• Obama fails climate science in his State of the Union address

    ‘Mr. President, acts of Congress, the UN or the EPA cannot alter storms or weather patterns’

    Written by Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

    The President offered up nothing more than the usual incorrect global warming platitudes during his speech. No wonder the speech brought a “smile” to Al Gore’s face. The president could not have been more wrong in claiming “extreme weather” was “now more frequent and intense” and he failed to note that global temperatures have not increased in 16 years. President Obama needs to be reminded that acts of Congress, the UN or the EPA cannot alter storms or weather patterns.

    Climate Depot’s Point-by-Point rebuttal:

    President Obama: ‘But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change’

    Climate Depot Reaction: Our children do not need politicians in Washington posturing and pretending they can control global temperatures and make storms less severe or less frequent. See: Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball: ‘Future generations will curse why we allowed a few political bullies to undermine development & progress with the false claim that human CO2 is causing climate change’ Future generations ‘will wonder how people could write such misinformed, hysterical, commentary.’

    MIT’s Dr. Lindzen: “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.’


    President Obama: ‘Yes, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15’

    Climate Depot Response: Obama is ignoring the climate elephant in the room. Global temperatures have essentially been flat lining for 16 years now. The halt in global temperatures has shown up in multiple data sets and peer-reviewed literature.

    NASA’s James Hansen Officially Admits Global Temperature Standstill Is Real: ‘Mean Global Temperature Has Been Flat For The Last Decade’

    Trying to cite “hottest year” claims as “proof” of man-made global warming is preposterous when you consider that such claims are purely political. — Even NASA’s Hansen admits ‘hottest year’ claims are ‘not particularly important’. German Prof. mocks ‘hottest decade’ claim as ‘a joke’ ‘Claims based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree’

    Top Swedish Climate Scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all

    What about Obama’s claim of “hottest decade”? See: German Climate Professor Werner Kirstein Slams ‘Climate Religion’: Refutes claims of ‘hottest decade’ as ‘a joke’ — ‘Determining a global avg. is a tricky business and in the end is only a theoretical value’


    President Obama: ‘Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense’

    Climate Depot Response: Sorry Mr. President, you are not entitled to your own set of facts. See: Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue: ‘Are climate scientists bothered that President’s speech on ‘extreme weather’ climate change doesn’t jive with the last IPCC SREX report?’

    Drought: Study: Drought Trends, Estimates Possibly Overstated Due To Inaccurate Science – Journal Nature study ‘suggests that there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years’ — ‘The major 2012 drought obscures the fact that U.S. has seen a decline in drought over past century’

    Floods: Prof. Pielke Jr. : ‘Are US Floods Increasing? The Answer is Still No’ — ‘A new paper out today shows flooding has not increased in U.S. over records of 85 to 127 years’

    All Of The World’s Deadliest Floods Occurred With CO2 Well Below 350 PPM — ‘We know that hurricanes have declined, tornadoes have declined, floods have declined, and droughts have declined. That is why history has been redefined to start in the 1970s’

    Heatwaves: EPA Say Heatwaves Much Worse in 1930’s: ‘Heat waves occurred with high frequency in the 1930s, and these remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record’:

    ‘According to USHCN (U.S. Historical Climatology Network) temperature records, the 1930s holds a wide lead for all-time daily record maximums in the U.S. There is zero evidence that ‘climate change’ has increased the probability of setting temperature records’

    40% Of U.S. All-Time Record Maximums Were Set During The 1930s

    Wildfires: ‘Wildfire numbers since 1950 have decreased globally by 15%’ — ‘According to the National Academy of Sciences, they will likely continue to decline until around midcentury’

    New paper finds wildfires in the western US are at the lowest levels in 3,000 years: ‘Finds current fire activity is at the lowest levels of the entire 3,000 year record’


    President Obama: ‘We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late.’

    Climate Depot Resonse: Superstorm Sandy linked to man-made global warming?! Please Mr. President, read up on science before you embarrass yourself. See: Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘Remarkably, the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest-ever recorded period with no strikes of a Category 3 or stronger hurricane’ “Sandy was terrible, but we’re currently in a relative hurricane ‘drought’,” Pielke Jr. explained..

