the anniversary of the Copenhagen conference – the largest ever held, with upwards of 100,000 people present –

All estimates I have read put between 15 - 45,000 attendees (delegates) at the conference.

jackspratt wrote:

Next month sees the anniversary of the Copenhagen conference – the largest ever held, with upwards of 100,000 people present –

All estimates I have read put between 15 - 45,000 attendees (delegates) at the conference.

I think there is a big difference between:

- Delegates (those invited to present or representing a government or body) and
- Present (those who sit in the audience, or those who like to protest or attend other functions)

Come on Jack - that was a weak effort, you can do better!!!

What bit of his article dont you like ..... and why?

The context is clearly that there were 100,000+ as part of the conference. Otherwise, it would be just as accurate to say there were 2 million present - the entire population of Copenhagen.

As far as the rest of the article, it disagrees fundamentally with my views on global warming (for reasons I have expounded on numerous occasions), and as far as I am concerned, neither the article, nor its author, have any credibility.

LONDON (AFP) – A British climate change economist at the heart of international negotiations seeking a greenhouse gas deal said Friday that the US faces a trade boycott if it fails to rein in its carbon emissions.

Lord Nicholas Stern, author of the British government's 2006 report on the economics of climate change, warned the US that many countries would shun its goods if they deemed them to be "dirty."

"The US will increasingly see the risks of being left behind, and 10 years from now they would have to start worrying about being shut out of markets because their production is dirty," Stern told The Times newspaper.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101119/wl_uk_afp/britainusenvironmentclimate

if he qualifies the US "dirty" production,
what words will he use then to qualify the Chinese production ??????

EDITORIAL: Climate craziness cools in Cancun

Environmental radicals are losing political momentum
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
-
The Washington Times
2:15 a.m., Saturday, November 27, 2010

Today, U.N. negotiators will begin two weeks of meetings in Cancun, Mexico, looking for a way to move the climate action agenda forward, impose global carbon emissions caps and compel countries to pay a series of new international taxes to underwrite environmental programs. Maybe they'll get what they want when hell freezes over.

The mood of climate alarmists going into Cancun is decidedly downbeat. The sense of impending doom they had cultivated over the last decade or so has largely evaporated. The Climategate scandal took a severe toll on the credibility of some of the climate theology's leading high priests, and subsequent investigations into some of the more outlandish claims on which their doomsaying was based found them to be either exaggerated or fabricated. The November demise of the Chicago Climate Exchange - which sought to transfer billions of dollars to political insiders trading in government-rigged carbon markets - signaled that there was no money in the game anymore. Last week, even Al Gore admitted his fallibility when he retracted his earlier support for ethanol fuels. The god bleeds.

Last year's Copenhagen confab was intended to seal a comprehensive global climate deal but turned into an exercise in humiliation. The imagined 2009 treaty - originally billed as "the single most important piece of paper in the world today" - would have instituted global governance of carbon emissions enforced by an international body with the power to levy taxes to force countries to impose its will. But the final, hastily written three-page agreement contained none of those controversial proposals and was simply a nonbinding statement regarding voluntary emissions caps. The most significant event at last year's summit was when the leaders of China, India, Brazil and South Africa unceremoniously snubbed President Obama, who was reduced to barging his way into their meeting uninvited. It was a low moment for the president personally, and a poor showing for what is under most circumstances the strongest country in the world.

The principal goal of this year's meeting seems to be to hang on to the meager gains made in 2009 and to discuss what to do about the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire at the end of 2012. The green utopians are up against more immediate problems than their imagined impending climate catastrophe. The debt crisis in Europe will blunt the enthusiasm of countries in the Eurozone to underwrite expensive new international initiatives. China, India, Brazil and South Africa, among others, will be even less willing to agree to cut back growth than they were when they scuttled the Copenhagen deal. The United States delegation will have to accept the fact that whatever schemes they would like to agree to, any treaty language would have to meet the approval of the incoming more conservative Senate, a highly unlikely proposition. Cancun will be dead on arrival.

One benefit of meeting in Mexico is that the conference will avoid the embarrassment last year when the Copenhagen meeting ended in an unexpected blizzard. It's harder to sell global warming to world leaders who have to flee the city before their flights are grounded by an ice storm. The worst the Cancun conferees will have to deal with is the threat of being kidnapped by heavily armed gangs of drug dealers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... in-cancun/

ronan01 wrote:Last week, even Al Gore admitted his fallibility when he retracted his earlier support for ethanol fuels.

