We have found video of Al Gore being confronted by a group known as We Are Change Chicago at a signing for his new book – “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis” (which has been proven to use fraudulent images via Photoshop to help his cause). Reports have surfaced that scientists involved with global warming have used fraudulent or incorrect data have added new twists to claims that global warming is caused by man and increased CO2 emissions.
What do you think?
Content from links above can be found below.
Gore Losing the War: 59% Don’t Believe Man Is Warming the Planet
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
January 19, 2009 – 13:28 ET
He won an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize, but a recent poll suggests the Global Warmingist-in-Chief Al Gore is losing his propaganda war to convince Americans carbon dioxide is destroying the planet.
In fact, the number of people who believe that long-term planetary trends are responsible for the relatively small increase in temperatures in recent decades rose ten percent since last April while those viewing it as a man-made problem has decreased by six percent.
Talk about your inconvenient truths!
This has got to be bad news for a man that has bet his reputation as well as his very fortune on people buying into his junk science. As reported by Rasmussen Reports Monday:
Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.
Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. [...]
In April of last year, 47% of Americans blamed human activity versus 34% who viewed long-term planetary trends as the culprit. But the numbers have been moving in the direction of planetary trends since then.
On the eve of the inauguration of a president that has bought this nonsense hook, line, and sinker, we can only hope Congress is paying attention to how the electorate feels about this issue.
Stay tuned.
Climategate: it’s all unravelling now
So many new developments: which story do we pick? Maybe best to summarise, instead. After all, it’s not like you’re going to find much of this reported in the MSM.
1. Australia’s Senate rejects Emissions Trading Scheme for a second time. Or: so turkeys don’t vote Christmas. Expect to see a lot more of this: politicians starting to become aware their party’s position on AGW is completely out of kilter with the public mood and economic reality. Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme – what Andrew Bolt calls “a $114 billion green tax on everything” – would have wreaked havoc on the coal-dependent Australian economy. That’s why several opposition Liberal frontbenchers resigned rather than vote with the Government on ETS; why Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull lost his job; and why the Senate voted down the ETS.
2. Danes caught fiddling their carbon credits. (Hat tip: Philip Stott) Carbon trading is the Emperor’s New Clothes of international finance. It was invented by none other than Ken Lay, whose Enron would currently be one of the prime beneficiaries in the global alternative energy market, if it hadn’t been shown to be (nearly) as fraudulent as the current AGW scam. It is a licence to fleece, cheat and rob. Still, jolly embarrassing for the Danes to get caught red handed, what with their hosting a conference shortly in which the world’s leaders will try, straight-faced, to persuade us that carbon emissions trading is the only viable way of defeating ManBearPig.
3. Hats off to The Daily Express – the first British newspaper to make the AGW scam its front page story.
The piece was inspired by another bravura performance by Professor Ian Plimer, the Aussie geologist who argues that climate change has been going on quite naturally, oblivious of human activity, for the last 4,567 million years.
4. BBC finally gets round to reporting – sort of – that Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia may have been up to no good. It’s true that this report on their website is so hedged with special pleading for the temporarily suspended director Phil Jones the man might have written it himself. But on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning, I did hear the newsreader reporting it as more than just a routine theft story. Which is a start.
5. Legal actions ahoy! Over the next few weeks, one thing we can be absolutely certain of is concerted efforts by the rich, powerful and influential AGW lobby to squash the Climategate story. We’ve seen this already in the “nothing to see here” response of Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the jet-setting, troll-impersonating railway engineer who runs the IPCC and wants to stop ice being served with water in restaurants. This is why those of us who oppose his scheme to carbon-tax the global economy back to the dark ages must do everything in our power to bring the scandal to a wider audience. One way to do this is law suits.
At Ian Plimer’s lunch talk yesterday, Viscount Monckton talked of at least two in the offing – both by scientists, one British, one Canadian, who intend to pursue the CRU for criminal fraud. Their case, quite simply, is that the scientists implicated in Climategate have gained funding and career advancement by twisting data, hiding evidence, and shutting out dissenters by corrupting the peer-review process. More news on this, as I hear it.
Lord Monckton has written an indispensible summary of the Climategate revelations so far.
