Closed because of geoengineering works 19 October 09

For all of those staunch supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis, especially the one or two dogmatists who throw line after line of political propaganda onto the blogs on this site. The Sunday Times News Review of 11th October front page said (Note 1) QUOTE: Why Everything You Think You Know About Global Warming Is WRONG UNQUOTE.

The article presents what was discussed at a meeting that included Dr.. Nathan Myhrhold (Note 2), Dr. Ken Caldeira (Note 3) and Dr. Lowell Wood (Note 4)

All three are who most lay people might consider more knowledgeable than average about scientific disciplines relating to climate science (perhaps one or two of you might like to challenge that). He also has quite a track record in computer technology. So, what does they think of The Hypothesis?

Myhrhold said QUOTE: .. standard global warming rhetoric is oversimplified and exagerated. Too many accounts, Myhrvold says, suffer from “people who get on their high horse and say our species will be exterminated” UNQUOTE. (could be talking about some on this thread). He goes on to say QUOTE: When Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, is mentioned, the table erupts in a sea of groans. The film’s purpose, Myhrvold believes, was “to scare the crap out of people”. Although Gore “isn’t technically lying”, he says, some of the nightmare scenarios Gore describes — the state of Florida disappearing under rising seas, for instance — “don’t have any basis in physical reality in any reasonable time frame. No climate model shows them happening”. UNQUOTE.

Of Wood, the article says QUOTE: The current climate prediction models are, as Lowell Wood puts it, “enormously crude”. .. “The climate models are crude in space and they’re crude in time,” he continues. “So there’s an enormous amount of natural phenomena they can’t model. They can’t do even giant storms like hurricanes.” .. The emphasis on carbon dioxide? “Misplaced,” says Wood. Why? “Because carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas. The major greenhouse gas is water vapour.” Current climate models “do not know how to handle water vapour and various types of clouds. That is the elephant in the corner of this room. I hope we’ll have good numbers on water vapour by 2020 or thereabouts”. UNQUOTE. On the same subject, Myhrhold, somewhat knowledgeable about computers, said QUOTE: “We’re trying to predict climate change 20 to 30 years from now,” he says, “but it will take us almost the same amount of time for the computer industry to give us fast enough computers to do the job.” .. Most current climate models tend to produce similar predictions. This might lead one to conclude that climate scientists have a pretty good handle on the future. Not so, says Wood. “Everybody turns their knobs” — that is, adjusts the control parameters and coefficients of their models — “so they aren’t the outlier, because the outlying model is going to have difficulty getting funded.” In other words, the economic reality of research funding, rather than a disinterested and uncoordinated scientific consensus, leads the models to approximately match one another. UNQUOTE.

Wood and Caldeira have a wonderful (and cheap) scheme for controlling our global temperatures (Note 5). Until that hose pipe’s in place, anyone worried about climate change making us all vulnerable to mosquito attack and malaria, fear not. Wood has used his Star Wars expertise to help design a Laser gun for zapping those “pesky meskis” (Note 6) QUOTE: This laser could kill billions of mosquitoes every night. UNQUOTE although that might upset some environmentalists.

Of course, the blogs that support The Hypothesis are on the case (Note 7).

BTW, for anyone who might suggest that the political bias of lay individuals like ourselves prevents us from understanding the motivations of others with opposing political opinions, think again. I understand that Wood is a right-inclined industrialist and Caldeira a left-inclined environmentalist.

On the topic of the validity of the computerised climate models, shortly after I posted this elsewhere another contributor to the debate posted a link (Note 7) to a presentation by Dr. Bill Gray which includes the statement QUOTE: The Ascendancy of the Religion of Numerical Modelling – Loss of Neurological Judgement in Reality. We are told to believe in predictions with no verification UNQUOTE. The reason that reliance cannot be placed upon these models is that none have ever been subjected to the essential professional and independent Verification, Validation and Test (VV&T) procedures.

I see that Gordon B is intensifying his “we saved the world” propaganda campaign and getting in on the UN’s Climate Change Conference act, but he does need to try and attract as many votes as he can if he wants to keep his job. Any cause will do as long as it does that.