    The scientific data does not support claims that Sandy was a “new normal.” See: Hurricane Facts: ‘According to NOAA, they have been on decline in US since the beginning of records in 19th century. The worst decade for major (category 3,4,5) hurricanes was 1940s’

    Scientist Martin Hoerling of NOAA on Sandy: ‘As to underlying causes, neither the frequency of tropical or extratropical cyclones over N. Atlantic are projected to appreciably change due to climate change’

    No Long-Term Trend in Frequency, Strength of Landfalling Hurricanes — A new study by Jessica Weinkle (U of Colorado), Ryan Maue (Naval Research Lab), & Roger Pielke, Jr.

    Prof. Richard Muller: ‘Hurricanes are not increasing due to human causes (actually, they have been decreasing over past 250 years).

    New Report: ‘Extreme Weather Report 2012’: ‘Latest peer-reviewed studies, data & analyses undermine claims that current weather is ‘unprecedented’ or a ‘new normal’ — Climate Depot’s New 35-Page Report: ‘Current weather is neither historically unprecedented, nor unusual’ — ‘Extreme weather events are ever present, and there is no evidence of systematic increases’ — Presented at UN Climate Conference in Doha, Qatar on Dec. 6, 2012

    Deaths from ‘extreme weather’ at their lowest since 1900

    The Decline in Deaths from Extreme Weather, 1900–2010: ‘Aggregate mortality attributed to all extreme weather events globally has declined by more than 90% since the 1920s’ — ‘…In spite of a four-fold rise in population and much more complete reporting of such events. The aggregate mortality rate declined by 98%’

    ‘A study published in 2011 in Geophysical Research Letters on causes of the 2010 Russian heat wave deduced that it ‘was due to internal atmospheric dynamical processes’ — Paging Al Gore: Peer-reviewed Study: ‘It is unlikely that the warming attributable to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations contributed significantly to the magnitude of the [Russian] heat wave’

    Climate Depot’s Morano on Fox News Mocking Gore’s ‘Climate Astrology’: ‘This is now akin to the predictions of Nostradamus or the Mayan calendar’ — Morano: ‘There is no way anyone can falsify the global warming theory now because any weather event that happens ‘proves’ their case…Man-made global warming has ceased to be a science, it is now the level of your daily horoscope’ — Gore [in 2006 film] did not warn us of extreme blizzards and record cold winters coming’

    Obama goes full witchcraft by telling voters they ‘can do something about’ droughts and floods and wildfires — Climate Depot Responds — Climate Depot’s Morano reminds voters: ‘Acts of the UN and the U.S. Congress or EPA, cannot control the weather’


    President Obama: Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late.’

    Climate Depot Response: ‘Act before it’s too late’ to stop storms?! See: Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘An argument that mitigation of ghgs makes sense in terms of decreasing the future costs of extreme events is not a strong one’ — ‘Even under the assumptions of IPCC, Stern Review, etc. the future costs of extreme events under the most aggressive scenarios of climate change actually decrease as a proportion of GDP’

    The ‘overwhelming judgment of science?” See: SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore


  • The carbon trading money tree

    When something is too good to be true, you should be hearing warning bells.

    written by Kelvin Kemm

    The COP-18 environmental conference held in Doha has come and gone. A result was that the Kyoto Protocol was extended, but only after bitter debate. It strikes me that the extension of the Kyoto Protocol was a case of countries not having the courage to stop it, and not actually knowing what to do next. So the easy way out was to just extend Kyoto and also promise the developing world lots and lots of dollars for ‘climate mitigation,’ which is a sort of apology from the first world for the accusation that they messed up the planet in the first place. Whether the billions of promised dollars will really appear is another matter.

    I picked up a South African magazine and read an article concerning carbon trading. The article headline was: “The Big C is a Money Tree.” There was a picture of a tree with hundreds of dollar bills hanging on the branches.

    In essence the article said that people can easily make loads of money in the carbon trading business. Much of the sentiment was correct.


    So alarm bells should be ringing. When it appears easy to make a lot of money from something simple then in all probability something is wrong. The economic rules which govern the world usually dictate that it is not easy to make a lot of money with not much effort.