6. Watch out Green Dave! The Independent reports on the growing backlash within the party to Cameron’s libtard-wooing greenery. Turning to the Independent for a balanced report on environmental matters is a bit like consulting Der Sturmer for a sensible, insightful view on the Jewish question. Still, for once, the house journal of eco-loonery seems to have got it right and the point made by Tory backbencher David Davis is well made:
“The ferocious determination to impose hair-shirt policies on the public – taxes on holiday flights, or covering our beautiful countryside with wind turbines that look like props from War of the Worlds – is bound to cause a reaction in any democratic country.”
Climate Change Czar Carol Browner on Hacked Emails: ‘Who Cares?’
Sunday, November 29th at 8:44PM EST
Obama’s Energy and Climate Change Czar Carol Browner is unswayed by the revelations in the Hadley CRU hacked emails, saying
“I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real,” said Ms. Browner, who President Obama has tapped as his chief of policy on global warming. …
Ms. Browner initially shrugged when asked about the e-mails, saying she didn’t have a reaction. But when a reporter followed up, she said she will stick with the consensus of the 2,500 climate scientists on the International Panel on Climate Change who concluded global warming is happening and is most likely being pushed by human actions.
On the eve of President Obama’s trip to the U.N. Climate Change conference in Copenhagen, please indulge a few rhetorical questions.
- Those 2,500 scientists? They work for the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Of course they believe in Climate Change; it says “Climate Change” on their paychecks! The global warming opinions of organizations like the American Petroleum Institute have always been treated with skepticism; why should we not consider the source when it comes to the IPCC’s studies?
- If money corrupts and renders ones scientific opinions tainted, what’s with Nobel Peace Laureate Al Gore? As a partner in investment bank Kleiner Perkins, he’s positioned to score big from government’s “investment” in green energy.
- The email controversy directly calls into question the integrity of the #1 repository of temperature trend data. Hadley puts ideology above their commitment to scientific truth, and that, to me, is the key revelation of the emails. If they had found that the data no longer supports global warming, would they have reported it nonetheless? The tone of the emails suggests the answer is “no”.
- Aside from the institutional bias (or perhaps because of it), Hadley’s data seems a mess. Before the hacked emails, we discovered that decades of raw data had been erased, making it impossible for independent researchers to audit Hadley’s statistical methods. Email content calls into question the way relatively sparse recent data were grafted onto historical trends. Without the “hockey stick”, which has become a key underpinning of global warming alarmism, what’ve you got?
- Can we drop the “denier” bit now? Aside from subliminally conjuring up the Holocaust to help your cause, recent events suggest climate change skepticism is healthy and justified.
- For the last decade or so, we’ve been operating under “The Science is settled. We don’t have time. WE MUST ACT NOW!” Well, last time I checked, global temps have been falling. Even if you’re right, the temperature trend has bought us some time. Maybe it’s time to start the analysis afresh, only this time with a blank slate, and without a stacked deck.
Thousands of scientists sign petition against global warming
by Charles Biggs
It’s about time that liberals like Al Gore come up with a new crisis. Global warming (climate change) is running out of steam.
Bob Unruh of WorldNetDaily reported that 31,000 U.S. scientists – 9,000 with doctorate degrees in atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting global warming.
The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.
Global warming assumes that human production of greenhouse gases is destroying the Earth’s climate.
According to the petition, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
“Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
The Petition Project www.petitionproject.org has been underway for 10 years. It’s a gradual movement but it was spurred on by the release of Gore’s “documentary” An Inconvenient Truth.
Gore’s movie claims there is a “consensus” and “settled science” about human-caused global warming. It was particularly unsettling because teachers all across the country showed the movie to students to indoctrinate them in global warming.
“Unfortunately, Mr. Gore’s movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse,” said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson.
UK climate scientist to temporarily step down
By RAPHAEL G. SATTER – 2 days ago
LONDON — The chief of a prestigious British research center caught in a storm of controversy over claims that he and others suppressed data about climate change has stepped down pending an investigation, the University of East Anglia said Tuesday.
The university said in a statement that Phil Jones, whose e-mails were among the thousands of pieces of correspondence leaked to the Internet late last month, would relinquish his position as director of Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent review.
The university’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research Trevor Davies said the investigation would cover data security, whether the university responded properly to Freedom of Information requests, “and any other relevant issues.” The statement said the specific terms of the review will be announced later in the week.
Jones has been accused by skeptics of man-made climate change of manipulating data to support his research. In particular, many have pointed to a leaked e-mail in which Jones writes that he had used a “trick” to “hide the decline” in a chart detailing recent global temperatures. Jones has denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been misunderstood, explaining that he’d used the word trick “as in a clever thing to do.”
