The 97% Consensus?

It’s been claimed that ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and incredibly dangerous. But where does this ninety-seven percent claim come from, and more importantly - is it true?-https://youtu.be/yTTaXqVEGkU

No Discernible Rise In Aggregate Global Temperatures

Ah, but those "deniers" are such lying, anti-science kooks!

The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

Read more: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

Canada and Kyoto

France, Japan and China have lashed out at Canada for pulling out of the 1997 Kyoto climate change agreement. The move, which was legal and expected, came as the country said the accord hampered its development. Peter Lilley, a Conservative MP in Britain is sympathetic, saying these commitments are enormously expensive investments in a very uncertain future.

5,000 leaked emails reveal scientists deleted evidence that cast doubt on claims climate change was man-made!

So, it's not just "unfounded bullshit being propagated by people who profit off of pollution..." Interesting! Maybe the BS is coming from somewhere else, like the "Climate change is man-made" deliberate deceivers and their gullible useful idiot believers.

Following on from the original 'climategate' emails of 2009, the new package appears to show systematic suppression of evidence, and even publication of reports that scientists knew to to be based on flawed approaches.

...

The emails paint a clear picture of scientists selectively using data, and colluding with politicians to misuse scientific information.-Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn't fit their apocalyptic global warming

It’s being called Climategate 2.0

Over 5,000 new emails between climate scientists have been released, apparently by the same source who leaked thousands of documents in 2009.

Al Jazeera has a couple of the emails:

“There’s one that says, ‘I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it.’ One says, ‘The important thing is to make sure they’re losing the PR battle.’ And another, ‘The political challenge is then to turn this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions’ which the author describes as ‘bad politics -- to one about the value of a stable climate’ which the author describes as ‘much better politics.’”-Climategate 2.0 - More Hacked Emails Released

Now I Believe It!

"Everyone's God and if we don't wake up to that there's going to be no weather because our polar caps are melting because we're doing bad things to the atmosphere… The automobiles and fossil fuels are destroying the atmosphere and we won't have air to breathe.”-Charles Manson

Global Warming: An anti-scientific political movement

Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2011 All Rights Reserved

______________________________________________

“Based on our analyses, especially with respect to the violations of the principles regarding objectivity and full disclosure,” Armstrong told members of Congress, “we conclude that the manmade global warming alarm is an anti-scientific political movement.”

______________________________________________

After decades of allowing industries to pollute at will all in the name of those handy dandy “free markets” that are wrecking economies around the world, and with a cacophony of individuals from all levels of the economic spectrum crying out that those of us who objected to the rape, plunder and devastation of everything in sight in the name of “profits” was just because we didn’t want them to get rich, it comes as no surprise that the devastation has reached a critical level. Only we aren’t allowed to blame the core polluters, instead, the general public has been targeted.

As the level of pollution of air, water and food along with the land became more obvious a new movement appeared claiming that man-made global warming was the cause of everything. Man-made was of course, you and me. Our very existence was what was causing the claimed drastic change in the environment. Along came Al gore and his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” that although was quite alarming in its assessments and predictions, turns out wasn’t really quite the truth at all. But it was a tremendous catalyst for not only the global warming myth, but also, just the right piece of propaganda to launch the new Cap & Trade.
Global warming appeared everywhere. It was on billboards, in newspaper ads, in magazines, on the radio and TV. Everyone was perched on the edge of their seats waiting for the huge rise in temperatures signaling the arrival of global warming that would surely signal the end of time. And then summer temperatures were actually a few degrees cooler than normal, and the winters some of the worst in recorded history reaching into areas where blizzards, snowfalls and ice storms were virtually unheard of.

In the midst of the global warming that wasn’t, came the revelations of what we now know as “Climate-gate”, the release of numerous memo’s, emails and other communications detailing just exactly how data was to be manipulated and how to avoid using established protocols in order to produce an “acceptable scientific consensus” that could be sold to the public. This was all done to lay the foundations for the new Cap & Trade that would be foisted on to the public at large while still leaving the pay to pollute system in place for industrial polluters.

Then came this recent revelation reported by Digital Journal on April 01 2011:

In testimony yesterday (March 31, 2011) before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Committee on Science, Space and Technology, forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania testifying:

The three researchers audited the forecasting procedures used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose “procedures violated 81% of the 89 relevant forecasting principles,” Armstrong noted.

