Kodiak Greenwood
The COP15 provided earth-minded efforts their biggest stage ever but in the end will it be enough? Is the "Copenhagen Accord" as empty as these seats?
A Copenhagen Accord Is Born
Climate Deal Gets Done but Many Big Questions Remain
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Something funny happened on the way to failure today at the COP15. Against long odds - and after several hours of overtime, late night backroom dealings simultaneously brokered and hindered by President Barack Obama - the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, acting in the name of Mother Earth, snatched a success of sorts from the jaws of defeat and adopted the “Copenhagen Accord” in the wee hours of Saturday morning. Or did they?
The two week and one extra day conference is over - it officially wrapped up with a press conference just past 2 p.m. Copenhagen time on Saturday - but what exactly was accomplished is anything but clear. This we know: a “Copenhagen Agreement” does indeed exist. Though far from the sweeping and legally binding climate change-fighting document that many had hoped for to replace the expiring Kyoto Protocol, the new accord is an undeniable step forward in the global war against carbon emissions. It pledges to keep overall global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, it creates a green super fund that developed nations will pay billions of dollars into (specifically, $10 billion a year through 2012 before ramping up to $100 billion by 2020) in order to help less developed countries implement climate changing measures, it makes every country explicitly explain their path to and pledge for reducing emissions no later than January 31, 2010, and it calls for a review of the whole approach by 2015 to make sure that it is actually working.
By Kodiak Greenwood
President Obama rode in on the last day to help make the “Copenhagen Accord” a reality. But, with the deal falling miles short of the hopes and expectations of the world, there was celebrating in the streets of Copenhagen today
Unfortunately, it also does not do several fundamental things that COP15 activists and optimists has hoped for. It is not legally binding, it does not, at least according to science, establish a reduction target that has any hope of keeping temperature increases below the 2 degree limit, and, perhaps most importantly, it wasn’t really approved by the United Nations as a whole- it was simply “noted” in the group’s final meeting during its last meeting early Saturday. It is the latter - a fact being largely overlooked by mainstream media outlets - that looks to sink an already weak agreement in the coming weeks as countries must sign on to the document in order to make it real.
So how exactly does a “Copenhagen Accord” get created in such a way that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon can announce to the world, “We have sealed the deal … This accord cannot be everything that everyone hoped for, but it is an essential beginning,” but critics say it is a hollow document that may not even survive the next few months and was never actually approved? Well, it goes a little something like this: After nearly two weeks of back and forth and often gridlocked negotiations by official delegates, the leaders of the world started arriving on Wednesday and, instead of just showing up to sign off on something that was already a worked-out deal as they typically do in these UN processes, they actually had to roll up their sleeves and get dirty in the nitty-gritty of climate-minded horse trading. This process was not going so hot and a totally failed COP15 seemed the likeliest of outcomes with less than 48 hours remaining. But then Friday rolled around and President Barack Obama came to town and, for good or bad, the standard brand UN process got hijacked.
After a slow start on Friday due to intense negotiations spilling over from the night before (many delegates wearily admitted to not sleeping at all on Thursday night, only to run headlong into the same problem on Friday night), things got rolling pretty fast as world leaders filed into the plenary. After an introduction from Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen - who told his remarkably powerful audience, “Climate change is real, it is serious and it is urgent” - and a few more words of encouragement from United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the action started in earnest with statements from China’s President Wen Jiabao, followed by Brazil’s number one, Luiz da Silva and then, entering the stage via a side door rather than walking up from the plenary floor like everyone else, came President Obama. As all three men spoke, the entire Bella Center was silent, hordes of journalists and government-types massing around closed-circuit flat screens to bear witness. The revolution it seems, will certainly be televised.
Kodiak Greenwood
Empty conference halls and empty chairs reigned supreme at the Bella Center as negotiators pulled a behind closed doors all nighter for the second night in a row.