    Consider the hamburger market. If it is easy to sell a large number of hamburgers and make a lot of money, then what happens is that a competitor joins the market, and another, and another. The result is that the quality of the hamburgers goes up and the price comes down. This is all because the natural competition forces the sellers to offer the best quality at the lowest price.

    If one of the hamburger sellers can’t make the grade they go out of business. None of the hamburger sellers really wants to be kind and sympathetic to the consumers, but they have no option but to be attentive to the customers or the else they just go to a competitor. Hamburger suppliers have to offer a good product at a good price to stay in business. So the basis of the hamburger business is good cooking and efficient meal production.

    So one can ask the question: what is the basis of the carbon trading business? Well it is buying or renting fresh air. Sounds dicey, doesn’t it?

    What happens is that if some company, say in Germany, wants to extend their factory, and they are going to have to produce carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the operation of the plant, they may find that they will exceed their CO2 emission quota.

    So then what they have to do is to come to a country like South Africa and look for some piece of land where they can plant some plants, to take CO2 out of the air, or they have to find some factory emitting CO2 and go there and implement some clean air technology to regularly remove some tons of CO2 from the factory’s emission. As soon as they, say, remove 10 tons of CO2 per day from some air in South Africa then they can put the same amount of CO2 back into the air in Germany, and hey presto, all is great because on balance the total CO2 that they emit into the air of the whole world balances out. Then the German company pays the South African company a lot of dollars per month to keep the South African air ‘clean’, so that the German company can put the ‘saved’ CO2 back into the air in Germany.

    So the basis of the carbon trading business is to rent clean air from somebody else.

    Therefore if you launch a major project to develop a new factory, and a significant part of the budget is carbon trading income, then don’t forget that renting clean air is part of the asset of the business.

    If the Kyoto Protocol collapses and the clean air requirement falls away then your investment blows away in a breeze…of ‘clean’ air.

    Many people would never build their new factory on a foundation of sand, but they are happy to build it on a foundation of air. I say: “Be careful.”
    If it turns out that man-made industrial CO2 is not leading to climate change then the whole carbon market could disappear faster than a puff of wind.

    Remember that measured CO2 concentration increase in the earth’s atmosphere over the last century, does not match global temperature increase very well; in fact a good correlation is distinctly absent. There is also a competing theory indicating that the sun’s magnetic influence on incoming cosmic radiation seems to match the observed temperature profile of the planet a lot better. This theory relates to varying cloud cover, influenced by the varying amount of incoming cosmic radiation.

    The carbon trading business seems too good to be true. Money trees are not common. Warning bells should be ringing.

    source: www.cfact.org

  • Sandy” – The political superstorm that devastated New York

    Incompetence, stupidity, diversion, blame shifting, and false solutions to imaginary problems

    Written by

    Bloomberg Hurricane Sandy“Superstorm” Sandy killed more than 100 people, destroyed thousands of homes and businesses, and left millions without food, water, electricity, sanitation or shelter for days or even weeks. Our thoughts and prayers remain focused on its victims, many of whom are still grieving as they struggle with the storm’s wintry aftermath and try to rebuild their lives.

    Unfortunately, too many politicians continue to use the storm to advance agendas, deflect blame for incompetence and mistakes, and obfuscate and magnify future risks from building and development projects that they have designed, promoted, permitted and profited from.

    Sandy was “unprecedented,” the result of “weather on steroids,” various “experts” insist. “It’s global warming, stupid,” intoned Bloomberg BusinessWeek. “Anyone who says there is not a change in weather patterns is denying reality,” New York Governor Andrew Cuomo declared. We must protect the great NY metropolis from rising oceans, said the Washington Post. This storm should “compel all elected leaders to take immediate action” on climate change, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg pronounced.

    Unfortunately for the politicians and spin-meisters, the facts do not support this obscene posturing.

    North America’s northeastern coast has been battered by hurricanes and other major storms throughout history. A 1775 hurricane killed 4,000 people in Newfoundland; an 1873 monster left 600 dead in Nova Scotia; others pummeled Canada’s Maritime Provinces in 1866, 1886, 1893, 1939, 1959, 1963 and 2003.