Armstrong and his colleagues recommend Congress end government funding for climate change research as well as other research, government programs, and regulations that assume the planet is warming. They also recommend Congress cease funding organizations that lobby or campaign for global warming.

“Based on our analyses, especially with respect to the violations of the principles regarding objectivity and full disclosure,” Armstrong told members of Congress, “we conclude that the manmade global warming alarm is an anti-scientific political movement.”***********

OMG! Scientific blasphemy! The sad part is this; now Armstrong no matter how illustrious his career has been will be skewered in the media, cursed by the global warming believers and most likely see his career destroyed just for speaking what he knew to be true. That’s what we do to people who don’t parrot the government approved information. We destroy them and we elevate the deceivers into positions of esteem.

If Armstrong’s recommendations are considered, it forces congress to address the actual major cause of pollution generated by pampered industrial corporate donors. Don’t hold your breath.

The really unfortunate part of this story is that we all know that congressional hearings of any kind are staged, scripted and meaningless. Even armed with this serious and damning information from an actual expert, nothing will come of this hearing. When the cameras were shut off, all the information went into the nearest wastebasket and congress went to dinner. End of story.

Armstrong’s testimony, citing the deception and active avoidance of accepted protocols is the second time that global warming has been exposed for the myth that it is. No doubt those who cling to this myth will call for his head. But hey! We still got Cap & Trade!

They didn’t pass Cap & Trade did they?

For those who think Cap & Trade never passed; think again. It passed from congress right over to the Environmental Protection Agency to be implemented by statute and regulations, rather than by congressional voting. This maneuver got congress off the hook and prevented more ill feelings from the public towards them. Once safely in the hands of another of those privately owned federal corporations that siphons money not only off the taxpayers, but which can contract with other corporations against the taxpayers all in the name of corporate profits, could be implemented by nameless and blameless bureaucrats who make their living making everyone’s lives miserable with their tendencies to turn a simple solution into an exercise in idiocy.

Because the EPA, just like every other alphabet soup federal corporation, is autonomous it is also free from any meaningful oversight, as it is a privately held corporation. Congress can not tell the EPA what to do, they can only make suggestions about what they would like to see done. Of course congress is quite silent in this matter.

While corporate polluters will be allowed to continue to pollute as much as their bank accounts can stand, you and I will bear the brunt of the costs and oppressive legislative meanderings. After all, it is our fault that we use the products and services of these polluters, therefore, pollution is our fault. Of course if we didn’t use their products and services the federal government would just bail them out and we would be forced to subsidize them anyway. Might as well turn the lights on and get some bang for your buck.

In the end we have had to accept that global warming is a contrived and fabricated myth that was launched into the public consciousness with ulterior motives attached. It was a grand plan that has generated mucho amounts of revenue for the fed, and has been the convenient cover for numerous activities that many would prefer you didn’t pay attention to. Chemtrailing, open air testing of biological agents and weapons or that all time favorite HAARP, to name a few.

I doubt congress will pay any attention to Armstrong and his testimony. This global warming/Cap & Trade deal was just too damn lucrative. They aren’t going to want to give that up.

_____________________________________________________________________

Forecasting Expert Calls for End to Government-Funded Research on Global Warming >PRWEB.COM Newswire<> Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/266474#ixzz1IzWUkXZV
Carbon credit auctions http://247wallst.com/2009/03/23/green-news-carbon-credit-auction-nets-117-million/

Carbon credit Auctions http://carboncreditauctions.com/

(1) Environmental protection through Cap & Trade

http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2009/12/18/environmental-protection-through-%e2%80%9ccap-and-trade%e2%80%9d/

Emissions trading http://www.emissionstrading.com/Environment/?page=USAComp




http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/global-warming-an-anti-scientific-political-movement/

Climate Realist Scientists Challenge Global Warming Wackos

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do.


Open Letter to UN Secretary-General

BBC's Biased Reporting of Global Warming - The Consequences

Global Warming

The Cold Truth of What is to Come in 2011

Alex Jones talks with meteorologist and astrophysicist Piers Corbyn. He is the owner of Weather Action which makes weather forecasts up to a year in advance. Corbyn is well-known for his opposition to the idea of anthropogenic global warming.