For his part, Jiabao defended China’s commitment to carbon cutting measures, explaining that, as a nation, they “take climate change very seriously” and they will “honor [their] word with quick action.” However, in a snub to the many developed nations, including the United States, that need to see a wrinkle in the treaty that allows for outside entities to be able to monitor whether or not countries are actually achieving their reduction pledges, Jiabao stated that China has targets but that they have not linked them anyone nor do they have any plans to do so. Obama, despite offering nothing new to the bargaining table - the United States stood firm with its controversial reduction pledges of 17 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 and its unwillingness to pay reparations for historical atmospheric polluting - told the world, “I came here today not to talk but to act … We are ready to get this done today.” He also, in a swipe at China’s unwillingness to have transparency in the mitigation process, told the plenary crowd, “Without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.”
After several more heads of state from around the world offered their two cents - including a blustery, anti-American yet oddly entertaining rant from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez that suggested Obama might actually be the devil - the high level meeting took a break for a few hours to return to the negotiating process and perhaps grab a bite to eat.
Unfortunately, those few hours turned into many hours as the day wore on and a lunch break turned into a dinner break and a dinner break turned into an even later dinner break and then Friday turned into Saturday and then breakfast became the appropriate meal. Planned press briefings from delegates were cancelled. (One of the only press conferences that was held during the extremely protracted extra negotiating time was hosted by a few Republican members of the United States House of Representatives that was, at times, rather anti-climate change policy in tone.) Media members milled about, cell phones ringing with rumors and speculation. First came word that China and India had walked away from the negotiating table in protest of the United States, then came a leaked draft of the “Copenhagen Accord” that actually called for a legally binding international agreement to be signed off by all parties by the end of 2010, then came word that Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer had asked delegates to stay through the weekend so that differences could be massaged.
Kodiak Greenwood
COP15 Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer put on a happy face about the “Copenhagen Accord” but he clearly was not convinced it will be enough to save the world.
Then, just as everyone was waiting for a statement from the European Union on the latest and greatest, President Obama went live on CNN and announced that a deal had be reached and that he was flying home in order to beat the snowstorm that is currently engulfing the East Coast of the United States. The press conference - which had been rumored for hours - was actually something of a secret affair and was held outside of the COP15 process without a vast majority of the press in attendance.
And while the deal that Obama announced, calling it “historical and significant,” was quite close to what we are now calling the “Copenhagen Accord” it didn’t really have global buy-in at that point to go public the way it did. In fact, it was negotiated outside of the plenary with roughly 20 major-player countries including the U.S., China, the African nations, etc., but, when brought back to the entire 190 nation-strong body, it was attacked by dozens of smaller countries for not doing nearly enough to fight climate change. In fact, so strong was this outcry, that many thought earlier today that delegates would be going home from Copenhagen entirely empty-handed. In the end, thanks to massaging by UNFCCC shot callers like Yvo de Boer, it was decided that the “Copenhagen Accord” would be “noted” by the UN, adopted by the roughly two-dozen states that crafted it, and potentially signed by all parties involved in the months ahead. In the conference’s final press briefing, de Boer told a room of remarkably exhausted media, “We need to be clear that this is only a letter of intent and is not precise about what needs to be done in legal terms. So the challenge is now to turn what we have agreed politically in Copenhagen into something real, measurable, and verifiable.”
So there you have it from the front lines of Operation Copenhagen. Did Mother Earth win or did politics sink the hopes and dreams for a greater good once again? I honestly have no idea … At this point, the only thing on the minds of the folks who have been hunkered down at the Bella Center for this bizarre and incredibly drawn-out conclusion of the COP15 is a comfortable bed, some good food, and maybe some sunshine. Certainly some serious face-saving went down here in the past 24 hours, but whether or not planet-saving actually happened remains very much up in the air …
Comments
Ethan, "mother earth" has been around for some time and believe me when I say that "she" does not give a damn about you, or me. Temperatures go up....and they go down. Oxygen levels go up and they go down. CO2 levels go up and they go down. That's nature. It's been going on for a few billion years.
