The Climate Change Hoax

Copenhagen: A climate of manipulation

* By Piers Akerman
* From: The Sunday Telegraph
* December 13, 2009 12:00AM

NATIONAL leaders will this week launch the greatest slush fund the world has ever seen - and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will be adding your money to the pile.

Some naive folk, who probably still don't understand that governments do not, in fact, make money of their own but merely take what has been earned by others and redistribute it to causes they think will win them the most votes, may believe that the wealth redistribution will actually lower the temperature of the planet.

There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, that this will happen. The only certainty is that billions will be ripped off by bankers and other middle men before the remainder arrives in the Third World to be looted by a line-up of dictators and tyrants.

While there has been a surfeit of talking at the main Copenhagen conference, there has been no discussion of the fraudulent practices that lie behind the bulk of the fabricated data on which those who support the still unproven claim that humans are the principal drivers of global warming.


Related Coverage

* When world views collide The Australian, 1 day ago
* Met pushes carbon unity The Australian, 2 days ago
* Climate change sceptics speak out Daily Telegraph, 4 days ago
* Climate claims fail science test The Australian, 4 days ago
* Hackers stole climate emails Courier Mail, 5 days ago

On the other side of the city, scientists have been lining up to debunk the extravagant claims made by people like former US vice president Al Gore and the coterie of scientists disgraced by their alleged role in the manipulation of material at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit.

Among them were Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist from the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, who said the recent warming period was caused by solar activity and that during the medieval warming period, the last time the world experienced a period of high temperatures, the sun and Earth were in a similar cycle.

He was accompanied by Professor Nils-Axel Morner, a geologist from Stockholm University, who said sea-level rise has also been exaggerated by the ``climate alarmists'' using computer models and that observational data from lake sediments, coastlines and trees show sea levels have remained stable.

Others gave papers in which they argued that another geologist from the environmental lobby had got it wrong on ice caps, that the melting ice sheets is caused by geothermal activity rather than global surface temperatures and that CO2 from naturally occurring volcanic activity was a greater driver of warming than humans.

An Australian analyst, Joanne Nova, produced a report based on official figures (available at the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute) to show that US federal spending on climate change alone since 1991 had been $79 billion, that the cost of international carbon trading last year topped $126 billion and would soon amount to trillions, making buying and selling the right to emit CO2 "the largest single commodity traded'' in the world.

Yet, she said, ``no one is able to point to a single piece of evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on global climate''.

Mr Gore, who stands to make an estimated $2 billion from his stake in the carbon market, did not attend. He has still to answer questions raised by the British High Court over allegations of nine errors made in his alarmist film

An Inconvenient Truth and the issues raised by the corruption of the scientific process on which the Copenhagen conference claims are based.

While those predicting the end of the world may choose not to confront the issues raised by the fabricated data, Professor Aynsley Kellow, the head of the University of Tasmania's School of Government, did canvass the matter with publisher Michael Duffy on the ABC's Counterpoint radio program.

Professor Kellow, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth report, said despite the denials made by key scientists whose work has been used to support the global warming theory, the leaked emails show the manipulation of the analysis was "in many ways worse than many of us expected when we knew about this case from the outside without access to these kinds of exchanges''.

"What you have is evidence of a quite clear willingness to manipulate raw data to suit predetermined results, you've got a resistance to any notion of transparency, an active resistance to freedom of information requests or quite reasonable requests from scientists to have a look at data so that it can be verified,'' Professor Kellow said.

He listed the malpractices as evidence of attempts to subvert the peer-review process, evidence of pressure being placed on editors to reject dissident views on climate science, and then attempts by the lead authors in the IPCC report to keep any opposing peer-reviewed science that has managed to get into the literature out of the IPCC report and, ultimately, ensuring it doesn't find its way into the all-important summary for policy makers, which, he said, was about all the politicians and bureaucrats read.

The policy makers are now convinced, according to Professor Kellow, that earth's climate system is like a kind of thermostat in which we can dial in a particular level of CO2 and get a two-degree temperature rise over the next 100 years.

In the professor's view, "anyone who knows anything about climate science will tell you that that's nonsense''.
Very expensive nonsense, too, if the farcical plan to salve the consciences of Western Greens by transferring the capital and industries of developed nations to the Third World is agreed to this week in Copenhagen.

akermanp@sundaytelegraph.com.au

 

The only thing simple I see around here is the notion that literally thousands of scientists worldwide are engaged in a deliberate conspiracy to lie about climate change. How about the 600 people who authored that IPPC report I referenced earlier, and the 640 people who reviewed their work, and the government officials who went through it, etc. Are they all in on the conspiracy, too? Or are you so much smarter than they are that you can see through the bs instantly, and they somehow missed it?

Conspiracy theories are wonderful security blankets. They allow people to dumb down and simplify complex situations and phenomena, so that they feel they have a handle on the situation....knowing the 'real story' gives them something to hang onto, when they're adrift in a scary world and feeling they have no control over their fate.

And by the way, the opposing side does routinely fudge the figures, manipulate data, keep repeating completely discredited disinformation, and get paid--by the petroleum industry, and by popular publishers who will buy anything that sells.

 

It isn['t a matter of you not seeing; it's a matter of you refusing to acknowledge anything you see that doesn't fit your preconceived notions.

Let me get this straight: you're trying to tell me that the CO2 from any source you don't believe in or approve of either doesn't really enter the atmosphere, or magically transports instantly to some other dimension as soon as it arrives, instead of joining what's already there"

The fact that you're more fearful of global cooling (which isn't happening) than you are of global warming (which is) pretty much pegs you. While you're at it, why don't you go worry about wombats becoming sentient and taking over the Northern Hemisphere? I'm trying to deal with reality instead, as are the scientists....