NOTES: 1) see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6879251.ece 2) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Myhrvold 3) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Caldeira 4) see http://www.edventure.com/flightschool/biographies.html 5) see http://kelsocartography.com/blog/?tag=lowell-wood 6) see http://pulse2.com/category/lowell-wood/ 7) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb2eSgoUCtA&feature=related

Read all of them, relax and enjoy life. Best regards, Pete Ridley, human-made global climate change agnostic

If you find yourself in a position where you have to ask the question “is geoengineering a good or bad thing” then I suggest you put your coat on, pop down the road and head straight for the nearest pub. Order a pint of best and tell yourself “I must stop asking myself stupid questions”.

Let’s face it pondering on things like that is like asking what is at the end of the universe (a brick wall? And what’s behind that man?). This inevitably leads to other questions which tend to confuse the mind and in the end causes much anxiety.

Are we really all living on the edge of a coin in the pocket of some celestial giant who in turn is living on top of a rock in some vast interstellar universe with no end? Oh Wow Maaaaaaaan.

For ten years I have been advising the world to build nuclear power stations that would import boron oxide and export boron and oxygen, rather than electricity. The world is being a little slow to pay attention, perhaps because it must also develop cars that propel themselves by recombining the elements.

Because of this slowness, air capture is indeed a good thing.

(How fire can be domesticated)

Dear Mr Ridley,

Its the same old same old from these people although I doubt anyone in the know would even begin to state that a geoengineering program could even work due to the scale of the problem. Scale is everything and pumping the atmosphere over the Arctic with aerosoles would be a futile attempt at a cure. It would take millions of tonnes annually over many decades to make a difference so no cigar.

I prefer prevention rather than cure. Its easier to change fuels, use less fuel through efficiency and cultural change etc than it is to engineer a silly unscaleable solution such as this one.

Even Caldeira admits this, we must reduce emissions in order for a geoengineering project to work.

..........” Its easier to change fuels”......... Very funny. Ha ha ha ha. Yeah right.

For those still worried about rising sea levels and the rest of what those foolish enough to spread panic across the globe I’ve posted a link from a proper scientist which is addressed to the President of the Maldives.

Read it and weep all you warmists.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/10/20/maldives-president-all-wet-on-sea-level.aspx

Today we had the LibDem climate spokesman Simon Hughes on his feet debating the 10:10 initiative. I’ve postd the following to a couple of their blogs.

Politicians of all colours need to step back and take a look at the claims being made about global climate change and the state of scientific understanding of climate processes and drivers. They give the impression of being convinced that our use of fossil fuels is causing significant climate change yet it is clear that very few of them, if any, have bothered to check out the facts. If they had they’d find that there is no convincing evidence supporting The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. The evidence has not been found yet, the case has not yet been proven, but they are supporting the verdict, making judgements and imposing penalties.

Many of the UN’s objectives, which are behind the 10:10 and related proposals, are sound. Reducing waste of any resource, including energy, is praiseworthy. Redistribution of wealth in a more equitable manner is praiseworthy. Global governance I’m not so sure about. What I find so disgusting is the dishonest manner through which these objectives are being pursued. It is another example, like the expenses scandal, of political duplicity which totally undermines the confidence of the voters in their representatives.

Politicians need to take a look in the mirror and ask themselves if they have any real understanding of what they are being told about climate change. Any that can honestly say “Yes, I know why what is being claimed is valid” should present the evidence that has convinced them so that we can consider it ourselves. No politician has done so yet. Why? Because they cannot.

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agnostic.

Well said Pete. Just about sums up my feelings. Every time , and it’s getting more shrill as each day passes coming up to conpeoplehagen (Hey I just made that up I’m a freaking genius) that it seems that every man and his dog has something to say about the ending of civilization by way of the weather changing. Oh sorry guys it’s climate not weather.

Did you read that last link I posted up about the Maldives? It’s quite fascinating as a story in itself. Take a look at a longer piece telling the history of how the scientist was essentially gagged from telling the truth, the good news to the people of the Maldives. Too much money to be lost by spreading the word that there is no threat to the Islands.

“I doubt anyone in the know would even begin to state that a geoengineering program could even work due to the scale of the problem.“

People in the know do say that. There are two very different kinds of geoengineering, which I like to call respectively Swallow-A-Cat-To-Catch-A-Rat and Barf-The-Rat-Out (SACTCAR and BTRO).

““Scale is everything and pumping the atmosphere over the Arctic with aerosoles would be a futile attempt at a cure. It would take millions of tonnes annually over many decades to make a difference so no cigar.”

Millions of tonnes? Each of the three fossil fuels - natural gas, petroleum, coal - is mined at the rate of many millions of tonnes per day, and much of the money consumers pay for the products isn’t even spent on doing that; it goes to civil servants.