WeatherAction

New Ice Age?

Severe blizzards have caused chaos across much of the North East of the United States leading to thousands of flights being canceled.

This Is Global Warming

A perfect post for a very white Christmas!

Scientists have established a link between the cold, snowy winters in Britain and melting sea ice in the Arctic and have warned that long periods of freezing weather are likely to become more frequent in years to come-Expect more extreme winters thanks to global warming, say scientists

Global Cooling?

Everybody is talking about global warming – but in Germany and also in many other countries around the world people are currently fighting with the adversities of extreme cold. And indeed: “The year 2010 will be the coldest for ten years in Germany,” said Thomas Globig from the weather service Meteo Media...

And it might even get worse: “It is quite possible that we are at the beginning of a Little Ice Age,” the meteorologist said. Even the Arctic ice could spread further to the south.

...

But why is it so cold just now? Might it have anything to do with climate change? “I’m very sceptical”, replied Globig. A few years ago when we had a period of mild winters many climate scientists warned that winter sport in Germany’s low mountain ranges would soon no longer be possible anymore because of global warming. “Now they are saying: the cold winters are a consequence of global warming – a questionable implication,” according to Globig.

“New Little Ice Age Cannot Be Ruled Out”

Wikileaks: Canadian Climate Change Coverup

The Dangers of Political Environmentalism

By David D'Amato from Center for a Stateless Society


For those who genuinely value individual rights, the question of whether human beings are responsible for global climate change bears no weight on arguments concerning the role of the state in society; the answer to the question, no matter what it is, could not justify or legitimize any measure that would transgress an individual’s right to be free from the aggressive force inherent in statism. Assuming for the sake of argument that environmental conditions are changing, that the changes represents a serious danger to life, and that human action is a noteworthy cause of the changes, there is nevertheless no reason to believe that the use of violence, embodied in government policies, could provide a solution.

Still, accepting the possibility that comprehensive coercion and further disregard for individual rights could normalize earth’s temperature, securing a habitable planet for future generations, it’s not at all clear that this is a price free people should be willing to pay or should have to pay. As a matter of course, the world would be a far more verdant place if humanity lapsed into a pre-industrial way of life, rejecting technology and adopting the customs of, for example, some Amazonian tribes that today continue to live in much the same way as they did hundreds of years ago. Indeed, political environmentalists like Bill McKibben have argued that traditional notions of modernity and linear progress have obfuscated the reality that human beings actually have too much technology, proposing that we scale back our attempts to facilitate and streamline the appurtenances of human life.

As brimful with contradictions as the broader political movement it represents, McKibben’s book, Enough, bafflingly blames the “hyperindividualism of the West” for “the possibility that technology may replace humanity” and “undermine consciousness.” Political environmentalists largely see technology, in itself a conduit for creative energy that has hitherto made the world more sanitary, food more bountiful, and life longer and more enjoyable, as completely impotent in the face of the climate change menace. Like the Luddites who vainly struggled against the advancements of the Industrial Revolution, today’s political environmental movement is — contrary to its own insistence — thoroughly opposed to science and human flourishing, foretokening a “wholesale loss of meaning” to come with further technological breakthroughs.

Arguably beginning in 1962 with the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the political environmental movement has always styled the planet as a kind of god, possessed of its own spirit, and has always been willing us to cease improving the conditions of human life at its expense. Considering the earth an entity, the movement treats the “health” of the planet as an end in and of itself, ennobling elements of nature as values above and beyond the things that can be done with them to meliorate human life. Despite confronting the population with apocalyptic visions of rising seas drowning whole cities, political environmentalists unabashedly admit that their movement is not about humans or their future safety at all.

In his Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, philosopher and environmentalist Paul Taylor writes, “Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo Sapiens, not only would the Earth’s community of life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being would be enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed. And if we were to take the standpoint of that Life Community and give voice to its true interests, the ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!’” Environmentalists thus present human life, with all its shameful neglect and exploitation of the extra-human “Life Community,” as the unequivocal enemy of the highest ethical principles, openly embracing the idea of human extinction. If the political environmental movement held the preservation of human life as its goal, it would — rather than damning innovation — underscore the importance of continued technological development.

