The Copenhagen climate summit will begin December 7. The meeting is meant to produce a legally binding, global agreement for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But many leaders are voicing doubt that hopes for Copenhagen will be met. EarthSky spoke to Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and special adviser to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
Jeffrey Sachs: There have been very high expectations for Copenhagen, but I fear they are unlikely to be fulfilled. I don’t think we’ll be able to reach a comprehensive agreement.
Sachs said he is concerned about what he sees as a lack of expert views included in the negotiations.
Jeffrey Sachs: I think there’s a big flaw in that the negotiators tend to be diplomats, but they don’t know the engineering possibilities, they don’t know necessarily the technology solutions they should be discussing. And so there’s a disconnect between what we need to know to input into solutions, and what’s actually being discussed.
He added that progress in talks leading up to Copenhagen was slow, because several influential countries – including the U.S. – would not set specific targets for emissions cuts.
Jeffrey Sachs: I somehow believe that we’re not going to reach a defining moment as it were, but rather continue discussions towards that more comprehensive framework after Copenhagen.
Sachs said he hopes that some progress will be made during the meeting, such as an agreement on general principles for action on climate change.
Jeffrey Sachs: We’ll get somewhere, maybe a political agreement on broad principles, maybe the announcements of several important initiatives on key technologies.
Other experts and world leaders are more optimistic, saying that momentum is building towards a meaningful agreement as Copenhagen approaches.
Since the Hadley/East Anglia Whistleblower revealed the sad and potentially criminal history of the politicized effort to perpetrate fraud in the name of climate science, Copenhagen should be cancelled. Jones and his cohort are a disgrace to the name of Science, and their biased efforts have been utterly discredited. Until a transparent and verifiable review of the temperature data can be conducted by responsible scientists with genuine and unbiased peer review, the Global Warming argument hasn’t a leg to stand on.
Stop the nonsense…these folks were trying to influence the expenditure of trilliions of dollars worldwide, using junk science…they have to be exiled from the scientific community as political hacks.
Doug, thousands of scientists all over the world have been studying global warming for decades. The scientists in the UK may or may not have committed fraud. The verdict is not in on that yet, despite the huge outcry by special interests and parts of the blogosphere. But whether they have or have not committed a wrong-doing does not negate the data from all over the world showing that climate changing is occurring and that humans are the cause.
Weather a calling for nobel cause or a sinister conspiracy, the power being asked for by an unelected UN government is troubling. Climate Change, Agenda 21 (Sustainable Developement), Codex. These GLOBAL initiatives appear to be setting up a sort of domestication for the population. All energy, food and nutrition, and living environments will eventually be in the control of the UN. I feel our Sovereignty being threatened, both country and being.
Deborah, I am agrivated to hear dogmatic rantings about the quantity of science that endorses AGW. Serious study will find thousands of scientific opponents. Many of whomb have been marginalized or have quit what they believed to be the scientific click. I believe that when “all” the science is evaluated we can know. Too bad there’s a big question mark now, but I am glad to see some house cleaning.
Mr Sachs;
It is agreed that,there are not enough expert views in the negotiations. Most of the truthful experts have been silenced for not conforming to the Globalists Agenda. of which I, consider the UN to be the leader of. By fraudulently disregarding anything that, disagreed with the plan,even if the science could be proven.It is a well known fact that,If a scientist comes up with anything disagreeing with the Peer Review process their work gets tossed,not reviewed or published.
Peer Review has been suspect for quite some time by people seeking the REAL truth, by hearing reports of hundreds of these stories from scientists.
This climate summit in Copenhagen is about global control of the countries of the planet while they lose their independence. Another way of the UN, IMF,Central banking Regime to tax the public to death while Wall Street packages up these ‘carbon credits’ into another cash rippoff of the public.
Mass media,that does not agree with the UN agenda will be shut out at Copenhagen, just like the Mass Media is covering up the news on the ‘ClimateGate’ incident. The UN itself has leaked information about climate warming is about global control and the truthful information is being snuffed out.
The people in all countries are watching you, the UN, Al Gore and all these members of fraudulent activity, We see what is really going on.
Copenhagen Climate Summit is a Fraud in my opinion and I, have documented proof to prove it and would be glad to share it with you and bring in some experts if needed.
It does not take a scientist to see the largest contributor to the carbon footprint is the global military industrial complex, all those ships ,vehicles of all types sizes ,shapes,warheads,rockets ,grenades,mines,burning oil wells on and on and on,phosphorus,DU,Radiation,who knows what else. Used everyday for decades.
Everyday for decades….I will not yell but I, feel I, need too.
War Machine Churning ‘everyday’ for ‘decades’most all countries !!!!..
What a homeowner and a family contribute to ‘human induced climate co2′ is,frankly ludicris compared to what all the UN Delegates use, flying around and the war machine in all governments.
Perhaps a Think Tank can be formed on ‘that’ contribution to the Global enviroment. Please put me on the mailing list for the release of the results.
As ,’Doug in Colorado’ said, Copenhagen should be cancelled.
To go on with the summit would be blatant disregard for the Fraud that has been created.Its easy to find the facts.
Stop the Tyranny,The Fraud,The Corruption now, as UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moons advisor,you need to make him aware of the fraud or become complicit.
Your choice , Hope its the right and true choice.
Please respond.
Thank you.
