Global Warming IS man-made after all
(23 Nov 09) The fall out continues.... Global Warming IS man-made after all
The Death Blow to Climate Science
(22 Nov 09) “.......Global Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.... Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley . I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS)...Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn't and it is enough to destroy all their careers. Jones gave a foretaste of his behavior in 2005......” The Death Blow to Climate Science , Dr Tim Ball “......Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” He has stonewalled ever since. The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century. The emails obtained are a frightening record of arrogance, and deception far beyond his 2005 effort....Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other's work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature . We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names.... These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001... CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.”
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming?
(22 Nov 09) “......If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That ) When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest: Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.....” Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming? James Delingpole UK Telegraph “.....Hadley CRU has form in this regard . In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU's researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC....Unfortunately, we've a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.....”
Claim That Sea Level is Rising Is a Total Fraud
(22 Nov 09) In an interview with EIR magazine on 6 th June 2007, Dr Mörner pointed out that from 1992 to 2002, satellite data indicated no sea level rise at all: the graph “was a straight line … no trend whatsoever.” Then in 2003, IPCC publications showed a 2.3 mm per year rising sea level trend, for the same data set! Mörner: “those people in the IPCC, choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. … That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set.”
EIR: What is the real state of the sea-level rising?
Mörner: You have to look at that in a lot of different ways. That is what I have done in a lot of different papers, so we can confine ourselves to the short story here. One way is to look at the global picture, to try to find the essence of what is going on. And then we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area; it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was uplifted. So if you balance those, there is only one solution, and it will be this figure. That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then we can come into the debate here on what is going on, and we have to go to satellite altimetry..... So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up and down, but there's no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There's no trend, absolutely no trend. Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it.....” Claim That Sea Level is Rising Is a Total Fraud “..... So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn't use.... I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them— none —were sea-level specialists . They were given this mission, because they promised to answer the right thing....We have Venice. Venice is well known, because that area is tectonically, because of the delta, slowly subsiding. The rate has been constant over time. A rising sea level would immediately accelerate the flooding. And it would be so simple to record it. And if you look at that 300-year record: In the 20th Century it was going up and down, around the subsidence rate. In 1970, you should have an acceleration, but instead, the rise almost finished. So it was the opposite. If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere. But they need the rise, because if there is no rise, there is no death threat.... A glacier like Kilimanjaro, which is important, on the Equator, is only melting because of deforestation. At the foot of the Kilimanjaro, there was a rain forest; from the rain forest came moisture, from that came snow, and snow became ice. Now, they have cut down the rain forest, and instead of moisture, there comes heat; heat melts the ice, and there's no more snow to generate the ice. So it's a simple thing, but has nothing to do with temperature. It's the misbehavior of the people around the mountain. So again, it's like Tuvalu: We should say this deforestation, that's the thing. But instead they say, “No, no, it's the global warming!”.
(16 Nov 09)“……Following a judge's decision at a British employment tribunal that Tim Nicholson, a sustainability officer who was sacked from a property firm, was entitled to legal protection for his philosophical belief in climate change, scientists have been expressing their shock. "As a scientist who works on climate change, I find it deeply alarming," said Myles Allen, who heads the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford. Allen's concerns are entirely understandable. Since the rise of the modern era, science has prided itself on its capacity to explain the world on the basis of experimentation, research and, above all, hard evidence. Science emerged, self-consciously, as an alternative to world views based on faith, moral conviction and other forms of a priori thought. So it is natural that a genuine scientist would feel insulted by judge Michael Burton's ruling that Nicholson's concern with climate change qualified as a philosophical belief under the Religion and Belief Regulations, 2003…..One reason Allen and some of his colleagues are concerned about this decision is that it serves to undermine the pre-eminent authority of science today….if science is recast by a legal ruling as simply a moral or religious world view, then its pre-eminent authority is likely to be compromised. What is to distinguish science from quacks with strongly held principles?.....” Mired in climate of confusion , Frank Furedi, The Australian “….. Science often has the quality of a quasi-religious dogma these days, especially in the arena of climate-change alarmism. "The scientists have spoken," says one British-based green campaign group, in an updated version of the religious phrase, "This is the Word of the Lord." "This is what the science says we must do," many greens claim before adding that the debate about global warming is finished…Unlike science, this new term, The Science , is a deeply moralised and politicised category. Today, those who claim to wield the authority of The Science are really demanding unquestioning submission…Although some scientists feel insulted that their views on climate change have been equated with a religion, there are many green activists who are more than happy to recruit the support of God to their cause….Professional environmental protesters assume they have the moral authority to take matters into their own hands, since they are acting on behalf of The People. They believe their unique philosophical insights entitle them to special dispensation. Now, justice Burton has effectively agreed with them, elevating environmentalism over other, inferior, less worthy beliefs, and democracy is all the more impoverished for it......”
Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth sequel stresses spiritual argument on climate
Whoops!!!! And we thought the science was settled.
(6 Nov 09) “.....Much of the material was developed through the series of brainstorming sessions organised by Gore. Since 2007, the former vice-president has been calling experts together to discuss possible solutions to climate change. He has also held countless telephone conversations with scientists at America's best institutions.....” Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth sequel stresses spiritual argument on climate , The Guardian “......Those conversations led Gore to politically inconvenient conclusions in this new book. In his conversations with Schmidt and other colleagues at the beginning of the year, Gore explored new studies - published only last week - that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide - while the focus of the politics of climate change - produces around 40% of the actual warming. Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions.....”