No, I don't think it'll be the end of the world or the end of humanity if we don't slow down climate change. But it's going to be damn hard on a lot of people and a lot of places.

The only thing the East Anglia emails prove is that science is an imperfect human endeavor, and scientists are imperfect humans. Look at how many thousands of emails the hackers winnowed through, to get that relative handful of suspicious-sounding ones.

I suspect that if I somehow obtained a record of the thousands of things you've said in your lifetime, I could sort through them and come up with a few that would paint you as a complete scumbag. The same thing could be done with me, or anyone else.

For the hackers to claim the emails they've made public are typical and representative of all the thousands they went through is completely and cynically dishonest of them. And you're swallowing their lie hook, line and sinker because it's what you want to hear.

 

****, after thirty-some years, my wife threw my logic text out - Now, I'll have to resort to Google like the rest...Wow - this is better than my text and has way more fallacies than I learned! http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
You are guilty of, let's see, well... almost all of 'em! (The main slippery slope you have succumbed to it the "appeal to authority", secondarily "appeal to popularity". Because I had to give you the answer but because I'm sure, you'll get it - I give you a "C" for the day. That is subject to change if you continue with your fallacies. Science, of course, is another grade and I suggest you continue with your Liberal Arts...

 

Ha Ha ha ...some turkey has given me neg rep points for saying that Climate Change has become a religion....just PROVES my point...we cannot even discuss anything againt this crap.....makes me laugh so much, thank anyhow mate as it was the first time I laughed this morning, and I always like a good laugh.

 

Well is not just that simple, I just make it simple.

Let's just make a comparisons to...say the communist party.
Do you think that every singe member of the communist party was 100% convinced that the world would become a better place by a communist regime imposed with guns and that it was wroth killing for it?
What about the church...do you think that the believers who went out to the crusades, and the inquisition officials who killed and burned alive those who sinned, all of them thought that that is what would turn humanity into tame good choir children?

The answer is obviously no. They did so because their sense of belonging and their daily ration of soup depended on it. A small hard core of course had their twisted logic adapted to it in order to justify what would fly in the face of common sense. An even smaller group of criminals has their head to make this super slush fund a reality to draw from ad libitum.

Global Warming theorist have found a source of never ending funding to anything that has attached the word environment and climate change to it even if it is the relationship between the sex life of the Amazonian earth worm and the Switzerland folk songs in the French canton.
Would you kill off the goose of the golden eggs? Not for a minute, you see your life dream of a source of funding to anything you like. The greater good is at hand, and in the words of that Canadian minister, "Even if global Warming is wrong, there is so much good that can be done with this movement that we must support it no matter what" (paraphrased by me)

 

during the 8 plus years of republican rule in this country the scientists were still warning of climate change, and they werent getting funding to do so

it was the political hacks that denied it

 

Nice try. But although I've been called a lot of things in my time, I've never been mistaken for a liberal arts major before. I'm not sure whether I should feel flattered or insulted, but it certainly shows how unreliable your judgment is.

When it comes to applying logical standards to the arguments put forth, I think you're the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. You're the one who believes California's budget deficit somehow proves climate change is a hoax....

 

Perhaps you are not aware of how fundings for "science" are allocated and who does and why. The governemts of the world, of which the US is just one of them, have only recently realised the power this movement is generating and that explains the embrace you see in some places between all sides shaking hands with the most extreem of greens for the sake of the generla populus vote. Do you realy think that the conservative in Germany are concerned about global warming, or they are in to enjoy a slize of the action?
This is not strictly a conservatives agains the left+green and that is what makes it even more fun. The left in every country is lining up with the global warming alarmist by default yet they do not know who they are associating with, and like most of the supporters of this hack pseudo science based on faith and smoke and mirrors, are all in it in good faith but no reason. Not a smidgeon of it.

 

Landlubber,
Three guesses who the troglodyte may be... A sad someone, who needs to hide behind anonymity to deliver a childishly petulant response to freedom of speech and expression - search no further than a land of "U"

Wonder if stupid will strike again to prove his/her/its spiteful and childish limitations... This is my objection to the rep/feedback, cretins proving they are still antisocial cretins...

 

Too late. The sun has been starting in the west and setting in the east from the day one. On the southern side of the earth. JUst ask those born on the northern side of the planet.

And it was never a problem to architects.

What was your point again?

 

Bugger I just accidentally deleted my post....

I don`t understand the rep system Mas....

I have received some positive points in the past , and I don`t know who sent them either

What does it all mean anyway ?

 

Landlubber I`m not religious.

If I read " Climate change " is a religion I only think that it actually means something to someone.

(Religion to me means organized crime) , and If you were aware of that ,I guess I could take that personally .
But that's for another thread I will never start.

You may have a point .Strong views here.They could be interpreted as " religious "either way.
So ...maybe your claim that " Climate Change (Is) a religion " is also meaningless.( to an atheist ?)

I`m not sure , don`t really know.

I don`t share your view on Climate Change , but then again , I`m not religious about it either .

 

Landlubber, I don't know how the points thing works -never bothered to look into it but mine go up and down and though I never know when they are going up, I know when they're going to go down! (I lost a few yesterday).

 

Take it easy guys, it is not worth fighting among us past each one of the point made here. In fact if you think about it we are, me included, all a bunch of ******.
Remember that we are debating this because someone in power has invented this gigantic CON and want to draw power and money and enthrone puppet organisations like the UN to use up your and my money in detriment of our own hospitals and schools and transport and jobs for a fanthom non existing problem that will not be solved with money anyway.

I think we should all sit back and relax and watch the movement derail and desintegrate. Hopefully someone will pick up the pieces and start a fight against "real" pollution like chemical, nuclear, biological etc. Until then I had enough of this nonsese.