Rob
I agree with the above commenters that the Copenhagen conference should be canceled – in fact, it should never have been scheduled. The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been a fraud from the beginning. The fact that Michael E. Mann and Phil Jones and others consistently refused to make their data and computer models available for independent study and that all questions regarding data were met with ad hominem attacks, intimidation and personal threats should have indicated dishonesty to all. True science is dependent on open debate, replication of experiments and open examination of data. That, after 20 years of obvious fraud, it has taken exposure of email correspondence to bring down this scam is as big a scandal as the actions of Mann, Jones, et al.
Journalists, especially journalists who specialize in science reporting, should have been willing to examine doubts and questions regarding this theory. Instead, Earth Sky has been complicit in this scandal for years – acting not as “a clear voice for science”, but rather as a “clear propaganda organ for AGW dogma”. Earth Sky has been pushing a political agenda disguised as science. If this organization has any desire to truly examine science and make amends, you should begin to honestly report on this scandal and examine the many flaws in the system that allowed this world-wide fraud to take place. Oh, and one more thing: Earth Sky should apologize to its listeners for misleading them for so long.
Rogan, I do not have all the answers but I can tell you that EarthSky examines itself carefully and continuously on this issue. We seek out data from the skeptics – time and time again, it proves to be false or misleading. To date, we continue to believe what the majority of climate scientists have said all along – that global warming is real and caused by humans.
Human-caused global warming is not a fraud. It\’s you who\’ve been misled.
Thank you for commenting. All ideas and input welcome here as long as civility is maintained.
All the best,
Deborah
Interesting link here: http://www.desmogblog.com/elizabeth-may-informed-look-east-anglia-emails
Elizabeth May read ALL the leaked climate emails. Her conclusion? It was all a trap set by \”contrarian propagandists.\” She writes, \”The scientists at East Anglia, plus colleagues around the world, are being hung out to dry as though they did something wrong. I did not want to spring to their defence until I read all their emails. Yes, all 3,000 or whatever of them…. Starting from 1996, these good and decent scientists write to each other on email …\”
Worth checking out.
Three little words in the e-mail :”Hide the decline,” does it for me folks.
Regarding your comment about researchers all over the world for thirty years, Deborah, there have also been thousands to tens of thousands of researchers, scientists, engineers, and statisticians who hold the opposite opinion, for thirty years, ignored and frozen out of the grants and funding process by the Warmenista crowd…you and the press are choosing to ignore that… Research grants to researchers who say “We see no global warming” have been almost non-existent…the press attention has been turned on those Cassandras who predict disaster, and if you’re doling out research dollars, you would be roundly criticized for giving it to the “no warming” teams…that’s a mighty powerful incentive to grad students and profs to select the “right” alternative wording for their grant application. Groupthink is fatal…
The CRU data and the concept expressed in Hockey Stick Graph were central elements in both the IPCC reports and the public relations campaign, and both are now proven worthless from a scientific point of view. The CRU team and their named co-conspirators in the emails were a major part of the IPCC process.
No one wants the world to be destroyed, but these folks have no right to defraud the world into squandering trillions, surrendering sovereignty for something they are clearly making up as they go along.
As I said before, criminal fraud involving the tens of millions of research dollars obtained under false pretenses is something which needs to be proven in a court of law, but these individuals need to be exiled from the scientific community for the fraud they’ve perpetrated. You are deluding yourself, Deborah, and instead of a healthy skepticism that is the mark of a real scientist, you have chosen to Believe in the True Faith of the Gospel of Global Warming. Blind Fundamentalism does not become you.
Regarding Elizabeth May, she Professes her Belief, so you Believe? Is that scientific, or isn’t it more typical of a religion or cult? I’ve read enough of the emails (about 70 so far) to see deliberate and vindictive character assassination of those who legitimately hold opposing views and perversion of the peer review process, the destruction of data and obfuscation of method rather than transparent release for verification or fair challenge. Instead of condoning this behavior, if you seriously believe in either science or global warming, you should be furious with the CRU crowd, because by their petty actions they have forever damaged their credibility, shown you and others to be overly credulous, and (if there is global warming) done serious-to-fatal damage to their own movement…and these individuals were among the cream of the crop.
Doug, I don’t believe or disbelieve. I’m always, always looking for that balance that many others also seem to be seeking on this issue …
It is an emotional relief, I’ll admit, to hear someone defend these scientists. What happened to “innocent until proven guilty?” It seems they’ve been tried via media. Are they guilty? I’ll wait to hear the results of the ongoing investigation by the British government.
Best,
Deborah
How is it that something essential to life and naturally occurring like CO2 gas is suddenly considered a pollutant? Why do the climate alarmists ignore the toxic man-made gases like fluorocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxide? A hundred years ago electric cars and charging stations were common on the roads. If anyone should pay a punitive tax because our environment and health are now endangered, it’s big oil and the automobile industry. Their greed and fraudulence is what stinks to high heaven.
Try this site for an unbiased look at the US climate stationsand the temperature data they provide.
http://www.surfacestations.org/
Then consider this common sense review of the data in that regard, from a layman named Mark Alger:
“Meantime, over at Surface Stations (dot) Org, Anthony Watts’ volunteer initiative to survey and gather meta data on the surface stations in the United States Climatologican Historical Network, has surveyed 82% of the stations and has determined that only 10% of the stations fit a CRN standard of level 1 or 2, with a bias of less than one degree. The other 90% show siting bias that should result in an error of greater than one degree. ONE WHOLE DEGREE or TEN TIMES THE OBSERVED “WARMING”. And the vast majority 61% show a bias of greater than TWO degrees.
Please note that there ARE no designations for cooling biases. Yes, temperatures may register hotter than reality, but it’s not likely they’ll register colder. And, if you think about it, this matches up with reality as we know it. Unless there are major man-made sources of cold air floating around out there… it ain’t happening.
