Category Archives: Climate Change

Eight Questions to kill the Kyoto Climate Protocol in 2012

As Canada becomes the first major nation to cut and run from the UN’s global warming scam a prominent environmentalist now plunges another deadly dagger into the soft underbelly of junk climate science.

Geologist and radio and TV broadcaster Leighton Steward succinctly points to eight crucial unanswered questions to slay the mythical climate dragon. The questions Steward poses should now be thrust to the fore as nations scramble for excuses to pull the plug on the Kyoto Protocol’s life support after the abject failure of the UN’s COP17 talks in Durban.

It’s these eight glaring anomalies in the science that Peter Kent, Canada’s environment minister, can add to those 14 billion other reasons (those dollars saved in unpaid UN penalties) why his nation was right to bail out of the biggest scam in history.

Canada, the new climate realist at the party, joins Japan and Russia in steadfastly refusing any new Kyoto-style climate commitments. The CO2-limiting treaty, signed by various world governments in 1997 expires in December 2012 with little if any prospect of a replacement in sight before 2020. But joy of joys, Kyoto is increasingly exposed for being premised on the discredited hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would precipitate runaway global warming.

Inconvenient Questions Routinely Dodged by Alarmist Advocates

In his analysis ‘The climate-change con artists’ for WorldNetDaily (December 9, 2011) Steward lists his eight straightforward key questions that climate science dodged for decades and which must be addressed before cash-strapped governments ever again vote to fatten UN coffers:

  1. Why can’t warming alarmists produce a single legitimate example of empirical evidence to support the manmade global-warming hypothesis?
  2. Why has Earth been warming for 300 years when man has only emitted measurable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for the last 150 years?
  3. Why did Earth cool for 500 years before the recent 300-year warming and warm for several hundred years before that when even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says CO2 levels did not change?
  4. Why was the Medieval Warm Period, a thousand years ago, warmer than today even though the CO2 level was 38 percent lower than today?
  5. Why did many of Earth’s major glaciers in the Alps. Asia, New Zealand and Patagonia begin to retreat nearly half a century before the Industrial Revolution and man’s CO2 emissions?
  6. Of the last five interglacials, going back 400,000 years, why is our current interglacial the coolest of the five even though Earth’s CO2 level is about 35 percent higher?
  7. Why has our current 10,000-year-long Holocene epoch been warmer than today for 50 percent of the time when CO2 levels were about 35 percent lower than today?
  8. Why are correlations of Earth’s temperature with natural factors such as sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths, solar magnetic variations and changes in major ocean currents all better than the correlation of Earth’s temperature with CO2 levels?

Why are such inconvenient yet crucial questions still left unanswered? What turns mere incompetence into wilful fraud is that these ‘researchers’ were also intentionally ignoring all evidence that disproved their hypothesis.

Governments and voters may now fairly infer that for the last 30 years a clique of government climate scientists in English-speaking nations deliberately wasted millions toying with unfeasible toy models hoping (but failing) to concoct a causal link between carbon and climate.

Two Degrees Celsius Drop in Temperatures ‘Plucked out of Thin Air’

The evidence for fraud gets more compelling when we add to the mix the leaked Climategate 2.0 emails of November 2011. Our conscientious friendly whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, England (UEA) shows us that government climatologists secretly concede the science to back Kyoto is paper-thin.

A main requirement is that the treaty demands a two degree Celsius drop in global temperatures. But top UEA climate scientist, Professor Jones, admits that no scientific basis was ever established for the “2 degrees Celsius” benchmark. Jones admits:

The 2 deg C limit is talked about by a lot within Europe. It is never defined though what it means…. I know you don’t know the answer, but I don’t either! I think it is plucked out of thin air.”

[Phil Jones email to C. Kremer; Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:40 PM]

Thus opinion trumps hard evidence in the topsy-turvy world of climate science as further substantiated by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). Buried deep in the 2007 IPCC Report is the disturbing fact that climatologists admit to “low” or “very low” understanding of 13 of the 15 factors that drive climate. [1.]

No wonder Professor Jones chose to break the law and refuse to honor Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests from independent researchers. There was so little evidence to back all those doomsaying climate claims and Jones didn’t want to be caught giving policymakers mere opinions (dressed as ‘fact’). He and his co-conspirators needed to keep milking that research cash cow. All the while, gleeful that their scientists were giving them ammunition to concoct apocalyptic scenarios to scare the public into paying ever higher taxes, the politicians went along with the scam. Just follow the money, as they say.