Climate change is ongoing.... man-made climate change is the product of arrogant, narcissistic, agenda based, people who barely have control of their own lives but think they can actually control the weather. As priests in the new religion they have quite beautifully maneuvered the issue and now call the solution - national climate mitigation actions. We call it - show me the money. Our money. Daniel Petry
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
December 20, 2009 at 11:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Simply because you seem to think the matter is complicated or that "that's nature" doesn't mean other, better equipped individuals haven't been trying to figure it out. That's just a version of the argument from ignorance. You seem to have a handle on the age of the planet so I assume you understand what science is capable of, 'less you think determining the age of the Earth was "easy." Then you disappointedly follow that fallacy with conspiracy talking points.
This is what the opposition has resorted to? Surely you folks can do better.
FightWoo (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2009 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fightwoo!
It's so good to hear from you again. I'm still waiting to hear your response countering Peter the 6th grader's video showing urban heat islands have been used to create warming trends that don't exist.
Video here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09...
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2009 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Brits have it right. They call the lunatic environ-mental activists "watermellons,' because they are green on the outside and red on the inside. I saw plenty of communist flags and calls to end capitalism. Research Al Gore Sr.'s ties to industrialist Armand Hammer who was revealed to be a long serving Soviet agent. Is it no wonder then that it's Al Gore Jr. leading the environmental movement today? Is it so strange former "Green Jobs Czar" Van Jones was a self professed communist?
The scary part about this is that the world doesn't see the slight of hand that is going on here. Politicians have concocted a global "problem" that requires the creation of a global government to provide a global "solution." Politicians always use this model to expand and consolidate their power. How's the war on poverty going? How about the war on homelessness? Has the war on drugs decreased the supply? Has any of these problems ever been solved by any of the multitude of government agencies and NGO's with unlimited power and money? Have you ever considered the possibility that if these problems were ever truly solved that it would only diminish the role of government? I think the truth is that government gets what it pays for; and what it pays for is the problems that force people to be increasingly dependent on the government. Government can only expand in power by offering solution to the very problems it knowingly creates.
Continues below...
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Continued from above..
What Copenhagen is talking about is the formation of a Global Government in the Model of the European Union where all power is concentrated in a vessel that is in no way elected by accountable to any member. U.K.'s Gordon Brown is so dissatisfied with what transpired that he is now demanding that the "UN's consensual method of negotiation, which requires all 192 countries to reach agreement, needs to be reformed to ensure that the will of the majority prevails: One of the frustrations for me was the lack of a global body with the sole responsibility for environmental stewardship."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news...
To whom will our Federal government be loyal to? It's citizens or the World government? Consider the power a world government body will be able to wield when the will of the majority must prevail over the consensus. Electronically monitored showers? No problem! We can do it today, monitoring temperature and water volume. Welcome to your two minute government monitored cold shower. It has to happen in order to keep the world's citizens safe from a 1-2 degree increase in temperature a hundred years from now. Perhaps the private use of electronic communications will need to be restricted and limited due to the impact on climate and the environment (or resistance to our U.N. occupiers). What happens when the world body decides that private ownership of homes and automobiles jeopardizes global climate? What happens when the world body decides that it becomes necessary to limit family size in developing nations; and just to show that it's a fair policy institutes a one child policy across the globe. I guess it's a good thing the U.S. senate mandated a premium on abortions in its health care plan.
The right wing wacko's always talk about the "FEMA Camps." What those dupes don't realize is that prison camps are irrelevant in this century. Why create fences when the prison camp is entire world? Where can you escape to then? The only escape is death. The old fashioned fences and wire are antiquated and counterproductive anyway. Our chains and barbed wire fences will come in the form of personal and governmental debt and electronic monitoring. Just keep the prisoners content and dumbed down enough that they willingly keep surrendering their freedoms and the fruits of their labor.
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2009 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not long ago it was a coming ice age:.then Y2K was going to send us back to the Stone Age:now man caused climate change.
This despicable hubris is just another arrogant way to enrich a few and impoverish the many. All the while ignoring the real problems facing us. Problems that demand real leadership by real leaders:not religious zealots led by a disgraced vice-president, supported by disgraced scientific "experts".
