Carbon, Fact or Fiction

The following was sent by a long-time reader

______________________________________________

Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?

Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know...it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of
your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad,
Nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over
One year - think about it.

Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which
keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.

Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention 'Global Warming'
Anymore, but just 'Climate Change' - you know why?
It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.

It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
But, hey, relax...give the world a hug and have a nice day!"

---

I clicked on the Clarke Medal.....last link to see if this is ligit.........seems to be.

VERY INTERESTING INFORMATION

Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.
Born12 February 1946 (age 67)
ResidenceAustralia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia> NationalityAustralian
FieldsEarth Science <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Science> , Geology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology> , Mining Engineering <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_Engineering> InstitutionsUniversity of New England <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_New_England_%28Australia%29> ,University of Newcastle <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Newcastle_%28Australia%29> ,University of Melbourne <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Melbourne> ,University of Adelaide <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Adelaide>
Alma mater <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_mater> University of New South Wales <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_New_South_Wales> ,Macquarie University <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macquarie_University>
Thesis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis> The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia <http://www.worldcat.org/title/pipe-deposits-of-tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth-in-eastern-australia/oclc/221677073> (1976)
Notable awardsEureka Prize <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Prize> (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenary_Medal> (2003), Clarke Medal <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke_Medal> (2004)

50 Million Refugees...NOT

A few years ago, the UN predicted that 50 million refugees would be created by Global Warming...a prediction that  has yet to come to pass...

Here's the map the UN produced to show those areas that would be threatened.

But..it hasn't happened, and I don't think it will.

HT:  Daily Caller

Global Warming Hypocrit: Robert Redford Edition

Global warming supporters say the science is "settled," yet it's most ardent supporters rarely live by what they say they believe.  Here's a short film on Robert Redford highlighting his hypocracy.

Redford is one of the main opponents of a plan by the Pacific Union College to build an eco-village in Angwin California. The college says it needs the funds because of a dire financial situation. The village is close to Redford’s vineyard in the Napa Valley. However whilst publicly opposing this development “to preserve the rural heritage” Redford has been quietly selling development lots in the Sundance Preserve for $2 million. These lots are intended for vacation homes close to Redford’s Sundance Ski Resort.


The double standard is revealed in a short film Robert Redford Hypocrite which has just been released.

Film director Ann McElhinney said the film is not criticising Redford for selling his property.

“It is great that in a recession Mr Redford can find so many buyers. I am delighted that those houses will be built, creating jobs and vitality in a remote area but it is shocking that Mr Redford would deny others similar opportunities to make a profit and create jobs.”

The film’s co-director Phelim McAleer said the film was highlighting the double standards of so many celebrities and environmentalists. “This is just another example of environmental elites telling the rest of us how and where we must live and what we are not allowed to do, but thinking that those rules don’t apply to themselves. Robert Redford has shown himself to be a hypocrite – plain and simple,” said McAleer.

The film – released on YouTube – also shows how Redford has campaigned against “dirty fuels” and wants to end the use of oil whilst promoting flying by doing lucrative voice overs for a series of United Airlines commercials.

Actor and environmentalist Robert Redford has stepped out against the controversial Angwin eco-village, announcing that he will join the local group Save Rural Angwin.


An eight-year resident of the Napa Valley, Redford will serve on SRA’s 13-member Advisory Council, leading the group in its efforts to defeat the eco-village proposal.

“I believe that the citizens of Napa Valley, from American Canyon to Calistoga, care about preserving our beautiful agricultural and rural heritage,” Redford said in a prepared statement. “That is why I am happy to join the Advisory Council of Save Rural Angwin in its efforts to preserve this naturally carved land-basin from development.”

Watch the whole thing.

H/T Instapundit

I'm Serial

It seems that with record low temps and near record snow fall, that not nearly as many people are taking Climate Change very seriously any more....even Al Gore is down in the dumps,



But serially, it seems that Climate Change apathy has descended upon the world.  James Delingpole of the UK's Guardian notes. that, 

Bob Ward is sad. Very, very sad. “Why won’t anyone listen to us any more?” he wails at the Guardian’s Komment Macht Frei.


One or two helpful commenters have tried to explain the reason. But unfortunately, as Richard North has noted, at Komment Macht Frei freedom of speech is not encouraged. See how many of their comments have been deleted.