As understood by Pepperdine University economist George Reisman, “It is precisely modern industrial civilization and its further expansion and intensification that is mankind’s means of coping with all aspects of nature, including, if it should ever actually be necessary, the ability to control the earth’s climate, whether to cool it down or to warm it up.” It is an appropriate display of the suicidal absurdity of the political environmentalists’ arguments that the solutions they suggest would halt progress and truly freed markets in an attempt to create safer and cleaner interactions between man and his natural environment.

As philosopher Michael S. Berliner has pointed out, the dangers that can be associated with climate change (assuming that today any dangers can be proven at all) are nothing next to the peril of living in a world antagonistic toward technology and innovation. It therefore becomes impossible to consider the current political environmental movement as anything but an attempt to subjugate sovereign individuals to the newest in a long string of state-collectivist, totalitarian ideas hostile to mankind. In his Los Angeles Times review of McKibben’s The End of Nature, biologist David Graber writes, “Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. … [The ecosystem has] intrinsic value, more value to me than another human body or a billion of them. … Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along” (emphasis added). Open contempt for human life in favor of a mystical object of praise is common to all philosophies that favor the total state, and the current green movement is no different, its participants yielding without thought or question to an ideology that promises nothing but desolation.

Though they fancy themselves sophisticated, cosmopolitan devotees to science, environmentalism’s followers seldom review the empirical data, preferring to approach the issue instead from the angle of politics. In avoiding the thorny numbers and charts that they claim to base their opinions on, political environmentalists can (like McKibben, Taylor, and Graber) ground their beliefs in the unquestioning devotion to Mother Earth, a religion acceptable to the supposedly “enlightened” and cultured classes. Most environmentalists are therefore no different from the Christian fundamentalists so constantly pilloried by the American Left, denigrating Western individualism and mainstream, technological culture as the cause of the withering of higher values. Illustrating environmentalism’s hatred for humankind, McKibben notes the common ground between traditional religions and the environmental movement, arguing that “environmentalists … tend to agree that man has made too much of himself, that we’ve indeed valued our species too highly.” As McKibben’s book suggests, the political environmental movement’s definition of “nature” is curiously devoid of any consideration of human nature, with its need to manipulate and control natural resources for its survival. Nothing could be more unnatural, indeed incompatible with the natural order, than placing the supposed “interests” of the amalgam of inanimate objects that we call earth above the inviolable rights of the individual.

That most environmentalists are so enthralled with political (i.e., coercive) answers to the alleged calamity of global warming — rather than far superior, voluntary, market-based solutions — connotes something important about the goals immanent in the movement. Political environmentalists inveigh against the technological evolution that has so empowered the individual because it challenges the statist, managerialist society they envision. Princeton University physicist William Happer — the former Director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy and hardly an anarchist — compared the environmental movement to a “religious cult,” arguing, “[Climate change theory has] been extremely bad for science. It’s going to give science a really bad name in the future. I think science is one of the great triumphs of humankind, and I hate to see it dragged through the mud in an episode like this.” As noted above, the primary focus of environmentalists is not and has never been science; it is instead politics, the movement developing a new vocabulary as a device for effectuating their view of the way the state should interact with economic life.

Any examination of environmentalism’s early history in the United States uncloaks a discomfiting association with aggressive nationalism and the idea that the “American character” is supernaturally linked to the unique features of the American landscape. Hailed as natural monuments to the democratic ideal, the national parks organized by the conservation movement were a convenient way for the federal government to grab huge expanses of land. To capture an appropriately populist feeling of accessibility, it was important to the movement that it should prevent anyone from ever owning the pristine settings it targeted for government takeover. It could come as no surprise then that Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, two extremely nationalistic presidents with a special loathing for individual rights, were early backers of the conservation effort, seeing it as another way to expand the scope of the state.

Elsewhere, too, the politics of environmentalism were entangled with mystical and xenophobic national pride. From its outset, and continuing the “Romantic tradition’s anti-Enlightenment irrationalism,” the Nazi Party was, argues Peter Staudenmaier, actively dedicated to naturalistic and environmentalist ideology. “The National Socialist ‘religion of nature’ … ,” Staudenmaier writes, “was a volatile admixture of primeval teutonic nature mysticism, pseudo-scientific ecology, irrationalist anti-humanism, and a mythology of racial salvation through a return to the land.” The National Socialists analogized the planet, with its myriad organic components all creating balance, to the Hegelian organism of society (which they, of course, understood to be synonymous with the state), and their reverence for the “motherland” was a foundational piece of their canon of racist ideas. Hearkening to the paganism of yore and reviving traditional mythology, the Nazis, as noted by Janet Biehl, “advanced the idea and practice of a ‘Nordic peasantry’ tied organically to the soil.” Demonizing free markets for “alienat[ing] men from their natural state,” the Nazis pushed for everything from animal rights to vegetarianism to “natural healing.”

