"Climate Change" - Piers Corbyn: Warm Weather Is Not Causing Cold

  

Piers Corbyn of Weather Action most famous for predicting our current weather anomalies by using a Solar Lunar predictive method, explains here how the Climate Warming scare was a contrived hoax.

  

HAT TIP TO REPEAL THE ACT

James Delingpole On COP16 & Agenda 21 - 10/12/2010

       

James Delingpole talks about COP16, aka "The Cancún Car Crash" and how our governments will still spin it as a success as they push ever further ahead with implementing Agenda 21.

PART 1

  

 PART 2 
  

SOURCE VIDEO FROM PRISON PLANET.TV 

GLOBAL "WARMING" - NEW "LITTLE ICE AGE" PREDICTED TO BEGIN IN 2014

     
Russian scientist to alarmists: 'Sun heats Earth!'

CHICAGO – A new "Little Ice Age" could begin in just four years, predicted Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia.

Abdussamatov was speaking yesterday at the Heartland Institute's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago, which began Sunday and ends today.

The Little Ice Age, which occurred after an era known in scientific circles as the Medieval Warm Period, is typically defined as a period of about 200 years, beginning around 1650 and extending through 1850.

In the first of a two-part video WND recorded at the conference, Abdussamatov explained that average annual sun activity has experienced an accelerated decrease since the 1990s. In 2005-2008, he said, the earth reached the maximum of the recent observed global-warming trend.

In Part 2 of the video, Abdussamatov further explained that through 2014 the earth will go through a series of unstable variations in which global temperature will oscillate around the maximum reached in the years 1998-2005.

HAT TIP TO SOLAR CYCLE 25

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ice Age in a Few Years, Croat Scientist Warns (grantlawrence.blogspot.com)
• Algore Is Back (lewrockwell.com)

GLOBAL WARMING - PACHAURI UNDER PRESSURE

The following article comes from the Indian website Open

 

The Hottest Hoax in the World

BY NINAD D. SHETH

It was presented as fact. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, led by India’s very own RK Pachauri, even announced a consensus on it. The world was heating up and humans were to blame. A pack of lies, it turns out.

If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrarywise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see? —Alice in Wonderland

The climate change fraud that is now unravelling is unprecedented in its deceit, unmatched in scope - and for the liberal elite, akin to 9 on the Richter scale. 

Never have so few fooled so many for so long, ever. The entire world was being asked to change the way it lives on the basis of pure hyperbole. Propriety, probity and transparency were routinely sacrificed.

The truth is: the world is not heating up in any significant way. Neither are the Himalayan glaciers going to melt as claimed by 2035. Nor is there any link at all between natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and global warming. All that was pure nonsense, or if you like, ‘no-science’!

The climate change mafia, led by Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), almost pulled off the heist of the century through fraudulent data and suppression of procedure. All the while, they were cornering millions of dollars in research grants that heaped one convenient untruth upon another. And as if the money wasn’t enough, the Nobel Committee decided they should have the coveted Peace Prize. 

But let’s begin at the beginning. Mr Pachauri has no training whatsoever in climate science. This was known all the time, yet he heads the pontification panel which proliferates the new gospel of a hotter world. How come? Why did the United Nations not choose someone who was competent? After all, this man is presumably incapable of differentiating between ocean sediments and coral terrestrial deposits, nor can he go about analysing tree ring records and so on. That’s not jargon; these are essential elements of a syllabus in any basic course on climatology.

You cannot blame him. His degree and training is in railroad engineering. You read it right. This man was educated to make railroads from point A to point B. 

THE GATHERING STORM

There are many casualties in this sad story of greed and hubris. The big victim is the scientific method. This was pointed out in great detail by John P Costella of the Virginia-based Science and Public Policy Institute. Science is based on three fundamental pillars. The first is fallibility. The fact that you can be wrong, and if so proven by experimental input, any hypothesis can be - indeed, must be - corrected.