    Manhattan got pounded in 1667 and by the Great Storm of 1693. They were followed by more behemoths in 1788, 1821, 1893, 1944, 1954 and 1992. Other “confluences of severe weather events” brought killer storms like the four-day Great Blizzard of 1888. The 1893 storm largely eradicated Hog Island, and the 1938 “Long Island Express” hit LI as a category 3 hurricane with wind gusts up to 180 mph.

    Experts say such winds today would rip windows from skyscrapers and cause a deadly blizzard of flying glass, masonry, chairs, desks and other debris from high-rise offices and apartments. People would seek safety in subway tunnels, where they would drown as the tunnels flood.

    Sandy was merely the latest “confluence” (tropical storm, northeaster and full-moon high tide) to blast the New York-New Jersey area. It was never a matter of if, but only of when, such a storm would hit.

    People, planners and politicians should have been better prepared. Instead, we are feted with statements designed to dodge responsibility and culpability, by trying to blame global warming.  The reality is, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose to 391 ppm (0.0391%) today, average global temperatures have not changed in 16 years, and sea levels are rising no faster than in 1900. Even with Hurricane Sandy, November 2012 marked the quietest long-term hurricane period since the Civil War, with only one major hurricane strike on the US mainland in seven years. This is global warming and unprecedented weather on steroids?

    Hurrican Sandy NYIn Hurricane Sandy’s aftermath – with millions freezing hungry in dark devastation – Mayor Bloomberg sidetracked police and sanitation workers for the NYC Marathon, until public outrage forced him to reconsider. While federal emergency teams struggled to get water, food and gasoline to victims, companies, religious groups, charities, local citizens and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie worked tirelessly to raise money and organize countless relief efforts.

    Most outrageous of all, though, was how ill-prepared the region was for another major storm – and how many political decisions had virtually ensured that any repeat of the 1893, 1938, 1944 and other storms would bring devastation far worse than would likely have occurred in the absence of those decisions.

    In one of the most obvious, architects, city planners, mayors and governors alike thought nothing of placing generators in the basements of hospitals and skyscrapers built in areas that are barely above sea level. Past storms have brought surges12 to 18 feet high onto Long Island, and studies have warned that a category 3 direct hit could put much of New York City and its key infrastructure under 30 feet of water. Sandy’s 9-foot surges (plus five feet of high tide) flooded those basements, rendering generators useless, and leaving buildings cold and dark. Perhaps if Mayor Bloomberg had worried less about 32-oz sodas and seas that are rising a mere foot per century, he could have devoted more time to critical issues.

    The mayor has also obsessed about urban sprawl. However, when new developments mean high rents, high taxes and photo-op ground breakings, he has a different philosophy.

    Mr. Bloomberg’s Arverne by the Sea initiative transformed what he called “a swath of vacant land” into a “vibrant and growing oceanfront community,” with “affordable” homes starting at $559,000. (The land was vacant because a 1950 storm wiped it clean of structures.) The new homes were built on 167 acres of land raised five feet above the surrounding Far Rockaway area. Those Arverne homes mostly survived Sandy. But the high ground caused storm surges to rise higher and move faster elsewhere than they would have on Rockaway lowlands that are always hit head-on by northward moving storms.

    If Sandy had been a category 3 hurricane like its 1938 ancestor, the devastation would have been of biblical proportions – as winds, waves and surges slammed into expensive homes, businesses and high-rises, and roared up waterways rendered progressively narrower by hundreds of construction projects.

    Lower Manhattan has doubled in width over the centuries. World Trade Center construction alone contributed 1.2 million cubic yards to build Battery Park City, narrowing the Hudson River by another 700 feet. The East River has likewise been hemmed in, while other water channels have been completely filled. Buildings, malls and raised roadways constructed on former potato fields, forests, grasslands and marshlands have further constricted passageways for storm surges and runoff.

    As a result, storms like Sandy or the Long Island Express send monstrous volumes of water up ever more confined corridors. With nowhere else to go, the surges rise higher, travel faster and pack more power. It’s elementary physics – which governors, mayors, planners and developers ignore at their peril.

    No wonder, Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Cuomo and other politicos prefer to talk about global warming, rising seas and worsening weather – to deflect attention and blame from decisions that have put more people in the path of greater danger. Indeed, the very notion of packing more and more people into “sustainable, energy-efficient” coastal cities in the NY-NJ area is itself madness on steroids.