Now, there’s a whole lot of disclaimers here. Just because a station shows bad siting that does not mean that it’s record is all biased. Yeah, it’s pretty unlikely that the sensor placed in an asphalt parking lot next to air conditioner heat vents is going to record accurate temperatures, but the likelihood isn’t a perfect zero. Yeah, even with a greater-than-two-degree bias in 61% of the sites, that doesn’t mean that their records will be uniformly two degrees (plus) higher than you might otherwise get from a properly-sited station. Yes, ALL of the RAW data is composed of a good deal more than just the US network, but—let’s be honest, here—the US network is the BEST of the lot. Anywhere else, the siting, instrumentation, reporting, and data reliability is going to be WORSE, not better.
Nevertheless, the difference in the values is so great that those ameliorating factors can be considered nil.
And the point? Well, if you have a temperature record that reports one tenth of a degree of warming over a century, and 90% of the instruments whose product makes up that record show a siting bias of greather than ten times that, how in the world can you claim, with a straight face, that there has been any warming at all?”
Good Morning
It gives me a fortunate feeling to, not be a scientist right now.
Standing out here in the forest (Ocala Nat Forest). It helps me to reflect on not just the trees but the entire forest.Just awesome, nature the heavens,wildlife,water,air, earth ,sky.
All of you know the feeling ,it can be awe inspiring.
All of us, would like to keep it and enjoy it for as long as possible.
Before I, drift off to bliss land, the point is this.
The forest = The entire view
The trees = parts of the Total view.
One of the trees is AGW, If we do have it, or not.
It is quite obvious to me, that there is still much debate and it could go on for quite a while. Copenhagen is only days away and we need to quit looking at the trees to see the whole forest.
The whole forest being…Global.. what will take place at Copenhagen.
As,Doug in Colorado mentioned
“No one wants the world to be destroyed, but these folks have no right to defraud the world into squandering trillions, surrendering sovereignty ”
My perception is that the scientists have to focus on their work at hand perhaps so much that they do not see the larger view of what is going on, in stealth behind the trees.
Copenhagen is one of the stealth (somewhat)really its in our face moves!
AGW , is the vehicle for the NWO To create THEIR one world government.
No conspiracy theory here, just reality based on documented evidence,written by the very people in control of obtaining this agenda.
It is the ‘agenda’ right on our almost worthless dollar bill.New world order,you can even see the little owl in the corner, an illuminist symbol
Masonic, however you want to look at it. They started this country with the plan firmly in hand.America was slated to become the new global power to gain control of the planet for global takeover….
This is not my plan and please do not take my word for it.
Over the centuries They have infiltrated every government,think tank, club,corporations,Roman Catholic church,intelligence agencies,Judicial system, All of them,everywhere.
The corruption is so deep that it really almost seems like there is nothing we can do to get away from it. This is not true,if people wake up and research this…Copenhagen is a very big cog in this wheel.
The UN,Bilderberg group,Club of Rome,Bohemian Grove,CFR,Trilateral group,Henry Kissinger,PNAC,John Holdren Eco Science
Has anybody read what these people have written ???
Crashing of the economies, of all the countries large enough to make a difference is an orchestrated event.If individual countrie were doing fine but had no central bank,war does the job just fine,get our people in there usurp the government install our own people and create a central bank..Enslavement of the people…well done.(Ukraine anyone?) Lets just say these people have manipulated the stock markets ,the gold market,commodities . Your mothers and fathers and grandparents , perhaps many of you have had your savings or market funds almost wiped out.
Now that the international bankers have stolen savings,funds,land,businesses,have and almost bankrupted many of the worlds countries including ours and their peoples. That is a much larger concern than the daily smokescreen of chaos of the AGW.
Copenhagen is the hitch pin in the forest view. The Governments Know the people can not afford more tax.How could we, we are already bankrupt to the debts owed to the international banking cartel.Other countries right along with ours.
How ridiculous is it,that we are paying the taliban not to be terrorists(can i get in on that?)WHILE we have soldiers getting killed guarding poppy fields, so the CIA can ship heroin for black ops money that cannot be tracked.
Savings accounts pay 0.87 percent interest maybe but the credit card banks lend it to you for 22% Any bells ringing.All the money is gone ,they need even more.
Now it is AGW..They are breaking the planet on purpose.There is no way to pay for it.TAX us on the air we breathe in ,or out.
There is so much more to the entire Forest picture and this is just one of the trees in it.
‘Copenhagen’ , a forest that should be in a controlled burn to eliminate the infestation of parasites and allow for new young fresh growth that is not diseased.
My best to all.
Thank you Rob. Eloquent and scary. Time will tell.
Deborah
In response to a Harvard Professor and IPCC participants letter to the Boston Globe that basically said or Warmergate, “Nothing to see here, move along,” A gentleman named Sean has concisely and eloquently articulated my point better than I’ve been able to do, and he does not appear to be a “right wing non-expert, he appears to be quite familiar with the technical issues as well as the politics:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/
His comment:
“I am a climate scientist, and it is clear that the evidence that “human activity is prominent [sic] agent in global warming” is NOT overwhelming. The repeated statement that it is does not make it so. Further, even if we accepted the hypothesis, cap-and-trade legislation does not do anything about it.