This was systematically stymied as early as 2004 by the scientist in-charge of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Change Unit. This university was at the epicentre of the ‘research’ on global warming. It is here that Professor Phil Jones kept inconvenient details that contradicted climate change claims out of reports.

The second pillar of science is that by its very nature, science is impersonal. There is no ‘us’, there is no ‘them’. There is only the quest. However, in the entire murky non-scientific global warming episode, if anyone was a sceptic he was labelled as one of ‘them’. At the very apex, before his humiliating retraction, Pachauri had dismissed a report by Indian scientists on glaciers as “voodoo science”.

The third pillar of science is peer group assessment. This allows for validation of your thesis by fellow scientists and is usually done in confidence. However, the entire process was set aside by the IPCC while preparing the report. Thus, it has zero scientific value.

The fact that there was dissent within the climate science teams, that some people objected to the very basis of the grand claims of global warming, did not come out through the due process. It came to light when emails at the Climate Research Centre at East Anglia were hacked in November 2009. It is from the hacked conversations that a pattern of conspiracy and deceit emerge. It is a peek into the world of global warming scaremongering—amplify the impact of CO2, stick to dramatic timelines on destruction of forests, and never ask for a referral or raise a contrary point. You were either a believer in a hotter world or not welcome in this ‘scientific fold’.

HOUSE OF CARDS AND COLOUR OF CASH

So we have the fact that a non-expert heads the IPCC. We have the fact that glaciers are not melting by 2035; this major scaremongering is now being defended as a minor error (it was originally meant to be 2350, some have clarified). The date was spouted first by Syed Hasnain, an Indian glacier expert, in an interview to a magazine. It had no scientific validity, and, as Hasnain has himself said, was speculative.

On the basis of that assertion, The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri) that Pachauri heads and where Hasnain works in the glaciology team, got two massive chunks of funding. The first was estimated to be a $300,000 grant from Carnegie Corporation and the second was a part of the $2 million funding from the European Union. So you write a report that is false on glaciers melting and get millions to study the impact of a meltdown which will not be happening in the first place. Now if this is not a neat one, what is?

The same goes for dire predictions on Amazon rain forests. The IPCC maintained that there would be a huge depletion in Amazon rain forests because of lack of precipitation. Needless to add, no Amazon rain forest expert could be trusted to back this claim. They depended on a report by a freelance journalist and activist, instead, and now it has blown up in their faces.

There’s plenty more in this sordid tale. For one thing, there is no scientific consensus at all that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming, as claimed by the IPCC. In a recent paper, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who has worked extensively on climate change models, argues: ‘There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps—if any—we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.’

An investigation by Dr Benny Peiser, director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, has revealed that only 13 of the 1,117, or a mere 1 per cent of the scientific papers crosschecked by him, explicitly endorse the consensus as defined by the IPCC. Thus the very basis of the claim of consensus on global warming is false. And so deeply entrenched is the global warming lobby, the prestigious journal Science did not publish a letter that Dr Peiser wrote pointing out the lack of consensus.

Speaking to Open, says Dr Peiser, “The IPCC process by which it arrives at its conclusions lacks balance, transparency and due diligence. It is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer-reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports. Not surprisingly, the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility in recent years. It is also losing the trust of more and more governments who are no longer following its advice. Until it agrees to undergo a root and branch reform, it will continue to haemorrhage credibility and trust. The time has come for a complete overhaul of its structure and workings.”

Another fraud is in the very chart central to Pachauri’s speech at the Copenhagen summit. As Lord Monckton has pointed out, ‘The graph is bogus not only because it relies on made-up data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, but also because it is overlain by four separate trendlines, each with a start-date carefully selected to give the entirely false impression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998. The truth, however—neatly obscured by an ingenious rescaling of the graph and the superimposition of the four bogus trend lines on it—is that from 1860 to 1880 and again from 1910 to 1940 the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975 to 1998.’