At Watt's Up With That, Ryan Maue comments on NASA GISS' press release on this subject,

Here is NASA’s press release, which apparently wasn’t sufficiently disseminated for certain segments of the climate establishment. According to Hansen, 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that’s 0.018F). They have to admit an inconvenient truth:

One of the problems with focusing on annual rankings, rather than the longer trend, is that the rankings of individual years often differ in the most closely watched temperature analyses — from GISS, NCDC, and the Met Office — a situation that can generate confusion.

Confusion?

“Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year’s ranking are the decadal trends,” Hansen said.

Wait a minute, wait a minute: a remarkably inactive sun …

“The three official records vary slightly because of subtle differences in the way we analyze the data, but they agree extraordinarily well,” said Reto Ruedy, one of Hansen’s colleagues at GISS who helps analyze global surface temperatures.

Subtle differences? Extraordinary agreement?

Invariably, a great deal of attention centers on each year’s ranking, but it is critical to focus on the decade-long trends that matter more, the GISS scientists emphasize. On that time scale, the three records are unequivocal: the last decade has been the warmest on record. “It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” said Hansen. “It is the underlying trend that is important.”

Well, then stop issuing press releases which tout the rankings, which are subject to change ex post facto. You never know what year is number 1 due to those “subtle differences”, which apparently aren’t that important anyways.

In my humble opinion, I think that MSM's reporting of "climate change" is basically bullshit.  It's merely another way for the left to gain control of national/global economies in order to "share the wealth".  Socialism/Communism under another guise.  If you look at the reporting of this over the past 120 or so years, MSM (of the time) has been behind the curve by 10-15 years.  100 years ago, it was about the coming Ice Age.

But when one looks back at the history of climate reporting, you find a remarkably consistent and recurring theme. The global temperature has cycled from cold to warm to cold to warm again over the last 120 years. The media cycles of impending climatic doom mirror the climate cycles themselves, but with a roughly ten- to fifteen-year lag. It seems whenever the world warms, the volume of global warming stories increases to match the trend. Conversely, when the climate cools the major media outlets pull on their long johns and warn us of the next ice age. However, it takes many years for the media to catch up to what the climate is actually doing.


On February 24, 1895, the New York Times reported: “Geologists think the world may be frozen up again.” The story wondered “whether recent and long continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period.”

In 1912, shortly after the sinking of the Titanic by an iceberg, the New York Times reported on a professor from a Cornell University: “Professor Schmidt warns us of an encroaching ice age.” On the very same day, the Los Angles Times reported: “Fifth ice age is on the way. … Human race will have to fight for its existence against the cold.”

This, I think, is mainly because "journalists" really have no clue of the science and statistics behind it all.  Most journalists are scientifically illiterate and just haven't a clue on how to collate the data.  For the past 150 million years or so, the planet has undergone long periods of glaciation, interspersed with warm periods.  The Midieval Warm period was so warm, the English were growing wine grapes in central England.  If the era we currently live in now is that warm, why aren't there vinyards all over northern Europe?  It's because it's just not warm enough...I expect in a decade or so...as the planet again cools a bit...as it has been doing since 1998 (at least according to "hide the decline" data) the media will again be trumpeting headlines and stories like this from the 1970's:

On November 15, 1969, Science News quoted meteorologist Dr. J. Murray Mitchell Jr.: “How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilizations. … If the cooling continues for another 200 to 300 years the Earth could be plunged into an ice age.” On January 11, 1970, the Washington Post reported: “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age. … Better get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters, the worst may be yet to come.” Fortune reported in February 1974: “It is the root cause of a lot of that unpleasant weather around the world and they warn that it carries the potential for human disasters of unprecedented magnitude.” (Sound familiar?) On June 24, Time wrote: “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.” Newsweek said on April 28, 1975: “The Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. … [Meteorologists were] Almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”

While I'm not a scientist, I am reasonably intelligent, and can understand complex concepts, I can read the data that's coming out of NASA and UEA...and see that basically the science is bullshit.  The world, as we know it through recorded history, has undergone periods of warming and cooling...and will continue to do so for as long as the planet exists.

Cool It: Anti-Global Warming Documentary

Here's the trailer for a new anti-global warming documentary.