    Worst of all, politicians are increasingly and intentionally obscuring and misrepresenting the nature, frequency and severity of storm, flood and surge risks, so that they can promote and permit more construction in high-risk areas, and secure more money and power. They insist that they can prevent or control climate change and sea level rise, by regulating CO2 emission – while they ignore real, known dangers that have arisen before and will arise again, exacerbated by their politicized decisions.

    As a result, unsuspecting business and home owners continue to buy, build and rebuild in areas that are increasingly at risk from hurricanes, northeasters and “perfect storms” of natural and political events. And as the population density increases in this NY-NJ area, the ability to evacuate people plummets, especially when roadways, tunnels and other escape routes are submerged. Let the buyer beware.

    Sandy may have been a rare (but hardly unprecedented) confluence of weather events. But the political decisions and blame avoidance are an all-too-common confluence of human tendencies – worsened by the dogged determination of our ruling classes to acquire greater power and control, coupled with steadily declining transparency, accountability and liability.

    How nice it must be to have convenient scapegoats like “dangerous manmade global warming” and insurance companies – today’s equivalent of the witches whom our predecessors blamed for storms, droughts, crop failures, disease and destruction. It’s time to use the witches’ brooms to clean house.

  • Environmentalist power trips harm poor countries


    Commentary in “The Washington Times” written by:
    David Rothbard and Craig Rucker Tuesday, December 4, 2012

    Kyoto Protocol expiration won’t provide reality check


    Illustration Global Warming by John Camejo for The Washington Times

    Last summer’s Rio+20 Conference tried unsuccessfully to rivet global attention on the latest “urgent problem” of unsustainable development. This week, another United Nations five-star-hotel convention, in Doha, Qatar, is working overtime to revive climate alarmism as a “central organizing principle” for global governance.

    The strategies remain unchanged: There are treaties, laws, regulations and higher taxes for hydrocarbon energy, all under the direction of unelected, unaccountable fanatics who insist they are saving planet Earth from ecological collapse. The agenda is likewise the same: Slash hydrocarbon use, transfer wealth, regulate economic growth and control people’s lives.

    With the Kyoto Protocol set to expire at the end of December, Qatar conventioneers are determined to forge new international agreements in the face of numerous harsh realities.

    The United States never ratified Kyoto and is not bound by its dictates, and the country’s reduced economic and political stature make it harder to play a lead role in forging a new agreement. Canada, Japan and New Zealand will not participate in a new treaty. The European Union is drowning in debt and struggling under soaring renewable-energy costs that threaten families, jobs, companies and entire industries.

    China, Brazil, India, Indonesia and other emerging markets refuse to limit the use of fossil fuels they need to build their economies and lift millions out of poverty. They say industrialized nations must agree to further greenhouse gas reductions before they will consider doing so, and holding developing countries to developed-nation standards would be inequitable.

    Poor countries increasingly understand that carbon-dioxide emission restrictions will prevent them from expanding and subject them to control by environmental activists and U.N. regulators. They also realize that massive wealth transfers from formerly rich countries — for climate-change mitigation, adaptation and reparation — are increasingly unlikely and would go mostly to bureaucrats, autocrats and kleptocrats, with little trickling down to ordinary people.

    The scientific realities are equally bad for alarmists.

    Average planetary temperatures have not risen in 16 years, even as atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels have crept upward to 0.0391 percent (391 parts per million). While global-warming alarmists continue to say 2010 or, in the United States, 2012 was “the hottest on record,” actual data show that the difference between those and other allegedly “hottest years” is only a few hundredths of a degree. The 1930s still hold the record for the steamiest years in American history.

    NASA has conceded that Arctic sea-ice reductions during 2012 were caused mostly by enormous, long-lasting storms that broke up huge sections of the polar ice cap. Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice continues to expand, setting new records. The rate of sea-level rise has not been accelerating and actually may be decreasing, according to recent studies.

