Climategate, video Report shows it's a Ponzi Scheme

[RobertMac]

You exactly right, burnt. Until this is made high profile enough that the "green-blind" state-run media is forced to cover it, the majority of the public won't be exposed to the lies. Not over by a long shot!!!

 

[hypocritexposer]

* DECEMBER 3, 2009

Climategate: Science Is Dying

*
By DANIEL HENNINGER


Surely there must have been serious men and women in the hard sciences who at some point worried that their colleagues in the global warming movement were putting at risk the credibility of everyone in science. The nature of that risk has been twofold: First, that the claims of the climate scientists might buckle beneath the weight of their breathtaking complexity. Second, that the crudeness of modern politics, once in motion, would trample the traditions and culture of science to achieve its own policy goals. With the scandal at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, both have happened at once.

I don't think most scientists appreciate what has hit them. This isn't only about the credibility of global warming. For years, global warming and its advocates have been the public face of hard science. Most people could not name three other subjects they would associate with the work of serious scientists. This was it. The public was told repeatedly that something called "the scientific community" had affirmed the science beneath this inquiry. A Nobel Prize was bestowed (on a politician).

Global warming enlisted the collective reputation of science. Because "science" said so, all the world was about to undertake a vast reordering of human behavior at almost unimaginable financial cost. Not every day does the work of scientists lead to galactic events simply called Kyoto or Copenhagen. At least not since the Manhattan Project.

What is happening at East Anglia is an epochal event. As the hard sciences—physics, biology, chemistry, electrical engineering—came to dominate intellectual life in the last century, some academics in the humanities devised the theory of postmodernism, which liberated them from their colleagues in the sciences. Postmodernism, a self-consciously "unprovable" theory, replaced formal structures with subjectivity. With the revelations of East Anglia, this slippery and variable intellectual world has crossed into the hard sciences.

This has harsh implications for the credibility of science generally. Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons. But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies. The New England Journal of Medicine has turned into a weird weekly amalgam of straight medical-research and propaganda for the Obama redesign of U.S. medicine.

The East Anglians' mistreatment of scientists who challenged global warming's claims—plotting to shut them up and shut down their ability to publish—evokes the attempt to silence Galileo. The exchanges between Penn State's Michael Mann and East Anglia CRU director Phil Jones sound like Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General of the Inquisition.

For three centuries Galileo has symbolized dissent in science. In our time, most scientists outside this circle have kept silent as their climatologist fellows, helped by the cardinals of the press, mocked and ostracized scientists who questioned this grand theory of global doom. Even a doubter as eminent as Princeton's Freeman Dyson was dismissed as an aging crank.

Beneath this dispute is a relatively new, very postmodern environmental idea known as "the precautionary principle." As defined by one official version: "When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." The global-warming establishment says we know "enough" to impose new rules on the world's use of carbon fuels. The dissenters say this demotes science's traditional standards of evidence.

The Environmental Protection Agency's dramatic Endangerment Finding in April that greenhouse gas emissions qualify as an air pollutant—with implications for a vast new regulatory regime—used what the agency called a precautionary approach. The EPA admitted "varying degrees of uncertainty across many of these scientific issues." Again, this puts hard science in the new position of saying, close enough is good enough. One hopes civil engineers never build bridges under this theory.

The Obama administration's new head of policy at EPA, Lisa Heinzerling, is an advocate of turning precaution into standard policy. In a law-review article titled "Law and Economics for a Warming World," Ms. Heinzerling wrote, "Policy formation based on prediction and calculation of expected harm is no longer relevant; the only coherent response to a situation of chaotically worsening outcomes is a precautionary policy. . . ."

If the new ethos is that "close-enough" science is now sufficient to achieve political goals, serious scientists should be under no illusion that politicians will press-gang them into service for future agendas. Everyone working in science, no matter their politics, has an stake in cleaning up the mess revealed by the East Anglia emails. Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704107104574572091993737848.html

 

[PORKER]

UN to investiage 'Climategate'
The United Nations will conduct its own investigation into e-mails leaked from a leading British climate science center in addition to the probe by the University of East Anglia, a senior U.N. climate official said in comments broadcast Friday.
Saudi Arabia's lead climate change negotiator, Mohammad Al-Sabban, reportedly said the e-mails would have a "huge impact" on the Copenhagen talks on a new global emissions reduction pact scheduled to begin Monday.