The film is by Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish author and professor. 

So sensible are Lomborg’s ideas for cooling the planet without destroying our economic competitiveness that even the Los Angeles Times dubbed it “enlightening,brain-nourishing stuff.”

Al Gore Confronted By Hostile Audience In Tampa

Al Gore was confronted by an angry and audience in Tampa, FL who contested his beliefs on "global warming."

ClimateGate: Lord Christopher Monckton

Quote of the Day

Yesterday the National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration announced the formation of Climate Service office. This office will provide information to Congress on climate change.

“More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives,”

From the comments

8:18 pm February 8, 2010
Rachel wrote:
Quote: “But, says NOAA spokesman Justin Kenney, they’re happy to have a chance to educate people about the difference between the climate and the weather.”True. Weather is observable, measureable, and even predictable. Climate change is [only] “evidenced” only by manipulated data.

The press conference was done telephonically due to the blizzard this past weekend.

The Genius of Robert Gibbs

The Genius of Robert Gibbs [Mark Steyn]

The science settles on the White House Press Secretary:

Our weather patterns have been affected by change in our climate.

And we can't have that, can we?

Environmentalism is Big Government on crack: If only we regulate the very heavens, we can reduce costs, eliminate inequalities in weather patterns, provide access to affordable reliable climate for all, and make pre-existing conditions a thing of the past.

ClimateChange: Most Carbon Emitted Is Absorbed By Oceans

Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

In other words, in the past 160 years, the real rate of CO2 in the atmosphere hasn't risen very much...

ClimateGate: The Timeline

Here is a link to a .PDF formatted Timeline to ClimateGate. It's eye opening! For literally, the past 30 years, so called "climatologists" have been fraudulently altering temperature data. The scope is tremendous. Take a look at the documents and decide for yourself.

Here is an example of the fraud perpetrated by Jones and the IPCC:

1990
THE WANG AFFAIR AND JONES' URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT PAPER [48]
JONES is the lead author of a Sep.90 paper [46] which concludes (from Eastern China and other data) there is no relevant urban heat island (UHI) effect (warmer temperatures in and around urban centres). However 3 months later, in Dec.90, his co-author, Wang, publishes another paper [47] (using the very same Eastern China data) but arrives at the opposite conclusion: that there is a significant UHI effect and temperature studies must this take into account to avoid skewing results in favour of warming. (Also see {WIGLEY 26.Nov.2009})

Aside from the fact until the contradictory conclusions are resolved, the papers can't be cited as favoring one position or the other another problem arose with the data set used. Both studies stated that the 84 stations were chosen based on their history such that "few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times".

In February 2007 mathematician Doug Keenan learned from MCINTYRE's blog that data was only available for 35 of them, and of those 35 at least half had substantial moves (eg 25 km). Keenan wrote to JONES asking about the source of location information of the other 49 stations. JONES replied that his co-author Wang had selected those stations in based on his “extensive knowledge of those networks”. So Keenan wrote to Wang, who replied that Zeng (a co-author of [47]) had "hard copies of station histories" but these were not provided to Keenan. However, the problem is that Zeng was also the co-author of a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) study which detailed station moves which noted that the “hard copies” to which Wang referred were not found.

Later in 2007 Keenan publishes "The fraud allegation against some climatic research of Wei-Chyung Wang" [49] setting out the matter and despite an investigation by University at Albany (where Wang is employed), and still the "hardcopy" data is not disclosed, nor was the university's investigation report.

In his paper Keenan notes that although JONES may not have known about the fraud in 1990, by 2001 he did due to subsequent papers JONES wrote which addressed the station moves and stated "those relocations substantially affected the measured temperatures" in direct contradiction to the 1990 paper. "Thus, by 2001, Jones must have known that the claims of Wang were not wholly true." Keenan wrote to JONES but received no reply. [49]

The 1990 Jones et al paper has been the major evidence presented by JONES in all of the IPCC reports to dismiss the influence of urban change on the temperature measurements, and also has been used as an excuse for the failure to mention most of the unequivocal evidence that such urban effects exist. The paper was even dragged out again for the 2007 IPCC report. [39] In fact determining the UHI is not complicated at all, for example see [61]: "Picking out the UHI in climatic temperature records - so easy a 6th grader can do it!"