I wonder if a reputable, (notice that we now have to say "reputable"), behaviorist could analyze, and compare, the similarities between man-made global warming fanatics, and the individual beliefs that are manipulated to brainwash and create religious zealots (think suicide bombers). They are more like monks participating in the ecclesiastical tribunals in Spain during the Inquisition; charged with trying and convicting heretics and combating or suppressing heresy. They seem to be using the religion of man-made global warming to fill a void in their lives. Daniel Petry
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2009 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love the statement made by the author:
"Obama, despite offering nothing new to the bargaining table- the United States stood firm with their controversial reduction pledges of 17% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 and their unwillingness to pay reparations for historical atmospheric polluting-"
Pay reparations? Is that Climate Justice? Were we found guilty of climate crimes by a jury of our climate peers in the Climate Court? Used to be we had protections against this.
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2009 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey jcrdan:
Since you raised the issue of behavior as it relates to the Cult of Climate Scientology, consider this eye opening article (The Scientific Manipulation of Our Reality) here:
http://noworldsystem.com/2009/12/14/t...
the bullet points:
The Scientific Manipulation of Public Thinking:
"The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated" in other-words the public will not be allowed to know how it's beliefs and opinions were scientifically manipulated by the government to think a certain way."
Shaping the Perfect Slave to be Content With Their Slavery:
"All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called "co-operative," i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them."
Propaganda: From the Class Room to Hollywood
"any proposition will win acceptance if it is reiterated in such a way as to remain in the memory. Most of the things that we believe we believe because we have heard them affirmed; we do not remember where or why they were affirmed, and we are therefore unable to be critical..."
Consider the only bold text in Ethan's story above - "Climate change is real, it is serious and it is urgent"
Teaching Uniformity Through Hollywood and Television
"there are three great sources of uniformity in addition to education: these are the Press, the cinema, and the radio."
De-population Key to World Government
""There are three ways of securing a society as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a World Government
The stunning conclusion:
"Kids have been hit hard with propaganda not only on TV and movies but in the class rooms, as Bertrand put it; the public schools are a laboratory for shaping the perfect slave, they are converting young minds to accept the New World Order religion that is all about the regulation and the destruction of human life on earth."
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2009 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Not long ago it was a coming ice age:.then Y2K was going to send us back to the Stone Age:now man caused climate change"
The coming ice age hoopla was originated in a Times article in the 70s. If you were to review the literature published during that time you would see that the vast majority predicted warming (almost 50:1). Even if it were true, which it isn't, the "science was wrong before" gambit is another fallacious argument. It's not important that science was wrong before, but it's "how" science was wrong. Science is a self-correcting enterprise. If you're going to argue that science is wrong you have to show flaws in the science sufficient to cast doubt on the current scientific consensus and you can't do that if you don't understand AGW in the first place. The correction comes from within the scientific community, not from conspiracy-mongering denialists.
It's a well known fact that the scientific community is horrible at PR but is oftened blamed for the hype of certain research when in reality the media are the ones guilty of sensationalizing the stories. You won't find anything resembling "The Day After Tomorrow" scenarios in the literature. The larger issue I take it, is that you have a problem with scientific discoveries being manipulated by leaders/governments/etc, but that says nothing about science as a method. It's simply a preemptive ad hominem attack against scientists as individuals when they aren't even the guilty party. It literally is an anti-scientific perspective, the likes of which doomed civilization to the Dark Ages.
I'm not sure why I continue to engage in this discussion with you, Petry, as you are clearly beyond the pale of rational conversation. This is no longer a debate about the science; your obvious hang-up stems from your political bent. So, buh-bye.
PS. Watch the sixth grader teach you global warming. It's very educational, in a pre-scienitific kinda way.
FightWoo (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2009 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fightwoo:
You bait readers with phony arguments and then mock and criticize others when your statements are shown to be with out merit. I quote you from Friday:
"Most AGW deniers simultaneously hold two opposing positions: A) AGW is not happening; and B) if AGW is happening it just means more sunny days. It's a convenient position whenever the evidence is brought to their attention.
