Gee...

...what am I going to blog about, then?

UN Admits Reason for Global Warming Propaganda

"What a scoop this is from Investor’s Business Daily! Someone from the UN is admitting the truth about global warming: it’s a scam! And she even goes as far as to tell us the reason for the scam: to destroy capitalism."

[---]

"As yet, no admission has been given for the reason for the destruction of capitalism, but I can’t help wondering if it’s with the aim of introducing communism or some other totalitarian regime. It’s certainly not for the greater good."

[---]

"At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism."

Yup. The Great Climbdown...

...is now making headlines:

Lawrence Solomon: Climate changing for global warming reporters

"The overwhelming consensus on global warming among journalists may be cracking. Last week, the world’s most prestigious newsmagazine – The Economist – backed away from its past alarmist position, saying that “If climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, climate sensitivity would be on negative watch.” The Economist now discounts the high-end estimates of warming coming from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as being unlikely if not far-fetched."

Must be awfully difficult for those journalists that staked their careers on it.

At least they can now exhale CO2 without appearing to be hypocrites.

BTW, there's still two or three feet of snow on my front lawn. And it's the middle of freakin' April, for God's sake.

And all that money spent of sequestration and other silly projects? Will we get it back?

As If...

...this will stop them:

Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study

• Evidence was found in a rare mineral that records global temperatures

• Warming was global and NOT limited to Europe

• Throws doubt on orthodoxies around 'global warming'

"Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study which shows that during medieval times the whole of the planet heated up.

It then cooled down naturally and there was even a 'mini ice age'.

A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.

In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica – which means that the Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions."

We already knew that, and there was plenty of good evidence, and the warmanistas still went on and on and on. This won't make any difference. My only hope is the politicians are listening.

I think I'll send this to Nancy Greene-Raine.

Yes, I Do Believe We Are...

UPDATED AND BUMPED: Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

"The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997."

Say what? The MET Office? The University of East Anglia?? Saints preserve us. They're now backtracking as if Climategate never happened.

"Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid."

But, but, but,...that's not what we've been told by our betters.

"Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide."

Oh, I see. I knew there had to be an explanation. /sarc

Yes folks. The great climb-down-while-covering-your-ass is in full swing.

=======Original Post Starts Here========
...winning:

No Need to panic about global warming

"A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed."

[---]

"In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2."

[---]

"Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse."

RTWT

PS: I wonder how long it will take useful idiots like Saskboy to climb down. I don't expect they will ever admit they were wrong or duped. They'll just quietly slink away, hoping we don't notice.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Record amount of carbon emissions released in 2010: report

"Humans pumped out 10 billion tonnes of carbon emissions in 2010 after rebounding quickly from the global financial crisis two years ago, scientists report.

Researchers with the Global Carbon Project say emissions climbed 5.9 per cent in 2010 to hit 10 billion tonnes. That is a whopping 49 per cent increase over 1990 — even though Canada and other countries pledged to cut emissions as part of the Kyoto Protocol."

Notice they always include photos of smog or other particulate saturated air in their stories about global warming, which of course, have nothing to do with CO2? And that bit about "Canada and other countries"? You'd think they'd make their propaganda a little less obvious, wouldn't you? But maybe not.

Related: The sea is rising. The sea is rising. The sea is rising.

The sky is falling. The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

Whaaaaa. Nobody is listening to us. Nobody is listening to us. Nobody is listening to us. Whaaaaa. Whaaaaa.

I Know. Why Bother?

But here we go. One more time.

The scientific models behind climate-change 'data' are weak

"I am open (as all scientists should be) to evidence from proper experiments. So far, the evidence is not convincing. As has been reported elsewhere, the IPCC process has been badly distorted and political from its inception. Its reports present much science, but have highly political interpretations, saying what their funders want to see.

I love the scientific method; it is always open to new data. Science is never "settled." Physics Today recently compared climate-change theory to heliocentrism and relativity, two theories widely criticized in their day. But the sun as the centre of the solar system has vast supporting evidence, while climate-change theory is based on unreliable computer models.

Post-hoc models often suggest human impact on climate, because the model-makers seek to find such links. Scientists need to make a living too. They see much governmental funding to explore (and find) climate change. Early researchers saw that finding no carbon dioxide-climate link led to little funding. Funders, as well as researchers, are affected by politics. (I know the system quite well, my research having been supported in Canada for 33 years now; I have been on several Ottawa and Quebec funding panels.) One always has an infinite range of possible experiments to do, but it is human nature to examine those likely to give pleasing results.