The Copenhagen con: same demand, different excuse
(6 Nov 09) From the Andrew Bolt Blog “... 1970, the United Nations called on rich countries such as Australia to give 0.7 per cent of their wealth to the Third World - minus handling fees for the UN, of course. This was necessary to ensure “human dignity......” The Copenhagen con: same demand, different excuse
The deep green sophistry of 'religious' equivalence
(5 Nov 09) “…..It's official -- putting plastic bottles into the recycling bin or going on a Greenpeace demo is akin to having a religious experience. Rupert Dickinson, who was made redundant by a London property company, claimed that it had discriminated against him on account of his subscription to the theory of man-made global warming and other environmental issues which he said constituted a ‘philosophical' belief. In any rational universe, he would be sent away with a flea in his ear for trying it on. But this is not such a world. At an Employment Appeal Tribunal Mr Justice Burton ruled that because of his belief in climate change Dickinson was entitled to the same protection against discrimination as someone with religious convictions. How hilarious is this? When sceptics like me observe that man-made global warming resembles religious zealotry because it is a dogmatic belief which has nothing to do with actual as opposed to pseudo-science, we are dismissed as anti-science flat-earthers. Yet now Mr Justice Burton has laid down that it is a philosophical ‘belief' which has the same status as belief in a religion…” The deep green sophistry of 'religious' equivalence , Melanie Phillips, Spectator “….The effect of this is to downgrade religion because it elevates other ideas to the same status. Indeed it would appear that just about any idea system however bizarre can lay claim to equal status on this basis. Christians are up in arms and no wonder, since it down-grades real religion as a result…the point about man-made global warming is that it is said to be a process that is actually happening, with scientifically demonstrable effects. Yet as Bertrand Russell argued, philosophy consists of speculation on questions science cannot answer. So by its own ‘scientific' lights, how can man-made global warming be considered a philosophical position? And if it is just ‘speculation' on ‘questions science cannot answer', why should it have the slightest credibility?....Contrary to what the judge declared, according to this argument precisely the same consideration should apply to global warming sceptics, whose belief founded upon science that man-made global warming is a scam of epic proportions should also be considered to be a philosophical idea with equal status to religion. I look forward to the legal case against the media brought by man-made global warming sceptics on the grounds of discrimination under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003….”
(4 Nov 09) “......Environmental alarmism is being exploited to chip away at national sovereignty. The latest threat to American liberties may be found in the innocuous sounding Copenhagen Climate Treaty, which will be discussed at the United Nations climate-change conference in mid-December..... Treaty supporters market the agreement through fear. Even though mean global temperatures have been on a downward spiral for several years after peaking in 1998... It is critical that they cultivate a sense of impending doom to justify the sweeping restrictions and new powers enshrined in the treaty. The sky is falling and they want us to act now, act swiftly, act before it is too late - but don't read the fine print. The governing authority envisioned by the document reads like a bad George Orwell knockoff. The treaty establishes a body called the Conference of the Parties (COP), which is given ultimate authority over administering and enforcing the treaty. Its executive arm is something called the Adaptation Fund Board, under which is the Copenhagen Climate Facility, also known as "the Facility." Green world government , The editorial, Washington Times “......The Facility is necessary because in order to save the planet, "the way society is structured will need to change fundamentally."...T he Facility will be run by an executive committee, the membership of which "may include representation from relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental stakeholders." So left-wing pressure groups, animal rights fanatics, tree-huggers, Al Gore or any other part of the environmentalist fringe would be eligible for executive committee membership.... A "massive scaling up of financial resources" will be required to fund the COP's activities. The United States and others will be required to transfer $800 billion over five years,.... The COP will have taxing authority "including, but not limited to, a levy on aviation and maritime transport." The ability to tax aircraft and shipping is bad enough.....the phrase "including but not limited to" authorizes any tax they can imagine. The treaty language would be farcical but for the fanaticism of its proponents. The environmental movement is driven by a millenarian determination to save humanity from itself, regardless of its impact on real people.....” .