As Icecap reports, Penn State University, a hub of climate alarm, alone acquired $470,000,000 in federal grants and contracts between 2010 and 2011. After the Sandusky child sex scandal the world now sees just how Penn State values profit over principle.

The US government alone spent over $106 billion on climate research money between 2003 and 2010. Such munificence can buy a lot of ‘consensus’ in university laboratories. Opinionated and ill-informed faux climate science was thus used to justify a $100-billion-a-year “climate change reparation and mitigation” fund for poor nations.

That hotchpotch treaty, designed to severely restrict human emissions of an essential life-giving gas (CO2), offered nothing for the planet while impoverishing humanity by crippling industrial development.

Canada Saves Taxpayer Billions in Moment of Climate Realism

In short, Kyoto was never about climate change but more probably a nefarious UN vehicle for global population control and wealth redistribution – a veritable gravy train for corrupt and opinionated ideologues. No wonder Peter Kent, Canada’s environment minister, denounced Kyoto as one of Canada’s “biggest” policy errors. At the earliest opportunity (Monday 12, December 2011) the Canadian government sensibly invoked its legal rights and withdrew from the Kyoto agreement.

By bailing out of the UN’s climate Ponzi scheme Canada will now save itself having to pay $US14 billion ($A13.94 billion) in needless penalties for not achieving its Kyoto targets. Mike Hudema of Greenpeace Canada reacted to the news with the expected doomsayer hyperbole: “The Harper government has imposed a death sentence on many of the world’s most vulnerable populations by pulling out of Kyoto.”

Yet Canada’s environment minister aptly summed up the lunacy of the extreme cost of climate legislation, as it would be:

“the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agriculture sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada.”

Thus by consideration of the aforesaid paucity of hard evidence and Leighton Steward’s Eight Unanswered Questions the Kyoto Protocol deserves to be tossed into the trash can of history. Rest assured, Canada will be just the first of a glut of nations abandoning pointless and moribund UN ‘emissions targets’ that do more harm than good.

Taxpayers have a right to demand this secretive, corrupt and wasteful culture in government science be swept away. It urgently needs replacing with a new era of principled, open and objective science.

[1.] IPCC: Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis; 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing.

John O’Sullivan is a science writer and legal analyst, coordinator of the ‘Slayers’ and founder member of Principia Scientific International (PSI).

2 Comments

Filed under Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, Climategate 2, Climategate 2.0, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Government, John O'Sullivan, Politics, Science, Slaying the Sky Dragon

Think wind power is safe? Then you must believe in Santa!

Never mind that wind turbines routinely chop up hundreds of thousands of birds every year, it now it appears they may be about to start chopping up people, too! There are 1,500 accidents a year and those are only at UK wind farms and don’t count the rest of the world. So what’s happening?

A dossier of incidents, compiled by a campaign group opposed to wind farms, includes cases where blades, each weighing as much as 14 tonnes, have sheared off and crashed to the ground.

Residents living near a wind farm have reported sheltering in their homes when lumps of ice were thrown from blades from a 410-ft high turbine near Peterborough, Cambridgeshire.

So far three deaths (amended to 4) and no one’s been chopped, yet.

One involved a maintenance worker in Scotland who had become ‘tangled’ with the driveshaft of a turbine while the other three deaths took place during construction of onshore and offshore wind farms.

Tangled mangled in a driveshaft doesn’t sound like a very nice way to meet your maker though, does it?

Well, we hope it never happens, but sooner or later we’d predict that someone, someplace, will get hit by a flying wind turbine blade and chopped up. Meanwhile, think about the poor birds getting chopped on a daily basis for a power generation scheme that won’t profit without subsidies.

Source: The Telegraph

7 Comments

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Co2 Insanity, Editor, Global Warming, Green Energy, Renewable Energy, Wind Power

Tokelau isn’t Tanking

With COP17 CON17 going on, the shrillness of those who want to make big bucks off the global warming scam is increasing exponentially.

Today we have the Honorable Foua Toloa, head of Government of Tokelau in the Pacific, who believes the island’s 1,400 inhabitants are at grave risk from climate change lack of money. Of course him, and others in charge of low-lying (emphasis on lying) islands worldwide are hoping to cash in on the global warming gravy-train.

You can look at the graph below showing the south Pacific sea-levels at Tuvalu, which is adjacent to Tokelau, and see just how much that sea-level is rising (not).

You can also look at the below graph of the south Pacific. While, yes there is an overall uptrend of 2.73 millimeters per year, note the downtrend that is starting in 2010. Also note that 2.73 millimeters = 0.107480315 inches. Or, a whopping 10th of an inch a year.

