Godfrey Bloom

It’s not the planet that’s heating up – it’s the climate debate. Over the last few months, the climate change alarmists have suffered blow after blow to their credibility. It’s hard to keep up with all the developments that have been turning green faces red. For my readers who don’t have the time to follow the debate closely, here is my recap of the current stories that are changing the landscape.

Climategate

There is speculation about whether it was a hacker covertly employed by the Russian government, or simply an employee-turned-whistleblower. Whoever the individual was, he or she released into the public domain thousands of emails sent over the last decade or so, to and from climate scientists working at the Climate Research Unit (CRU).

What the hacked or leaked emails and data revealed was the contempt that many of the UK’s most senior climate scientists seemed to have had for unbiased, open, and honest science. They had attempted to hide inconvenient data. They had discussed strategies for preventing their methods being released to the people who rightfully expected to inspect them. They did this knowing that their work would be used to create climate policies all over the world.

Everything you need to know about Climategate, including many links to further discussions is available from the outstanding blogger, and retired meteorologist, Anthony Watts. A chronological list of his articles on the affair is kept here

If you want to see for yourself what the emails said, there is a searchable index of them at the East Anglia Emails website

Copenhagen Failure

The failure of the COP15 conference in December will not be a moment in history that will be remembered. Nobody will ask “where were you when Copenhagen failed?” The great global warming scare died with a whimper, not with a bang. It’s pathetic corpse lies twitching in Denmark, with those trying to revive it pointing their fingers at those they suspect of committing its murder. It’s a big Whodunit?

I was there, of course. And I had motive. But I was just one of many thousands of individuals, each of whom played their own part in the death of the Copenhagen deal. Funnily enough, it was those who wanted it to thrive who contributed most to it being finally bumped it off. It was the naked self-interest, the politicking, posturing, bribing, corruption and scientific fraud perpetrated by each of them which finally saw for this monster. It couldn’t bear the weight of expectations that it had been burdened with.

The conference was intended to produce a successor to the earlier Kyoto Protocol, which was created in 1997. The intention – in both cases – was to establish a legally binding agreement between all countries that each would do their bit to cut their CO2 emissions. That deal failed, because it was transparently an attempt on behalf of the EU to impose absurd restrictions on the USA. But Australia, Russia, and other countries also refused to play, at various points.

The latest development in this story is that the final attempt forged at the end of the conference, which asked countries to submit their pledges by the end of this month – has been quietly dropped. The Guardian reveals that

Yvo de Boer, UN climate change chief, today changed the original date set at last month's fractious Copenhagen climate summit, saying that it was now a "soft" deadline, which countries could sign up to when they chose. "I do not expect everyone to meet the deadline. Countries are not being asked if they want to adhere… but to indicate if they want to be associated [with the Copenhagen accord].

Only 20 countries have signed up to this non-binding non-deal. In other news, some turkeys have voted for Christmas 2010.

The IPCC Chair and his interests

As you probably know, the UN’s IPCC (the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change) is intended to produce policy-neutral assessments of the best research into climate in reports that are used to inform policymakers, throughout the world. But recently, questions have been asked about the neutrality of IPCC Chairman, Rajendra K. Pachauri.

Here is my UKIP colleague, Paul Nuttal MEP, outlining the problem to a hostile Baroso.

In case you didn’t catch it, Pachauri appears to have an interest in a company that is shutting down its UK operation, to move to the east, because emissions trading rules mean that by doing so, it will actually turn a huge profit. This stinks. Jobs are lost because the EU wants to move any carbon-emitting company out of Europe. Not only will this have no effect on carbon emissions – the plant is merely relocating – YOU will be paying for Tata to receive money for nothing, and you will be paying for the unemployment benefits that the sacked employees will be claiming.

Christopher Booker picks up the story in the Telegraph.

He may not benefit in any way personally from Tata's exploitation of the various carbon trading schemes set up to implement the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, but it is the IPCC which provides the recommendations which drive those schemes, Last year, on official figures, buying and selling the right to emit CO2 was worth $126 billion across the world. This market, now enriching many of our leading financial institutions (not to mention Al Gore), is growing so fast that within a few years it is predicted to be worth trillions, making carbon the most valuable traded commodity in the world.

Booker continues to explore Pachauri’s interest in bigging up the climate scare.

12 Dec - What links the Copenhagen conference with the steelworks closing in Redcar?
20 Dec - Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri

26 Dec - The questions Dr Pachauri still has to answer

17 Jan - The curious case of the expanding environmental group with falling income

Bogus Science and Himalayan Glaciers

The IPCC had reported that the Himalayan glaciers would likely have dried up by the year 2035. The implication was stark: we had just 25 years to find a way of providing hundreds of millions of people with potable water.

But the claim – reported as scientific fact – turned out to be groundless. The IPCC had taken their statistic from a World Wildlife Fund report, which had cited a New Scientist article from 1997. The article, by climate alarmist/activist/journalist, Fred Pearce was based on telephone interview with a scientist whose views were well out of kilter with the vast majority of glaciologists.

This has raised many questions about the credibility of the IPCC, and its ability to produce sound scientific statements. As Anthony Watts reports, the IPCC had to issue a statement, in an attempt to save face:

It has, however, recently come to our attention that a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the underlying assessment2 refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly. The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance. This episode demonstrates that the quality of the assessment depends on absolute adherence to the IPCC standards, including thorough review of “the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report” 3. We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance.

The IPCC claim that its reports are nonetheless ‘robust’. We’ll see about that. Watch this space...

So there you have it – the four hottest stories in the climate change debate. Each of these is damaging in their own right. Together they are a severe blow to the entire climate change scam – the profiteers, posers, frauds and thieves that have sought to make comfortable lives out of this little trick will have to work much harder over the coming months and years to continue to cash in.

But let’s not celebrate prematurely. This beast has not yet been put down. The coup-de-grace that finally ends the nonsense that has sent taxes, fuel bills, and prices upwards, and jobs and freedoms downwards, has not yet been delivered.

It will require considerable effort to banish this nonsense and its wind farms from our shores, and to see a viable energy policy, a meaningful policy for economic growth, and jobs returning.

You can help. Only you can help. Spread the word. Use blogs. Make comments. Send emails. There’s a big election coming up. Harass the people who are, and who want to be your MP, MEPs, and local councillors. Say that you’re not buying any of this nonsense any more, and that you know it is a stinking ruse to put cash and power into the hands of political elites, corrupt officials, rent-seekers, and bent scientists. Democracy is not yet dead...

Write comment
Name:
Email:
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

!joomlacomment 4.0 Copyright (C) 2009 Compojoom.com . All rights reserved."