Let's make this as easy as possible. Upon what peer reviewed literature are you basing your denial of anthropogenic global warming? (Providing citations to reputable journals will earn you extra points.)"
I provided it to you:
Njau, Ernest C., 2007. Formulations of human-induced variations in global temperature. Renewable Energy Vol. 32, No 13, pp. 2211-2222, October 2007)] with full documentation and links to the paper. With his analysis,
"...the main source of supply of CO2 to the atmosphere is not anthropogenic activities, but tropical regions of the ocean. These regions supply 21010 tons of air-borne CO2 annually to the temperate and circumpolar latitudes of the northern hemisphere."
So do I get any bonus points from you? No, just your demeaning, smug reply in which you laud your intellectual superiority:
"Not easy enough, I guess. Be honest, you aren't even familiar with any of the scientific dissenting opinions, are you?
Henrik Svensmark, Eigel Friis-Christiansen, Nir Shaviv, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Jan Veizer, have all published literature that doubts the scientific consensus. I'm sure you're familiar with at least one of them.... or not."
If you are aware that this peer reviewed literature exists then why are you asking us to provide evidence of it's existance to you? Did you think that you could set a snare for me? Let this show other readers that you aren't interested in the science or facts. Unless somebody prepares talking points for you to parrot, you have shown yourself to be incapable of independent critical thinking skills; let alone of engaging in any form of civil debate. You discredit yourself and your cause with your juvenile arguments and dismissive comments.
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Real life example of how the government manipulates the media to frame the debate:
"During his syndicated radio show Friday, libtalker and MSNBC host Ed Schultz relayed to listeners how he observed 'Morning Joe' Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski take feedback directly from the White House during their program last week...
So Mika starts looking at her Blackberry and so does Scarborough and obviously the White House is texting them or emailing them or whatever and they didn't like the show. Because Arianna had been on there, I'm on there, Howard Dean had been on there and they wanted some balance.
Now think about that - here's the White House getting in contact with 'Morning Joe' because they're afraid there's too many lefties on the air(re: opposed to the Senate's Health Care Plan without a public option)! Now if that's not sensitivity at its highest level, I don't know what is! I told ya a few days ago they had rabbit ears! They don't like anything that's being said right now, they're getting beat up!"
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/20...
"Is it really possible that the White House has a direct line to MSNBC's hosts, communicating with them during their live broadcasts? Now THAT'S state control!
And do MSNBC staffers actually carry out the administration's commands? In this case, they certainly made room on short notice for a lengthy segment featuring Axelrod, there to rebut comments made by Howard Dean and other recent guests.
Now, imagine if Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, or another non-"progressive" host had been caught taking orders from Bush during the program. When would we ever hear the end of that?"
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Disturber, I realize you are really not posting for FightWoo's benefit. I have read your current, and past, posts on the issue of man-made global warming versus the reality of climate change. You have repeatedly shown their arguments to be simplistic, and hackneyed, regurgitations from the bible of man-made climate change against the sacrilege of those who question and dare to ask why and then go out a prove their posit. To them you are a denier. One to be ridiculed, harangued, and if the laws were written correctly...placed in a "rehab" center to be re-educated.
You are dealing with religious zealots, apparatchiks who will never see the wisdom in thoughtful balance.
Deflective sleight of hand is an art form but when attempted by someone who is but an intellectual child it is easily shown for what it is....just an annoyance. Like the prattle of a child crying for their milk. Keep writing as you do. It is a good read. Daniel Petry
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2009 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I apologize for missing that reference. Please don't mistake my familiarity with the players and arguments in this debate as parroting; the later are well known tactics and tired logical fallacies.
Njau is part of the solar cycle crowd. He attributes most of the current warming to solar activity. This avenue has been researched and is accounted for in most of the literature, but is still not fully established. (The 11 year solar cycle is the obvious reason we have experienced cooling over the last year.) Even the most generous (and likewise flawed) models only attribute half of the current warming trend to solar activity.