Tokelau is 5 meters above sea-level. 5 meters = 16.4041995 feet. Divide 16.4 feet (196.850394 inches) by 0.107480315 inches per year sea-level rise and we find it will take a mere 1,831.5 years for Tokelau to be completely submerged.

You have to ask yourself what all the rush is about? Being submerged in 1,832.5 years? Or, helping the United Nations clown circus by BS’ing everyone in order to get hundreds of billions of dollars sucked from productive countries via phony carbon trading scams and carbon taxes?

You can read more about the low lying that is going on from Andrew Bolt here.

Source: The Daily Mail

Comments Off on Tokelau isn’t Tanking

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Editor, Financial, Global Warming, Government, Politics, Science, Sea-Level

Prince Phillip on Wind Turbines: “Disgrace” “Fairy Tale”

It appears there’s at least one person in the Royal family with some common sense. Prince Phillip lets it fly and tells us what he really thinks!

In comments that put him sharply at odds with the Government, the Prince reportedly said the farms were a ‘disgrace’ and they would never work. He also described people who backed them as believing in a ‘fairy tale’.

Energy Secretary Chris Huhne last month denounced opponents of the plans as ‘curmudgeons and fault-finders’ and praised the turbines as ‘elegant and beautiful’.

Chris Huhne. who’s obviously dumb and blind, must also think that Roseanne Barr should be parading around in a bikini at the next Miss America contest.

Now if he’d only grab his son, Prince Charles, by his Dumbo-sized ears and rattle some sense into his head we might have something.

Source: The Daily Mail

2 Comments

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Energy, Global Warming, Government, Green Energy, Green Tech, Wind Power

Yet Another Reason to Bury the Bullet Train in California

What started as a $33 billion project, then recently mushroomed into a $98.6 billion project, that only one week later mushroomed into a $117.6 billion dollar project, now has another problem.  This problem, no doubt, will again raise the already astronomical costs of the bullet train that Californians will not only get stuck paying for, but will probably be stuck subsidizing for almost eternity.

It now seems that the grand plan to tunnel under San Jose, California isn’t so grand after all. According to yet another study:

“We have looked at this very thoroughly and done very detailed engineering for this,” said Dan Leavitt, the authority’s deputy director, about the tunnel option. “It is not a constructable scenario for high-speed rail.”

In a nutshell this means the transportation hub in San Jose will need to be built above ground, which means that they’ll have to spend more money buying up property that they would not have had to purchase if the underground station was viable.

Meanwhile, in what appears to be a fit of delusion, instead of telling the state to shove it, the City of San Jose will continue to spend more tax dollars studying this, even though budget problems have reduced the number of police and fire personnel on duty.

The Legislature and Governor Jerry Brown also appear to be delusional about this costly and unneeded train to nowhere. It is  seriously not funny that this fiasco continues to spend money needed elsewhere.  California’s budget deficit is now expected to have a $13 billion budget deficit by mid-year that will cause $2 billion in automatic spending cuts, many in education.

Meanwhile, the Board of Regents of California State University, who raised tuition 15.5% last November just voted yesterday to again increase tuition by another 9%. This is a total increase in just one year of 25.5%.  If you want to know what this costs students in dollars here it is:

The price of a year at CSU has risen steadily for years. Next fall, basic tuition will be $5,970. With a mandatory fee averaging $1,047 across the 23-campus system, the price will stand at $7,017. That’s more than triple what it cost in 2002-03.

It is a total shame that the State Legislature and Governor Jerry Brown don’t pull the plug on the bullet train boondoggle that continues to grow in size and cost and may accelerate putting the State of California into bankruptcy before it’s over and done with. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns, this has to be it.

The only thing green about this project is the obscene amounts of money that will be spent on a boondoggle that will only green the pockets of unions, who evidently have much of California’s government in their hip pockets.

Let’s not forget the United States debt just hit $15 trillion yesterday. How about paying bills before spending on boondoggles?

We urge you to read more of the gory details of this CO2 Insanity at the source below.

Source: San Jose Mercury News

Comments Off on Yet Another Reason to Bury the Bullet Train in California

Filed under Bullet Train, California, California Bullet Trani, California Green Jobs, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Government, Green Construction, Green Tech, Politics

More Obama Green Nepotism.

It looks like more greenbacks provided by taxpayer’s hard work have flown into a company named Brightsource, conveniently owned by  Robert Kennedy Jr. and conveniently granted $1.4 billion of your tax dollars by an ex-employee who’s now conveniently a Department of Energy big cheese.

President John F. Kennedy’s nephew, Robert Kennedy, Jr., netted a $1.4 billion bailout for his company, BrightSource, through a loan guarantee issued by a former employee-turned Department of Energy official.