Here are the facts. We have known for years that the Mann hockey stick model was wrong, and we know why it was wrong (Mann used only selected data to normalize the principal component analysis, not all of it). He retracted the model. We have known for years that the Medieval Warm period occurred, where the temperatures were higher than they are now (Chaucer spoke of vineyards in northern England). Long before ClimateGate it was known that the IPCC people were trying to fudge the data to get rid of the MWP. And for good reason. If the MWP is “allowed” to exist, this means that temperatures higher than today did not then create a “runaway greenhouse” in the Middle Ages with methane released from the Arctic tundra, ice cap albedo lost, sea levels rising to flood London, etc. etc.), and means that Jim Hansen’s runaway greenhouse that posits only amplifying feedbacks (and no damping feedbacks) will not happen now. We now know that the models on which the IPCC alarms are based to not do clouds, they do not do the biosphere, they do not explain the Pliocene warming, and they have never predicted anything, ever, correctly.
As the believers know but, like religious faithful, every wrong prediction (IPCC underestimated some trends) is claimed to justify even greater alarm (not that the models are poor approximations for reality); the underpredictions (where are the storms? Why “hide the decline”?) are ignored or hidden. As for CO2, we have known for years that CO2 increases have never in the past 300,000 years caused temperature rise (CO2 rise trails temperature increase). IPCC scientists know this too (see their “Copenhagen Diagnosis”); we know that their mathematical fudges that dismiss the fact that CO2 has not been historically causative of temperature rise are incorrect as well. We have also known for years that the alleged one degree temperature rise from 1880 vanishes if sites exposed to urban heat islands are not considered. We have long known that Jones’s paper dismissing this explanation (Jones, et al. 1990.
Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, Nature 347 169- 172) is wrong and potentially fraudulent (see the same data used to confirm urban heat islands in Wang, W-C, Z. Zeng, T. R Karl, 1990. Urban Heat Islands in China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2377-2380). Everyone except Briffa knows that the Briffa conclusions are wrong, and why they are wrong; groups in Finland, Canada (lots of places actually) show cooling by this proxy, not warming; the IPCC even printed the Finn’s plot upside down to convert the fact (cooling) into the dogma (warming).
Prof. McCarthy is, of course, part of the IPCC that has suppressed dissenting viewpoints based on solid climate science. His claim to support by “peer review” is nonsense; he has helped corrupt the peer review process. We now have documentary evidence that Jones, Mann, and the other IPCC scientists have been gaming peer review and blackballing opponents. On this point, the entire IPCC staff, including Prof. McCarthy, neither have nor deserve our trust.
We have tolerated years of the refusal of Mann and Jones to release data. Now, we learn that much of these data were discarded (one of about 4 data sets that exist), something that would in any other field of science lead to disbarment. We have been annoyed by Al Gore, who declared this science “settled”, refused to debate, and demonized skeptics (this is anti-science: debate and skepticism are the core of real science, which is never settled). The very fact that Prof. McCarthy attempts to bluff Congress by asserting the existence of fictional “overwhelming evidence” continues this anti-science activity.
All of this was known before Climategate. What was not known until now was the extent to which Jones and Mann were simply deceiving themselves (which happens often in science) or fraudently attempting to deceive others. I am not willing to crucify Jones on the word “trick”. Nor, for that matter, on the loss of primary data, keeping only “value added” data (which is hopelessly bad science, but still conceivably not fraud).
But the computer code is transparently fraudulent. Here, one finds matrices that add unexplained numbers to recent temperatures and subtract them from older temperatures (these numbers are hard-programmed in), splining observational data to model data, and other smoking guns, all showing that they were doing what was necessary to get the answers that the IPCC wanted, not the answers that the data held.
They knew what they were doing, and why they were doing it. If, as Prof. McCarthy insists, “peer review” was functioning, and the IPCC reports are rigorously peer reviewed, why was this not caught? When placing it in context made it highly likely that this type of fraud was occurring?
The second question is: Will this revelation be enough to cause the “global warming believers” to abandon their crusade, and for people to return to sensible environmental science (water use, habitat destruction, land use, this kind of thing)? Perhaps it will.
Contrary to Prof. McCarthy’s assertion, we have not lost just one research project amid dozens of others that survive. A huge set of primary data are apparently gone. Satellite data are scarcely 40 years old. Everything is interconnected, and anchored on these few studies. Even without the corruption of the peer review process, this is as big a change as quantum mechanics was in physics a century ago.
But now we know that peer review was corrupted, and that no “consensus” exists. The “2500 scientists agree” number is fiction (God knows who they are counting, but to get to this number, they must be including referees, spouses, and pets).
The best argument now for AGW is to argue that CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas, its concentration is, after all, increasing, and feedbacks that regulated climate for millions of years might (we can hypothesize) be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions. It is a hypothesis worthy of investigation, but it has little evidentiary support.
Thus, there is hope that Climategate will bring to an end the field of political climatology, and allow climatology to again become a science. That said, people intrinsically become committed to ideas. The Pope will not become a Protestant even if angel Gabriel taps him on the shoulder and asks him to. Likewise, Prof. McCarthy may claim until the day he retires that there remains “overwhelming support” for his position, even if every last piece of data supporting it is controverted. As a graduate student at Harvard, I was told that fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.
Posted by Sean December 2, 09 11:26 PM
Great post, Doug, thank you. I wish Sean had given his last name. I like to know who is talking to me …
Anyway, very thought provoking – many thanks!
Deborah
Thanks to the presence of President Barack Obama in Copenhagen, we can surely hope that December 18, 2009 marks the first day the human community actually moves decisively to save the future for the children and coming generations rather than willfully and recklessly continue engaging in the very same, unbridled, business-as-usual overproduction, overconsumption and overpopulation activities that gave rise to the converging global threats which have put human wellbeing and environmental health at risk in our time.