Does that mean that, Mr Gore will return the money he received from the Nobel people?

I doubt whether Gore was (jointly) awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on the basis of his advocacy for ethanol based fuels - besides which, he announced at the time that his share of the Prize would be donated to his not-for-profit Alliance for Climate Protection.

Do not feel afraid, Gaia is with us

Tim Blair From: The Daily Telegraph January 03, 2011 12:00AM

THE ABC'S Science Show, normally given over to scientific issues, as its title suggests, took an unexpected turn on Saturday night. Host Robyn Williams suddenly found himself in the presence of a religious fundamentalist.

You don't often hear during a science broadcast of spirit beings taking physical form. Nor are rocks and soil usually credited with the capacity to develop brains and nervous systems.

But that's what we heard during Williams' interview with Tim Flannery, recorded before a presumably stunned audience at the University of Sydney's Seymour Centre.

Flannery, a former Australian of the Year and still on various government panels, predicted the inanimate Earth would soon come to life in the form of Gaia, an ancient Greek god. He's flirted with Gaia-belief, but never quite to this extent.

Flannery's exact words:

"I think that, within this century, the concept of the strong Gaia will actually become physically manifest."

Well, that's something we can all look forward to. A living god, not only on this earth, but of it.

Flannery, a frequent ABC presence, continued: "I do think that the Gaia of the ancient Greeks, where they believed the earth was effectively one whole and perfect living creature, doesn't exist yet, but it will exist in future."

Flannery says it and I believe it. He's a scientist, after all. Come on down, Gaia!

Hey, if the big guy can take out Australian citizenship by this morning and hold a cricket bat, we've got a job for him at the SCG.

Jimmy Anderson may be able to confound most of our top order, but let's see his punishing outswingers beat a whole and perfect living creature.

Although it could be difficult sourcing at short notice a 40,075km baggy green cap to contain Gaia's earthly circumference. He's got a big head on him, this Gaia -- and that's before he's even scored a single Test run.

In other words, he'd fit right in with the rest of the team.

Back to The Science Show, where Flannery expanded on the conditions needed for an appearance by the G-dog.

"We'll never be able to control the Earth, there's no doubt about it," he said, which kind of shoves to one side the earnest efforts of climate-change activists, including Flannery himself.

"We can't control its systems. But we can nudge them, and we can foresee danger."

Once we've got Global Nudging under way, it's just a matter of time.

"Once that occurs, then the Gaia of the ancient Greeks really will exist," exulted Flannery. "This planet, this Gaia, will have acquired a brain and a nervous system.

"That will make it act as a living animal, a living organism, at some sort of level."

All right! And people thought Oprah was a big deal.

Flannery has been talking up this transformation for a while.

He told an audience at La Trobe University in 2009 that "just over the past decade, Gaia is on the threshold of acquiring a brain. The Kyoto Protocol was a first, failed attempt by Gaia to regulate its conditions. Gaia now has a consciousness. Just as we have a consciousness."

That's some serious science right there, friends.

But how will the rest of us, who aren't so rational and sciencey and all, know when the great moment is upon us?

How will we know the Earth has grown a brain? For that matter, what will this sentient Frankenplanet spirit look like?

According to a Flannery piece in The New York Review of Books, James Lovelock -- the British science guy who came up with this Gaia rubbish in the first place -- "often describes Gaia as an elderly lady".

Presumably a really big one, with a cloud-sized blue rinse and bingo wings so gigantic they can trigger hurricanes.

She's also into incest. The ancient Greek poet Hesiod wrote that Gaia "lay with her son, Uranus", thus spawning a whole pile of inbred godlets.

No surprise that one of them, Cyclops, had only a single eye.

Thanks for the diminished gene pool and depth-perception issues, Gaia and uncle-daddy.

Do we really want this child-sexing redneck mama walking among us? It's fine for Flannery, who's on Gaia's team. He can even communicate with the beast, as he explained to Andrew Denton in 2008.

"It's life that makes the atmosphere what it is. That's a very important aspect of Gaia, you know," the bearded Gaia-whisperer said.

"Gaia is life working as a whole to maintain the atmosphere as it is, so that life can go on.

"So Gaia, I think, is saying to us: 'It's time that you took control."'

It's definitely time we took something. Chlorpromazine, possibly, or anything else in the anti-hallucinogenic range.

Flannery's audience never sees a bad side to Gaia's looming incarnation, but many of us should fear it.