Gullible eager-beaver planet savers
‘The environment' is the most ingenious cover story ever devised for Big Government
(4 Nov 09) “.....Tim Flannery, the jet-setting doomsaying global warm-monger from down under, was in Ottawa the other day promoting his latest eco-tract, and offered a few thoughts on “Copenhagen”—which is transnational-speak for December's UN Convention on Climate Change. “We all too often mistake the nature of those negotiations in Copenhagen,” remarked professor Flannery . “ We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will in?uence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society . ”Hold that thought: “They deal with every aspect of our life.” Did you know every aspect of your life was being negotiated at Copenhagen?.....Tim Flannery's disarmingly honest characterization passed almost without notice, reported as far as I can tell only by Brian Lilley of CFRB Toronto and CJAD Montreal. But professor Flannery has it right. Government transport policy is about transport, and government education policy is about education, but environmental policy is about everything, because everything's part of “the environment”: your town, your county, your planet—and you. “We are the environment. There is no distinction,” declared another renowned expert, David Suzuki, last year. And just as the government now monitors air and water quality so it's increasingly happy to regulate your quality...” Gullible eager-beaver planet savers , Mark Steyn “...... In 2006, to comply with the “European Land?ll Directive,” various municipal councils in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland introduced “smart” trash cans—“wheelie bins” with a penny-sized electronic chip embedded within that helpfully monitors and records your garbage as it's tossed into the truck.....And once Big Brother's in your trash can, why stop there?... Consider a recent British plan for each citizen to be given an of?cial travel allowance. If you take one ?ight a year, you'll pay just the standard amount of tax on the journey. But, if you travel more frequently, if you take a second or third ?ight, you'll be subject to additional levies—all in the interest of saving the planet for Al Gore's polar bear documentaries and that carbon-offset palace he lives in in Tennessee. The Soviets restricted freedom of movement through the bureaucratic apparatus of “exit visas.” The British favoured the bureaucratic apparatus of exit taxes: the movement's still free; it's just that there'll be a government processing fee of £412.95. And, in a revealing glimpse of the universal belief in enviro-statism, this proposal came not from Gordon Brown's Labour Party but from the allegedly Conservative Party......At their Monday night poker game in hell, I'll bet Stalin, Hitler and Mao are kicking themselves: “ ‘It's about leaving a better planet to our children?' Why didn't I think of that?... Last year, David Suzuki suggested that denialist politicians should be thrown in jail. And only last month the New York Times 's Great Thinker Thomas Friedman channelled his inner Walter Duranty and decided that democracy has f*cked up the planet.....”Beware the UN's Copenhagen plot
(28 Oct 09) “……Shame on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually sceptical media told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews, doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from Canberra for an outcome at Copenhagen, opposition criticism of government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? With just over 40 days until more than 15,000 officials, advisers, diplomats, activists and journalists from more than 190 countries attend the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, we know nothing. Nothing about a climate change treaty that the Rudd government is keen to sign and one that will bind this country for years to come……In a sense, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a UN body responsible for implementing the treaty obligations. But the difference is that we usually understand the details of the obligations and the power ceded. Now read the 181-page draft treaty. It is impossible to fully understand the convoluted UN verbiage……” Beware the UN's Copenhagen plot, Janet Albrechtesen, The Australian “……Yet even those incomprehensible clauses point to some nasty surprises that no politician has told us about…..Clause after complicated clause sets out the requirement that developed countries such as Australia pay their “adaptation debt” to developing countries. Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year….Ask yourself this: why has our government failed to explain the possible text of a treaty it wants Australia to sign? There has been no address from any Rudd minister to explain the draft treaty. No 3000-word essay from the thoughtful PM. No speech in parliament. No interview. No press release. Nothing….So why the silence? Are they hiding the details of this deal from us because most of the polls now suggest that action on climate change is becoming politically unpalatable? And what explains the media's failure to report and analyse the only source document that offers any idea of what may happen in Copenhagen? Ignorance? Laziness? Stubborn adherence to the orthodox government line that a deal in Copenhagen is critical? An obsession with the politics of climate change rather than policy? Perhaps now our PM and our Climate Change Minister can spare a few moments to tell us about the details they know about but have so far chosen not to tell us about……”
Copenhagen negotiating text: 200 pages to save the world? David Adam, The Guardian
(26 Oct 09) The draft document includes sections on the traditional sticking points that have delayed progress on climate change to date. It is a blueprint to save the world. And yet it is long, confusing and contradictory. Negotiators have released a draft version of a new global agreement on climate change , which is widely billed as the last chance to save the planet from the ravages of global warming. Running to some 200 pages, the draft agreement is being discussed for the first time this week as officials from 190 countries gather in Bangkok for the latest round of UN talks. There is only one short meeting after this before they meet in Copenhagen aiming to hammer out a final version .The draft text consolidates and reorders hundreds of changes demanded by countries to the previous version, which saw it balloon to an unmanageable 300 pages. It has no official status yet, and must be formally approved before negotiators can start to whittle it down. Here, we present key, edited sections from the text and attempt to decipher what the words mean.The text includes sections on the traditional sticking points that have delayed progress on climate change for a decade or longer.
• How much are rich countries willing to cut their greenhouse gas emissions , and by when?
• Will large developing nations such as China make an effort to put at least a dent in their soaring levels of pollution?
• How much money must flow from the developed world to developing countries to grease the wheels and secure their approval? How much to compensate for the impact of past emissions , and how much to help prevent future emissions?
According to the UN rules, for a new treaty to be agreed, every country must sign up – a challenging requirement. The new treaty is designed to follow the Kyoto protocol , the world's existing treaty to regulate greenhouse gases, the first phase of which expires in 2012. Because the US did not ratify Kyoto, the climate talks have been forced on to awkward parallel tracks, with one set of negotiations, from which the US is excluded, debating how the treaty could be extended past 2012. This new text comes from the second track, which lays out a plan to include all countries in long-term co-operative action. Behind the scenes, pessimism about the Copenhagen talks is rising. Despite references in the text to a global goal and collective emission cuts of 25-40% by 2020 for rich countries, many observers believe there is little chance such an approach will succeed. Stuart Eizenstat, who negotiated Kyoto for the US, said: "Copenhagen is more likely to be a way station to a final agreement, where each country posts the best that it can do... The key thing is let's not go into Copenhagen with all the same kind of guns blazing like we did in Kyoto." A top European official told the Guardian: "We've moved on from the idea that we can negotiate on targets . That's naive and just not the way the deal will be done. The best we can get is that countries will put in what they want to commit to." Once all the carbon offsets – buying pollution credits instead of cutting emissions – and "fudges" are taken into account, the outcome is likely to be that emissions in 2020 from rich countries will be broadly similar to those in 1990, he said. "That's really scary stuff."
