| | | |
|
| |
|
By Gary Starr for the Neville Awards
December 22, 2009
|
Related Articles:
So what did Son of Kyoto or the Copenhagen Climate Summit accomplish? Beyond a lot of Leftist street theater, our Fraudinator-in-Chief getting totally dissed by China,
a big blizzard in Copenhagen proving the efficacy of 'Climate Change'...not, and endless calls of 'Show me the Money' by the so-called 'developing nations' run by despots, not much happened except for an agreement
to meet again in Mexico for another round of Climate Kabuki Theater and an excuse to take a vacation using hundreds of CO2-spewing private jets.
So lets break it down shall we?
All of the tin pot despots from Bejing to Africa were of one voice, demanding more "democracy" at the conference. They wanted the West to pay their climate debt without preconditions. Can anyone say extortion? But it's looking more and more that Copenhagen may not turn out to be the big payday they were counting on.
Dick Morris:
Just as climate change is being hijacked in developed countries by socialists and liberals who want to regulate business and utilities, so it is being exploited by less developed countries as a pretext for more foreign aid.
China, in particular, won't allow any international monitoring of its compliance with the climate change goals. This refusal is giving Democratic trade protectionists the cover they need to raise tariff barriers on imports from abroad. Yet again, climate change is being hijacked by partisans of a particular persuasion - protectionists - to suit their goals.
The nearest thing to an agreement was the promise by the developed world (embraced enthusiastically by Hillary and Obama) to pay the developing world $30 billion of "climate aid" over the next three years, rising to $100 billion a year after 2020. It is not legally binding, and there is no agreement about which countries cash in, in which amounts, and on what conditions.
The real question is when does a developing nation become a developed nation? This is the essence of the climate change scam. Do we pay the $100 billion in perpetuity? This is the shakedown model that drives folks like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and ACORN to keep
racism alive and well in the U.S. For if racism ceases to be a problem there is no need for wealth redistribution and affirmative action. And there is no need for activists like Jackson, Sharpton and ACORN. But liberal white guilt is an easy emotion to prey on and the impulse for wealth redistribution on a global scale is irresistable to Leftists.
Perhaps the saddest spectacle of all was Obama. He flew in to Copenhagen in the middle of a blizzard. The talks were deadlocked, the dictators had staged a walkout and Chavez was pulling out his "smell of sulfer" routine again. Obama thought he could save the day. After all, he is Obama.
So he gives one of his lackuster, dispassionate "the time for talk is over" speeches and the overall effect was to have climate activists chant 'Obama, shame on you! Obama, shame on you!'
The conference limped along until Obama and Hillary crashed a meeting being held by "developing nations" China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Obama and Hillary were not invited and there was no seating for them. But after all, he is Obama.
AP hack writer and Climate Change supporter John Heilprin writes this:
Obama’s successful 11th-hour bargaining Friday with China, India, Brazil and South Africa — the world’s key developing nations — sets the stage for future cooperation between developed and developing nations. But the resulting “Copenhagen Accord” was protested by several nations that demanded deeper emissions cuts by the industrialized world and felt excluded from the major-nation bargaining process.
“The deal is a triumph of spin over substance. It recognizes the need to keep warming below 2 degrees but does not commit to do so. It kicks back the big decisions on emissions cuts and fudges the issue of climate cash,” said Jeremy Hobbs, executive director of Oxfam International.
“We have a deal in Copenhagen,” said a visibly relieved U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who had made climate change his No. 1 priority when he took office three years ago. Ban said “this is just the beginning” of a process to craft a binding pact to reduce emissions.
Hey John, can you get your nose any farther up Obama's grill? Heilprin had to write this sycophantic drivel...Obama cannot be seen as failing or irrelevant under any circumstances. This is the third time that the amateurs at the White House have sent Obama overseas without a done deal being forged prior to the trip.
Ironically, Obama flew back to Washington and landed...in the middle of a blizzard.
And floating over the entire conference, like the Sword of Damocles, was the East Anglia Climategate scandal, which made this whole exercise irrelevant. But Leftist need excuses to burn fossile fuels and take lavish vacations. Hence the need for silly summits like
Copenhagen and the upcoming Mexico City conference.
Hopefully, we are at the beginning of the end of the Climate Change scam. Cap & Trade is on life support in the Senate. It's time to pull the plug on that lousy bill. We have escaped the one-world U.N.-backed treaty that warned of. For now the charade and the shakedowns will muddle along. But the game has been unmasked for what it is and what it always was...a money grab. The dirty little secret for the Left is that all
of its scams cannot exist without capitalism and fossile-fuel based energy. If the source of the money dries up who is left to extort?
Climategate: You should be steamed
By NEIL FRANK
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6795858.html
Jan. 2, 2010
Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by "Climategate."
If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.
Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.
But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people's endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel's report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.
Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to "strongly reconsider" her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS' true position.
What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic a la Al Gore.
Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.
Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.
The revelation of Climategate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth's temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?
Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.
Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974-87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.
|
|
|
|
Reading List
|
|