My career has focused on the development and use of computer models - not in the area of climate, but IPCC models are very similar to ones I know. One starts a model from basic scientific principles, but then one tweaks the system to "fit the data," as all models are simplifications and researchers rarely understand all phenomena they are examining. Climate models "predict" past data well, in hindsight, by manual adjustment of the models' parameters. The true challenge is to predict future occurrences, and here recent climate models fail badly. Despite carbon-dioxide emissions continuing to rise, temperature has not risen in the last decade or so. Few, if any, models in the 1990s predicted this. Much work remains to be done to achieve good models. We should not rush to spend vast sums of money based on such inadequate models."

[---]

"Science is not settled by majority vote, but by valid experimentation. Most "climate scientists" may well support the alarmists, but just as many meteorologists and geologists do not. Just as it is too important to leave decisions about war to the military, our Earth is too important to be left to those whose careers have been largely funded supporting a popular hypothesis to the exclusion of alternatives.

Climate has always been changing. Why are we now blaming carbon dioxide? The glaciers in the Canadian Rockies have been receding since 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age. There are many factors involved in climate. Carbon dioxide is a minor one."

Tell that to the environuts occupying a park near you, if they haven't already been kicked out.

IPPC is Investigating the Sun...

...as a driver of climate change ....FOR THE FIRST TIME!!!!!!

On Canada and the UN Security Council

I'm glad we lost our bid and I'm pissed off at Harper for even trying. The best and only thing we should be doing at the United Nations is what we have already done, namely, walking out on or boycotting all together, speeches by petty dictators and anti-Semites like Ahmadinejad and nearly all the other non-democracies like China or Russia or Saudi Arabia, or the AGW scam artist bagmen who want our money while they continue to develop their fossil fuel industries, when graft and incompetence doesn't get in their way, that is, with far less regulation that is expected of us. And I have felt this way for YEARS!!

What surprises me is the response from the left to the steady droning stream of these kinds of revelations and, most especially, their belief that sovereign countries, such as the United States, should surrender their sovereignty and abide by UN resolutions.  Even more absurd, when you consider the number of resolutions coming from groups like the OIC, which are totally disingenuous, that Israel should do so.

I'm tired of scams, like the IPCC. Rwanda sickened me. The appointment of Libya to the Human Rights Council was pure theatre. The oil-for-food scandal did not surprise.  I'm tired of Western Democracies shouldering the lions share of the financial burden and nearly all of the blame. This fixation our lefties have with old, no longer working (if they every did) ideas like peacekeeping have been shown time and time again to be worthless, hamstrung by corruption and deceit and should have been disbanded a long time ago.

The United Nations is a farce. Initiatives like this are not going to help. An even better thing we should do, and should have done a long time ago, is announce our departure from it and withdraw our money forthwith. The organization will be sixty-five years old in a few days and to the best of my knowledge, hasn't accomplished a single thing worthy of its original objectives.

We should get out. We should put all our development energies and resources into agencies with proven track records, or at least those with the potential to make a difference in the world, like this one, and kiss the UN good-bye.

Move Over Oilsands

Iraq increases oil reserves by 24%

"The country has 143.1bn barrels of known and extractible oil, up from the 115bn barrels previously estimated.

If correct, the revision means that Iraq now has bigger oil reserves than its neighbour Iran."

[---]

"Announcing the new figures, the Iraqi oil minister, Hussein al-Shahristani, said he expected "other increases of even these fixed reserves" as further exploration yields more results."

[---]

"However, the reserves of second-place Venezuela and third-place Canada rely on unconventional oil sources, such as tar sands - almost exclusively so in Canada's case.

Tar sands are only economical to extract at a high oil price."

Well, there goes James Cameron's latest gig. The greens will be happy too, since oil from the Middle East isn't dirty. Apparently. No word yet from the IPCC.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Further to this news yesterday, today the green technology stock market has gone "poof". I am pleased.

Well Looky Here

The IPCC is finally getting the message (emphasis throughout mine):

IPCC 'must avoid playing politics'

"The UN's climate change body has been told to stick to the science and avoid playing politics in a landmark review of how it operates."

[---]

"In March the Amsterdam-based InterAcademy Council (IAC) was called in after a number of errors were found in the IPCC's landmark 2007 Fourth Assessment Report into man-made climate change.

Key among those was the unsubstantiated claim - based on an article in New Scientist magazine - that most of the Himalayas' glaciers would have melted by 2035.

Its inclusion gave ammunition to those sceptical about the climate change science, who dug for further evidence that the IPCC's report was flawed and the organisation biased."

[---]

"The report also recommended that a "rigorous conflict-of-interest policy" should be drawn up for senior IPCC leadership and authors of its reports. In the future no individual should chair the IPCC for more than one six-year term, it stated.

Additionally, "formal qualifications for the chair and all other Bureau members need to be developed", the IAC said."