Davies said there was nothing in the stolen material to suggest the peer-reviewed publications by the unit “are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation.”
But the correspondence from Jones and others — which appears to include discussions of how to keep critical work out of peer-reviewed journals and efforts to shield scientists’ data and methodology from outside scrutiny — have been seized upon by those who are fighting efforts to impose caps on emissions of carbon dioxide as evidence of a scientific conspiracy.
Browner briefs lawmakers on Copenhagen plans
White House climate czar Carol Browner met today in the Capitol with architects of Senate climate change legislation and said international reaction to President Obama’s emissions reduction pledge has been positive, according to Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
Obama plans to attend the international climate talks in Copenhagen later this month, and offer a provisional U.S. greenhouse gas emissions reduction target in the range of 17 percent by 2020.
“We were just getting an update from Carol Browner on Copenhagen and how we can work with her,” Boxer said after leaving the meeting. Boxer said lawmakers asked Browner about the response to the White House pledge, and that Browner called it “pretty positive.”
Browner declined to comment after the meeting. Lawmakers in attendance included Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who is co-sponsoring the major Senate cap-and-trade plan with Boxer, and also working with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on proposals.
Others spotted leaving the meeting include Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.).
Cardin similarly described the meeting as…(READ MORE)
Climate Czar Browner: What Conflict of Interest?
Well, here’s yet another thing the unconfirmable Obama “Climate Czarina” Carol Browner got around disclosing thanks to, and one more reason for being stuffed into, a position of influence through the backdoor of a phony job not subject to Senate confirmation, even while lording over Senate-confirmed constitutional officers:
She was on the board of one of the leading carbon offset trading companies, APX.
That makes for one really big conflict of interest in her role guiding the administration’s efforts to regulate carbon dioxide and force emitters to buy CO2 ration-coupons.
Al Gore Photoshops Hurricanes Into New Book’s Cover
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
November 19, 2009 – 14:54 ET
UPDATE AT END OF POST: Gore prominently quotes Deuteronomy, “I’m offering you the choice of life or death.”
The cover of Nobel Laureate Al Gore’s new book “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis” was intentionally doctored to exaggerate the appearance of hurricanes in the northern hemisphere as well as reduce the amount of ice present in the Arctic.
Maybe even more ominously, Florida was so diminished it’s almost totally gone.
As reported by Florida State University hurricane expert Ryan Maue at the website Watts Up With That, the truth was apparently inconvenient for the Global Warmingist-in-Chief (h/t NBer Blonde):
The cover opens and closes half and half – so you only see one hurricane…as in the press release photo or the one on Amazon.
But this is the real picture sequence from the book which I looked at Borders today and took cell-phone pictures, original (before the retouching by some “artist”) Note all of the Arctic ice and the size of the Florida Peninsula…
Hey! Where’d Florida go?
With hurricane activity at 30-year lows, and Arctic ice levels on the rise, I guess Gore and Company figured they needed some help proving their point.
*****Update: NBer Dim Bulb humorously pointed out in the comments section that Gore might be eliminating Florida in this picture to exact revenge for 2000’s recount debacle.
*****Update II: It gets even scarier. On Wednesday, Tom Nelson reported:
On a page by itself, we find this inside the front cover of Al Gore’s latest climate fraud promotion book:
I’m offering you the choice of life or death. You can choose either blessings or curses. – Deuteronomy Chapter 30, Verse 19
Ryan Maue confirmed this by phone moments ago, and sent this picture.
So Al Gore believes he’s offering the world a choice between life and death.
Maybe they’ll give him another Nobel Peace Prize for such sentiments.
Katy Capsule Note: I found it interesting that this article (found on DailyPaul.com)- Nine Arctic Nukes Exploded in Eighteen Hours- was mentioned on AboveTopSecret.com’s forum recently, as well.
The Enron Revitalization Act of 2009 (from the Kyoto Protocol to Waxman-Markey)
by Robert Bradley Jr.
July 1, 2009
“This agreement will be good for Enron stock!!”
- John Palmisano, “Implications of the Climate Change Agreement in Kyoto & What Transpired” (1997)
The 219–212 passage of HR 2454 inspires another look at Enron’s infamous “Kyoto memo,” written almost 13 years ago by company lobbyist John Palmisano. Indeed, an Enron memo upon House passage of the Waxman-Markey climate bill would have been similar! Change the dates and some other specifics and the bottom line would be the same–potential gains for Enron’s profit centers in wind, solar, CO2-emissions trading, energy outsourcing, and natural gas.