On 31.Aug.2007 WIGLEY e-mailed JONES that Keenan is correct: "Seems to me that Keenan has a valid point. The statements in the papers that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone ([Wang] at the very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect." ([1188557698.txt] with more in [1241415427.txt])

ClimateGate, There IS Substantial Evidence Of AGW, NOT!

A great sypopsys of the "denier" arguments...found in volokhconspiracy.com about halfway down.

schizuki says:

Rather than make an open and honest argument that, despite persistent uncertainties, there is substantial theoretical and empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that human activity is contributing to a gradual warming

Really? Where? Because all of the “evidence” I’ve seen has been suspect. Do you have a link to any of this “substantial theoretical and empirical evidence”?

The argument always goes like this:

“Sure, the Hockey Stick was shown to be fraudulent, but there is still plenty of other substantial theoretical and empirical evidence.”

“Sure, James Hansen’s NASA climate data was shown to be corrupt, but there is still plenty of other substantial theoretical and empirical evidence.”

“Sure, temperature tracking stations were shown to have had air-conditioning exhausts installed right next to them, but there is still plenty of other substantial theoretical and empirical evidence.”

“Sure, East Anglia CRU is the most influential player in Global Warming research and policy formulation, and has been exposed as a cabal of data-cookers and debate-squelchers, but there is still plenty of other substantial theoretical and empirical evidence.”

“Sure, he hit me a few times, but he’s really a sweet guy when he’s not drinking.”

Quote

ClimateGate--Winning the Propaganda Battle

Are the "deniers" finally winning the ClimateGate battles? Brian Micklethwait of samizdata.com thinks so:

...the old-school media are definitely, albeit belatedly and with much embarrassment and confusion, starting to notice all this. You can feel that most crucial of propaganda processes happening with Climategate: the reversing of the burden of proof. Unfair to all the fraud detectives (Watts, McIntyre, and the rest of them, including Monkton himself) though it undoubtedly was, those noble toilers, until the Climategate revelations erupted, had to prove everything, in defiance of the default position. Their every tiny blemish was jumped upon. Their major claims were ignored. Now the default position is slowly mutating into: It's all made-up nonsense. And the burden of proof is shifting onto the shoulders of all those who want to go on believing in such ever more discredited alarmism. In short, our side is winning this argument, big time.

That can only mean that despite nearly 20 years of propaganda, the "warmists" are apparently losing the debate, both in the realm of public opinion as well as in the media where the MSM has belatedly begun to report on ClimateGate. Already in this country, a majority doesn't believe that there is a problem now...I suspect that this is the direction world wide as well...especially with reports that in Copenhagen, confusion and chaos is running rampant, both inside as well as outside the conference.

Lord Monckton has done a yeoman's job in not just denouncing, but in actively refuting the "settled science" at the heart of the global warming fraud. Follow the link for an excellent video where you names-names, etc. on the criminals who are behind it all.

Lord Monckton Confronts "Warmist" At Copenhagen

Global Warming: Take A Longer View

If you take a much longer view of the "global warming" picture, than just the past thousand years you'll get a vastly different picture. Looking at ice cores from the interiors of both Greenland and the Antarctic you can develop a far more accurate picture of what first the Medieval Warming Period was like. Here's an ice core temperature graph that goes back to the late Medieval period and shows that presently there is is indeed a disturbing warming trend:



But if you go back to a point of twelve hundred years, that upward trend isn't so threatening. This is the point at which the Vikings began to settle Greenland...um that could be because it was GREEN? Lots of room to farm, nice place to live? Also, starting around a thousand years or so ago, people in England were growing wine grapes, that's something that's not possible now (it's too cold) because the "climate changed" during the Little Ice Age.



On the other hand, if you go back further, say four thousand years, then the trend is in fact...not much of a problem. In fact historically, at the very stirrings of civilization some five or so thousand years ago, it was much warmer than it is now. Agriculture flourishes in warmer climate...than it does in colder times. Hence the serious reduction in population during the Dark Ages (that preceded the MWP) as well as the Little Ice Age.



But...take the picture back another eight thousand years, to roughly twelve thousand years before present era to look at the Holocene era in it's entirety, you realize that we are still in the Little Ice Age...and perhaps are only just now beginning to emerge from a 500 (or so) year period of global cooling.