The Party’s bizarre brand of national-environmentalism — immersed in the occult and fiercely ethnocentric — was not a new invention, growing out of the work of nineteenth century writers like Moritz Arndt and Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl. It may come as a surprise to many that early environmentalism in both the United States and Europe was part of a bricolage of progressive and nationalistic ideas that had very little to do with scientific worries about “sustainability.” Today’s Green Left is, however wrongly, thought to be made up of open-minded internationalists, with the racists and nationalists designated to the Right, but the environmental movement’s unsavory history cannot easily be severed from its present. Today, as in the past, environmentalism, in its opposition to individualism and free markets, has a distinct appeal for those who favor the total state. It isn’t as though those who advocate a greater role for government just happen to be more responsive to empirical data on climate change, therefore becoming Green. As noted above, their proposed solutions, all of which curtail freedom and expand government domination, would actually worsen the situation. The reason for statists’ predisposition to the environmental movement is instead related to the ways that political language is employed. In a post-twentieth century world, there are no longer many in mainstream political thought who’re willing to self-identify as communists or fascists, but their ideas haven’t changed.

“[I]t should not be surprising,” writes Reisman, “to see hordes of former Reds, or of those who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the freedom and well-being of the individual.” To note just two examples of the love totalitarian rulers have for the movement, Soviet murderer Mikhail Gorbachev founded Green Cross International (an NGO devoted to environmental issues) in 1993, and Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, author of a three-volume set titled The Green Book, “is,” observes Eric Englund, “an unabashed Green Socialist.” Englund goes on to write that, by embracing the “view[ of] Libya as a collective organism with a ‘life’ of its own,” Gaddafi’s Green Book exhibits remarkable similarities to the Nazi brand of environmentalism, with opposition to true free markets as a central motif. It should be apparent that, in order to defend liberty, it is necessary to classify the environmental movement as political theory, and not scientific imperative. States have always couched their ambitions in the language of science, mixing it with emotional appeals to national or class pride. “Going Green” is nothing but heedless piety to fraud. Everyone should feel free — even morally compelled — to “reduce his carbon footprint” through voluntary undertakings like recycling or riding a bike, but government edicts that dictate what an individual may do with her rightly-owned property are no less than enslavement.

For those convinced by the Green hype machine and looking for ways to curtail the ruination of the environment, the proper starting point is paring down government, the single biggest environmental offender. “Government,” writes Dr. Mary Ruwart (Ph.D. in biophysics), “is the greatest single polluter in the U.S. This polluter literally gets away with murder because of sovereign immunity.” Controlling over forty percent of land in the United States, government — lacking the incentive for oversight that would accompany private ownership — has done more harm to the environment than any other entity. Government rents most of its land to ranchers, and, writes Ruwart, “studies as early as 1925 indicated that cattle were twice as likely to die on public ranges and had half as many calves as animals grazing on private lands.” The purported goals of environmentalism are therefore demonstrably ill-served by government ownership of land.

By the mid-1980s the U.S. Forest Service, after opening up the national forests to corporate logging interests, laid down eight times the length of the interstate system in logging roads alone. The military and the Department of Defense, through nuclear testing and weapons plants, have unleashed billions of dollars in damage through the release of radioactive and toxic chemicals. In addition, economist Gene Callahan points out, “[t]he U.S. government has subsidized many activities that burn carbon: it has seized land through eminent domain to build highways, funded rural electrification projects, and fought wars to ensure Americans’ access to oil.”