The details of how BrightSource managed to land its ten-figure taxpayer bailout have yet to emerge fully. However, one clue might be found in the person of Sanjay Wagle.

Wagle was one of the principals in Kennedy’s firm who raised money for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. When Obama won the White House, Wagle was installed at the Department of Energy (DOE), advising on energy grants.

From an objective vantage point, investing taxpayer monies in BrightSource was a risky proposition at the time. In 2010, BrightSource, whose largest shareholder is Kennedy’s VantagePoint Partners, was up to its eyes in $1.8 billion of debt obligations and had lost $71.6 million on its paltry $13.5 million of revenue.

It’s amazing how those DOE handed-out taxpayer dollars seem to go to good buddies of Obama isn’t it? Oh well, nothing to see here, move on please. Just another $1.4 billion that will probably go down the tubes never to be seen again ala Solyndra, AKA: More CO2 Insanity.

Source: Big Government

Comments Off on More Obama Green Nepotism.

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, DOE, Energy, Financial, Global Warming, Government, Green Energy, Green Tech, Politics, Solyndra

James Hansen Paid by Green Group

Well, well, isn’t it funny how everyone who doesn’t believe in global warming and who doesn’t genuflect at the sight of Al Gore is accused by the warmers of being paid off by the oil companies or the Koch brothers?

Put the shoe on the other foot and find out global warming’s ‘hot’ scientist Dr. James Hansen is being paid by a green group and we see nothing hitting the fan in the MSM at all. Nothing here to see folks, move on now. If the warmers do it it’s perfectly OK. So, what happened?

So on Friday the Obama administration stopped fighting a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and released documents showing that Hansen was paid $250 an hour by a Canadian law firm for testimony against developing Alberta’s oil sands; income which Hansen does not appear to have disclosed.

$250 an hour? Not bad, we wonder if he got meals, hotel and transportation, too? We also wonder why he didn’t report it as required by law? So who was Hansen testifying for?

A January 20, 2009, document shows that the Canadian law firm Ackroyd LLP retained Hansen to prepare a report “regarding the anticipated greenhouse gas emissions from the Joslyn Oil Sand Mine.”

Ackroyd represents the Oil Sand Environmental Coalition (OSEC), a group fighting to stop oil sand development.Federal government employees are not allowed to accept money for expert testimony in proceedings before a court or agency of the United States. (This took place in Canada FYI).

And what about those reporting requirements? Reporting? Evidently Hansen must have a special exclusion for warmers or something.

It is still unclear how much money Hansen received from Ackroyd, however, since his 2010 financial disclosure form did not list them as a source of income. Neither does his 2009 form. There is also no record of his disclosing any travel expenses related to his 2010 oil sands testimony in Canada.

Of course, we also don’t see any rush from anybody at NASA, GISS, the Justice Department, the State Department or any other department to investigate and if need be prosecute. You probably won’t see anything in the warmer MSM either. Hypocrites!

Source: The Washington Examiner

Comments Off on James Hansen Paid by Green Group

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Government, NASA

More Flaws with IPCC 2007 Climate Report AR4

IPCC method

It looks like more of those chickens are coming hope to root upon the roost of the United Nations building. Written by real scientists? Real climate experts? Ummm….OK, if you say so. But read this first.

A scathing new expose on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change — which sets the world’s agenda when it comes to the current state of the climate — claims that its reports have often been written by graduate students with little or no experience in their field of study and whose efforts normally might be barely enough to satisfy grad school requirements. “We’ve been told for the past two decades that ‘the Climate Bible’ was written by the world’s foremost experts,” Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise told FoxNews.com. “But the fact is, you are just not qualified without a doctorate. In academia you aren’t even on the radar at that point.”

Amazing isn’t it? Not only is it amazing that the report appears to be even worse than initially thought, it’s even more amazing that the whole planet is supposed to change our evil CO2 ways because of this report, claimed as written by experts.  So who were some of these so-called “experts?”

  •  One lead author of the 2001 edition was a trainee at the Munich Reinsurance Company in 2000 and lacked a master’s degree while  on the panel. He did not earn a Ph.D. until ten years later.
  • Another lead author in 1994 earned his master’s only two years earlier and had his first academic paper published in 1995.
  • An Australian academic was an assistant author in 2001 and a lead author in 2007 — despite not earning her Ph.D. until 2009.
  • Dutch geography professor Richard Klein has been a lead author for six IPCC reports and in 1997 became a coordinating lead   author. He was promoted to the panel’s most senior role while he was 28 years old — six years prior to completing his PhD.