PACHAURI’S WRONG NUMBERS

This chart, tracking mean global temperature over the past 150 years, was central to the presentation that IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri made at the Copenhagen environment summit. Many scientists believe that the graph is fraudulent. First, there are strong allegations that the data, collected from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, is a tissue of lies. Plus, as British climate change expert Lord Christopher Monckton puts it: “(The main graph, in darker blue) is overlain by four separate lines, each carefully selected to give the entirely false impression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998. The truth, however... is that from 1860 to 1880 and again from 1910 to 1940, the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975 to 1998.” In other words, the graph has been drawn with a motive to prove one’s point, and not to show the truth.

Thus the earth has warmed at this rate at least twice in the last 100 years and no major catastrophe has occurred. What is more, the earth has cooled after that warming. Why is the IPCC not willing to explore this startling point?

Another total lie has been that the Sunderbans in Bangladesh are sinking on account of the rise in sea level. The IPCC claimed that one-fifth of Bangladesh will be under water by 2050. Well, it turns out this is an absurd, unscientific and outrageous claim. According to scientists at the Centre for Environmental and Geographical Information Services (Cegis) in Dhaka, its surface area appears to be growing by 20 sq km annually. Cegis has based its results on more than 30 years of satellite imagery. IPCC has not retracted this claim. As far as they are concerned, Bangladesh is a goner by 2050, submerged forever in the Bay of Bengal.

THE COOKIE CRUMBLES

The fallout of Climategate is slowly but surely unfolding right where it hurts a large number of special interests—in the field of business. Yes, the carbon trading business is now in the line of fire. Under a cap-and-trade system, a government authority first sets a limit on emissions, deciding how much pollution will be allowed in all. Next, companies are issued credits, essentially licences to pollute, based on how large they are, and what industries they work in. If a company comes in below its cap, it has extra credits which it may trade with other companies, globally.

Post Climategate, this worldwide trade, estimated at about $30 billion in 2006, is finding few takers. It is under attack following the renewed uncertainty over the role of human-generated CO2 in global warming. In the US, which never adopted any of this to begin with, there is a serious move now to finish off the cap-and-trade regime globally. It’s a revolt of sorts. Six leading Democrats in the US Congress have joined hands with many Republicans to urge the Obama Administration to back off from the regime.

The collapse of the international market for carbon credits, a direct fallout of Climategate, has already sent shudders down many spines in parts of the world that were looking forward to making gains from it. It was big business, after all, and Indian businesses were eyeing it as well. In fact, Indian firms were expected to trade some $1 billion worth of carbon credits this year, and with the market going poof, they stand to lose quite some money (notional or otherwise).

Besides the commercial aspect, there is also the issue of wider public credibility. There have been signs of scepticism all along. In a 2009 Gallup poll, a record number of people—41 per cent—elected to say that global warming was an exaggerated threat. This slackening of public support is in sync with a coordinated political movement that is seeking to re-examine the entire issue of global warming from scratch. The movement is led by increasingly vocal Republicans in the US Senate and packs considerable political power.

Pachauri’s position is also becoming increasingly untenable with demands for his resignation becoming louder by the day. In an interview to Open, Pat Michaels of the Cato Institute, a noted US think-tank, who has followed the debate for years, says, “Dr Pachauri should resign because he has a consistent record of mixing his political views with climate science, because of his intolerance of legitimate scientific views that he does not agree with, because of his disparagement of India’s glacier scientists as practising ‘voodoo science’, and because of his incomprehension of the serious nature of what was in the East Anglia emails.

Richard North, the professor who brought to light the financial irregularities in a write-up co-authored with Christopher Booker, has also said in a TV interview that, “If Dr Pachauri does not resign voluntarily, he will be forced to do so.”

GLOBAL STORMING AHEAD

The world awaits answers, based not on writings of sundry freelance journalists and non-experts, but on actual verifiable data on whether the globe is warming at all, and if so by how much. Only then can policy options be calibrated. As things stand, there is little doubt that the IPCC will need to be reconstituted with a limited mandate. This mess needs investigation and questions need to be answered as to why absurd claims were taken as gospel truth. The future of everything we know as ‘normal’ depends on this. The real danger is that the general public is now weary of the whole thing, a little tired of the debate, and may not really care for the truth, convenient or otherwise.