Global Cooling starts with No Sunspots
That includes growing Arctic sea ice, bigger glaciers and larger ice sheets, increase of spring snow season, shorter growing seasons, colder summers and earlier onset of winter in plants and animals.

"It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," Al-Sabban was quoted as saying by the BBC Friday.

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have grilled government scientists on the leaked e-mails in a hearing Wednesday in Washington

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8&feature=player_embedded

CBC news

Glacier Advancing 7 Ft Per Day!
From Robert Felix
IceAgeNow.com

This past week, climatologist Cliff Harris of the Coeur d'Alene Press received an astounding report from Yakutat, Alaska, concerning the Hubbard Glacier. The glacier is advancing toward Gilbert Point near Yakutat at the astonishing rate of two meters (seven feet) per day!

"The Army Corp of Engineers special Web site for the Hubbard Glacier - www.glacierresearch.com - contains some absolutely amazing photos of the advancing glacier," says Harris. "One can easily see the expanding wall of ice. It's HUGE!" (The website may tell you that viewing is restricted, but if you keep clicking on stuff you'll find the secret.)

"Even the dedicated global warmists need to know the truth about the recent extended period of global cooling caused by our 'SILENT SUN,' Harris continues.

'When' and 'if' the Hubbard Glacier eventually closes the Russell Fjord, the fjord will fill with fresh water, becoming a 30-mile-long lake creating a new 40,000-cubic-feet-per-second river system. This will have an extremely 'negative' economic impact on Yakutat and the surrounding regions. It's possible that at the shocking rate of seven feet per day in its advancement, the Hubbard Glacier could close the fjord by later this summer, or even prior to that time, if the current rate of advancement speeds up, say to perhaps 10 or 12 feet per day.

"Not only has our 'SILENT SUN,' almost completely devoid of sunspots, been at least partially responsible for the expanding glaciers in Alaska, Norway and elsewhere, but 'Ole Sol' is likewise, in my not-so-humble climatological opinion, to blame for our recent colder, snowier and wetter spring seasons in North Idaho and the surrounding Inland Empire.

"Heavier snows -- up to six inches or more above 5,000 feet -- have accumulated in the nearby mountains on a daily basis since early May. It may be mid June or later before Glacier Park's 'Going-to-the-Sun Highway' opens. (Next week, we'll take a look at what's happening to the glaciers in the park. Are they also beginning to expand? Find out the truth in just seven days.)"

http://www.iceagenow.com/Alaskas_Hubbard_Glacier_advancing_7_feet_per_day.htm

 

[hypocritexposer]

"At the international climate meetings in Copenhagen next month, Mr. Obama will tell the delegates that the United States intends to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions "in the range of" 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, officials said."

Here's how George Will addresses it: "Barack Obama, understanding the histrionics required in climate-change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million Americans in 2050, so Obama's promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875. That. Will. Not. Happen."

In order back up Geo's assertion, we need a two data points: Carbon emissions per capita in 2005, and the same data for 1875. Seems simple enough.

A google search lead to a very nice map here. The 2005 data is 19.54 metric tons per capita for the United States.

Our Target:

19.54 * (1-0.83) = 3.3218

Geo says we'll find it in 1875. Before we go there, let's find a present-day comparison. The closest country to this goal, coming in at 3.44, is Mongolia. So Obama wants us to have the carbon footprint of yak farmers. How interesting.

Traipsing through sites on my quest for 1875 data, I found this page. Some good points:

>> Our per-capita emissions have dropped 10% since the 1970s and 1980s. I don't recall hearing that from the Warmist crowd.

>> Australia, that just rejected Warmist legislation for the second time, kicks out almost a ton more per capita than we do.

Whoa! I think I found the data. Check out this chart. It claims to give CO2 per capita data from 1820 to present worldwide by country.

Now, the data is not there, just his graph. But move the slider on the bottom to the year you want, and then put your mouse over the US on the map in the upper right. The yellow dots will flash. If you put the mouse on Russia, you can actually see the US dots more clearly. Now, in the country list on the right side, slide down to the United States and check the box. This will freeze our dots, and on mouse-over give you some data points.

A quick check on 2005 give us 20 ... close enough. Move the slider to 1875 ... we need 3.3218 - by golly, looks like to me!