Here's an excellent summation of the relationship between temps and solar activity:
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustratio...
A bit old but good enough for laymans such as myself.
FightWoo (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2009 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fightwoo:
What people fail to take into account is that the IPCC 2007 report has shown CO2 to be caused by temperature changes, rather than the other way around. You are correct, however that: "The 11 year solar cycle is the obvious reason we have experienced cooling over the last year.) Even the most generous (and likewise flawed) models only attribute half of the current warming trend to solar activity." What you fail to report, however is that Njau shows that various other cosmic cycles account for almost all of the rest! -
Quoting from "© DIMaGB, HTML document,"If not greenhouse gases, what causes temperature/climate change? Well, whatever it is, the actual mechanism must relate to the Sun and the various cycles between the Sun, Earth and their movement through the Milky Way.
See (Figure 14): Are Solar Cycles, Cosmic Rays and Changes in Irradiance the Drivers of Temperatures and Climate Change?
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:...
"Well, bad news again for Climate disaster adherents: recent work by Ernest c. Njau establishes a close to zero "remainder" - for climate variation, if one accounts for:
*22 year cycle in the switch of the Solar polar fields: from North Pole to South Pole (eleventh year) and from South Pole back to the North Pole (22nd year).
* ~87 year cycle (~four times 22), a ~210 year cycle (~ ten times 22 year Solar polarity cycle), a ~1470 year cycle (~ seven (eight?) times ~210 year cycle).
* ~20,000 and ~40,000 year Milankovitch cycles resulting from the peculiarities of the Earth/Sun movements through the Milky Way, wherein the North and South regions of Earth "switch" the long summers/short winter cycles and the North pole points to Vega instead of Polaris.
* Beyond that the Antarctic ice core data indicate clearly a 100,000 year climate cycle for the last one million years
": Good news indeed, but one would not know it reading but the "Summary for Policy Makers" (i.e. the sources of further funding)."
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2009 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)
continued from above
the authors go on to summarize:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:...
-in fact the authors reference a Russian study (Peer reviewed article here: Klyashtorin und Lyubushin, 2003 Energy and Environment 14, 773-783) that predicts another mini Ice age beginning as soon as 4-9 years.
the authors conclude:
we do not know whether the world will continue to warm,
global temperatures these past ten years (since 1998) have not increased (Figure 11) and
the very IPCC projections buried in the Main Report indicate an approximation of the plotted temperature measurements to the flat, orange "zero CO2 increase" scenario without any such restrictions (Figures 6 and 7);
the preponderance of evidence indicates that temperatures are causing CO2 and other greenhouse gas changes rather than the reverse (at least for a complete record of 700,000 years by now; Figures 3 and 4);
global warming in fact leads us back to a better, more benign future such as we experienced over long periods in the past (Figures 18 and 19 among others);
Climate Change is caused by Solar activities and the movement of our Solar system through the Milky Way, with sometimes vast variations in cosmic ray impacts on Earth, over which we have no influence whatever (Figures 24 through 26);
A Little Ice Age with known negative effects on the environment, biodiversity and economic wellbeing may be around the corner (Figure 16); and
We cannot stop the melting of the ice, whatever we chose to do (Figure 17)
what is it then that we should be "precautionary" about and what mechanism
/measures should/can be implemented with any chance of success?
E.g., if the proposed measures of the IPCC were "effective", they might lead to a serious
aggravation of the next Little Ice Age, should the preponderance of the cyclical analyses
of Climate Change be correct, including the very graphs buried by the IPCC in the Main Report.
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2009 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How Wikipedia's green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles
"...As we now know from the Climategate Emails, this band saw the Medieval Warm Period as an enormous obstacle in their mission of spreading the word about global warming. If temperatures were warmer 1,000 years ago than today, the Climategate Emails explain in detail, their message that we now live in the warmest of all possible times would be undermined. As put by one band member, a Briton named Folland at the Hadley Centre, a Medieval Warm Period "dilutes the message rather significantly."