There’s nothing in the phrase “millions of tonnes” that suggests infeasibility.

“I prefer prevention rather than cure. Its easier to change fuels …“

Did you catch the part about the civil servants? They won’t like that. It will happen, has been happening, but it won’t be easy.

It’s not just civil servants, either. Private fossil fuel interests do exist, and people who get money, fossil fuel money, through the taxman, but do not work for him, or no longer work for him.

(How fire can be domesticated)

Sick of hearing about the current drought in Ethiopia being blamed on Man-made climate change I googled droughts and Ethiopa and came across this little piece. Note the table nearer the bottom over the page giving dates over the century of droughts and how they corelate to El Nino events.

http://ccb.colorado.edu/ijas/ijasno2/georgis.html

Climate change my foot!

Maybe it’s a good thing to distinguish two types of geoengineering: carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). An example of the latter is the idea of Bjorn Lomborg, to spray sea water into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, SRM is only a temporary solution; it delays the effects of global warming, but does nothing about the problem. In other words: each single year you would have to spray sea water into the atmosphere, once you stop, the effects of global warming will start to show again. In this way, the costs of SRM projects should not be compared to the costs of reducing emissions (like Lomborg did). A project like ‘air capture’ on the other hand, is an example of CDR.

Femke: “Maybe it’s a good thing to distinguish two types of geoengineering: carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM).

How much did the TLA (three-letter acronym) lobby pay you for that bit of malfeasance, Femke? It’s a sign of their increasing desperation to obscure the fact that the true acronyms are BTRO and SACTCAR.

(How fire can be domesticated)

Tony, regarding the letter from Morner to the President of the Maldives: Morner’s claim that “In the 1970s, sea level [sic] fell by about 20 cm to its present level” is nonsense (except maybe wrt local sea levels around the Maldives).

For a clearer picture on what’s happening with global sea levels. go to http://climate.nasa.gov/ and click “Sea Level”.

There is no 20 cm drop in (global mean) sea levels in the 1970s.

‘jaak’, there are climate change skeptics here. You probably would prefer a more respectable neighbourhood.

It looks as though this blog of Mark’s has also been hit by a spammer. Perhaps that’s the best thing for it, considering all of the rubbish that he pushes out in support of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. There is no convincing evidence to support The Hypothesis but the propaganda is being pushed relentlessly ahead of what Tony beautifully describes as “conpeoplehagen”.

Geoengineering approaches to controlling weather and climate is a promising area of scientific research which may eventually result in workable engineering solutions to controlling weather and even climate if and when the need arises. An example was shown on TV just recently claiming that the Chinese used weather management techniques to ensure a good day for their National Day parade. There is an interesting paper (Note 2) by Prof.T.Shivaji Rao, Director, Centre for Environmental Studies, Gitam University, Visakhapatnam, India on the technology of cloud seeding. It must not be overlooked that this is a very expensive technology, so thank goodness there is no reason for it or any other technique to be used in an attempt to control global weather (or climate). Nature is continuing to be unusually kind to us, as it has during the past 150 years, but she may be about to get nasty, with another little ice-age up her sleeve.

Our use of fossil fuels will continue unabated regardless of what happens at COP15, but that will be no disappointment for the politicians of the UN. That is not the objective of the UN’s efforts to frighten world populations into believing that there is some environmental catastrophe just around the corner (but never actually experienced by anyone). The objective is simply to provide a mechanism for redistribution of wealth from the developed to the developing nations.

It is encouraging to see the ground-swell of popular rejection of the Australian Government’s attempts to impose a “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” (CPRS) which will seriously weaken the Australian economy. Senator Fielding has run a very effective campaign of enlightenment that is resulting in Australians lobbying their representatives and the media to reject the CPRS. Here is a sample of the messages being sent to politicians QUOTE: Dear Senator Fielding, The bloggers on the Climate Change thread on your web site have reached almost unanimous agreement that they want the CPRS legislation delayed. I hope you might be able to take a quick look at what is being posted on the Climate Change Thread tonight. This convergence of opinion has been reached after over 3600 comments on the Climate Change thread alone plus hundreds on other threads relating to climate change. I believe the bloggers would like me to thank you for taking the stand you have, for opening up the debate in Australia (and internationally) on ‘dangerous AGW’, and for providing an excellent discussion forum through your web site. It has run almost flawlessly. I .. urge you to consider the “alternative to the CPRS’ which is posted on the thread “Alternative to the CPRS’ UNQUOTE. There is even a political organisation “The Climate Sceptics Party” set up to fight this relentless UN propaganda. It will be very interesting to see what results from this exercise in “people power”.