But what's this? Moving the slider to 1920, our CO2 tonnage per dude was 16. Hunh. Seems we haven't been pumping out all that much per head since then. Anyway. Got sidetracked.

So Geo is right. Obama wants to move us back to 1875 - before cars, airplanes, slurpy machines, and iPhones. He wants us to be modern-day yak farmers.

These people will say anything to impress each other. Do they ever leave the locker room?

http://patriotroom.com/article/obama-to-promise-emissions-equal-to-victorian-era-or-modern-day-yak-farmers

 

[PORKER]

The Ice and Snow is getting deeper;
http://www.iceagenow.com/Construction_Crane_Buried_in_Ice.htm

Global Cooling started back in 1989 and it will affect everyone and everything. How cold is it tonight ? Look at how far south it snowed and how cold it is in Texas tonight. Way too early in the year for it to be this cold this far South. This will cause a larger hay usage than normal and may make for shortages by spring or when spring comes.

We have a strong lake affect snow storm in upper Michigan this evening and I hooked up the snow blower on the big tractor as it is snowing at the rate of 3 inches a hour.

Link to the Big Mack bridge; http://cam.mackinacbridge.org/fullsize.jpg

Al Gore is confronted in Chicago on Climategate; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwkR3uuZMIM&feature=player_embedded#

 

[PORKER]

Climategate ,What a fraud; An they were going to throw Agriculture under the Bus.

link; http://www.infowars.com/its-over-al-gore/

 

[hypocritexposer]

Now that we're all in the mood to question extravagantly funded scientists, perhaps we should take a look at the tomfoolery involved in global carbon dioxide monitoring. C02 is the boogy-man, right?

The U.S. NOAA openly admits to producing a CO2 record which "contains no actual data." Two of the five NOAA "baseline" stations are downwind from erupting volcanoes. All five are subject to localized or regional CO2 sources. Hmmm.

Mauna Loa has been producing a readout which supports Manning's "goal" by showing steady growth in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1959. This is known as the Keeling Curve, a beloved datapoint of Al Gore's.

Just thirty miles from the observatory, Kilauea's Pu`u O`o vent sends 3.3 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. It has been erupting continuously since 1983. Since 2008 it has been joined by a second eruption even closer to the Observatory — from Halema`uma`u Crater at the top of Kilauea. Pu`u O`o sends the equivalent of the yearly CO2 production from an average city of 660,000 people into the air. Air trajectory charts show that most of the air reaching Mauna Loa Observatory first passes over Pu`u O`o and Halema`uma`u.


What about the other 4 baseline monitoring stations? Surprise, surprise. All of them– The South Pole, American Samoa; Trinidad Head, CA; and Pt. Barrow, AK — are subject to localized, and in some cases regional, CO2 influences.

The American Samoa observatory is about 150 miles downwind from where the one-mile wide Nafanua volcano has emerged. The undersea volcano is described by University of Sydney marine scientist Dr. Adele Pile as producing an undersea environment with an acidic pH of 3 (similar to vinegar), carbon dioxide bubbling up "like champagne," and extremely hot venting water so toxic that "any life swimming into this pit immediately dies, except these amazing scavenging worms." Woods Hole oceanographers report they "discovered that hot, smoggy water from the crater was spilling over the top or through breaches in the crater rim and billowing outward. It formed a halo around the rim that was hundreds of feet thick and extended more than 4 miles." In addition, Samoa's lush tropical vegetation is a big daytime consumer of CO2 thus dropping CO2 levels sharply during the day and raising them sharply at night.

Trinidad Head Observatory is on a Northern California peninsula jutting into the Pacific about twenty miles north of Eureka, CA. Like Samoa, Trinidad Head is subject to substantial vegetation-driven changes in CO2 levels from the surrounding temperate forests and wetlands. The prevailing winds come in off the Pacific, which are influenced by coal-happy China.