One can imagine a quotation like this from Enron’s fabled public relations department, hyperbolizing a half-victory into something bigger in the attempt to create a bandwagon effect:
“This historic vote was heard ’round the world,” stated Kenneth L. Lay, chairman of Enron Corp. “Although much work remains before we have new law, HR 2454 signals a new commitment toward clean, green energy, of which Enron is the acknowledged world leader. All of us look forward to working with lawmakers and citizens in this new era of global climate protection.”
Perhaps Al Gore himself would have placed a call to Ken Lay to congratulate the company that did to much so spark the CO2 reduction debate within the industry in the 1980s and 1990s. Indeed, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (US CAP), a bootleggers-and-Baptists coalition that had much to do with the opening draft of Waxman-Markey, probably had more to do with Ken Lay protégé James Rogers (now chairman of Duke Energy) than any other single person.
Reprinted below, verbatim, is the infamous Enron Kyoto Memo, the original copy of which is posted here.
To: Terry Thorn, Joe Hillings, Cynthia Sandherr, Jeff Keeler, Fiona Grant, Hap Boyd, Bill Shoff, Dan Badger, Tom Kearney, Lynda Clemmons, Bruce Stram, Mike Terraso, Rob Bradley, Jim O’Neill, John Hardy
From: John Palmisano
Date: December 12, 1997
Subject: Implications of the Climate Change Agreement in Kyoto & What Transpired
This memo summarizes the implications of the agreement reached in Kyoto and also describes what I was doing and provides some observations.
Implications
If implemented, this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States. The potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous. In addition, a carbon emissions trading system will be developed. While the trading system will be implemented by 2008, I am sure that reductions will begin to trade with 1-2 years. Finally, Enron has immediate business opportunities which derive directly from this agreement.
On the policy-front: There will be a great number of country-specific and international meetings related to every aspect of this agreement. I do not think it is possible to overestimate the importance of this year in shaping every aspect of the agreement. Three issues of specific importance to Enron are: (1)the rules governing emissions trading, (2) the rules governing joint implementation within Annex-1, and (3) the rules governing the proposed clean energy fund (which promises to dwarf the GEF as a fund for wind, solar, and power plant conversions.)
On the business front: During the next year there will be intense positioning of organizations to capture an early lead in a variety of carbon trading businesses.
The endorsement of joint implementation within Annex-1 is exactly what I have been lobbying for and it seems like we won.
The clean development will be a mechanism for funding renewable projects. Again, we won. (We need to push for natural gas firing to be included among the technologies that get preferential treatment from the fund.)
The endorsement of emissions trading was another victory for us.
Highlights of the Agreement
38 developed countries are required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to or below 1990 levels by 2012.
Australia rejects carbon emission laws
Australia’s parliament has rejected laws to set up a sweeping carbon emissions trade scheme, scuttling a key policy of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and setting a trigger for an early election.
The defeat by parliament’s upper house Senate ends Rudd’s hopes of taking his legislated climate commitments to next week’s global talks in Copenhagen, where world leaders will discuss new targets to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The rejection gives a legal trigger to allow him to call an early election on climate change that could come in early 2010, and to then ram his laws through a special joint sitting of both houses of parliament if he is returned to power.
“We will do all we can, and continue to do all we can to safeguard our children’s future. And we will not take a backward step,” Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told parliament at the end of a marathon week-long debate.
“We should leave this place being able to look Australians in the eye saying we acted, we took responsibility. Some of those opposite will simply have to look Australians in the eye and say ‘I voted this way, I voted not now, and in fact not ever’.”
The Senate rejection throws the future of carbon trading into confusion, creating new uncertainty for business which had sought certainty from the political debate.
Opponents of the cap-and-trade scheme used their numbers in the Senate after climate change sceptics took control of the opposition leadership on Tuesday.
The scheme would have been the biggest outside Europe, covering 75 per cent of Australian emissions and starting in July 2011.
It would have effectively forced polluters to pay for their emissions, requiring them to purchase emission permits from a carbon market.
Wong earlier said defeat would be a setback to global climate negotiations next week in Copenhagen, with developing countries possibly seeing it as a sign that wealthy countries were unwilling to curb greenhouse emissions blamed for global warming.
“Obviously this does make Copenhagen harder if we don’t get this scheme up,” Wong said.