But by looking at an ice core from Vostock, Antarctica which goes back...several hundred thousand year, it appears that periods of extensive glaciation are much more normal than the 10-12,000 year periods of warming...



Indeed, the Antarctic ice cores show that the periods of inter glaciation are in fact the anomaly in global climate and that we have had a longer than normal period outside of ice age temperatures. Perhaps the climatologist were actually right in the 1970's when they were predicting that we are actually entering a period of "pre ice age"...and the temperatures may in fact be trending downwards...for the next 90,000 years? Something to think about, especially as our political masters seem hell-bent on economic suicide in Copenhagen.

Cap & Trade: Europe Police Report Massive Fraud

Of course with our superior science, and vastly more efficient government, this could NEVER happen here

The Hague, 09 December 2009

Carbon Credit fraud causes more than 5 billion euros damage for European Taxpayer

The Hague - The Netherlands.

The European Union (EU) Emission Trading System (ETS) has been the victim of fraudulent traders in the past 18 months. This resulted in losses of approximately 5 billion euros for several national tax revenues. It is estimated that in some countries, up to 90% of the whole market volume was caused by fraudulent activities.

Indications of suspicious trading activities were noted in late 2008, when several market platforms saw an unprecedented increase in the trade volume of European Unit Allowances (EUAs). Market volume peaked in May 2009, with several hundred million EUAs traded in e.g. in France and Denmark. At that time the market price of 1 EUA, which equals 1 ton of carbon dioxide, was around EUR 12,5.

As an immediate measure to prevent further losses France, the Netherlands, the UK and most recently Spain, have all changed their taxation rules on these transactions. After these measures were taken, the market volume in the aforementioned countries dropped by up to 90 percent.

With the support of Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom Europol has set up a specific project to collect and analyse information in order to identify and disrupt the organised criminal structures behind these fraud schemes. There are reasons to believe that fraudsters might soon migrate towards the gas and electricity branches of the energy sector.

Mr. Wainwright, Director of Europol, says "These criminal activities endanger the credibility of the European Union Emission Trading System and lead to the loss of significant tax revenue for governments. Europol is using its expertise and information capabilities to help target the organised crime groups involved". Europol has therefore offered its support to the European Commission - DG Environment to safeguard the integrity of the Community Independent Transaction Log."

Background information

Missing trader intra-community fraud (MTIC) is the theft of Value Added Tax (VAT) from a government by organised crime groups who exploit the way VAT is treated within the member states of the EU.

The EU has the objective of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, to reduce climate change and meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Each MS has granted its emitting facilities a certain amount of emission rights by means of a National Allocation Plan. These emission rights can be traded like any other commodity on the market. The transfer of greenhouse gas emission allowances is a taxable supply of services.

In Europe there are 6 trading platforms: European Climate Exchange (London, UK), Nordic Power Exchange (Oslo, Norway), European Energy Exchange (Leipzig, Germany), Energy Exchange Austria (Graz, Austria), Climex (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) and BlueNext (Paris, France) and various other market platforms such as SENDECO2, Italian Power Exchange GME and most recently Greenmarket, set up by Deutsche Bank at the Munich exchange. More than 2 billion EUAs have been allocated to 12.000 emitting facilities in the 27 MS. The EU carbon market is estimated to be worth about €90 billion a year!

The Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) was created as a cap-and-trade system for transactions of European Unit Allowances. Each transfer of EUAs is recorded in a national registry before it is centrally stored in the Community Independent Transaction Log (CITL) at the EU Commission.

Carbon credit fraud is a variation on the VAT carousel fraud. The attached graphic shows how carbon credit carousel fraud works.

Cap & Trade = Economic Suicide

If the intelligentsia of the West desires economic suicide, let them move to equatorial Africa and live close to the land. By implementing voluntary limitations to "carbon output" while the new economic power houses of Asia (India, Chine, Taiwan, Korea) continue their unfettered growth will mean the end of your life as you know it. You'll suffer brown outs, where electricity will be limited to certain times of day. You will be limited in where you can work, and how far from home you can travel, what kinds of vehicles the government will permit you to own...the list goes on and on. This is what Copenhagen really means.

