Ooops! Everyone re-do your costs for Global "Warming"

Now the truth is out...

Lord Christopher Monckton warns that the secretive draft version of the Copenhagen climate change treaty represents a global government power grab on an “unimaginable scale,” and mandates the creation of 700 new bureaucracies as well as a colossal raft of new taxes including 2 percent levies on both GDP and every international financial transaction.

Speaking with The Alex Jones Show, Monckton, who is in Copenhagen attending the UN climate summit, said that when he attempted to obtain a copy of the current draft of the negotiating text agreement, he was initially rebuffed before he threatened an international diplomatic incident unless the document was forthcoming.

“I insisted and it took about 10 minutes and they consulted each other with three or four of them arguing over it – none of them would produce the document….I said I know this treaty exists because this is what the conference is all about,” said Monckton.

Only after Monckton threatened repercussions was he handed the the current draft of the treaty, and the details it contained are perhaps a clue as to why the UN officials were so keen to keep it under wraps.

“Once again they are desperately trying to conceal from everybody here the magnitude of what they’re attempting to do – they really are attempting to set up a world government,” said Monckton, adding that the word “government” was no longer used but the process of further centralization of power into global hands was clearly spelled out in the treaty.

Monckton said that the new world government outlined in the treaty would be handed powers to, “Tax the American economy to the extent of 2 percent GDP, to impose a further tax of 2 percent on every financial transaction….and to close down effectively the economies of the west, transfer your jobs to third world countries – all of that is still in the treaty draft.”

As the leaked document out of Copenhagen reported on by the London Guardian revealed yesterday, this massive new system of global taxation will be paid not to the UN, but directly into the coffers of the World Bank.

“The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions,” reported the Guardian.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/monckto...-creates-larcenous-global-government-tax.html

 

What's obvious is your gripe is not agaisnt G.W. but the Government and taxes that are gonig to be imposed..... "your bitterness clouds your vision."

I agree changing liughtbulbs, taxing gaz guzzlers etc isn't going to help but it's not what is supposed to being discussed here is it? There are people jumping on the bandwagon from both sides whos sole intention is to make profits. Which is a shame but that's life.

 

so has it cooled in the past 10 years or not? What does "suggested" mean? It either has or it hasn't. Which is it?Data from whom? From where? Measured how? From a blogger? Funny isn't "do not believe the scientists but believe a blogger who hates the government..."


What about the past 100 years? 200,500,1000......

you keep telling us to look at the long term picture yet you go on and about a "supposed" 10 year cooling period..... You must admit it's a bit contradictory from you A.G.W'ers.

So which is it?
--------------------------------------------------
also don't mention scientific climate data that suggest the globe has cooled in the last 10 years.

 

My gripe is with the supposed scientists that have completely thrown out scientific method. I want an official investigation to get to the bottom of climate gate. We are forever going to change long term global economics that has been decided by scientists that have circumvented the very foundation of science.

 

For cat's sake, which exactly which scientists would those be?

The climate, is the sum of it's inputs, all the data particularly plant derived data does not point in the same direction all the time because many other things can effect the thickness of a tree ring for instance, other than the temperature.

The truth is that tropical glaciers world wide are melting. The one on Kilimanjaro has srunk by a quarter since 2000. At the current rate it will be gone by 2022, then the Nile becomes a seasonal stream.
The same thing is happening to the glacier that supplies the water for Bolivia's capital city, and the glaciers at the headwaters of the Ganges and the Yalow River of China. These glaciers act as water reservoirs for billions around the planet, prodominately in China and India, but also Egypt and the Middle East. Temperature sensitive insects and pathogens are appearing at lattitudes and altitudes that they have not occupied in 14 million years. The Iceman melted out of the Glacier between Italy and Switzerland. The question is not weather global warming is occurring, it is, but how much is due to man and how much control does man have over the process?

 

Petr Chylek: Open Letter to the Climate Research Community
Saturday, 05 December 2009 21:48

I am sure that most of you are aware of the incident that took place recently at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The identity of the whistle-blower or hacker is still not known.

The selected release of emails contains correspondence between CRU scientists and scientists at other climate research institutions. My own purely technical exchange of emails with CRU director Professor Phil Jones is, as far as I know, not included.

I published my first climate-related paper in 1974 (Chylek and Coakley, Aerosol and Climate, Science 183, 75-77). I was privileged to supervise Ph. D. theses of some exceptional scientists - people like J. Kiehl, V.Ramaswamy and J. Li among others. I have published well over 100 peer-reviewed papers, and I am a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the Optical Society of America, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. Within the last few years I was also honored to be included in Wikipedia’s blacklist of “climate skeptics”.

