Tweet
Lord Christopher Monckton, a former UK Science Advisor said in an interview I saw last night that the average temperature of the entire EARTH has actually decreased every year for the past 8 years.
He says that this global-warming crap is a large scam with the intent to make money, and control where people live, what kind of cars people drive, etc.
One thing is for certain......the business of large corporations buying and selling Carbon Credits is a MULTI-TRILLION-DOLLAR per year industry.
One thing everyone seems to ignore is the possibility that any 'global warming' is caused by THE SUN, and not human beings.
If the global warming trend is true, it would not be the first time the earth has gotten warmer.
Are these idiots going to claim that when the earth warmed up, oh...about 10 million years ago, that humans were the cause? Even though humans did not even exist back then?
Finally, there is a guy named Ben Santer. He made significant changes to a Gobal Climate report issued in the mid-90s AFTER the report was published....changes which minimized or deleted statements made by the actual scientists involved in providing data for the report which clearly indicated there was no proof climate changes on earth during the preceding 100 years were caused by humans.
In short, in the final approved draft, there were FIVE different places where the contributing scientists said "There is NO DISCERNABLE HUMAN EFFECT ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURE". Dr. Santers RE-WROTE the draft AFTER it had been approved in it's FINAL form, and either deleted or minimized the statements made by authors of the report.
Below is the link where emails from the Dr. to critics (and emails from critics to him) can be read in there entirety. Note that the emails in question were sent in Spring/Summer of 1996, so this has already been going on for well over 13 years. I have quoted a couple of paragraphs about this particular subject below:
E-mail Correspondence between Singer and Santer
As I pointed out in my previous post, it is a good thing for us to begin using clean energy and to reduce and then end our dependence on other countries for our energy needs.
Not only that, our economy in general will benefit when the public switches to clean energy sources.
For example, those companies who manufacture solar cells and solar panels will see strong sales, will continue to expand production of solar panels, will create new jobs that will employ many, will increase tax revenue to the government, which will increase our government's fiscal stability and health.
At the same time, those people who buy solar panels and install them, will see their energy bills reduced drastically, and those who install enough solar panels to create a surplus of energy, will be able to sell that energy back to their local electric company for a profit.
This will increase the amount of money individuals will get to keep in their own pockets, which they can then spend as they see fit, which will only strengthen our economy.
Even so, I am beginning to see this is one large scam, with AL GORE as it's pitchman.
Some parts of this movement WILL benefit us. But as usual, the large corporations and governments who are in an endless cycle of sucking each other's cock while ass-raping consumers are poised to make more money than they ever dreamed of, while strengthening and increasing their power-base on the world stage.
Next!
He says that this global-warming crap is a large scam with the intent to make money, and control where people live, what kind of cars people drive, etc.
One thing is for certain......the business of large corporations buying and selling Carbon Credits is a MULTI-TRILLION-DOLLAR per year industry.
One thing everyone seems to ignore is the possibility that any 'global warming' is caused by THE SUN, and not human beings.
If the global warming trend is true, it would not be the first time the earth has gotten warmer.
Are these idiots going to claim that when the earth warmed up, oh...about 10 million years ago, that humans were the cause? Even though humans did not even exist back then?
Finally, there is a guy named Ben Santer. He made significant changes to a Gobal Climate report issued in the mid-90s AFTER the report was published....changes which minimized or deleted statements made by the actual scientists involved in providing data for the report which clearly indicated there was no proof climate changes on earth during the preceding 100 years were caused by humans.
In short, in the final approved draft, there were FIVE different places where the contributing scientists said "There is NO DISCERNABLE HUMAN EFFECT ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURE". Dr. Santers RE-WROTE the draft AFTER it had been approved in it's FINAL form, and either deleted or minimized the statements made by authors of the report.
Below is the link where emails from the Dr. to critics (and emails from critics to him) can be read in there entirety. Note that the emails in question were sent in Spring/Summer of 1996, so this has already been going on for well over 13 years. I have quoted a couple of paragraphs about this particular subject below:
E-mail Correspondence between Singer and Santer
The key document outlining the scientific backing for global climate change has been rewritten without proper authority, according to the Global Climate Coalition, a group of U.S. businesses opposing immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The changes were made in Chapter 8 of the Second Assessment Report on climate change being prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That report is scheduled for publication soon. Copies of the draft chapter, approved by participating governments, including the United States, at the IPCC's plenary meeting in Rome last December, and the final copy of the chapter, Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes, were given to The Energy Daily by the coalition.
In an accompanying analysis, the coalition argues that the changes "cause the chapter to understate the uncertainties about climate change causes and effects that were clearly evident in the original report and to increase the apparent scientific support for attribution of changes in climate to human activities."
For example, on the question of when it will be possible to link human activities conclusively to climate change, the approved draft reads:
"Finally, we come to the most difficult question of all: `When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this chapter, it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know.' "
That stark admission has been deleted from the revised chapters which soft-pedals the uncertainties. "Finally, we come to the difficult question of when the detection and attribution of human-induced climate change is likely to occur. The answer to this question must be subjective, particularly in the light of the large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this chapter."
Perhaps most damning, the summary of the draft has been revised significantly. For starters, it no longer appears at the end of the chapter, but at the beginning. But it is not just the placement that has been changed; the content also has been modified substantially. In the initial summary, the authors wrote that while changes in global-mean, annually averaged temperatures observed during the past century are unlikely to be due entirely to natural causes, "this explanation cannot be ruled out completely."