NOTES: 1) see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/01/china-cloud-seeding-parade 2) see http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/coldcloudseeding

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agnostic.

Oh sweet Lord. Whilst reading the various comments on this blog I’ve been listening to Radio 4’s latest installment of it’s flagship docuscare programme “Costing the Earth”. This latest episode called Countdown to Copenhagen was a truly disgusting mix of lefty politians holding forth on a subject they know nothing about (rather like some of the posters on this blog) staring into their half empty beer glass telling us we are all doomed. Listen to it on iplayer when it’s available. In particular listen to Ken Livingstone in hushed tones foretelling of what is in store. He really believes his own propaganda – it’s priceless.

Then Johnny two jags goes on about “Coorpenagan is laarrrk keyooorto twooo like. The fellow is past description of a buffoon and is imposible to satirise doing that so expertly himself.

What was really disgusting was the sound of school children who have been well and truly brainwashed like the Hitler youth during the thirties telling us how we must all do something or be doomed – although there one sensible little girl who did cast some scepticism about whether or not AGW really existed. Let’s hope she posts on this website and give Mark a run for his money.

Let’s face it being green nowadays is not about saving humanity or doing good in the world and caring about your fellow man – It’s about closing the door from the bogie man and making sure the big boys don’t hurt me. It’s about what happens if the lights go out and my laptop stops working or I’m unable to watch television or charge my mp3 player and listen to U2 or Coldplay.

Essentially, greenies are more selfish and pious than they could ever know. They make me sick.

Ok, you make me curious G.R.L. Cowan: where do BTRO and SACTCAR stand for???

Yesterday I mentioned the ground swell of popular rejection of the Australian Government’s attempts to impose a “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” (CPRS) which will seriously weaken the Australian economy. The UN’s Copenhagen Climate Change Conference fast approaches and UN politicians are become more and more concerned that no worthwhile agreement will be reached. It is reported (Note 1) that QUOTE: World leaders must intervene to rescue flagging climate talks by brokering in person a deal to combat global warming in Copenhagen in December, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on Monday. UNQUOTE. It is claimed by The Australian newspaper (Note 2) that QUOTE: Denmark has proposed Australia play a leadership role at the conference, acting as a “friend of the chair” for the purposes of negotiating agreement at the meeting. UNQUOTE. Panic is setting in and is being reported on around the globe.

On the other hand it is satisfying to see that the developing economies are not prepared to fall in line with the politicians of the UN and EU. The Australian also comments (Note 3) that QUOTE: Fast-developing nations such as China and India will strongly resist being bound by internationally agreed targets and will not allow the solidarity of the G77 negotiating bloc of developing nations to be broken. UNQUOTE. Turkey’s Zaman reports (Note 4) QUOTE: Other nations including India, China, Brazil and Mexico have agreed to draw up national programs to slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but have so far resisted making those limits binding and subject to international monitoring in a treaty. Worries over the US and China have led to mounting pessimism that a deal can be struck in Copenhagen without major policy changes. “The prospects that states will actually agree to anything in Copenhagen are starting to look worse and worse,” Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN scientific panel studying climate change, wrote in a Friday post on the Newsweek Web site. UNQUOTE.

In other words, the developing nations, who are preparing to grow their economies significantly and will fuel this growth through the use of fossil fuels, will not agree any commitments on the emissions of carbon dioxide. They know that there is no need for them and that global climates will not be affected by them. This is wonderful news for those of us who recognise the UN’s climate change propaganda for what it really is, a scare-mongering campaign having two major objectives, redistribution of wealth and global government. It has nothing to do with trying to control global climates.

Australian politicians are wising up to the damage that any emissions restrictions will have on their economy, as exemplified in a presentation by Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi (Note 5). Have a listen. Also take a look at this historical summary of climate change scares since 1895 (Note 6). You may learn something.

NOTES: 1) see http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/20091019/brown-urges-leaders-to-broker-climate-deal-in-person.htm 2) see http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26266711-601,00.html 3) see http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26196377-11949,00.html 4) see http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-190406-britain-leaders-must-broker-climate-deal-in-person.html 5) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79s9y94s0wg&feature=player_embedded

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agnostic.