You can judge for yourself whether the world should spend billions upon billions over this report or if it should be tossed into the trashcan. The book is available at Amazon for less than $5 bucks if you want to read it. Source: Fox News

1 Comment

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, IPCC, United Nations

Another Energy Company Goes Broke!

Yes, the Obama administration has the equivalent of a gardener having a brown thumb. It seems no matter what it touches, it withers and dies. This time it’s $39 million tax dollars out the window.

An energy company that received a $43 million loan guarantee through the same federal program that backed Solyndra has followed the path of the failed solar firm and filed for bankruptcy.

Beacon Power Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Sunday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. The company, which develops energy storage systems based on what are known as “flywheels,” had received the federal guarantee for a 20-megawatt energy storage plant in Stephentown, N.Y., back in August 2010. 

Add this one to the list consisting of Solyndra, Spectra Watt and Evergreen Solar who have also received hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars and have filed for bankruptcy.  They screwed the  taxpayers, too.

The Massachusetts-based company also received $29 million in grants from the Energy Department and the state of Pennsylvania through separate programs for a plant in Hazle Township, Pa.

So, what kind of green jobs did this create (or rather was supposed to create) and at what cost? Let’s do some simple mathematics. Take the above $43 million + the above $29 million and you get a total of $72 million dollars. So how many employees?

When the project was approved, the Energy Department reported that the loan guarantee would help save or create 14 permanent jobs and 20 construction jobs.

If  you take the total of permanent and temporary jobs that is a total of 34 employees. Divide $72 million by 34 and that is an astronomical $2.11 million per job.  Divide the $72 million by the 14 permanent jobs and that’s an even more astronomical $5.14 million per job.

This is why the government should keep their nose out of it. If solar and wind power are such a hot commodity, then venture capitalists would be so eager to pump money into them that government subsidies would not be required. It would be their decision, their money and their risk.

Federal and state governments really have no business making extravagant loans to companies with unproven technology or a manufacturing process that cost so much the Chinese can easily undercut the price. Politics mixing with private industry is a recipe for disaster as proven by these failures.

Warmers, please don’t mention oil and gas subsidies. Those are proven technologies that actually produce something usable by taxpayers and as such, we don’t have a problem with them.

Source: Fox News

3 Comments

Filed under California Green Jobs, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Energy, EPA, Global Warming, Government, Green Energy, Green Tech, Politics

‘Hide the Decline’ – Part Deux

The graph that fooled the world

Here we go again. More questionable warmer data released, which only takes a short period of time to be discredited. Yet more unprecedented, irrefutable proof going down the global warming toilet. That this was touted as the “scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all” is laughable.

From the Daily Mail we get this information:

It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.

Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree  centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually. 

Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.

Amazing timing these warmers appear to have . The inconvenient truth is conveniently published a mere week prior to the next global warming cabal with key words and phrases such as irrefutable, stringent and save civilization. So, what’s the problem with this irrefutable evidence?

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no  scientific basis.

No scientific basis? My, what a big surprise! (Not!)

Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

Credibility? Since when do the warmers need credibility? It’s all about smoke & mirrors, obfuscation, BS, and even sometimes blatant lies!

It seems the information was also conveniently released not only before it was ready, but before other parties of the study were even consulted.

But although Prof Curry is the second named author of all four papers, Prof Muller failed to  consult her before deciding to put them on the internet earlier this month, when the peer review process had barely started, and to issue a detailed press release at the same time.

He also briefed selected  journalists individually. ‘It is not how I would have played it,’ Prof Curry said. ‘I was informed only when I got a group email. I think they have made errors and I distance myself from what they did.

‘It would have been smart to consult me.’ She said it was unfortunate that although the Journal of Geophysical Research  had allowed Prof Muller to issue the papers, the reviewers were, under the journal’s policy, forbidden from public comment.

Prof McKittrick added: ‘The fact is that many of the people who are in a position to provide informed criticism of this work are currently bound by confidentiality agreements.

‘For the Berkeley team to have chosen this particular moment to launch a major international publicity blitz is a highly unethical sabotage of the peer review  process.’

It appears to us that this was all conveniently orchestrated to avoid dissent and to ensure the disinformation was released immediately prior to the climate conference in South Africa. Why else would you brief only selected journalists other than to make sure they were journalist who would faithfully put out your disinformation? Why would you bind other participants with confidentiality agreements other than to silence the opposition?

Sounds like more typical CO2 Insanity to us.

Read it all at the Daily Mail and decide for yourself.

3 Comments

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, United Nations