Going Green

Does buying Green products make you a better person?

Apparently not.

Hiding The Decline

Roger Helmer has been speaking to his Swedish friends after hearing Professor Phil Jones testimony to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 

Roger picks up on what the nutty professor had professed:

he said that he had been unable to make data available when requested, because it came (in part) from the Swedish Meteorological Institute, which (he testified) had refused to allow its data to be published. But according to my Swedish friend Goran Ahlgren of the Stockholm Institute, the Swedish data are public, and Professor Jones had been advised in correspondence that this is the case.

And here is the press release - copied and pasted from Roger Helmers post.
 
 
PRESS RELEASE


Stockholm March 5, 2010


Climate cover-up continues


Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry


It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.


Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.


This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data. All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE

Göran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
12 27 Stockholm, Sweden
Tel: +4687555335, Mob: +46707555969

Deniers Petition

There is a petition on the Downing Street Website that is worth a look.  Interestingly, it will not expire until after the General Election, so who knows who will be responding.

Peer Reviewed Literature, Climategate, Copenhagen, Socialism And Tony Blair

With a big tip of the hat to Mr All Seeing Eye, I would like to direct the attention of fellow flat-earthers to the Popular Technology Blog, and via this link they have published links to 500 peer reviewed science papers supporting the sceptic arguments against "Man-Made" climate change. Further confirmation, not that more was needed that claims of the science being settled is a load of nonsense; propaganda for the limited thinker.

As Ed Begley Jr himself advised, with some ferocity, look for and trust the peer reviewed literature... So it would seem that the science is not settled and that more and more sceptics who have kept quiet for fear of losing grants and being shunned by the scientific community are starting to speak out and push their work to the fore. All of the money has always been for those looking to prove Global Warming and Climate Change, but it seems more than a few scientists along the way felt the evidence did not stack up.

Meanwhile in Copenhagen a merry dance is underway, with the African nations apparently not in a cooperative mood. No surprises there really; at the announcement, rather than the lack of cooperation... I think the deals are already pretty much done and have been for some time, all that is left is a moment for a little theatre. The EU is to pledge £6.5bn in money to poorer nations, I have no idea how much the US is chipping in; there is no way they the poorer nations are walking out the door before a deal is done... but after a few days of "tough negotiations" Brown, Miliband et al can come back and claim that they persevered, endeavoured and fought against all the odds and finally came back with a deal that saved the world, well with a little help but more about that nearer the end. Like I say, it is all theatre.

I got to thinking earlier today about how Government debt has doubled in the few years Brown has been PM and it got me angry to think that £1.5bn of our money has been pledged to poorer counties in the "fight against climate change"... not because I have any desire to see poor nations struggle, but because it mirrors almost exactly the kind of backwards policy that is executed and which is killing the UK. Basically poorer nations in Africa are denied the opportunity to sell us many, many products under EU regulations, most notably the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Instead of making good money by trade, they are handed welfare instead.  This is a protectionist measure that we are told keeps our food prices down, which does not really make sense because market forces demand that with greater supply that prices fall. Anyway, we deny Africa the chance to trade and the opportunity work their way out of poverty and prosperity. Then when there is some political grandstanding to be done, we dangle a few billion under the noses of the African Governments, and say dance to our tune and we will hand you a cheque.

It is very similar to how the benefits and unemployment system in the UK makes it very difficult for people to gain benefit from working should their skills or circumstances rule out anything much better than a minimum wage position. It's being paid to rely on the British State.  What possible motivation is there if you are ill educated and trapped on a sink estate to go to work, for an extra £5 or £10 a week.  Africa needs to be able to sell to Europe the fruits of it's Labour and be allowed to earn a decent and fair sum for doing so, then we would not need to cut cheques and patronise... plus the other million reasons why trade and work is better than charity and welfare.

It's Brown and the EU I am angry with, we have kept the poor in poverty with the CAP, and like the well known saying goes, aid work has become about taking money from the poor people in rich countries and handing it over to the rich people in poor countries. The world community has socialised the Third World, and through Socialism they are doomed to be poor and downtrodden forever.