She's likely not to be impressed by carbon polluters, for example. To them, Gaia will no doubt materialise in the manner of a vengeful Japanese movie monster.

Instead of Godzilla or Mothra, she will be Carbonara, slayer of coal-fired power plants and non-cyclists.

It'll be quite a show.

Problem is, we already have a Gaia, complete with brain and central nervous system.

She's the sweet little daughter of British actress Emma Thompson, who bestowed that name on her girl 10 years ago following successful (if not completely natural, and possibly even anti-Gaia) IVF treatment.

Fun will abound in the Thompson household during Gaia's teenage years: "Gaia, finish your homework!" "It's your turn to do the dishes, Gaia." "Come back here, Gaia! You are NOT going out dressed like that!"

Still, it's nice that science folk and ABC presenters are getting behind peculiar religious beliefs and general occult weirdness.

During last year's election campaign, most of these types were spooked by Tony Abbott's relatively benign Catholicism.

Now they're easily able to cope with the summoning of a dirt god.

Truly, we live in an age of miracles.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/do-not ... 5980669696

Another inconvenient truth is that this is a very cold winter in Toronto. I do not think that the Arctic ice-cap is in retreat this year, in fact, it might be growing. The worst part is that I fell on the ice yesterday morning in Toronto! 55555

Last winter was much milder than I can recall in years, but not winter 2010/2011.

Tilo I am sure you can distinguish between the earth's climate, and Toronto's weather.

Hope your butt is OK - I also collapsed a plastic stool the other day while helping a guy with his computer, and my right cheek is still protesting.

Jack, if your right cheek looked like the one in your avatar we might be interested

Jack, you mean Toronto is not the centre of the Universe?

This winter seems to be colder in many parts of the world, thus it could be that the polar ice-caps will not be in retreat this year. Yes, the globe is getting warmer and warmer, but not in this god-forsaken place in the winter of 2010/2011.

I fell on my ribs, left side, so they are a bit tender and will take a bit longer to heal owing to my frightfully old age and delicate carcass.

Editorial: Put up or shut up on global warming

THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER Story Highlights Temperature data, for starters, should be independently verified.

It is time for an independent investigation of whether or to what degree human activities are creating catastrophic global warming. It should be conducted by scientists untainted by advocacy and uncompromised through receiving taxes or private funding to advance or debunk the theory.

Many in the new Congress were elected on promises to re-evaluate global warming claims used to justify Draconian regulations. A "team of nongovernment and non-U.N. experts must be established with access to all the raw data, records, adjustments, fudges ... and computer codes currently being black-boxed by government scientists," says Robert Ferguson, president of the nonprofit Science and Public Policy Institute for "sound public policy based on sound science."

We agree.

NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have resisted Freedom of Information Act requests for release of unadjusted raw data and documentation of their adjustments to them. Good science requires theories be tested.

Even proponents of catastrophic manmade global warming theory say the average global temperature increased 0.7 degrees Celsius over the past century. We must be certain such tiny changes and the cataclysmic predictions based on them are valid before imposing huge economic sacrifices, infringing personal freedoms or levying new taxes.

A good place to start is temperature data. NASA and NOAA, which together receive nearly half a billion dollars a year in tax funding for climate research, "have been systematically fiddling the worldwide temperature record for years, making 'global warming' look worse than it is," according to a new paper by meteorologist Joe D'Aleo, an American Meteorology Society fellow.

"[W]hen data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data" to agree with models' projections, says MIT meteorologist Dr. Richard Lindzen.

Research by meteorologist Anthony Watts found that 89 percent of U.S. ground temperature stations do not meet NASA's standards for distance between stations and adjacent heat sources, seriously compromising readings. That's before NASA "adjusts" the raw data, adding more significant additional false warming, Mr. Watts says.

"The raw temperature data produced by the ... stations are not sufficiently accurate to use in scientific studies or as a basis for public policy decisions," he concludes.

Thousands of e-mails leaked in 2009 from Britain's Climate Research Unit showed researchers lamented the "hapless state" of their temperature records, including "hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy and duplicate stations," and "no uniform data integrity."

CRU Director Phil Jones later conceded "temperature data are in such disarray they probably cannot be verified or replicated," bringing into question the U.S. records because, "almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same."

An independent analysis also should be made of climate computer models and the purported cause-and-effect relationships assumed between greenhouse gases and higher temperature, rising sea levels and melting glaciers.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/data- ... lobal.html