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(26 Oct 09) This is the full 200 page text of the draft document up for discussion at Copenhagen in December, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Tax carbon rather than trade in it
(19 Oct 09) “….Among economists and business leaders there is unease about cap and trade, a system that has already created a derivatives markets of the kind that brought the global financial system close to collapse. A scheme that looked like a stroke of genius in the 90s is falling out of fashion. "We'll have a financial crisis in emissions at some point," Kenneth Rogoff tells Focus. "There'll be derivatives and all these unemployed investment bankers will then go work on carbon trading and come up with ... products which will lead to a crisis." The professor of public policy and economics at Harvard and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund claims he isn't alone in this view. "You'll find few economists who disagree," Rogoff says. Indeed, the economists who addressed a global editors forum in Copenhagen last weekend were unanimous in their view that a cap and trade system was unlikely to reduce emissions, would be open to rent-seeking and, in many countries, corruption…..Nobel laureate and Columbia University economics professor Joseph Stiglitz told the forum the global financial crisis had reshaped the concerns of economists. "We've seen the corruption and crony capitalism that has been evident in the advanced industrialised countries ... It makes you very worried," he said. "What we realised now is the allocation of emissions permits is a market that is a couple of trillion dollars a year. So we're giving away, allocating that amount of money, and that just attracts the worst kind of behaviour that you can imagine……" Tax carbon rather than trade in it, Rebecca Weisser, The Australian “…..Stiglitz also said emissions trading would not do the one thing that was needed to drive change towards a low-carbon economy: set a stable price for carbon that would make it viable for companies to invest in low-carbon power plants and infrastructure. So, despite all the money spent trading in permits, which would add to the cost of everything from petrol to beer, there would still not be the certainty business needed to drive investment. "Once you have emissions trading, permits will become an asset class and can go from anywhere between 30 and 200 (dollars); they'll be very unstable….Zedillo believes trying to negotiate an emissions trading scheme could doom the Copenhagen talks to failure. "There is a reason the world has been unable to reach an agreement ... to reduce emissions and the reason is we took the wrong track," he said. "Either it will be a useless system because we will have a huge number of permits for everybody to make everybody happy or we will not be able to negotiate it."…… Ernesto Zedillo, who is professor of international economics at Yale University and director of the Yale Centre for the Study of Globalisation, says setting a price on carbon rather than negotiating on emissions quotas could be a circuit-breaker. "If you recognise we are very close to failure, I think we should have a plan B and in my view plan B would be an agreement, an understanding that opens the possibility ... to negotiate a harmonised carbon price…..”
(19 Oct 09) “.....Politics makes for strange bedfellows, but the alliance that has pushed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill to the point of ultimate success is surely the most bizarre alliance in the history of Australian politics. The driving force behind this campaign to decarbonise Australia has been the Greens. Although they are small in terms of numbers they are extraordinarily influential...... Notwithstanding their personal prosperity the Greens seek to reduce the standard of living of other Australians (often in states far from Sydney and Melbourne, such as Western Australia) through measures that will reduce our productivity and progress.....Former High Court judge Ian Callinan described the situation thus: "Emissions regulation offers government an irresistible opportunity to centralise and control every aspect of our lives; on our roads, on our travels, in our workplaces, on our farms, in our forests and our mines, and, more threateningly, in our homes, constructed as they will be compelled to be, of very specific materials and of prescribed sizes......" Tax carbon to stop corruption, Peter Walsh, The Australian “.....So the socialist Left got behind the Greens at an early stage of the campaign..... In my time in politics I saw quite a bit of rent-seeking, but nothing compares in scale and scope with the rents that financial institutions of all kinds are pursuing in the emissions trading scheme at the heart of the CPRS Bill. This rent-seeking is quite brazen....The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change became a vast gravy train and the fraudulent use of statistics, as in the notorious hockeystick and most recently in the scandal of the Yamal tree rings, became the defining characteristic of its modus operandi......However, the most disreputable member of this unholy alliance is the so-called business community. In my time in politics I saw quite a bit of rent-seeking, but nothing compares in scale and scope with the rents that financial institutions of all kinds are pursuing in the emissions trading scheme at the heart of the CPRS Bill. This rent-seeking is quite brazen......”
Emissions trading scheme's 'casino chicanery'
(14 Oct 09) “….The Rudd government's emissions trading scheme will lead to new financial products that will be exploited by the whiz-kids who helped precipitate the global financial crisis, a key participant in the ETS debate has warned. And a union boss active in the debate has mocked what he says is the Left's new-found faith in market mechanisms to tackle climate change….. Lehman Brothers, the finance house that collapsed in September last year, taking market confidence down with it across the world, was a well-known proponent of carbon credit schemes. "The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will create new financial derivatives that will no doubt be exploited by the same people who got us into the global financial crisis," Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Mitch Hooke told The Australian……” Emissions trading scheme's 'casino chicanery' , The Australian "….The creation of increasingly sophisticated financial instruments in the form of securities or derivatives -- the product of which can be justifiably described as casino chicanery in leveraging credit and managing risk in order to increase profit -- helped get us into a global mess… Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes expressed concern about artificial increases in carbon prices. "I find it amusing that so many people on the Left think that the market is going to solve the environmental woes, and essentially that's what the ETS is," he said. "Often when you're dealing with responses to climate change, the biggest cheerleaders of carbon taxes have been the banks and audit firms. "It's almost as if you have firms like KPMG and Deutsche Bank marching down the street with the Trots…."The sale of carbon will eventually become a global commodity….”