The South Pole Observatory is just yards away from a power plant which burns jet fuel 365 days a year to provide electricity and heat for Amundsen Station. (Researchers claim that prevailing winds come from the opposite direction.) It is also about 800 miles from Antarctica's Mt. Erebus volcano, which has continuously erupted since 1972. Becausethe atmosphere 's ability to carry water vapor is cut approximately in half by every ten-degree-C drop in temperature, the extremely low temperatures atthe South Pole mean that only trace amounts of water vapor are in the atmosphere. CO2 mixes with water vapor in the atmosphere to form H2CO3 (carbonic acid), giving rainfall a slightly acidic pH and washing CO2 from the air. The uniquely dry and cold conditions ofthe South Pole prevent this from occurring, thus altering the natural atmospheric carbon elimination process and magnifying the effect of CO2 sources. Amundsen Station personnel and emissions from the 12,000-foot Mt. Erebus volcano are also implicated in the 1990s ozone hole scam.

The Observatory at Point Barrow, Alaska is about 170 miles downwind from the Prudhoe Bay headquarters of the North Slope oil industry. It is therefore subject to a localized increase in man-made air pollution, including CO2 emissions. Coincidentally, of course, the Barrow Observatory was established in 1973 — just before construction began on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Barrow is also annually subject to several months of "Arctic haze," which University of Alaska Geophysicist Ned Rozell indicates is from ex-Soviet and new Chinese "iron, nickel and copper smelters and inefficient coal-burning plants."

NOAA states:

"GLOBALVIEW-CO2 is derived from measurements but contains no actual data. To facilitate use with carbon cycle modeling studies, the measurements have been processed (smoothed, interpolated, and extrapolated) resulting in extended records that are evenly incremented in time."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/greenhouse_gas_observatories_d.html

http://rightsoup.com/all-5-global-baseline-c02-monitoring-stations-are-suspiciously-sited-climategate-dejavu/

 

[PORKER]

Climategate uncovers lies
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34785

Global temperatures have declined for more than a decade despite atmospheric CO2 levels increasing,
• New research shows the IPCC was wrong in predicting more frequent and intense hurricanes due to AGW (man-made global warming),
• There is no evidence that Greenland is melting despite IPCC predictions,
• The recent recession has cut greenhouse gas emissions, but the draft TSD doesn't mention it,
• New research shows that the climate probably operates with negative feedback rather than the positive feedback which IPCC models assume.

 

[PORKER]

Oklahoma senator plans to rain on climate talks

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., has been a vocal opponent of limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
Source: International Energy Agency

By Brian Winter, USA TODAY
COPENHAGEN — The final week of the United Nations climate change summit boils down to a battle between President Obama and the self-described "skunk at the picnic."
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who has called global warming a "hoax," plans to travel this week to Copenhagen. He'll stay just long enough — as few as three hours, he says — to tell heads of state that the Senate will not pass an energy bill that would limit greenhouse gas emissions.


CLIMATE CONFERENCE: China lashes out at U.S.

"We know (the bill) is never going to go to a vote," Inhofe said in a recent interview. "It's dead. It's gone … I'm not going to allow them to think America is going to do something it's not."

Delegates from other countries say that without Congress' support, Obama won't be able to keep whatever promises he makes when he arrives here Friday to try to seal a deal on capping emissions. Without the full cooperation of the world's second-biggest emitter behind China, any broad agreement to address global warming by the 192 nations gathered in Copenhagen will simply fall apart, they say.

"Unless the U.S. has the political will to make the necessary sacrifices, none of this will work," said Sudanese diplomat Lumumba Di-Aping, the lead representative for more than 130 developing nations at the summit.

Obama has proposed cutting greenhouse gas emissions by about 17% by 2020, compared with levels in 2005. He says a firm cap on carbon dioxide produced by U.S. industry, as mandated by a House bill passed in June, will help slow global warming and provide an incentive for companies to invest in cleaner energy. The Senate is to debate an energy bill early next year.

"There are many (U.S.) companies and investors … waiting for Congress to act, waiting for some certainty before they make these investments," Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said. He said Chinese companies were moving ahead with "green" technology: "If we don't watch out … they'll end up with all those jobs."

Even Republicans who say global warming may be a problem, including Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., say a cap on carbon emissions would damage the U.S. economy( AGRICULTURE) by pushing up energy prices. Carbon emitters such as power plants and factories would have to pay for permits to keep burning coal and oil at the same levels. The cost, Republicans say, would be passed on to consumers in higher energy bills.

The U.S. debate is one of many issues unresolved as the summit enters its second week.

"I think there needs to be more movement from everyone, more imagination, and I think we will all be striving for that," British Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said Sunday, according to the Associated Press.