HAT TIP TO SUBROSA

MORE CLIMATE CHANGE BOLLOCKS

THE NEW CLIMATE CHANGE SCANDAL

 

Glacier melt claims were 'speculation

Fresh doubts were cast over controversial global warming theories yesterday after a major climate change argument was discredited.

The International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were “speculation” and not backed up by research.

  

A. CUNT

It was also revealed that the IPCC’s controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, described as “the world’s top climate scientist”, is a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics and no formal climate science qualifications. Pachauri was yesterday accused of a conflict of interest after it emerged he has a network of business interests that attract millions of pounds in funding thanks to IPCC policies. One of them, The Energy Research Institute, has a London office and is set to receive up to £10million from British taxpayers over the next five years in the form of grants from the Department for International Development. Pachauri denies any conflict of interest arising from his various roles.

Yesterday, critics accused the IPCC of boosting the man-made global warming theory to protect a multi-million pound industry. Climate scientist Peter Taylor said: “I am not surprised by this news. A vast bureaucracy and industry has been built up around this theory. There is too much money in it for the IPCC to let it wither.” Professor Julian Dowdeswell, a glacier specialist at Cambridge University, said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one even at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is a lot faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistically high.” (I'd have said "fucking ridiculous", myself!)

The scientists behind the report now admit they relied on a news story published in the New Scientist journal in 1999. The article was based on a short telephone interview with scientist Syed Hasnain, then based in Delhi, who has since said his views were “speculation”. The New Scientist report was picked up by the WWF and included in a 2005 paper. It then became a key source for the IPCC which went further in suggesting the melting of the glaciers was “very likely”.

Yesterday, Professor Murari Lal who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, then I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.” ("recommend"?.....it's a fucking no-brainer!)

Last year the Indian government issued its own scientific research rejecting the notion that glaciers were melting so rapidly. Before the weakness in the IPCC’s research was exposed, Dr Pachauri dismissed the Indian government report as “voodoo science”. The revelations are the latest crack to appear in the scientific consensus on climate change.

 

STORY FROM THE DAILY EXPRESS

CUNTS!

 

GLOBAL WARMING: THE OTHER SIDE

BREAKING NEWS! CLIMATEGATE COMES TO THE UNITED STATES!  MEET THE TWO MEN WHO HAVE DUG THROUGH SEVERAL LAYERS OF COMPUTER CODES TO UNCOVER MANIPULATION OF THE WORLD TEMPERATURE DATA TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS OF GLOBAL WARMING. THIS IS A MAJOR CLIMATE SCANDAL INVOLVING UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.
 

by John Coleman, KUSI Meteorologist

SEE THE VIDEO HERE


 

CLIMATEGATE - COP15, ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF POLITICS INFLUENCING SCIENCE

Many experts are skeptical about the work of the Copenhagen summit, particularly as the fallout from Climategate continues to roil the community. Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute  says that scientists who advocate global warming are interpreting data in a way that will let them influence policy.

SCEPTICS CHALLENGE COPENHAGEN SUMMIT

A group of sceptics is meeting in the Danish capital to counterbalance the main event.

Professor Cliff Ollier, a Professor of Geology from the University of Western Australia who focuses on ice caps and glaciers, came to Copenhagen to have his say on the connection between glaciers and the rising sea level.

“The whole mechanism of glacial flow has nothing to do with the rising temperature or carbon dioxide,” says the professor.

Lord Christopher Monckton is yet another one of the sceptics. He has been talking to the delegates to think again about the facts surrounding climate change.

“What I am already doing is talking to individual delegations here in Copenhagen and saying to them: Look, whatever pressure you are under from your environmental groups and your younger people and your governments, pay heed to the science and not the propaganda, except that there is no climate problem caused by humankind and go home without any agreement,” stresses Monckton. “In particular, don’t you dare set up a world government or anything like it and don’t you dare to impose worldwide rationing and taxing in trading, because that would amount to the biggest tax in human history and we do not want that,” he says.