Report recommends UN Climate Panel Shakeup

"An enquiry into the UN's climate panel, the IPCC, has recommended administrative changes, including a full-time chief executive. It found the IPCC had "assigned high confidence to statements for which there is very little evidence", had failed to acknowledge criticism, or follow its own guidelines."

[---]

"The investigation was prompted by criticisms of the IPCC's fourth assessment report (AR4) published in 2007 - specifically the output of Working Group 2 (WGII), set up to examine the "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" and which produced a report ran (sic) to almost 1,000 pages. This was found to lean heavily on "grey literature", including activist reports and even travel brochures. A prediction that that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 was traced to a casual remark by an Indian scientist. Here and elsewhere, the IPCC excluded work that suggested that the impacts of global warming were overstated, or which were critical of the costs of the policy favoured by the UN and activist groups of mitigation, rather than adaptation."

U.N. Climate Panel Looking at 'Second-Best Scenarios'

"Most of the costs are billions of dollars to shift from fossil fuels to clean energies such as wind or solar power. In some renewable energies, Edenhofer said there had been more technological progress than expected in the 2007 report.

He also said that new report would look at possible side-effects of combating global warming. Even harmless-sounding strategies, such as planting trees that soak up greenhouse gases, might have side-effects by displacing cropland."

Reforms urged for U.N. Climate Panel

"Scientists reviewing the acclaimed, but beleaguered, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommended major changes Monday in the way it is run but stopped short of calling for the ouster of its leader, Rajendra Pachauri. He has been criticized for possible conflicts of interest but shows no sign of preparing to step down."

Stick to the science, UN Climate body urged

"Panel must avoid predictions, policy advocacy"

[---]

"Senior officials at the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have also been ordered to disclose their outside financial interests to avert any allegations they may have profited from policies to tackle global warming."

[---]

"Critics of the idea of mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions have said the IPCC errors show the science behind global warming is questionable."

[---]

...there was concern about the UN climate panel's lack of a conflict-of-interest policy, as is standard in most government departments and international bodies.

The report called for development of a "rigorous conflict of interest policy" and made detailed suggestions on what should be disclosed. Mr. Pachauri has acted as an advisor to green energy companies.

Mr. Pachauri said the IPCC "will be strengthened by the [scientists'] review and others of its kind this year."

But Mr. Shapiro made clear the scientists' review did not assess the validity of the science behind the IPCC's reports, leaving open the possibility the panel could face a new wave of attacks from critics."

Time for a change in climate research

"Now it is time to implement fundamental reforms that would reduce the risk of bias and errors appearing in future IPCC assessments, increase transparency and open up the whole field of climate research to the widest possible range of scientific views.

Restoring public confidence in the IPCC is essential, because it is the main intermediary between scientists and politicians who have to decide on climate policies that could cost the global economy hundreds of billions of dollars. Given that most scientists believe in the need to tackle global warming, the IPCC cannot hope to satisfy the most extreme “climate sceptics”. But it must never again undermine its own credibility by sloppily repeating unsubstantiated statements that exaggerate the risk of climate change, such as the notorious claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035."

[---]

"A rejuvenated IPCC leadership could tackle the deficiencies in its review process. This should become more inclusive, welcoming alternative views where these are scientifically valid, and at the same time more exclusive, rejecting unsubstantiated claims of dramatic change."

And, lo and behold, the CBC actually reported this, getting right down to the nitty-gritty:

"It also suggested stronger enforcement of how it reviews its research and adoption of conflict of interest rules. The conflict of interest issue was raised because of criticism last year of chairman Pachauri's work as adviser and board member of green energy companies."

Yes, indeedy, that's where the big money is. Now, lets see some solid CBC investigative journalism tackling that angle.

...waiting...waiting...waiting

Perhaps the first step for CBC would be to fire Dr. Fruitfly and reprimand  Bob MacDonald, and perhaps develop a policy of its own on consistency with respect to "illegal" release of private emails:

"Conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers were in full force this week over the illegal release of thousands of private emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England".

If the leak is contrary to the CBC's narrative, it's gotta be the work of an "illegal" hacker, you see. On the other hand, if it feeds nicely into the narrative, why it's the work of a courageous whistle-blower.

Once again, CBC. How can you claim with a straight face that there is no bias at Grandmother's Corpse?

PS: Wouldn't it be nice to know what Dr. Fruitfly's investment portfolio includes? We know that one CBCer, George Stroumboulopoulos, sits on the Dr. Fruitfly Foundation's Board of Directors, not to mention the Fruitfly's own wife, Tara Cullis, and his daughter, Severn. I wonder if CBC has even heard of the concept of "conflict of interest", let alone understands it.