Steve, your comments are typical of socialist Obamabot minions. You’ve been blinded to the fact that so called “climate change” will be used by the globalist elites to impose their new world order.”Global Warming” has become a religion and trying to convince people it’s a fraud is like telling bible thumpers that God doesn’t exist. Cap and trade along with Obamacare will tax us into poverty, that’s what they want. You never will understand until it’s too late.
A very serious subject that needs much more time to sort out.
Copenhagen is too soon for decision !
Now if allowed, (gulp) I would like to inject some humor. A song that has been found to be quite amusing to the public.
Warning disclaimer: The song may stay in your head for a day or two or perhaps a week. it seems to be in my head whenever waking up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
No harm or offense meant. Just trying to get a few hearts smiling for a brief period. You can laugh at me too,
My best wishes to you all
Has anyone read the Copenhagen agreement ? Really have you ?
To help prove my case that the whole global warming / Copenhagen agreement is about takeover by unelected officials is right here.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf
It is the ‘Agenda’ I , speak of.
And yes people should be scared if they pull it off.
This Wall Street Journal article, addresses the issue also. It contains a link for the PDF file and can explain it quicker and points to be addressed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574500580285679074.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
181 pages in the PDF My point and that, of some of the other commentors in here, starts right about pg 18
The Wall Street Journal also, brings up a good point about ,How we always here where they are going to be and what they are going to cover but…..No one ever reads the documents that are going to be signed into law for who knows how many years.
Surely everyone remembers what the Treasury and the FED have done on the bailout..emergency.. hurry ram it through before the people can object
War in Iraq,..emergency ram it through without going through congress or giving the people time to reject it over false intelligence.
Has Anything Obama promised to his voters panned out…nope(and it does not matter to me whos in office because there is no left or right ,democrat or republican ,they are all the same ..to me)
He has not withdrawn troops…he has added.
He said there would be transparency…there is not. He did extend unemployment benefits though, I will hand him that and yes I, have the evidence for him on that.
The congress, admits the fact, it never even gets time to read the documents that they are passing as a law.better think about that a minute
no time to read what you and your children are going to have to adhere to in your future years and probably pay dearly for. Why are they in office? what are they doing ? and they are getting paid!
I implore you, to read the PDF and the Wall Street article,only because I feel it is passing truth and knowledge.Just as I feel most of the people in here are trying to do.
Another question, that has bugged me lately,
Is all this science and information available at the fingertips now days, taking away from our intuition or will to use it.?
Thanks all and may we find peace
without expense of death
Steve;
It is obvious you have not read the details of the laws they are trying to craft and sign, to determine the future for the children and generations to come.That is why my links to information are included .
Here is the beginning of the money trail
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXRBOxU5KT5M
Read it and weep, What this article will show you is,this whole scene is going to create,again, what has already crashed the entire world economy.
Remember also what the Copenhagen agreement draft says, “IT should be financed by ‘public’ funds and ‘could’ use some private funding. It also states, The rich countries will have to pay for the poor countries involvement (thats us) and …yep,public funds mean taxes.
No where in the Copenhagen agreement addresses,The global military.
who pays the carbon bill on their pollution when they are adding to the ‘carbon count in another country?
Seems to me, that is pollution of magnitude never addressed or researched for that matter.If Eco-Expert “Fred Pearce’ is correct that,Just sixteen trade ships produce more pollution that all the worlds cars and there is 100,000 ships on the oceans,burning bunker fuel everyday.
(The IMO finally did enact reducing the amout of sulpur allowed just recently in response to, knowing Copenhagen was coming up but they did refuse to address the issue for decades prior).
Notice just trade ships mentioned, now add the total amount of military ventures around the planet to that and you have an astronomical amount of pollution . THAT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED .
John Does water heater and Jane Does refrigerator is like a grain of sand on the beach.The International banking cartel has got the public paying for things that will never equal what they and their corporate enterprises contribute to pollution of the planet.Where does chemtrails and weather modification come into how the carbon count will be dealt out.All these Ionospheric heaters in different countries that can create slits in the Ionosphere letting harmful radiation in. Run, not publicly but by the military..Hmmm
It is these things of MAJOR proportions, ‘not addressed, that shows the lack of input by experts and how this ‘Climate Emergency’ is Fraudulent
by leaving out this, super massive amount of real world data,that no one,or Scientists will address.
Please correct me, if my information is not valid.
Also please EarthSky..make sure Mr Sachs,sees this article and comments.
unless of course, my points have no validity.
Thanks again and may our future be brighter than it is now.
I respect all honest scientists and appreciate their scientific knowledge and insight.World affairs should show you how science can sometimes be used against us,while they preach ‘saving you and the planet’
Article:
ClimateGate: The Rest Of The Story
Malthusians and Social Darwinists have hijacked the environmental movement
by Steve Watson
Monday, Dec 7, 2009
In order to fully grasp the magnitude of the ClimateGate scandal, one must understand what purpose the data massaging and blackballing of conflicting science has as part of a larger agenda to use an environmental crisis for social manipulation and control.
We have previously covered the origins of the environmental movement’s hijacking decades ago by luminaries such as Maurice Strong, via globalist groups such as The Club of Rome, who published blueprints for the use of a perceived environmental crisis as “a new enemy to untie” humanity.
Use of the perceived environmental crisis by special interests operates on two different levels.
Firstly, it provides a pretext for controlling the living standards of the masses while acting as an engine for vast financial profitability for the controllers.