    Even with Hurricane Sandy, November 2012 marks the quietest long-term hurricane period since the Civil War, with only one major hurricane strike on the U.S. mainland in seven years. Large tornadoes also have fallen in frequency since the 1950s, and the 2012 season was the most peaceful on record. Only 12 tornadoes touched down in the United States in July 2012, says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shattering the July 1960 record low of 42.

    Alarmists insist that Sandy was “unprecedented” and “proof that climate change is real.” However, devastating hurricanes have struck New York, New Jersey and Canada’s Maritime Provinces many times over the centuries. Newfoundland’s deadliest hurricane killed 4,000 people in 1775, while Category 1 to 3 storms hit the provinces in 1866, 1873, 1886, 1893, 1939, 1959, 1963 and 2003. New York City was hammered by major storms in 1693, 1788, 1821, 1893, the 1938 “Long Island Express,” 1944 and 1954.

    Climate change is natural, normal, cyclical, frequent, unpredictable and sometimes catastrophic, as the Little Ice Age — lasting from the 16th century to the 19th century — certainly was for European civilization.

    These realities won’t stop the alarmists. There simply is too much money and power at stake. Tens of billions of dollars are transferred annually from taxpayers and energy users to eco-activists, scientists who hype climate disasters, regulators, carbon tax “investors” and renewable-energy and carbon-capture subsidy-seekers. They have every incentive to promote climate scares and attack anyone who voices skepticism about carbon-dioxide-driven climate-change catastrophes.

    Reality will not stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is preparing to impose new carbon-dioxide regulations. Nor will it stop Congress and the White House from viewing carbon taxes as a new source of revenue for funding stimulus and entitlement programs. That these actions would strangle our economy, kill millions of jobs and eradicate expected government revenues does not occur to them.

    The real danger is not climate change. With our economic and technological resources, we can adapt to almost any changes Mother Nature might throw at us — short of another glacial period that buries much of the world under a mile of ice.

    The real danger is treaties, laws, regulations and taxes imposed in the name of preventing global-warming catastrophes that exist only in computer models, horror movies and environmentalist press releases. These political schemes will exacerbate and perpetuate poverty, disease, unemployment and economic stagnation. That is neither just nor sustainable.

    Congress and the U.N. need to return to their founding principles, get serious about poverty alleviation and economic betterment for people everywhere and implement constructive solutions to the real problems that confront civilization.

    David Rothbard is president of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, where Craig Rucker is executive director.

  • 16 years without warming

    December 1, 2012 by Lord Christopher Monckton

    DELEGATES at the 18th annual UN climate gabfest at the dismal, echoing Doha conference center – one of the least exotic locations chosen for these rebarbatively repetitive exercises in pointlessness – have an Oops! problem.

    No, not the sand-flies. Not the questionable food. Not the near-record low attendance. The Oops! problem is this. For the past 16 of the 18-year series of annual hot-air sessions about hot air, the world’s hot air has not gotten hotter. There has been no global warming. At all. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.


    The equations of classical physics do not require the arrow of time to flow only forward. However, observation indicates this is what always happens. So tomorrow’s predicted warming that has not happened today cannot have caused yesterday’s superstorms, now, can it?

    That means They can’t even get away with claiming that tropical storm Sandy and other recent extreme-weather happenings were All Our Fault. After more than a decade and a half without any global warming at all, one does not need to be a climate scientist to know that global warming cannot have been to blame.

    Or, rather, one needs not to be a climate scientist. The wearisomely elaborate choreography of these yearly galah sessions has followed its usual course this time, with a spate of suspiciously-timed reports in the once-mainstream media solemnly recording that “Scientists Say” their predictions of doom are worse than ever. But the reports are no longer front-page news. The people have tuned out.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC), the grim, supranational bureaucracy that makes up turgid, multi-thousand-page climate assessments every five years, has not even been invited to Doha. Oversight or calculated insult? It’s your call.

    IPeCaC is about to churn out yet another futile tome. And how will its upcoming Fifth Assessment Report deal with the absence of global warming since a year after the Second Assessment report? Simple. The global-warming profiteers’ bible won’t mention it.

    There will be absolutely nothing about the embarrassing 16-year global-warming stasis in the thousands of pages of the new report. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.

    Instead, the report will hilariously suggest that up to 1.4 Cº of the 0.6 Cº global warming observed in the past 60 years was manmade.