But back home and on that £1.5bn, I may have missed it but I do not recall that number being debated in Parliament, and I do not recall a public debate regarding the amount and manner of our charity to poorer nations. Can there really be no law protecting the Tax Payer against such massive pledges from the Prime Minister whilst abroad?  Also, seeing as how the Environment is now a sole competence for the EU, why the hell is Brown pledging more than the other big EU nations; does he not realise yet that the 30% of voters that he polls are going to will vote for his Party or no one come polling day and that the other 70% of us will not be bought, seduced or coerced by any manner devisable and splashing cash we can ill-afford at the moment is going to cost him more voters that it could win him? Where is Mandelson through all of this? Isn’t he supposed to be babysitting the PM when he decides to make decisions?

Anyway, mark my words; the deal will be done on time in Copenhagen, though the cost may just keep going up. I have a theory that Tony Blair’s consolation prize for not getting to be EU President will be to step in at the last minute and claim to be the man who brokers the deal with whoever the rogue nation who threatens to derail the show is, probably India…Cue Noble Prize and more speaking engagements.   He is already over there as the guest of an NGO.  Whilst they are all enjoying their jolly the rest of us will keep the debate going and be thinking about ways to cut our debts so that we can get by during this recession, and furthermore because we know that we have even more Government Debt that we will need to pay off soon. And with the Bankers jetting off to low tax havens now, that leaves the rest of us to clean up and pay for the mess.

Climategate: Caught Green-Handed - Monckton Report

This is not so much Recommended Reading as it is Required Reading.  The Science & Public Policy Institute has released THIS REPORT which analyses the Climategate emails and demonstrates how the Science of climate change is not settled; and how the email revelations have in fact hidden then truth about what is going on with our environment and our climate.

The report delves into the science, but is written as best as possible for those of us without PhD's.  There are some interesting recommendations at the end, all of which seem reasonable to me.  If we are to subject the world to carbon taxes in the middle of the worst economic downturn for several generations, it should be based on global, open and verifiable science with the raw data available to everybody on earth to be able to analyse and scrutinise.

Fellow bloggers, facebooker's and twitterers, please can you pass these links along so as to ensure it reaches as broad an audience as possible.  The science is not concluded, the stakes are high and time is of the essence to force the debate before Copenhagen.  Politics and politicians have put us in this position, it is now time for people to voice their opinions and concerns, because if we do not we know that the politicians will do what as they have sought to all along.

Some of the conclusion (but not all) from the report is reproduced below [I copy & pasted the raw data from the report, I felt no need for "tricks" or any "fudge factor"]

In public policy terms, the revelation that the international scientific and political establishment has been inventing, bending, distorting, manipulating, hiding, blocking, and destroying scientific data for the sake of advancing a narrow, extremist, and bitterly anti-Western political viewpoint cannot be safely ignored.



Climate science is too important to be left to politicized scientists, just as climate politics is too important to be left to unscientific politicians.


The first step is to close the Climate Research Unit (and perhaps the University of East Anglia with it), to dismiss all of its personnel, and not to allow any of them to be funded by taxpayers ever again. Scientific fraud and corruption on the scale that has now been revealed must be firmly rooted out and prevented from recurring.


Those responsible for the deliberate blocking, altering, concealing, or destroying of scientific data must be put on trial – to use James Hansen’s term – for “high crimes against humanity”. For it is on the word of crooks and racketeers such as these that, in the name of addressing the non-problem that they had invented and fostered and festered, the Third World has been flung into food riots and mass starvation by the doubling of world food prices that followed the biofuel scam that the “global-warming” profiteers invented as just one of a bewildering array of boondoggles to enrich themselves at the expense of the little guy, who, as always, suffers when the political elite merely exploit him when it is their duty to serve him.


Let the climate criminals stand trial, and let them be fined for offenses under the Freedom of Information laws, and let them be imprisoned for their fraudulent tampering with scientific data, and for their suppression of results uncongenial to their politicized viewpoint, and for the sheer venom with which they have publicly as well as privately denigrated all those scientists with whom they disagreed, and for the insouciance with which they interfered with editors of scientific journals and with the process of the UN’s climate panel itself.

Google Ethics?

They talk about it all the time on the TV, Google's motto official or otherwise is "Don't be evil".

So, by extension, despite hundreds of thousands, if not millions of sites referring to and writing about Climategate, why is it not a valid "query selection" that they will automatically offer in their search box? Does Google consider the ready availability of information questioning the CO2 link to Climate Change as "evil"? This is not new to today; this has been the case all week as I have tried a number of times using google to see what is coming out new on this story around the world. I thought earlier in the week that it was suspicious, but put it down to being a new topic and my readiness to see a conspiracy; I am no longer alone in this query.