Earlier, RT spoke to one of the sceptics, Craig Rucker, from the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. He outlined the claims put forward by those who say global warming is a natural phenomenon, not caused by man.
“We are asking for a complete investigation into the Climategate issue,” Rucker said.

While UN officials are optimistic about the summit, the critics there say they want more science – and less politics.

HAT TIP TO RUSSIA TODAY  

Follow the HAT TIP link above to see three more videos from RT with Professor Cliff Ollier, Lord Christopher Monckton and Craig Rucker.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Global warming 'caused by sun's radiation' (telegraph.co.uk)

GLOBAL WARMING?? BOLLOCKS!!!!

HAT TIP TO THE ANGLO SAXON CHRONICLE AND DANIEL1979 BLOG

This is all becoming rather explosive and the wagons are circling in the Great Global Warming Swindle - they have been well and truly caught out and they know it - and what with the guys who are trawling through the hacked E-mails doing such a great job, there is much more yet to be revealed!

I left a comment a few days ago on a BBC website called "BBC - World, Have Your Say" and, I must admit, I was extremely surprised when it passed moderation and was posted. The question was, of course, all about climate change and the comment thread was "Are you selfish - or are we bad journalists?" This thread has since been taken down but I did make a copy of my comment which now follows.

BBC  - Comment on World, Have Your Say

18 November 2009 - 14:50
 

I am so sick, sore and tired of hearing about the Great Global Warming Swindle!

Global warming is nothing more than an enormous worldwide money-grabbing, tax-raising scam and Al Gore and others of his ilk are getting incredibly rich out of it, (Gore has made around $100,000,000 from it so far), while the rest of us are bullied and coerced into donning hair shirts. The planet has, in fact, been cooling for at least the last twenty years so you've probably noticed that we stopped talking about global warming some time ago and it became "climate change". So - having softened us up with that title for a while, Gore has decided, (with some help), in time for Copenhagen and the launch of his book, that the time is ripe to ratchet the title up some more so it has now become "climate crisis"!

"Fifty days to save the world"  someone said recently - that all seems to have gone a bit quiet since Obama said that there would be no deal!  (I didn't want to mention Brown by name in case they used it as an excuse not to post the comment).

This kind of climate cycle has happened over and over again - it happened before humans evolved and it will happen again and again after humans are extinct. How truly and typically arrogant to suppose that we even have the technology to do anything about it - we do not, (and those running the scam surely know that) - in the grand scheme of things we are nothing - nothing at all!

Thanks to Lord Monckton, we are finally to have a full and public debate on the subject - perhaps it will put an end to people's parroting of received wisdom from politicians with a vested interest in " green" industries and heavy taxation.

And then, joy of joys, the CRU computer was hacked and we are now getting more and more confirmation of the lies by the day!

 

So - fuck the tree-hugging, lefty old hippies really hard, right up the jacksy with a blackthorn stick wrapped in razor wire and damn the whole fucking climate change clique to Hell!

CUNTS!!

THE METHANE REPORT

Would you fucking Adam and Eve it?!! I have just been watching Countryfile on our wonderful politically correct, biased, Lefty, "stick your climate change and your global warming up your fucking arse" BB fucking C!

Some PC twats are now trying to discourage us from eating red meat because, and get this, cows are producing too much methane and adding to the "problem" of "climate change"! What the fuckety fuck next???!!!

They have actually strapped large devices to the cows' backs and have run a bleeding great pipe all the way round to their arseholes to measure the amount of methane they produce -  so be prepared for red meat to disappear from the menu if this pile of Left Wing PC vegetarian stormtroopers get their way!

Personally, I would like to round up a herd of fucking vegans and strap the machines to their backs and stick a bloody great hosepipe up their arseholes to see how much fucking methane they produce every day with all that bastard rotting greenery they've eaten!! Fuck the fucking fuckety fuck off you lying Lefty cunts!