PS: I missed out Note 6) http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/ which summarises the scare-mongering over climate change that has been going on for the past 114 years.

“Its the same old same old from these people although I doubt anyone in the ” “For ten years I have been advising the world to build nuclear power stations that would import boron oxide and export boron and oxygen, rather than” I keep finding astonishing facts reading this blog .. facts that scare me !

Hey Pete Ridley!

Long time no see.

Ever figured what climate sensitivity is?

Alexandre:

Do you mean this ‘climate sensitivity’?

The IPCC AR4 report, section 8.6, “Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks”:

“A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed…but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.”

Alexandre, sorry if you feel that I have been neglecting you but the debate has moved way past that bit of UN/IPCC psuedo-scientific scare-mongering. It’s all guns pointing at the Copenhagen for the 21st Century version of the Battle of Gettysburg.

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agnostic.

I’m getting increasingly concerned about the health of your good friend George Monbiot. Have a word with him Mark, his rantings are now beyond anything even an experienced satirist could make up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/02/climate-change-denial-clive-james

So it appears that what Myself and Pete Ridley have been saying for so long is now true. Global warming is now a religion after the honourable Mr. Justice Burton ruled so. I don’t need to go into the details, no doubt others on the forum already know what’s involved in this particular case but it does beg the question as to who indeed will head this newly found Church. Ok here’s my best bet.

Pope of the CAGW – The most reverend and even moster richer in terms of his worldly goods Al Gore.

Major Archbishop on Earth – The most reverend George Moonbat of Wales and the regions where the boghoppers reign supreme.

Archbishop of Hampstead and Highgate and Islington and other chatterati urban quarters of all metropolitan areas – Mark (the bish) Lynas.

Primate of the rainforests (virgin and managed northern hemisphere) – David Attenborough who deserves special mention due to the fact that even though He is now an octaganarian He has stoically managed to hold out to His climate beliefs despite his age which is when, according to the Major Archbishop on Earth, a turnaround and reverse road to Damascus occurs.

And finally even though there is a split between the traditionalists and more modernising factions We welcome non other than High Priestess and patron saint to the rather naive the right reverend Caroline Lucas.

Thank you and may your God go with you. No I mean it please just go and take your God with you preferably to the next Planet – Mars, Venus just go.

And-duh: Follow the Money -

Notice how closely this man's business endeavours are wedded to massive subsidies:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

Big Carbon.

(Tip of the hat to you, Tony (Original and Best) and Mr. Ridley).

Tony, what about dear old Maurice Strong (Climate Control, Global Government & Population Control) and Jonathan Porritt (everything sustainable, including the privileged classes).

RobinL, no need to call me Mr. Ridley. Pete will do, or if you must, Sir. Best regards, Pete R

Yes Pete I did rather leave out many of the usual suspects but this is inevitable now that there are so many runners and riders jockeying for position for the top jobs in the Church of anthropgenice global warming. You’re quite right about Strong, Moonbat et al but even Bonio lead singer of the popular music combo U2 was disregarded due to his other commitments in dealing with World poverty and hunger, anti-appartheid, politically correct menswear, etc. etc.

I have it on good authority that Al Maddoff’s, sorry Al Gore’s future as head of this Church may be rather shorter lived than even I considered possible. Now that more and more greenieloon groups have spoken out about the folly of cap and trade (Friends of the Earth being the most high profile of these groups) expect a repeat bubble scenario where the rich traders in this little scam are left exposed and the whole house of cards falls.

On a lighter note, recently that noted commentator Clive James narrated an essay of musings concerning global warming on BBC radio 4. The following week on Feedback, a radio 4 programme which gives listeners the chance to comment of recent material broadcast on the network, the clamour to behead Mr. James was made apparent by the avalanche of correspondence berating the network for allowing the programme to be aired. Such is the extent the deep and engrained brainwashing that has come to represent the chattering class audience which goes to make up the radio 4 listenership.

Pete Ridley,

Yeah… no improvement. Thought so. Too hard, maybe?

But keep at it.

You may be interested in what I have just posted to the Climateprogress blog, which had an article by Bill Becker, Executive Director of the Presidential Climate Action Project in the USA.