The draft summary also pointed out that attributing changes in global temperature to emissions from human activities remains problematic.
"A major difficulty with such studies is in associating cause and effect with a high degree of confidence."
"Attribution of an observed climate change to a particular mechanism can be established only by testing competing hypotheses. Thus, unique attribution of a `significant' observed change requires specifying the signals of all likely alternative explanations, and statistical determination that none of these mechanisms is a satisfactory explanation for the observed change. This is a difficult task, and one that detection studies to date have not addressed in a rigorous statistical way."
The draft then noted that "Pattern-based detection studies are probably of greater relevance for the attribution issue than studies of global-mean change.... Detection of a significant change...in a pattern-based study would give some scientists more confidence in the attribution of observed changes to a specific cause or causes, even without rigorous statistical testing of alternative explanations."
However, the draft continued, "While some of the pattern-based studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of that change to anthropogenic causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse-gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data - an issue that is of primary relevance to policymakers."
The revised chapter reads much differently, with the summary concluding:
"Viewed as a whole, these results indicate that the observed trend in global mean temperature over the past 100 years is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin. More importantly, there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols in the observed climate record. This evidence comes from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change. Taken together, these result points towards a human influence on global climate."
The only remaining uncertainty, the revised chapter contends, is the magnitude of the change. These revisions have the energy community hopping mad, with the climate coalition arguing in a lengthy memo that the credibility of the entire IPCC process - crucial to any future policy directives - is at stake.
The changes were made in Chapter 8 of the Second Assessment Report on climate change being prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That report is scheduled for publication soon. Copies of the draft chapter, approved by participating governments, including the United States, at the IPCC's plenary meeting in Rome last December, and the final copy of the chapter, Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes, were given to The Energy Daily by the coalition.
In an accompanying analysis, the coalition argues that the changes "cause the chapter to understate the uncertainties about climate change causes and effects that were clearly evident in the original report and to increase the apparent scientific support for attribution of changes in climate to human activities."
For example, on the question of when it will be possible to link human activities conclusively to climate change, the approved draft reads:
"Finally, we come to the most difficult question of all: `When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this chapter, it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know.' "
That stark admission has been deleted from the revised chapters which soft-pedals the uncertainties. "Finally, we come to the difficult question of when the detection and attribution of human-induced climate change is likely to occur. The answer to this question must be subjective, particularly in the light of the large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this chapter."
Perhaps most damning, the summary of the draft has been revised significantly. For starters, it no longer appears at the end of the chapter, but at the beginning. But it is not just the placement that has been changed; the content also has been modified substantially. In the initial summary, the authors wrote that while changes in global-mean, annually averaged temperatures observed during the past century are unlikely to be due entirely to natural causes, "this explanation cannot be ruled out completely."
The draft summary also pointed out that attributing changes in global temperature to emissions from human activities remains problematic.
"A major difficulty with such studies is in associating cause and effect with a high degree of confidence."
"Attribution of an observed climate change to a particular mechanism can be established only by testing competing hypotheses. Thus, unique attribution of a `significant' observed change requires specifying the signals of all likely alternative explanations, and statistical determination that none of these mechanisms is a satisfactory explanation for the observed change. This is a difficult task, and one that detection studies to date have not addressed in a rigorous statistical way."
The draft then noted that "Pattern-based detection studies are probably of greater relevance for the attribution issue than studies of global-mean change.... Detection of a significant change...in a pattern-based study would give some scientists more confidence in the attribution of observed changes to a specific cause or causes, even without rigorous statistical testing of alternative explanations."
However, the draft continued, "While some of the pattern-based studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of that change to anthropogenic causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse-gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data - an issue that is of primary relevance to policymakers."
The revised chapter reads much differently, with the summary concluding:
"Viewed as a whole, these results indicate that the observed trend in global mean temperature over the past 100 years is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin. More importantly, there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols in the observed climate record. This evidence comes from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change. Taken together, these result points towards a human influence on global climate."
The only remaining uncertainty, the revised chapter contends, is the magnitude of the change. These revisions have the energy community hopping mad, with the climate coalition arguing in a lengthy memo that the credibility of the entire IPCC process - crucial to any future policy directives - is at stake.
As I pointed out in my previous post, it is a good thing for us to begin using clean energy and to reduce and then end our dependence on other countries for our energy needs.
Not only that, our economy in general will benefit when the public switches to clean energy sources.
For example, those companies who manufacture solar cells and solar panels will see strong sales, will continue to expand production of solar panels, will create new jobs that will employ many, will increase tax revenue to the government, which will increase our government's fiscal stability and health.
At the same time, those people who buy solar panels and install them, will see their energy bills reduced drastically, and those who install enough solar panels to create a surplus of energy, will be able to sell that energy back to their local electric company for a profit.
This will increase the amount of money individuals will get to keep in their own pockets, which they can then spend as they see fit, which will only strengthen our economy.
Even so, I am beginning to see this is one large scam, with AL GORE as it's pitchman.
Some parts of this movement WILL benefit us. But as usual, the large corporations and governments who are in an endless cycle of sucking each other's cock while ass-raping consumers are poised to make more money than they ever dreamed of, while strengthening and increasing their power-base on the world stage.
Next!
Comment