Developing nations and China are pushing for the United States to make even more ambitious cuts to emissions, while refusing to bow to U.S. demands for a transparent system ensuring they meet their own targets.

China wants wealthier countries to set aside more funds for poorer nations to deal with the consequences of global warming.

The deadlock over basic issues, as well as the scarcity of money available during the global recession, has caused some to downgrade expectations for the summit. Organizers have abandoned their goal of signing a binding global treaty in Copenhagen.

"It's important to keep the issue alive, to use (Copenhagen) as kind of a placeholder … rather than have the issue slip off the table," said Stephen Porter, a lawyer with the Center for International Environmental Law, which works with foreign lawyers to strengthen environmental laws.

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei cautioned countries against trying to save face at the summit by agreeing on goals far into the future — such as in 2050.

"If you cannot deliver on the short term or medium term, you cannot talk about the long term," the minister said Friday. By 2050, he said, "most of us will not be here anymore."

 

[Liberty Belle]

Cal Thomas nailed it:

The flathead society
By Cal Thomas
December 10, 2009

"A mocker resents correction; he will not consult the wise." (Proverbs 15:12)

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has taken the route of many who would rather call names than have a serious debate about climate change. He characterizes those who question "settled science" members of the "flat-earth" society. When people resort to name-calling it is a sign they have lost an argument.

The hacked e-mails from the global warming center of the universe - the Climate Research Unit at Britain's East Anglia University - could be the climatology equivalent of discovering the bones of Jesus. If the veracity of the e-mails is confirmed and if they contain evidence of data "trickery," as some global warming skeptics have suggested, their content could perhaps point to a vast cover-up of scientific evidence that some believe will disprove the "doctrine" of man-made climate change. So who are the real flat-earthers? Are they the ones who won't listen to any evidence except that which supports their cult-like faith, or are they the growing number who say the science is anything but settled and needs more study?

Leonard Weinstein has scientific credentials no reasonable person can deny. Dr. Weinstein is a former senior research scientist who worked more than 30 years at the NASA Langley Research Center. He is now senior research fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace. Last April, he wrote an essay "Disproving the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem."

Dr. Weinstein wrote: "In order to support a theory, specific predictions need to be made that are based on the claims of the theory, and the predictions then need to happen." He lists six theories on which the AGW model is based and then proceeds to dismantle each of them.

The first AGW theory is: "The average Earth's temperature will increase at a rate of 0.2 degrees to 0.6 degrees centigrade per decade at least to 2100, and will continue to climb after that if the CO2 continues to be produced by human activity at current predicted rates."

To that, Dr. Weinstein responds: "It should be noted that the largest part of the last 150 year increase in CO2, which is blamed on human activity, did not occur until after 1940, so the largest temperature rise effects should have occurred in that time. The proponents of AGW have generally used the time period from 1970 to 2000 as the base line for an indicator of the rapid warming. In that base line period, the average temperature rose about 0.50C, which averages to 0.160C per decade. The claim was then made that this would accelerate due to continuing increases in CO2 level. However if we look at the temperature change from 1940 through 2008, the net increase is only 0.30C.

This is due to a drop from 1940 to 1970 and a slight drop from 2000 through 2008. Now the average rise for that period is only 0.040C per decade. If the time period from 1850 through 2008 is used as a base, the net increase is just under 0.70C and the average rise is also 0.040C per decade! It is clear that choosing a short selected period of rising temperature gives a misleading result. It is also true that the present trend is down and expected to continue downward for several more years before reversing again. This certainly makes claim one questionable."

Dr. Weinstein concludes: "The final question that arises is what prediction has the AGW made that has been demonstrated, and that strongly supports the theory. It appears that there is no real supporting evidence and much disagreeing evidence for the AGW theory as proposed. That is not to say there is no effect from Human activity. Clearly human pollution (not greenhouse gases) is a problem. There is also almost surely some contribution to the present temperature from the increase in CO2 and CH4, but it seems to be small and not a driver of future climate. Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!"

If Gordon Brown thinks name-calling will deter those who seek the truth, perhaps he should join a movement that might be named "the flathead society."

Direct all mail for Cal Thomas to: Tribune Media Services, 2225 Kenmore Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, N.Y. 14207. Readers may also e-mail Cal Thomas at [email protected].