(10 Oct 09) Best presentation yet on the climate change debate The Madness of an ETS
Without control, carbon market will bubble
(6 Oct 09) “......Carbon is set to be the next bubble, one that could make the US housing market crash look like a picnic. One reason the US market collapsed was that no one was minding the store when companies were trading exotic and little understood derivatives, such as the credit default swaps that almost destroyed American International Group. Carbon credits are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by selling carbon as futures or forward contracts at a certain quantity and price. They are derivatives; bets on the future. Commissioner Bart Chilton from the US Commodities Future Trading Commission told The Financial Times last year that carbon could be the world's biggest derivatives market in five years. Experts estimate it to be worth between $2 trillion and $3.5 trillion....We are yet to see measures minimising potential conflicts of interest with carbon trading, conflicts that echo those perpetrated by ratings agencies that left capital markets in smoking ruins. Impossible with carbon? How about financial engineers creating "junk" carbon contracts with a relatively high risk of not being fulfilled, similar to subprime mortgages? Or consultants offering advice on developing carbon offset projects and then, like the ratings agencies, earning fees to verify emissions from those projects? Or investment banks taking equity stakes in carbon offset specialists and then selling their services as carbon brokers and analysts? Without control, carbon market will bubble, Leon Gettler. The Age “......How many Chinese walls do you need to stop investment banks making millions managing both ends of cap and trade transactions?... Given the talent that investment banks have for making money out of thin air, it is not too difficult to see them concocting "green" products that they can flog to retail investors. Already, the carbon market is starting to have echoes of the subprime debacle where investment banks made enormous profits selling dodgy securities.... The big four accounting firms in the US — PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Ernst & Young and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu — are beefing up their climate desks in the wake of the US House of Representatives passing legislation opening the way for carbon trading. We can expect similar developments here if the Senate passes the Federal Government's carbon pollution reduction scheme.....an emissions trading market has one key problem: unlike other commodities markets, it is politically created and managed so it is vulnerable to vested interests and regulatory capture. As the subprime meltdown showed, politicians of all persuasions are susceptible. There is no reason to think they will be different with carbon.....”
Carbon credits will be available for planting trees, say, but what happens when saplings are eaten by wallabies or mature forests are consumed by bushfires?
(6 Oct 09) “.....In effect a new religion has grown out of secular humanism. Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytising the new faith.... In discussions with colleagues, arguments always seem to come down to “But the models show …” Those who use this argument seldom have modelling experience themselves and share the lay public's naive faith in the value of large computer models. I have been a fluid dynamical modeller and I know how flaky numerical models can be for even a relatively small chunk of fluid like the Derwent Estuary. The models are highly unstable and need to be carefully cosseted in order to perform at all realistically.... Why then would such an over-damped model predict recent global temperature increases so well (which it does)? The answer is that an over-damped model will always regress to some sort of mean or trend line. Climate models include a number of adjustable parameters and these are tweaked to tune the model to known data. My belief is that early models did not show much increase in global temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the reason set out above. However, an ingenious trick was used to make this happen.... A scientific theory is not tested merely by looking for confirmations but by conscientiously trying to “break” the theory, by trying to disprove it. The AGW theory is encapsulated in the IPCC assessment reports. The models discussed in these reports have not been tested in this way....” Climate Modelling Nonsense , John Reid. Quadrant “.....The implication is that climate prediction, as it is carried out by those organisations which come under the aegis of the IPCC, is not science. It is a superstition similar to astrology or homeopathy. The IPCC is promoting the AGW proposition as if it were an established scientific theory, when it is not.If the IPCC were a pharmaceutical company it could face fraud charges for doing this. This is a good analogy. The IPCC claims to have diagnosed a planetary disorder, global warming, and has proposed a remedy, the limitation of man-made carbon dioxide production. They have produced no convincing scientific evidence that either the diagnosis or the cure is valid..... When a political structure is set up which is based on a lie, we can expect further lies to proliferate. Meanwhile, less influential groups such as farmers can expect to be hounded by “carbon police”. Whatever the status of AGW scientifically, it is certainly a political truth. It is now a key plank in the platforms of two out of three of the major political parties in this country and the third genuflects piously from time to time. Like Chartism and communism in earlier times, AGW is providing a rallying cry for reform.... This country and the world at large have many real political, demographic and environmental issues to contend with. We do not need to create problems where none exist. The present hysteria diverts money and attention away from problems which do need to be solved..... People are entitled to entertain whatever apocalyptic view of the future they choose, but such ideas have nothing to do with science. Climate prediction is not science, it is pseudo-science, and sooner or later more real scientists are going to wake up to this fact. In the conduct of human affairs it is surely preferable that we base our actions on reason and evidence rather than on piety and myth.....”
(9 Sept 2009) “.....Greenpeace's hostility to geo-engineering - like its opposition to nuclear power, despite the fact that nuclear is vastly cleaner than coal - is revealing. It suggests that modern-day environmentalism is not a specific and focused campaign to tackle the practical problem of climate change, but rather has become a deeply ideological effort to lower people's horizons and expectations. It is about reshaping our behaviour rather than the planet. It is striking that the very people who talk about climate change in the most hysterical terms - as a disaster that will make "genocide and ethnic cleansing look like sideshows at the circus of human suffering", in the words of one columnist - are also the people opposed to taking big techno-steps to tackle it.....Worst of all, the focus on geo-engineering would detract from the social engineering that environmentalists are so keen on.....” Greens Cling to moral fix. Brendon O'neill, The Australian “...... If society were to use technology to try to reshape our climate then that would give ordinary people the green light to continue buying, flying and living as they see fit, and from the environmentalists' perspective that simply will not do. Environmentalism is increasingly a campaign to encourage people to live meeker lives and to realise the error of their greedy ways. And such a movement cannot tolerate any big measures that might allow people to continue consuming and travelling as much as they please. Indeed, one could be forgiven for thinking that some environmentalists - who, like Al Gore, believe that tackling climate change has provided them with "the exhilaration of a compelling moral purpose" - don't really want climate change to be solved. After all, what would they do with themselves then? Their sense of moral purpose, and moral superiority over the wayward masses, is far more important than the small matter of actually preventing climate change.