For many of them the new carbon regime means a gradual decline in living standards. Huge increases in energy costs, taxes and a spate of regulatory mandates will restrict their access to everything from single-family housing and personal mobility to employment in carbon-intensive industries like construction, manufacturing, warehousing and agriculture.

You can get a glimpse of this future in high-unemployment California. Here a burgeoning regulatory regime tied to global warming threatens to turn the state into a total "no go" economic development zone. Not only do companies have to deal with high taxes, cascading energy prices and regulations, they now face audits of their impact on global warming. Far easier to move your project to Texas--or if necessary, China.

The notion that the hoi polloi must be sacrificed to save the earth is not a new one. Paul Ehrlich, who was the mentor of President Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, laid out the defining logic in his 1968 best-seller, The Population Bomb. In this influential work, Ehrlich predicted mass starvation by the 1970s and "an age of scarcity" in key metals by the mid-1980s. Similar views were echoed by a 1972 "Limits to Growth" report issued by the Club of Rome, a global confab that enjoyed a cache similar to that of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Read the whole article! More importantly it's becoming clearer that the "settled science" that AGW is based upon is...if not fraudulent, then manipulated in order to reach a preconceived political agenda and that is an end to Western affluence.

Climate Data Looks Falsified

Whatsupwiththat.com has an excellent article on what appears to be falsification of the data the CRU, NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) and the NOAA/(GHCN), the Global Historical Climate Network accrued for the continent of Australia for the last 120 years. It's a rather lengthy post and has a number of graphs that make understanding much easier for those of us who are the great unwashed masses and therefore "not able to understand complicated subject matter such as this" (to more or less quote the great Phil Jones, Dir of CRU).

Basically, what it looks like is that the data that the IPCC AR4 report (to be presented in Copenhagen today) has been massaged and almost 5 deg C has been gradually fed into the tempuratures to make them seem much, much warmer than is actually the case. IPCC depends upon CRU, GISS and GHCN, but primarily on the latter for Australian temps.

Figure 1. Temperature trends and model results in Northern Australia. Black line is observations (From Fig. 9.12 from the UN IPCC Fourth Annual Report). Covers the area from 110E to 155E, and from 30S to 11S. Based on the CRU land temperature.) Data from the CRU.

However, upon close examination it appears that those numbers have no relationship to the raw data...which shows a very gradual increase in temperature over the past century plus twenty years....

Figure 4. GHCN Raw Data, All stations extending to 2000 in IPCC area above.

To quote Mr. Eschenbach,

So you can see why Wibjorn was concerned. This looks nothing like the UN IPCC data, which came from the CRU, which was based on the GHCN data. Why the difference?

The answer is, these graphs all use the raw GHCN data. But the IPCC uses the “adjusted” data. GHCN adjusts the data to remove what it calls “inhomogeneities”. So on a whim I thought I’d take a look at the first station on the list, Darwin Airport, so I could see what an inhomogeneity might look like when it was at home. And I could find out how large the GHCN adjustment for Darwin inhomogeneities was.

But what after all does it mean to be "inhomogeneity”? The best definition is from GHCN itself:

Most long-term climate stations have undergone changes that make a time series of their observations inhomogeneous. There are many causes for the discontinuities, including changes in instruments, shelters, the environment around the shelter, the location of the station, the time of observation, and the method used to calculate mean temperature. Often several of these occur at the same time, as is often the case with the introduction of automatic weather stations that is occurring in many parts of the world. Before one can reliably use such climate data for analysis of longterm climate change, adjustments are needed to compensate for the nonclimatic discontinuities.

The reason for doing this is to remove aberations from the data, for instance if a station is moved to a warmer area, then you must "remove" the higher tempurature thus, "homoginizing" it...to make a more consistent data set. An excellent example he gives is from the Darwin, Australia area:

Figure 5. Five individual temperature records for Darwin, plus station count (green line). This raw data is downloaded from GISS, but GISS use the GHCN raw data as the starting point for their analysis.

Darwin does have a few advantages over other stations with multiple records. There is a continuous record from 1941 to the present (Station 1). There is also a continuous record covering a century. finally, the stations are in very close agreement over the entire period of the record. In fact, where there are multiple stations in operation they are so close that you can’t see the records behind Station Zero.