From so called “green police”, and children being encouraged to become “climate cops”, to the impending introduction of a global carbon tax, the solutions being offered to combat climate change only serve as forms of social control. They do nothing to overturn or prevent changes in the Earth’s climate which we are incessantly told are threatening our continued existence on the planet.
Furthermore, some “solutions” have had devastating effects on living standards of poorer populations. Speaking about replacing one third of agricultural land to be used for growing bio-fuels instead, Lord Christopher Monckton has pointed out that it has led to a doubling of food prices in just one year.
“If we have to pay twice as much for our food – it’s inconvenient. If you are in a poor country – that difference of a 100% in the price of your food is the difference between life and death,”.
Secondly, the perceived environmental threat is being used as a device to frame the concept of population control and even depopulation. Such ideas on the surface are clearly detestable and are associated with genocide and Nazi eugenics ideology.
However, a disturbing trend being set by several “green” groups is to associate climate change with over-population and suggest that the solution is to implement depopulation policies and punishments for those who flout them.
From the teachings of “Dr Death” Eric Pianka, to German film fest cartoons, to New York Times best selling books, we are being saturated with the idea that humanity itself must be culled in order to save mother earth.
Last year, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) was reprimanded for portraying farmers and forestry workers as evil and telling children how much carbon they can produce before they die.
ABC’s Planet Slayer website featured a cartoon series, complete with a tool called “Prof Schpinkee’s Greenhouse Calculator” to help kids work out their carbon footprint.
The calculator also estimates at what age a person should die so they don’t use more than their fair share of the Earth’s resources. If users were found to have used too much CO2, they were portrayed as an exploding pig, leaving behind a pool of blood and gore.
In 2007, a report published by green think tank the Optimum Population Trust announced that children are ‘bad for planet and ‘having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags.
The same talking point has been re-iterated again and again by public policy groups and environmentalists, as well as the most influential scientists in the US government.
Perhaps the most notorious to endorse the idea of depopulation is current White House science advisor John P. Holdren, who called for lowering global fertility by artificially medicating municipal water supplies in his 1977 book Ecoscience.
Such chilling comments, and their enthusiastic reception underscore a long term agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control.
It is no coincidence that Holdren is also embroiled in the current ClimateGate emails scandal.
Since radical environmentalists are pushing to completely de-industrialize the world, reversing a trend that naturally lowers the amount of children people have, if climate change fanatics are allowed to implement their policies, global population will continue to increase and overpopulation will become a problem – another example of how the global warming hysterics are actually harming the long term environment of earth by preventing overpopulated countries from developing and naturally lowering their birth levels.
Of course, the globalist agenda to reduce world population by 80%, a figure achievable only via draconian and genocidal measures, has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with whittling down the number of slaves so that they can be more easily controlled on the plantation.
The eugenics movement never went away, it simply re-packaged itself to be more palatable to an increasingly skeptical public and its primary camouflage now fronts as the global warming doomsday cult.
While you may think Ideas of sterilization and depopulation could never be accepted by the public, those very concepts are now being embraced and popularized by some as the way forward for humanity.
source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-the-rest-of-the-story.html
Considering the fact that the ruling ELITE & their subsidiaries are the MAIN culprit of excessive Carbon-Dioxide emissions [ & pollution in general ] why the hell is is always unthinkingly blamed on the mass of humans in general [ via the disturbing meme "humans are the cause" ]? When in reality the vast majority of humans have NOTHING to very little to do with leaving an excessive ” Carbon footprint”! I for one do not even own a car & I never travel. But I would STILL have to pay for the excessive emissions of OTHERS! The time has come to stop calling this problem [ if it even is a problem ] “human caused” & started calling it was it SHOULD be called: ELITE caused climate change. Therefore instead of culling the bulk of humanity [ as their documents call for ] in a futile attempt at “saving the environment”: I have a BETTER & far more logical idea: let’s cull the bulk of the ruling elite & SAVE the environment in the process.
“Poster,” it sounds as if you are making an argument many are making today: Why should developing countries have to cut emissions when the pollution affecting the world today was caused by developed countries? This is a dilemma which has really sidetracked the progress of climate discussions between the US, China, and India, who are set to be the biggest polluters going into the future. However, instead of the so-called “elite” suffering, people in developing countries (especially the poor in Asia and Africa) are expected to suffer disproportionately. There are no easy answers.
According to the Centre for Global Research.CA,Some of The questions I, have asked, are being addressed by some researchers.
Below are is some of the article and ,the link is included in case my copy, does not cover the entire article.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16413
The term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space. (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Geneva: 18 May 1977)
“Environmental warfare is defined as the intentional modification or manipulation of the natural ecology, such as climate and weather, earth systems such as the ionosphere, magnetosphere, tectonic plate system, and/or the triggering of seismic events (earthquakes) to cause intentional physical, economic, and psycho-social, and physical destruction to an intended target geophysical or population location, as part of strategic or tactical war.” (Eco News)
“[Weather modification] offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary… Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.” (US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report)
World leaders are meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009 with a view to reaching an agreement on Global Warming. The debate on Climate Change focuses on the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and measures to reduce manmade CO2 emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.
The underlying consensus is that greenhouse gas emissions constitute the sole cause of climate instability. Neither the governments nor the environmental action groups, have raised the issue of “weather warfare” or “environmental modification techniques (ENMOD).” for military use. Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of climatic manipulations for military use has been excluded from the UN agenda on climate change.