Arctic ice proves to be slippery stuff
(8 Sept 2009) “......BBC viewers were treated last week to the bizarre spectacle of Mr Ban Ki-moon standing on an Arctic ice-floe making a series of statements so laughable that it was hard to believe such a man can be Secretary-General of the UN. Thanks to global warming, he claimed, "100 billion tons" of polar ice are melting each year, so that within 30 years the Arctic could be "ice-free"......Everything about this oft-repeated item was propaganda of the silliest kind. Standing 700 miles from the Pole, as near as the stubbornly present ice would allow his ship to go, Mr Ban seemed unaware that, although some 10 million square kilometres (3.8 million square miles) of sea-ice melts each summer, each September the Arctic starts to freeze again. And the extent of the ice now is 500,000 sq km (190,000 sq m) greater than it was this time last year – which was, in turn, 500,000 sq km more than in September 2007, the lowest point recently recorded (see the Cryosphere Today website). By April, after months of darkness, it will be back up to 14 million sq km (5.4 million sq m) or more......” Arctic ice proves to be slippery stuff, Christopher Booker, UK Telegraph “.......Mr Ban was indulging in this childish publicity stunt for the same reason the BBC, the Royal Society and others have lately been banging on about various mad schemes for "climate engineering", such as putting up vast mirrors in space to keep out the sun's rays or lining our motorways with artificial trees to suck deadly CO2 out of the air, to be taken away and buried in holes in the ground.Why are they all going off their heads like this, in emulation of the "projector" that Gulliver met on his travels, in the Academy of Lagado, who had designed a scheme for extracting sunbeams from cucumbers? It is because they are desperately trying to whip up alarm over global warming before December's planned "climate treaty" in Copenhagen, when all evidence suggests that they are not going to get the successor to the Kyoto Protocol they want.... According to Government figures, however, we in Britain are already committed to spending, under the Climate Change Act, £18 billion every year between now and 2050 on this nonsense – daft light bulbs (see below), electricity blackouts and all. In other words, we are only beginning to see some of the nastier consequences of this crazy make-believe, based on nothing more substantial than the kind of gibberish we got last week from Mr "Light Bulb" Ban and the BBC....”
(8 Sept 2009) “......The stage was set at the Bali climate change conference 18 months ago to propel Kevin Rudd to the front ranks of global environmental heroes. Instead, his announcement of Australia's signing up to the Kyoto Protocol was overshadowed by the dazzling arrival as a green superstar of another Kevin - Kevin Conrad, Papua New Guinea's climate change ambassador. Conrad, also the executive director of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, took the microphone after two draining weeks that appeared doomed to end in a standoff between the US and the rest, and said: "I would ask the US: we ask for your leadership. But if for some reason you're not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please get out of the way.....It had a big effect on the country that Conrad was representing, PNG, where carbon trading has been converted into a cargo cult luring cash from Australian taxpayers, international investors and local villagers alike. This classic 21st-century scam emerging from the global climate change industry is known in PNG as mani bilong skai - sky money - because it appears to be selling air. The country was applauded in multinational arenas for seizing a global lead in plans to sell carbon credits in return for saving ancient rainforests from destruction. But then it jumped the gun, with multimillion-dollar carbon trading deals being set up by the government's new Office of Climate Change before policies or legislation were put in place...Kirk Roberts, a former Australian horse trainer who once ran a Philippines cockfighting business ("it's the equivalent to pokies in Australia"), has been involved in deals central to the OCC inquiry.....” The rush is on for sky money , Rowan Callick, The Australian “..... As excited rumours swept rural PNG about the sit-down money available in return for locking up forests from loggers, the carbon cowboys swept in. These local confidence tricksters have been trawling through rural areas, urging people to register with their fake firms to make millions of kina from trading to developed countries the carbon values embedded in their trees. In Oro province, which contains Kokoda, about 500 villagers paid $500 each to become shareholders, though many remained confused, asking for instance who would pay to transport their burned logs - the raw carbon, as they saw it - to the market in Port Moresby....And in East Sepik, Eric Komang, the Prime Minister's nephew, has approached villagers on behalf of Pacific Carbon Trade to sign land rights away to trade the associated carbon... Two brokers, Earth Sky and Climate Assist PNG, signed memos last year offering to fund the OCC with $10m, in return for the rights to sell $500m worth of carbon offsets, from which the agency would earn 20 per cent. Earth Sky is a one-dollar company run by former boilermaker Greg Corby in Toowomba, and Climate Assist is also a one-dollar company, based in Rockhampton.... Carbon Planet, a South Australian-based unlisted public company, says it expects the total voluntary carbon market to exceed $20bn by 2012. But chairman Jim Johnson says no payment has yet been made to PNG. The company claims on its website that its short-term goal is "to be responsible for reducing excess atmospheric emissions by 1 per cent by the end of 2010......”