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/bl...
"...One person in the nine-member Realclimate.org team - U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley - would take on particularly crucial duties
...When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it - more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred - over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley's global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2009 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jam...
"...Get that? The guy (William Connolley) who has been writing Wikipedia's entry on Climategate (plus 5,000 others relating to "Climate Change") is the bosom buddy of the Climategate scientists
If this is true, it doesn't seem to have made much difference to his creative input on the Wikipedia's entries.
Here he is unless its just someone with an identical name busily sticking his oar in to entries on the Medieval Warm Period (again) and the deeply compromised, soon-to-be-leaving (let's hope) IPCC head Dr Rajendra Pachauri.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?...
And here he is again just three days ago, removing a mention of Climategate from Michael Mann's entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?t...
And here is an example of one of his Wikipedia chums name of Stephan Schulz helping to cover up for him by ensuring that no mention of that embarrassing Lawrence Solomon article (See above post) appears on Connolley's Wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wil...
And here he is deleting criticism of himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?t...
from William Connolley's own blog, "Stoat: Taking Science by the Throat:"
2005-12-19
Connolley (according to Jimbo Wales co-founder of Wikipedia) has done such amazing work:
Back to wikipedia: Nature has an article on wikipedia vs Britannica. It was an interesting exercise, and as the most notable climatologist on wiki they interviewed me, which lead to the sidebar article "Challenges of being a Wikipedian" (see the Nature article; click on the "challenges" link near the bottom). It contains the rather nice quote from Jimbo Wales (co-founder of Wikipedia) "Connolley has done such amazing work and has had to deal with a fair amount of nonsense" (does Lumo still read this?).
2006-01-16
Wikinews
A few snippets from wikipedia: I'm now an admin, and hence have ultimate power to CRUSH ALL MY ENEMIES HA HA HA HA!!! . Sadly no: the rules prohibit me from abusing my powers and there are always other people watching anyway. And not that I have too many enemies, Of Course. Some of the comments are interesting though: try the RFA, scroll down for the Opposes.
And I've just made my 10,000th edit. That slacker Lubos only has 2.3k, & Charles matthews has a feeble 54k.
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2009 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/22/b...
Custom Teddy bear manufacturer Build-A-Bear indoctrinates children by using Santa Claus to warn, "...that Christmas may be canceled this year due to Global Warming."
This dovetails nicely with my previous post re: The Scientific Manipulation of Our Reality
"Kids have been hit hard with propaganda not only on TV and movies but in the class rooms, as Bertrand put it; the public schools are a laboratory for shaping the perfect slave, they are converting young minds to accept the New World Order religion that is all about the regulation and the destruction of human life on earth."
http://noworldsystem.com/2009/12/14/t...
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Disturber, why are you granting these people a response forum.
The simple answer is - follow the money. Why is Al Gore now a multi-multi-millionaire? Simple. He and his cabal have created businesses that feed off the sale of carbon credits. Ever heard of the Chicago Climate Exchange that deals in carbon credits, or Hara, which stands to make billions on carbon trading software...all heavily supported or invested in by Gore.
Carbon is the basis of all life on Earth. Control carbon and you control the entire planet. You are taxed for just breathing...my god can you imagine the power that would give these fascists? Disastrous tyranny.
By going back and forth with these zealots you provide some validation to their premise - that man is responsible for global climate change. Balderdash!!
Now you have Gordon Brown calling for a world police force to enforce climate regulations. What next? Home monitors? Someone telling you what color car you can buy? Oh wait...Cali is trying to do that right now. Rewards given to your neighbors to inform on each other...oh wait a minute; didn't we have that trial balloon already foisted on us by the progressives? How do you like the hope and change...and isn't freedom wonderful?
If you dispute their religion all you get is a vomit of double speak references to wade through...make your point once and then stop giving them a response. Unless, of course, you love to just keep tweaking them in the nose. In that case...drive on. We'll take care of the rest. Daniel Petry
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2009 at 10:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)