Dear readers, what Bill Becker presents here regarding “global warming”, “climate”, “greenhouse gas emissions”, “high/low carbon energy”, etc. must be accepted on face value. He says with the utmost confidence QUOTE: It is very clear that this world has tremendous challenges. The challenges of .. global warming, climate change. UNQUOTE yet has no expertise in any of the many sciences involved in present research into global climate processes and drivers. He presents his opinions as though The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis is proven, yet most of the scientists involved in researching the subject admit freely that scientific uncertainty abounds. Billions are still being spent on research all over the globe in an effort to reduce these enormous uncertainties and this is likely to take decades.

Bill Becker may well be Executive Director of the Presidential Climate Action Project but this is because of his expertise as a climate scientist but because of his experience and ability as a communicator. His knowledge of global climates is second hand, as for any other lay person so if you wish to understand climate science go elsewhere and consider the (limited) understanding of specialists in the field. All that you can expect from Bill’s pronouncements are well presented opinions that are no more valid than those of any intelligent individual who has researched is politics.

Rather than merely talking about “uncertainties” more and more scientists are breaking the political taboo and exposing the flaws in The Hypothesis, despite the risk to their research funds. Dr. Jasper Kirkby experienced such a withdrawal of funds back in 1998 when he said of his planned CERN experiments into the Cosmic Ray Theory (Note 2) QUOTE: “The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century, ” says Kirkby. “But we have yet to prove the relationship between the Sun’s cosmic radiation and the formation of clouds.” He points out that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature. UNQUOTE. His promised funding was then withdrawn and the CLOUD program delayed until 2006. The second (probably conclusive) phase started this year (CLOUD09), too late to have any influence on the decisions at Copenhagen. Despite that QUOTE Message in the CLOUD for Warmists: The end is near? UNQUOTE (Note 3).

The UN’s Climate Conference at Copenhagen has nothing to do with the impossible task of controlling global climates. All of the human-made global climate change propaganda that has been thrown at us by the IPCC is purely to scare people into thinking there is a problem where non exists. The main objective is to create acceptance of a mechanism for redistributing funds from the developed to the developing and under-developed global economies. A secondary objective is to develop a mechanism for establishing global government, the ambition of the UN since its inception.

The UN learned a lot from propaganda experts like Adolf Hitler (Note 5) QUOTE: “All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”. “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”. UNQUOTE.

Instead of accepting what non-scientist Bill Becker says, consider the words of knowledgeable climate research scientists like Dr. Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, (Note 3) QUOTE: Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity, UNQUOTE.

NOTES: 1) see http://www.cudenver.edu/ACADEMICS/COLLEGES/SPA/FACULTYSTAFF/STAFF/Pages/BillBecker.aspx 2) see http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3124 3) see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/01/message-in-the-cloud-for-warmists-the-end-is-near/ 4) see http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnos(cep)tic

............He’s finally lost it.

I strongly suspect a link between the obsession regarding issues to do with concerns about levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the mental health of those individuals. It seems to manifest itself by a gradual but increasingly determined attempt to attempt to control the lives of individuals and a tendency for those affected to suffer from delusions that they are somehow the leader of some sort of master race. Here’s an example of one such individual.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226268/Environment-boss-wants-carbon-tax-driving-heating-holidays.html

Tony, as I’ve just posted to MailonLine :-

For anyone who has bothered to read the draft treaty prepared ahead of the UN’s Copenhagen “Climate Change” CON this will come as no surprise whatsoever. Have a look at it at http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf

The UN’s Climate Conference at Copenhagen has nothing to do with the impossible task of controlling global climates. All of the human-made global climate change propaganda that has been thrown at us by the IPCC is purely to scare people into thinking there is a problem where non exists. The main objective is to create acceptance of a mechanism for redistributing funds from the developed to the developing and under-developed global economies. A secondary objective is to develop a mechanism for establishing global government, the ambition of the UN since its inception.

Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agnostic

It’s all too, too, too, too much. I just can’t bear it any longer. This is beyond parody but in years to come when asked where were you when you read this piece you can tell your children and your childrens children.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/02/climate-change-feminist-issue

........The comments make this piece worth reading. Please take some time out and read.

Thanks for the link Tony. So, it’s not just the UN, politicians and environmentalists who have jumped onto the Climate Change bandwagon. Feminist ranters are now at is as well. Never mind, the wagon will be coming off the rails in a short while.

Further to my comment yesterday, many of us who are sceptical about The (significant Human-made Global Climate Change) Hypothesis claim that this UN-inspired propaganda is all about two major objectives, raising money from the developed nations for redistribution to the less developed and laying down a framework for Global Government.