Tone down hype on renewable energy
(24 Aug 2009) “....Stripped of the political grandstanding, Australia's Renewable Energy Target would fail any reasonable cost-benefit test. However much internal warmth the thought of more windmills and solar panels might generate, the cold hard truth is that renewable energy targets have serious economic implications that warrant close scrutiny. Unfortunately, in handing alternative energy companies a subsidised monopoly to supply 20 per cent of our electricity, the RET scheme is unlikely to reduce emissions cost effectively, if at all. The economics are simple. Given current technology, the electricity generated from renewables will be much more expensive. In May last year, the Productivity Commission calculated that next year, the cost of one megawatt hour of electricity from Australia's vast black coal reserves would be $30-35. Wind power would cost twice as much -- $55 to $80 per megawatt hour. And however scorching the Australian summers, solar power will cost $200 to $400 per megawatt hour...” Tone down hype on renewable energy , The Australian “.......In practice, the RET scheme will favour technology that has already been developed, such as solar and wind power, compelling government to pick winners and subsidise businesses that would not otherwise hold their own in a competitive market. There is little if any incentive to develop new technologies that might eventually do a better job. The Productivity Commission warns that this is a bad precedent.....Faced with higher power bills from the renewable energy target, consumers will ask: what's the point? The answer lies in a failure of the political class. On both sides, politicians are eager, however tokenistic their efforts, to appear environmentally friendly. No one should be fooled by the promise of 28,000 RET-inspired "green" jobs in the next decade. A recent study by King Juan Carlos university has exposed similar claims in Spain where for every "green" job created from renewable energy in Spain, two others were lost...... Australians are fast wising up to the limited benefits of feel-good green stunts that do nothing to reduce atmospheric carbon.....”
Global Warming or Global Governance
(21 Aug 2009)Take 1 hour 20 minutes out of your life and witness the greatest fraud in the history of humanity. And you're about to become a victim. Global Warming or Global Governance
Is “mistake” another word for a warming lie?
(20 Aug 2009) From the Andrew Bolt Sun Herald Blog, It doesn't get any better than this Is “mistake” another word for a warming lie?
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
(20 Aug 2009) This is an excellent, tangible illustration of what we're are dealing with respect to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme by using measurements over a kilometre as an expression of percentages....It puts the entire debate into a context that people can understand.
political ‘stranger danger' in classrooms
“..In the past, governments advocated world-class education because it was a good thing in its own terms; nowadays, education is promoted as a simplistic device to achieve other non-educational, instrumental objectives..”.
(11 Aug 2009) “……School children are being brainwashed with an environmental message in the classroom. Children are not just being pinned down in the classroom and force-fed what to think: it's worse than that. The next generation - from primary schoolchildren through to college students - is being taught not to think, merely encouraged to accept the official line. It ought to be a national scandal but no one seems to think that there is anything controversial about environmental indoctrination in schools…. In its latest action plan, Living Sustainably, the Australian government states - with Orwellian overtones - that it will be "reorienting education". Who would have thought that any government would have the chutzpah to boast it "seeks to ensure that education is integrated with other policy tools utilised to deliver Australian government policy and program outcomes."…. Julia Gillard, argues: "Higher education is pivotal to achieving environmental sustainability, improving social inclusion…..Al Gore's propaganda movie An Inconvenient Truth was sent to every school in Britain. On the back of government endorsement, non-governmental organisations are sneaking into the education system…” Political ‘stranger danger' in classrooms , Austin Williams, The Australian “….…If brainwashing is too strong a word, it might be more acceptable to say that children are being nudged in the right moral direction. Whereas parents and teachers would be horrified to find political parties wandering into schools to push their partisan agendas, everyone seems happy for environmental lobbyists - presumably thought to be the epitome of political impartiality - to wander around schools, handing out leaflets, writing lesson plans, and preparing coursework and subject matter….If governments want to sell an environmental policy, in normal circumstances they would have to convince the public through active political engagement. Nowadays, they simply get third-party agencies to do it for them…...Activists and advocates for a particular environmental position no longer need to get their hands dirty with hard arguments; they can simply choose to ride in through the back door of schools' policy. Where once children were perhaps overly protected from the nefarious influences of adults with political agendas, nowadays schools erstwhile in loco parentis are willingly offering up their charges to be used, manipulated, and made to manipulate others…..”
(10 Aug 2009) “......It has no comparison in importance, but like the Washington Post writers on Watergate, every time I write on the Australian carbon crisis I feel this will be my last commentary on the subject. But every time I write, new information is put before me to encourage me to keep going..... Having got through the GFC this is without doubt Australia's biggest looming crisis and it will effect all citizens. Effectively large segments of global energy capital will either black ban Australia or demand much higher returns with enormous consequences to this nation, including consequences for new renewable energy projects... Let's go step by step through what is about to happen to our nation because of an inexperienced government and an incompetent opposition.....In most parts of the world, apart from Australia, it is believed that the form of carbon trading scheme being proposed by Australia will not promote investment in lower carbon energy alternatives. We are about to prove the rest of the world right.... When a nation or a company is doing something stupid there will be a trigger that explodes the wrong strategy. In this case it is the Latrobe Valley brown coal power stations. These stations have huge debt repayments and emit a lot of carbon so the Canberra plan was that they should go broke and be bought at token prices.....” Trading carbon for a disaster , Robert Gottliebsen, Business Spectator “......The plan was that the market would do its job and the power companies that own the stations and the banks that funded them will suffer well-deserved losses because they knew the risks they were taking when they made the investments and loans. If only it were so simple..... The power stations say who in their right mind would spend cash when they have no idea whether the generators will be viable in the short and long term because the level of carbon charges and carbon policy is not known. Last summer every Latrobe Valley station went without a break down – the first time that has happened. This summer the odds are that they will break down...... Victorian Premier John Brumby's staff know exactly what is going to happen to their state and realise that although this is a Canberra induced crisis they will cop the blame. Brumby's people have gone to Canberra and been met with a wall of Godwin Greches. They might not fake emails, but they have no interest what so ever in the truth about what is going to happen..... So how do we get out of this? Step one is to vote down the crazy carbon trading legislation and forget the massive grants needed to offset the cost of carbon permits. There will be no double dissolution because by the time one is due the disaster will be apparent.....”