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_127a2342-e51b-11de-b462-001cc4c002e0.html

 

[PORKER]

Despite Climategate, Nations and Media Remain Delusional on "Global Warming"
Ara Trembly
Insurance Experts' Forum, December 21, 2009

What does one do when one is caught—literally or figuratively—with one's pants around one's knees? The classic response is outright denial, blatant refusal to acknowledge facts, a la "I never had sex with that woman." (Ms. Lewinsky)

When recent news reports revealed hacked e-mails that clearly indicated distortion and concealment of climate data that is unsupportive of anthropogenic global warming, you would have thought the scientists involved would simply do a mea culpa and fess up. As climate blogger Marc Morano put it: "The media is now digging and digging into Climategate and they are finding a scandal of the highest magnitude. The media and politicians at this week's UN summit can no longer pretend that Climategate is not a game changer. It is time to end the denial. Even UN IPCC chair Pachuari now appears ready to throw the key UN Climategate scientists under the bus."

But no, some of the scientists involved fecklessly tried to pass off their actions as a "joke," while others, especially those who had an international global warming event to put on, simply ignored the evidence. This childish and outlandish behavior is apparently what passes for integrity in the scientific community these days, so is it any wonder that surveys reveal fewer people supporting the idea of man-made climate change?

Among the co-conspirators in this effort at global denial was Associated Press, which droned on for more than 30 paragraphs about the "deal" that was struck in Copenhagen to pour billions more into controlling the climate, but did not once mention the major scandal that has made all this nonsense questionable at best. And while USA Today trumpets a poll of Americans saying that 55% support a global treaty that would require the United States to reduce greenhouse emissions, it also points out that they are "split on the likely economic impact of enacting new environmental and energy laws to address climate change: 42% say they will hurt the economy; 36% say they will help." Gee, doesn't a split usually mean half on one side and half on the other?

But what will all this mean for the insurance industry? Actually, very little. Ours is an industry that caters to the notion of "just in case." Insurance companies are certainly smart enough to see that the whole climate change fiasco is an ill-conceived political crapshoot at best, but that's not the point. Insurers and brokers will support climate change efforts "just in case" we might need them (or they might actually work, which is another doubtful premise). It's a bit like placing a bet on every horse in a race, "just in case" the favorite doesn't come in. This practice is known as "hedging" one's bets so that a loss in one area will be cushioned by a win in another area.

Still, it's hard to see why an industry so grounded in reality would continue to pay so much attention to a movement that has been compromised by deceit and trickery. It's also puzzling that we don't seem acknowledge actual climate figures, which don't support warming at the catastrophic rates predicted by some models. On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me if insurers in Haiti, for example, would invest in protective charms to ward off the threat of voodoo.

 

[PORKER]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html


The mini ice age starts here
By David Rose
Last updated at 11:17 AM on 10th January 2010

Comments (551)

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world's most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy's most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cJSqTp9e

 

[hypocritexposer]

The ice age will be of biblical proportions and will have a 20 mile thick sheet of ice scraping right over New York on its way to Miami. So much water will come out of the oceans that New Orleans is 50 miles from the sea and is done as a major port.

The solution is simple; send me all your money and let me write a bunch of new laws where I'll set the trading of "carbon deficits" which must be purchased by manufacturers who burn less fossil fuels than average.

Sure a lot of people will have to do without some of the things they've become accustomed to (like food) but I'll have so much money I'll flip each one a dollar when they can get close to my cloistered mansion; and that's a solemnn vow.

It's time to quit denying climate cooling and do something. We can channel all the money in the whole world to Washington DC and the bankers who own them and then everything will be OK and my troubles will be over.

The debate is settled.


Notelease send $9.99 for a color brochure to find out how you can save the plant by increasing your carbon footprint.

 

[PORKER]

Proof that Global Warming NEVER Happened ! They Tried to Destroy Modern Agriculture .

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/100114_jph.htm

 

[PORKER]

THE BIG LIE , They only used warm Readings !

http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skeptics/2468634/story.html

 

[hypocritexposer]

Godfrey Bloom slams global warming scam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOygATEabIk

Godfrey Bloom:
"Isn't this really just about the state being able to get its hand in ordinary people's trouser pocket to still get more tax from them? Isn't this all about political control? Isn't all this about politics and big business? The whole thing's a sham."

 

[PORKER]

This story says it ALL!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html


http://www.climatedepot.com/