Lifting the assumptions granted above, that the earth is getting warmer and that human beings are the cause, the state’s arguments become even more dubious. First, the uncontested idea that the planet’s temperature is rising isn’t born out by satellite data showing, as argued by David Deming, “that that the mean global temperature is the same that it was in 1979 [and t]he extent of global sea ice is also unchanged from 1979.” Further, studies furnished by scientists on climate change are almost always commissioned and paid for by states. For example, Deming notes that “[t]he Obama report refers to — six times — the work of a climate scientist named Stephen H. Schneider. In 1989, Schneider told Discover magazine that ‘we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.’ Schneider concluded ‘each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.’” Dr. Happer (among many other independent scientists) has explained that over the past decade global temperatures have actually dropped, but researchers who articulate such apostasy are blackballed at conferences organized by governments. It would be easy to forget that throughout the twentieth century scientists across the board believed the world was descending into a new ice age. By the 1970s, with clear consensus in the scientific community, Doug Casey recalls, “magazines were showing pictures of glaciers toppling over the buildings of New York.” Had the most “progressive” suggestions of that period been enacted, the U.S. government would have been responsible for directly aggravating the dangers described by today’s statists.

Complaints about the hubris of Western culture and “valuing our species too highly” should perhaps be directed at the idea that human beings could heat up the globe to such a degree as to threaten all of life. Abandoning both the natural and social sciences, the environmental movement, if its goals are allowed to succeed, will blight the world with the kind of society fit only for the animals it so reveres. But even more than its positive goals, political environmentalism is sure about what it stands against: reason, technology, free markets, individual rights. When politicians start talking about climate change, we would do well to listen closely to what they’re really saying.

Looking around today, there isn’t much of a libertarian or anarchist environmental movement to speak of, no one rising to confront what is the dominant orthodoxy among those who care about the environment, that the state’s regulatory edifices are the answer to the problem. To be sure, there is no conflict necessarily dividing anarchism from environmentalism and no reason that libertarianism ought to be confined — as within the debate — to making apologies for unaccountable corporate polluters. The state, from its corporate economy to its supposed environmental protection bureaucracies and measures, is not the mode through which honest, conscientious environmentalists’ concerns can be reached.

It is indeed the state that has created and fostered the very impunity that has characterized corporate destruction of the natural environment, most recently in the BP crisis. The problem is not environmentalism as such, but political environmentalism. Where free individuals owned property rightly — with genuine recognition given to their titles and with those titles derived from bone fide homesteading or exchange — pollution would be dealt with as a violation of property rights. Any peaceful attempt to protect or restore the environment is to be applauded, but ignorance cannot excuse environmentalists’ participation in the political process, and it simply won’t do to ignore the fact that today’s environmental movement has been almost entirely co-opted and taken advantage of by champions of the total state. It has been some of the worst states and the most misguided and evil ideologies that have availed themselves of environmentalist language.

That is no coincidence, and every concession to the state as the proper means to the end of a cleaner, safer earth only emboldens statists. Advocacy for government action, no matter what its form, is perforce an attack on technology and innovation insofar as it demonstrates a lack of faith in them as solutions. Experiment and an upheaval of the current state-corporate order are the route to both the destruction of state-capitalism and to a healthier environment, the twin objectives being logically and empirically fused.

It is important not to blame sincere, earnest environmentalists, largely exploited by political environmentalism, for the turpitude of the state solutions. At the same time, anarchists need to encourage them to abandon the political process and embrace the voluntary answers to the global environmental predicament.-Green Rising: The Dangers of Political Environmentalism

C4SS News Analyst David D'Amato is a market anarchist lawyer currently completing an LL.M. in commercial law at Suffolk University Law School. His hatred for superstition and all permutations of political authority manifests itself at www.firsttruths.com.

Global Warming Has Stopped

A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, 'is expected to be 14.58C, the warmest on record' - a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 1961 1990 average.

World temperatures, it went on, were locked inexorably into an everrising trend: 'Our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far - 1998.'

Met Office officials openly boasted that they hoped by their statements to persuade the Copenhagen gathering to impose new and stringent carbon emission limits - an ambition that was not to be met.

Last week, halfway through yet another giant, 15,000delegate UN climate jamboree, being held this time in the tropical splendour of Cancun in Mexico, the Met Office was at it again.

Never mind that Britain, just as it was last winter and the winter before, was deep in the grip of a cold snap, which has seen some temperatures plummet to minus 20C, and that here 2010 has been the coolest year since 1996.

Globally, it insisted, 2010 was still on course to be the warmest or second warmest year since current records began.

But buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications - not just for the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole.

Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US Vice President Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.

...

This isn't meant to be happening. Climate science orthodoxy, as promulgated by bodies such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), says that temperatures have risen and will continue to rise in step with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and make no mistake, with the rapid industrialisation of China and India, CO2 levels have kept on going up

...

Actually, with the exception of 1998 - a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong 'El Nino' effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) - the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html#ixzz17KJPfEZ8

Václav Klaus on Bob Carter

Let me declare from the outset that I consider global warming dogma (and its widespread acceptance) to be one of the most costly and undemocratic mistakes in generations, and try, therefore, to contribute to its demolition.

As someone who spent most of his life under a repressive and highly inefficient regime, I can hopefully afford to say that the previous most costly and undemocratic ‘experiment’ was Communism. That too started quite innocently, and its supporters — probably — also believed that they fought for a noble cause. When I listen to the views and arguments of the global warming alarmists, and there are many of them in Australia (I guess your country scores very highly on the worldwide ‘warmists per capita’ scale), they sound very similar to the arguments of the former politicians, journalists and public intellectuals in Communist Czechoslovakia.

Of course, the polemic about global warming has a very respectable scientific dimension. But in its substance and consequences, the debate is not part of the scientific discourse about factors influencing swings in global temperature. It is part of the public policy debate about man and society, about our political, economic and social systems, about our freedom or its possible loss. This difference should be made explicit.

In his book Climate: The Counter Consensus, Bob Carter, the well-known Australian paleoclimatologist and professor at the James Cook University, clarifies this point when he says: ‘The global warming issue long ago ceased being a scientific problem.’ It is evident that science plays no part in the current public policy debate, neither in Kyoto, nor in Copenhagen, nor at the United Nations General Assembly or the EU summits. There is just the pretence of science and the wishful thinking that there exists an undeniable scientific consensus.

...


I like Carter’s emphasis on the crucial difference between global warming (which is part of normal scientific discourse) and ‘dangerous anthropogenic global warming’ (which is ideological propaganda). He is also right when talking about the difficulty in defining who is and who is not a climatologist, and turning our attention to the fact that there is no ‘climate science’, because ‘scientists who study climate change come from a wide range of disciplines’. His decision to group them into three main categories — meteorologists, geologists and the computer modelling group — is also revealing. Importantly, he notes that the group with the fewest warmists is the geological scientists, because they are able to compare ‘modern climate change with climate history’, which is something the meteorologists and the computer modelling experts — quite intentionally — do not do.

...

He sees a problem with the standard interpretation of 20th-century warming (Chapter 2) because of the limited meteorological record, and cannot see why ‘the short period of mild warming that started around 1979 and terminated in 1998 so excites the IPCC and other climate alarmists’. He is convinced (as am I) that the current warming will be ‘like the Medieval Warm Period followed by cooling which may indeed have already started’. I also agree with him that ‘endlessly analysing short trend lines … has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics’.

...

As someone who devoted a decade of his life to econometric computer modelling, I appreciate the chapter dedicated to climatologists’ computer models. Carter is right that the outcomes of these models are not predictions but projections, because they are based on the aprioristic assumptions of the builders who attend to the so-called ‘calibration’ of these models. That is their only way to ‘show’, for example, that ‘although human emissions weren’t large before 1940, the models assume that the temperature rise since 1850 is due to human carbon dioxide’.-Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic Thank heavens for Bob Carter

Trying To Halt Global Warming Is A Waste Of Time

Trying to halt global warming is a waste of time – we should simply adapt to it, a leading climate expert claimed...

Reducing carbon dioxide emissions is an “illusory goal”, said Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University, Australia.

He said that CO2 – emitted by burning fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas – is a “minor” greenhouse gas. And he argued that the past decade has seen a “lack of warming” and that “no significant warming has occurred since 1958.

Professor Carter spoke out as governments from around the world gather for the latest climate talks in Cancun, Mexico.

‘LEARN TO LIVE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE’, SAYS LEADING EXPERT

The Climate Change Prognosticator

1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World

1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933

1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”

1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune

1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post

1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times

1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report

1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine

1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times

1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969

1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)

1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post

1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine

1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post- from Climate Change Timeline – 1895-2009