“Ludicrous conspiracy theory” scream the supporters of The Hypothesis, so we sceptics are identifying and presenting any evidence of action by political supporters of the UN to: - raising money from developed nations, - distributing money to underdeveloped nations, - a framework for Global Government, all hidden behind an invented problem far removed from these three.

I think we have built up a strong case regarding the evidence of the invented problem, to wit Human-made Global Climate Change through our use of fossil fuels but need to do a more convincing job on the other three.

The UN’s draft treaty (Note 2) provides very strong evidence of the raising and redistribution of wealth, but here is a bit more on the “raising” part.

On 9th November the Mailonline reported (Note 1) on what Lord (Chris) Smith, head of the UK’s Environment Agency said about QUOTE: personal carbon allowances for individuals to cut greenhouse gases by penalising people for using too much fuel. Every time someone used their car, took a flight or turned their central heating on, their personal allowance would go down. If it hit zero, they would have to pay to get more carbon credits UNQUOTE.

How has Lord Smith acquired the authority to pronounce on global climate change? He was Culture Secretary under our revered Tony B-liar and they say that like minds stick together, so Lord Smith could be giving support to another “Weapons of Mass Destruction” agenda. Could this be as a result of his ignorance of the science of climate processes and drivers or of some less innocent motive. I have no reason to suspect the latter (although he is a politician, so was at very least aware of the expenses shenanigans thast were goinng on durng his time as an MP). From his biography (Note 3) QUOTE: Chris Smith was .. educated at .. Cambridge .. double first in English. .. completed his Cambridge PhD on Wordsworth and Coleridge in 1979. .. commitment to the arts and heritage .. UNQUOTE. This does beg the question as to the merits of his support (Note 4) for QUOTE: The scientific consensus .. that the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will in due course lead to catastrophic climate change unless we do something about our production of carbon dioxide UNQUOTE?

In my opinion the problem for our democracy is not climate change but is that the driver for most of our representatives is personal security and enhancement. They have little interest in trying to understand the complex scientific disciplines involved in climate processes and drivers so simply go along with the propaganda.

1) see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226268/Environment-boss-wants-carbon-tax-driving-heating-holidays.html 2) see http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf 3) see http://www.speakers-uk.com/profile.phtml?id=399&act_id=1&sid=41 4) see http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1994-02-04a.1141.4&s=climate+change+speaker%3A10547#g1178.0

Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agno(scep)tic

Well said Pete. It doesn’t stop there though. Witness the absolute catastrophe that is the state of our economy. Witness too, in fact, virtually every policy and law brought out by this inept administration since they were elected. Like most Socialists they run into a brick wall once they’ve spent what is left of other peoples money so we are seeing the death throes of this Government but unfortunately they won’t leave without making sure they mess up the place for the next party, namely, the Conservatives. Only they don’t offer much hope in terms of the climate change myth.

In fact they could even do far worse now that big forehead Dave is in charge and shows no sign of slowing the horses with his extreme green agenda. Among his “A” list of Tory candidates is Zac Goldsmith, a complete political no-hoper if there ever was one but with his undoubted riches and connections and his extreme beliefs he is set to reek even more havoc in terms of Tory policy. Of course now that the Lisbon treaty is signed and sealed there is no real heavyweight policy that the Tories can stand up and say Yes this is what We represent. They know, although they refuse to admit it, that they and any future UK Government will have very little influence in the World now that Europe is in the position of creating UK laws.

So the one and only issue that the UK can say that they take the lead on is tackling climate change. Of course now that We no longer manufacture goods on any grand scale, relying on financials, services, tourism and invisibles for our income it’s alot easier to say that we as a nation can all go green – We create less carbon because We manufacture very little!

As an aside, I was at the local tip the other day. I did laugh. A very pretty youngish Woman and her friend (both from central casting, one a hairshirted eco-warrior, the other an animal rights freak) and heard them talking about the many and varied benefits of recycling and how climate change is really bad. I promise you I’m not making this up. Anyhow the first Woman, We’ll call her Coriandar for now proudly marched towards the cardboard skip with a rather large empty cardboard box measuring roughly 48 inches long. Yes folks, she was recycling the packaging for a 48 inch plasma screen television. Hey ho.

Aaaarrrgggghhhhh, I’m fast losing the will to live. How many psychologists does it take to change a cfl light bulb or even save the planet?

According to this piece a whole herd of them….......

http://www.psysr.org/about/programs/climate/projects/letter/