(10 Aug 2009) “......It has taken the print media seven months to catch up on the fact that Latrobe valley coal is looming as Australia's greatest infrastructure and banking crisis. As BusinessSpectator originally explained ( Power at any price , December 18) the banks are owed about $5 billion by the four Latrobe Valley power stations, which are worth a fraction of that sum. Moreover, the loans will mature in the next two years.....Neither the owners of the effectively bankrupt power stations nor the banks want to invest more money in the Latrobe valley generators, so just how long the brown coal power is produced at the current rate is simply a matter of luck.....” Charging into the abyss , Robert Gottliebsen, Business Spectator “.....We simply can't quickly replace 25 per cent of our power with renewable on the basis of present technology. There are a lot of interesting new developments in the long term pipeline but it is vital to act quickly, particularly as the looming Latrobe Valley crisis will affect NSW, Queensland and South Australia as much as Victoria. What Canberra does about carbon quotas is academic. There is simply is no more capital for brown coal power on the basis of current technology....The worst outcome is that the politicians dither. But if they do, then voters will take it out on them via the ballot box.....”
Sanity still blowing in the wind
(6 Aug 2009) “......The Rudd Government's 'green power' strategy has been utterly shredded by detailed analysis which shows the total uselessness of the one form of power on which it is almost entirely based - wind. Further, this independent analysis is a damning indictment of not only the federal government and all state governments for their betrayal of their most fundamental duty to the public interest. But it also exposes the disgrace of the so-called 'public service' bureaucracies.....Where is the official analysis of what wind power generation does in practice - at either federal or state level? Which, if it had been done, would have embarrassingly exposed its uselessness.....What makes the analysis even more damning is that wind fails even in the main reason for its costly and ineffective existence - to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Precisely because of that pesky little problem....” Sanity still blowing in the wind , Terry McCrann, Herald Sun “...... An unreliable 484MW wind farm would not only cost more than two times a gas-fired 550MW power station. But it would allow perhaps only 25MW of coal-fired generation to be shut down - whereas the gas plant could close its full 550MW. The analysis comes in a series of papers. The first, from weather analyst Andrew Miskelly and physicist Tom Quirk, tracks the performance of the wind farms across Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania for the entire month of June in five-minute intervals.....Two huge and unmistakable messages leap out of the graph. Wind farms spend most of their time not generating power, or not generating very much. They can move quickly from producing a lot or quite a lot of power to zero. Second, even though spread right across southern Australia, they tend to produce or not produce at much the same time. That makes impossible any practical ability to ask nature to 'turn on', say, Victorian wind farms when nature has turned off SA ones. Or even 'distant' Tasmanian ones...Every wind turbine that goes up anywhere in Australia is not just a statement of some primitive theology but testament to government and public service betrayal......”
(1 Aug 2009) How much does human activity affect greenhouse gases??
REPOSTED from March 20, 2009 Few jobs replace carbon clouds
GREEN JOBS OR CON JOBS?
(Reposted from March 20, 2009) “.....A new US study claims that prospects for green jobs are being grossly overhyped. Undertaken at the Institute for Energy Research by a group including Andrew Morriss of the University of Illinois and Roger Meiners of the University of Texas-Arlington, the study argues that organisations such as the UN Environment Program, the US Conference of Mayors and the American Solar Energy Society have all "overhyped the potential to create good jobs" and overlooked the job losses in conventional industries..... There is no standard definition of a green job but in the US it seems to include large numbers of clerical, bureaucratic and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption. The big flaw is the promotion of more American jobs instead of more productivity. The institute suggests that the real purpose of the green jobs initiative is not to create jobs but to remake society. To shift economies away from decentralised decision-making in favour of central planning. To determine the choices faced by consumers and workers and, I would add, investors....” Few jobs replace carbon clouds , Keith Orchison, The Australian “......Says the study, "By wrapping these shifts in the green jobs mantle it is hoped to avoid a debate over the vast cost of the changes proposed." The problem is perfectly illustrated by a submission to the Australian Senate's fuel and energy committee by Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri, which operates a Hunter Valley smelter and provides 2500 direct and indirect jobs in the region. The company is evaluating a $4 billion investment in the smelter to achieve world-class efficiency, a large rise in production and carbon dioxide capture capability. If the project goes ahead, it will generate 3000 new long-term jobs and 15,000 construction jobs over three years. But the company points out: "The investment is contingent on the regulatory regime in Australia (including emissions trading and the renewable energy target) not materially eroding competitive advantages." The CSIRO report appeared well before the global economic tsunami hit these shores - and must have been researched even earlier when the boom was booming - but it made one observation that is still highly relevant. Thirty per cent of Australian workers, it noted, are employed in the industries that create up to 90 per cent of the carbon impacts, including: agriculture, food and drink production, mining, petroleum, manufacturing, aluminium production and road transport. Shifting them to green jobs seems highly improbable.....”
Actual quotes from major figures in the current and past environmental movement
(21 July 09) “....Aside from the obvious multi-trillion dollar carbon tax schemes, increasing theft of our rights, and ever more governmental control over the people, there is a much larger and even scarier picture to consider. Read carefully. These are actual quotes from major figures in the current and past environmental movement:
The Morality of Climate Change
(21July 2009) The Morality of Climate Change