John von Neumann noted at the height of the Cold War (1955), with tremendous foresight that:
“Intervention in atmospheric and climatic matters ….will unfold on a scale difficult to imagine at present… [T]his will merge each nation’s affairs with those of every other, more thoroughly than the threat of a nuclear or any other war would have done.” (Quoted in Spencer Weart, Environmental Warfare: Climate Modification Schemes, Global Research, December 5, 20090
In 1977, an international Convention was ratified by the UN General Assembly which banned “military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.” (AP, 18 May 1977). Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention.
Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, … and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare, (…) Recognizing that military … use of such [environmental modification techniques] could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare, Desiring to prohibit effectively military … use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind. … and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective, (…) Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military … use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party. (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Geneva, May 18, 1977. Entered into force: 5 October 1978, see full text of Convention in Annex)
The Convention defined “‘environmental modification techniques’ as referring to any technique for changing–through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes–the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or of outer space.” (Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed, States Parties Declare, UN Chronicle, July, 1984, Vol. 21, p. 27)
The substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in very general terms in the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:
“States have… in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the (…) responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.” (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 1992)
Following the 1992 Earth Summit, the issue of Climate Change for military use was never raised in subsequent climate change summits and venues under the auspices of the UNFCCC. The issue was erased, forgotten. It is not part of the debate on climate change.
In February 1998, however, the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the U.S based weather warfare facility developed under the HAARP program.
The Committee’s “Motion for Resolution” submitted to the European Parliament:
“Considers HAARP.[The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program based in Alaska].. by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body…; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration… to give evidence to the public hearing …into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program.” (European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999).
The Committee’s request to draw up a “Green Paper” on “the environmental impacts of military activities”, however, was casually dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacked the required jurisdiction to delve into “the links between environment and defense”. Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington. (see European Report, 3 February 1999).
In 2007, The Daily Express reported –following the release and declassification of British government papers from the National Archives– that:
“The [declassified] documents reveal that both the US, which led the field, and the Soviet Union had secret military programmes with the goal of controlling the world’s climate. “By the year 2025 the United States will own the weather, ” one scientist is said to have boasted.
…
These claims are dismissed by sceptics as wild conspiracy theories and the stuff of James Bond movies but there is growing evidence that the boundaries between science fiction and fact are becoming increasingly blurred. The Americans now admit that they invested L12million over five years during the Vietnam war on “cloud seeding” – deliberately creating heavy rainfall to wash away enemy crops and destroy supply routes on the Ho Chi Minh trail, in an operation codenamed Project Popeye.
It is claimed that rainfall was increased by a third in targeted areas, making the weather-manipulation weapon a success. At the time, government officials said the region was prone to heavy rain. (Weather War?, Daily Express, July 16, 2007)
The possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military agenda, while formally acknowledged by official government documents and the US military, has never been considered relevant to the Climate debate. Military analysts are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter, and environmentalists are strung on global warming and the Kyoto protocol.
The HAARP Program
The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokona, Alaska, has been in existence since 1992. It is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating “controlled local modifications of the ionosphere” [upper layer of the atmosphere]:
HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of scientific and academic research. US military documents seem to suggest, however, that HAARP’s main objective is to “exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes.” (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use, Global Research, September 27, 2004
Without explicitly referring to the HAARP program, a US Air Force study points to the use of “induced ionospheric modifications” as a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar. (Ibid)
HAARP also has the ability of triggering blackouts and disrupting the electricity power system of entire regions:
“Rosalie Bertell, president of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, says HAARP operates as ‘a gigantic heater that can cause major disruptions in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet’.
Physicist Dr Bernard Eastlund called it ‘the largest ionospheric heater ever built’. HAARP is presented by the US Air Force as a research programme, but military documents confirm its main objective is to ‘induce ionospheric modifications’ with a view to altering weather patterns and disrupting communications and radar.
According to a report by the Russian State Duma: ‘The US plans to carry out large-scale experiments under the HAARP programme [and] create weapons capable of breaking radio communication lines and equipment installed on spaceships and rockets, provoke serious accidents in electricity networks and in oil and gas pipelines, and have a negative impact on the mental health of entire regions.’
Weather manipulation is the pre-emptive weapon par excellence. It can be directed against enemy countries or ‘friendly nations’ without their knowledge, used to destabilise economies, ecosystems and agriculture. It can also trigger havoc in financial and commodity markets. The disruption in agriculture creates a greater dependency on food aid and imported grain staples from the US and other Western countries.” (Michel Chossudovsky, Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare, The Ecologist, December 2007)
An analysis of statements emanating from the US Air Force points to the unthinkable: the covert manipulation of weather patterns, communications systems and electric power as a weapon of global warfare, enabling the US to disrupt and dominate entire regions of the World. According to an official US Air force report
“Weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary… In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.” (US Air Force, emphasis added. Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ emphasis added)
Copenhagen CO15
The manipulation of climate for military use is potentially a greater threat to humanity than CO2 emissions.
Why has it been excluded from the debate under COP15, when the UN 1977 Convention states quite explicitly that “military or any other hostile use of such techniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare”? (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques United Nations, Geneva, 1977)
Why the camouflage?
Why are environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) not being debated by the civil society and environmentalist organizations under the auspices of the Alternative Forum KlimaForum09?
Remember the time when , people that spoke of Chemtrails were conspiracy theory. perhaps we need the patent on chemtrails for some enlightenment.
This link should cover that. The patent numbers and links to them all are there.
The elephant in the room has become an entire herd. It is uncomprehendable that people do not see them,that are the ones making the decisions.Or they do and well,…you fiqure out what I am not saying.