I am not sure what it is about this story that has Google worked up, but are they trying to help hide an important scientific argument, or is it that they feel they now control the direction of free speech on the internet? Either way, it’s not very impartial and not at all fitting with their self written lofty ethics. Shame on you.

Google UK:

Google Germany:

Google Ireland:

Google France:

It's not just Europe, see Google Canada:

God bless America for protecting free speech:

Dr North - Googlegate?
James Delingpole - Googlegate?
Christopher Booker - Climategate: Is this the worst scientific scandal of our generation?

Climategate - US Congress To Investigate

Unlike the British news outlets, the US news is now reporting on the Climategate emails, it's not just Fox (video above) CBS is also giving this some prominence on their TV news and website.  Now the US Congress has decided that it is serious enough to warrant an investigation. Gerald Warner has more HERE. 

It is a reflection on the UK political scene that these emails have been hacked from a British University, involve British scientists and yet the media is largely apathetic to the news and is not giving it much attention.  Furthermore, that a foreign legislature has felt the need to look into the actions before the UK Government, and probably in that absence of any kind of UK Government investigation.  There may be much more to be revealed in this story, as it seems that New Zealand's research data may have been "massaged" to present the results desired rather than to represent the true conclusions of science.

I am troubled by that claims of a scientific nature are coming under a cloud of ambiguity.  Science is science, it is the function of uncovering the facts of how things work and explaining and reproducing those effects.  If the CO2 cheer-leaders all act like Ed Begley Jr in the above clip, they will lose the argument. 

There is, I think a general acceptance that we should not pump chemicals into the air, and dump pollutants into the sea.  There is a tangible and explainable science to recycling our materials.  The CO2 argument is different, CO2 is a naturally occurring gas, a combination of two of Earths basic and necessary elements, Carbon and Oxygen; Cloroflouorocarbons have no history of abundance in our environment.  CO2 has been around on earth for millions of years, but Climatologists are making claims on two decades of primary research. 

We owe it to ourselves to be crystal clear about science, especially when we are set to make laws and take actions that affect all of us on a daily basis.  In fact, "we" are not making those decisions, the decisions are being made again by "experts" and unelected leaders.  Beyond a reasonable doubt is probably the best term that should be applied.  As far as I can tell, nobody in the world has been able to show a negative effect of CO2 using sound science.  Computer models that have been presented have been exposed as having implanted data applied to fill in gaps that if removed lead to different conclusions; Graphs that supposedly plot data are shown to not represent the real data at all, and I keep reading that Weather Station data is presented in a selective way.  Why also are so called "Climatologists" so reluctant to release raw data behind their research?  If other Scientist cannot reproduce your results, it is not Science, it is a claim.

Dr Tim Ball Interview On Climategate

Hattip: Anoneumouse

First They Were Drowning Toy Puppies...

Now...



Remember, you must be affraid, becuase it makes you easier to govern.

GCSE Physics Question

Courtesy of Christopher Booker

Question 1.

A. Acid Rain

B. Global Warming

C. Noise Pollution

D. Radioactive Waste

Now Complete the below questions using each of the above once.

1. Nuclear power stations produce.....

2. Wind farms produce.....

3. Coal-fired power stations produce sulphur dioxide which causes.....

4. All fossil fuel power stations produce carbon dioxide which causes.....

As Christopher Booker states, if you agree with the government on these matters you will score 100%. The link between CO2 and Global Warming has not yet been proved, and there is an increasing number of scientists prepared to say openly that they do not concur. The Climate Science Blog recently linked to this article claiming that it kills the CO2 argument.

You may not agree with that, and feel that all scientists agree, but that is not the case. Now, I am a little old fashioned but I think we should teach and assess our children in Science, and I think we should teach scientific theories, along side scientific fact, but I think we should be explicitly teaching the difference between the two. No. 4 on the above exam seems like a not so subtle indicator that this is not happening.

If and when the link between CO2 and man made global warming can be linked to actual science, which can be demonstrated in a laboratory and using scientific models then at that point it should be taught as such. Right now it is Politics masquerading as science, and that is never a good thing.

International Conference On Climate Change

Climate Change "Deniers" are meeting in New York this week, I was not aware as I had not read in the MSM.

President Vaclav Klaus was the keynote speaker on day one.

A recent update was posted here, if anyone is interested.