However, there is a serious problem that occurs when you place the "massaged data set" and the raw data set on the same graph...you get a very different result:
Figure 7. GHCN homogeneity adjustments to Darwin Airport combined record

YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C.

Of course, that led me to look at exactly how the GHCN “adjusts” the temperature data. Here’s what they say in An Overview of the GHCN Database:

GHCN temperature data include two different datasets: the original data and a homogeneity- adjusted dataset. All homogeneity testing was done on annual time series. The homogeneity- adjustment technique used two steps.

The first step was creating a homogeneous reference series for each station (Peterson and Easterling 1994). Building a completely homogeneous reference series using data with unknown inhomogeneities may be impossible, but we used several techniques to minimize any potential inhomogeneities in the reference series.
…
In creating each year’s first difference reference series, we used the five most highly correlated neighboring stations that had enough data to accurately model the candidate station.
…
The final technique we used to minimize inhomogeneities in the reference series used the mean of the central three values (of the five neighboring station values) to create the first difference reference series.

Fair enough, that all sounds good. They pick five neighboring stations, and average them. Then they compare the average to the station in question. If it looks wonky compared to the average of the reference five, they check any historical records for changes, and if necessary, they homogenize the poor data mercilessly. I have some problems with what they do to homogenize it, but that’s how they identify the inhomogeneous stations.

OK … but given the scarcity of stations in Australia, I wondered how they would find five “neighboring stations” in 1941 …

So I looked it up. The nearest station that covers the year 1941 is 500 km away from Darwin. Not only is it 500 km away, it is the only station within 750 km of Darwin that covers the 1941 time period. (It’s also a pub, Daly Waters Pub to be exact, but hey, it’s Australia, good on ya.) So there simply aren’t five stations to make a “reference series” out of to check the 1936-1941 drop at Darwin.

Figure 8 Darwin Zero Homogeneity Adjustments. Black line shows amount and timing of adjustments.

Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?

Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming. {emphasis is mine}

If the IPCC is doing this with just one continent's worth of data, what in the hell are they doing with the rest of the world? It's quite possible that this has been done with all of the data, until someone can take the time to review it all that's the logical assumption to take. To me, this means that Anthorpomorphic Global Warming is a complete fraud. We as a nation have spent billions of dollars researching this "problem" only to discover that the money has basically been put to fraudulent use. Now the problem is to come to grips with WHY someone would do this. I have my opinions, but need to do some further research. Lord Monckton's view is that it's a back door attempt by former communists to complete their take over of the world via sever regulation of the global economy...I'm not sure I'd go that far, but his reasoning is fairly impecible.

Physicists Ask American Physical Society To Recind Global Warming Statement

Here is the request in full, all emphasis is mine:

Dear fellow member of the American Physical Society:

This is a matter of great importance to the integrity of the Society. It is being sent to a random fraction of the membership, so we hope you will pass it on.

By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership. For those who have missed the news we recommend the excellent summary article by Richard Lindzen in the November 30 edition of the Wall Street journal, entitled “The Climate Science isn’t Settled,” for a balanced account of the situation. It was written by a scientist of unquestioned authority and integrity. A copy can be found among the items at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u, and a visit to http://www.ClimateDepot.com can fill in the details of the scandal, while adding spice.

What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming (also reproduced at the tinyurl site mentioned above) that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. (The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.)

We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 Statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.

None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake. That is why we are taking the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.

If you believe that the APS should withdraw a Policy Statement that is based on admittedly corrupted science, and should then undertake to clarify the real state of the art in the best tradition of a learned society, please send a note to the incoming President of the APS ccallan@princeton.edu, with the single word YES in the subject line. That will make it easier for him to count.

Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil

ClimateGate: A Brief Explaination

Charles Martin on Pajamasmedia.com has an excellent point by point run down of why this issue is so disturbing. In brief, here are the three main points:

The Climategate files held many embarrassing revelations. They appear to show collusion on the part of many of the top names in climate science:

* to subvert peer review and prevent publication of papers that didn’t completely agree with the favored theory;

*to manipulate data, and the analysis of data, to make the best case for the favored theory;

*to avoid releasing their data under the Freedom of Information laws in the U.S. and UK.

It is the last point that the various researchers have been under investigation for in both the US and the UK...as this is crime and is punishable as such. Follow the links and read the whole thing!