Good day to all.
http://www.lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/patents.html
I’ve read the above comments, and from what I can tell, this radio show is not about Chemtrails, or “ClimateGate,” or the “Globalist’s Agenda.”It’s about Copenhagen, and whether they are going to do what they said they were going to do there. I really don’t understand why now is the time to make a big fuss out of conspiracy theories. It sounds like either people are fearful of change, or just don’t want to have a clue about what’s going on in the real world.
Scary.
Jay
You have a right to believe what you want. There is, no conspiracy here
Anything mentioned by me, is documented.Most of us that do have a clue, have researched for years on many different subjects,where it enlightens you to the whole story, not just bits and pieces.
I have been on the planet for more than 50 years . Somehow I feel , you have not done your homework. The specific articles I, put links to have everything to do with Copenhagen,as has also been addressed.Certainly you have not read the other articles,the 181 page PDF file of the Copenhagen agreement draft or understand it.If you did you would not say what you are saying.
This is not a radio show in here ,this is a forum.
(printed text).
Conspiracy,is when two or more people conspire to do something ,usually not good things.
Theory is only theory until proven.
I do not just go somewhere and spout off how I feel ,without having facts to back it up.And information thats shows how I, got to that conclusion.
What is scary is,
People that cannot even understand if, they are on the radio or printing text in a forum.
sad.
Have a nice day and good luck to you !
If the gigantic size of global human population could be a primary driver of the global ecological challenges that loom so ominously on the horizon before humanity, when can the leaders of the human family be expected to focus upon this leviathan. It appears as if the skyrocketing growth of human numbers is, in and of itself, a clear and present danger to the human community. Billions more human beings, who strive the way the self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe among us do so recklessly now to conspicuously overconsume and relentlessly hoard Earth’s limited resources, could soon ruin our planetary home and its environs as a fit place for human habitation by the children and coming generations. If the leaders of the family of humanity willfully refuse to acknowledge this primary threat to human wellbeing and environmental health in our time, how can human beings with feet of clay be expected to address and overcome the challenges?
If sensible discussions of what looks like the proverbial ‘mother’ of all global threats to the future of children everywhere and coming generations cannot be openly and honestly held in Copenhagen, would Mexico in 2010 be a better place and time?
If not here-now, if not next year in Mexico, then when?
Mr Salmony;
Perhaps ,when the situation can be openly and honestly held is the key.
When journalists, are being carted off by armed guards, just for asking questions(like at Copenhagen)and other Climate events. The peoples voice is shut out with no discussion, that eliminates it from being open.
Countries are dropping out because of the dishonesty they feel is being levied upon them. I myself, see dishonesty in the talks because of everything I listed above, as not being in ANY,form of Climate change discussion, That alone is, the largest most dangerous magnitude of wrecking the environment.
Why is no one acknowledging those facts ? or, including it in the talks ?
Also,What if we decide to do the most major taxing ever done, breaking the backs of countries and people that are already bankrupt and then a couple volcanoes blow off,Who is going to cap all the worldwide volcanoes ?
What if a meteor breaks through the atmosphere and hits a nuke plant,how safe is that ? Where does the prevailing winds take it ?
If our Military Industrial Complex worldwide is the biggest polluter
of which, spews forth the deadliest of all poisons and carbon or CO2
Then who is going to pay that ?
seems we would have to pay one of the largest costs.We as a nation are bankrupt,the administration ,just does not admit it,simple math.
These things should have been dealt with back at least in the seventies,with that energy crises.We did nothing.
To me ,the biggest ‘proverbial mother’ of all Global threats to the future of all children everywhere, is the IMF. Sure, they will lend poor nations money they will never be able to repay,then go in and claim all the land and businesses,increasing their wealth, while everyone else is starving, shackeled by chains of debt ,the rest of their lives and their childrens lives.
The climate ‘religion’ needs to be a bit more clear at the next round of talks also.
Is it Ice Age,pollution,global warming,CO2,or Climate change?
They cannot seem to make up their mind
It appears that, the first three have been dropped to a new keyword…’Climate Change’
It is just like the war on terror, Climate change will continue until the end of the planet, a never ending way to tax, a great scheme for the owners of the planet.
Climate change includes many factors,multitudes of factors so, the next session needs to be clear..What is the real topic and do not just eliminate data that is massive,just because you can and its convenient.
The public has a problem with Al Gore because, of his techniques of delivering false information,not entirely his fault perhaps but to go into schools, telling little impressionable kids that, Polar bears and penquins are drowning and that they also could drown is bordering on mind games.
Last I knew,Polar bears can swim and penquins are some of the worlds best swimmers.Not only that but Al Gore has a lot of money invested and already made by this carbon credit scam.Not hard to find that information out.
It does not seem to me the public is hard to work with, they just want what you said.
“Open and honest discussion”.Whenever and wherever that can/may be.
The idea that we can “cap” global warming to a certain limit shows incredible ignorance and arrogance on our part. While I do believe that we can have a positive impact on the global environment, the idea that we can manage it is ludicrous.
The environment of the earth has changed drastically throughout the last 4.5 billion years. Pick a spot on the earth and at one time or another, it has been covered with water, ices, trees, sand, rain forests, swamps, etc. The past 10,000 years have been a period of stability in terms of weather and climate around the world. We talk as if this period of stability is a permanent condition. It is not.
What worries me more than anything is the fact that our growing human population makes it increasingly difficult to adjust and adapt to changing conditions. If one part of the planet becomes less habitable, it will be very difficult to move the population from that affected area. In truth, we really have no more flexibility to adjust to changing environmental conditions than those poster animals of inflexibility, the dinosaurs.
Hi. This info demonstrated to be real useful. Can you please provide more aspects of this study? Thanks Solid Share!