For me, science is the search for truth, the never-ending path towards finding out how things are arranged in this world so that they can work as they do. That search is never finished.

It seems that the climate research community has betrayed that mighty goal in science. They have substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view. It seems that some of the most prominent leaders of the climate research community, like prophets of Old Israel, believed that they could see the future of humankind and that the only remaining task was to convince or force all others to accept and follow. They have almost succeeded in that effort.

Yes, there have been cases of misbehavior and direct fraud committed by scientists in other fields: physics, medicine, and biology to name afew. However, it was misbehavior of individuals, not of a considerable part of the scientific community.

Climate research made significant advancements during the last few decades, thanks to your diligent work. This includes the construction of the HadCRUT and NASA GISS datasets documenting the rise of globally averaged temperature during the last century. I do not believe that this work can be affected in any way by the recent email revelations. Thus, the first of the three pillars supporting the hypothesis of man-made global warming seems to be solid. However, the two other pillars are much more controversial.

To blame the current warming on humans, there was a perceived need to “prove” that the current global average temperature is higher than it was at any other time in recent history (the last few thousand years). This task is one of the main topics of the released CRU emails.

Some people were soeager to prove this point that it became more important than scientific integrity.The next step was to show that this “unprecedented high current temperature” has to be a result of the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

The fact that the Atmosphere Ocean General Circulation Models are not able to explain the post-1970 temperature increase by natural forcing was interpreted as proof that it was caused by humans. It is more logical to admit that the models are not yet good enough to capture natural climate variability (how much or how little do we understand aerosol and clouds,and ocean circulation?), even though we can all agree that part of theobserved post-1970 warming is due to the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Thus, two of the three pillars of the global warming and carbon dioxide paradigm are open to reinvestigation.The damage has been done. The public trust in climate science has been eroded. At least a part of the IPCC 2007 report has been put in question. We cannot blame it on a few irresponsible individuals. The entire esteemed climate research community has to take responsibility. Yes, there always will be a few deniers and obstructionists.

So what comes next? Let us stop making unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future even if the editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them. Let us admit that our understanding of the climate is less perfect than we have tried to make the public believe. Let us drastically modify or temporarily discontinue the IPCC. Let us get back to work.

Let us encourage students to think their own thoughts instead of forcing them to parrot the IPCC conclusions. Let us open the doors of universities, of NCAR, NASA and other research institutions (and funding agencies) to faculty members and researchers who might disagree with the current paradigm of carbon dioxide.

Only open discussion and intense searching of all possibilities will let us regain the public’s trust and move forward.

Regards,

Petr Chylek

Laboratory Fellow, Remote Sensing Team Leader, ISR-2 MS-B244

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA

http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros...letter-to-the-climate-research-community.html

 

Kilimanjaro is not the source of the Nile - your talking pure nonsense. Also, Kilimanjaro does not melt. Temperatures at the glacier are below zero C around the year. The reduction of ice at the summit is a consequence of ablation and reduced precipitation, not of melting. This is well established fact. Humanity is probably at least partially to blame because of deforestation, though.

Ice in glaciers is constantly moving. The location where Ötzi melted out of the ice is not the same as the one where he was frozen.

In general, glacial formation occurs when there is more precipitation than ablaction. The glacier then builds until the ice starts to move due to gravity induced pressure. Once the ice has moved far enough down the slope of the mountain it melts.

Your statement about insects and pathogens also look like rubbish, but it is much to general to counter. I have seen a lot of false claims about malaria, though...

 

There you go. this about sums up the "science of GW" without the hype and B*S*. But still the "know alls" chose to ignore this and spout and on and on about "consiparices"

No amount of sientific proof will convince some people so why bother?

I agree 100% with the above poster. GW is without a doubt happenning. So the debate is as to what extent we are to blame? Why wouldn't an extra few thousand billion tons of man made Co2 make any difference to our climate? Not one person as ever answered this.

Get back on your blogs and your crause agaisnt the Government. Ignore the reality and the science of it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_A...laynext_from=PL

 

Toho you are either a troll or as dumb as rock? Which one?

He never said anything of the sort.......re-read.
--------------------------------------------------
Kilimanjaro is not the source of the Nile

 

I think you are the troll here. He clearly believes that the glacier on Kilimanjaro is the source of the Nile.