    No, that is not a typesetting error. The new official meme will be that if it had not been for all those naughty emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases the world would have gotten up to 0.8 Cº cooler since the 1950s. Yeah, right.

    If you will believe that, as the Duke of Wellington used to say, you will believe anything.

    The smarter minds at the conference (all two of us) are beginning to ask what it was that the much-trumpeted “consensus” got wrong. The answer is that two-thirds of the warming predicted by the models is uneducated guesswork. The computer models assume that any warming causes further warming, by various “temperature feedbacks”.

    Trouble is, not one of the supposed feedbacks can be established reliably either by measurement or by theory. A growing body of scientists think feedbacks may even be net-negative, countervailing against the tiny direct warming from greenhouse gases rather than arbitrarily multiplying it by three to spin up a scare out of not a lot.


    IPeCaC’s official prediction in its First Assessment Report in 1990 was that the world would warm at a rate equivalent to 0.3 Cº/decade, or more than 0.6 Cº by now.

    But the real-world, measured outturn was 0.14 Cº/decade, and just 0.3 Cº in the quarter of a century since 1990: less than half of what the “consensus” had over-predicted.

    In 2008, the world’s “consensus” climate modelers wrote a paper saying ten years without global warming was to be expected (though their billion-dollar brains had somehow failed to predict it). They added that 15 years or more without global warming would establish a discrepancy between real-world observation and their X-boxes’ predictions. You will find their paper in NOAA’s State of the Climate Report for 2008.

    By the modelers’ own criterion, then, HAL has failed its most basic test – trying to predict how much global warming will happen.

    Yet Ms. Christina Figurehead, chief executive of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, says “centralization” of global governing power (in her hands, natch) is the solution. Solution to what?

    And what solution? Even if the world were to warm by 2.2 Cº this century (for IPeCaC will implicitly cut its central estimate from 2.8 Cº in the previous Assessment Report six years ago), it would be at least ten times cheaper and more cost-effective to adapt to warming’s consequences the day after tomorrow than to try to prevent it today.

    It is the do-nothing option that is scientifically sound and economically right. And nothing is precisely what 17 previous annual climate yatteramas have done. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.

    This year’s 18th yadayadathon will be no different. Perhaps it will be the last. In future, Ms. Figurehead, practice what you preach, cut out the carbon footprint from all those travel miles, go virtual, and hold your climate chatternooga chit-chats on FaceTwit.

  • Will Obama push the U.S. into a UN climate treaty?

    Will Obama commit the U.S. to a UN climate treaty?
    CFACT sends delegation to COP18,
    the UN Climate Summit in Qatar

    Will a reelected President Obama move the United States towards a new UN climate treaty by 2015?

    Both President Obama and Governor Romney avoided climate change whenever possible throughout the 2012 campaign. Yet on election night Obama declared, “we want our children to live in an America … that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.” President Obama’s renewed interest (now that he no longer must face the voters), set the stage for COP 18, the UN climate summit , taking place from November 26th to December 30th.

    Climate change is back on the agenda.

    “The Kyoto protocol expires in just over a month.” said CFACT Executive Director Craig Rucker. “UN climate chief Christiana Figures recently stated her goal of a ‘centralized’ transformation of world economies. Climate campaigners want to lock in and expand commitments to the “Green Climate Fund” of $100 billion per year. The UN wants the U.S. in a new treaty by 2015. Point after point indicate that this year’s climate summit could prove very important and this is grounds for real concern.”

    CFACT’s delegation will feature Lord Christopher Monckton who has mastered the intricacies of climate policy as few others have and communicates his findings in ways which always intrigue experts and laymen alike. Lord Monckton will be available in Qatar to all media.

    “The public needs to wake up to the serious damage that can come out of this UN conference in Qatar” Rucker said. “Billions are being wasted on climate change policies which will have no meaningful impact on the climate and the science supporting alarmist climate theories is also crumbling. The worst possible outcome would be to lock the U.S. and the world into treaties and agreements. Once we’re in, it will be almost impossible to get out.”

  • UN Trillion Dollar Green Climate Fund To Cost You

    Front and center at the UN climate talks in Doha, Qatar will be the “Green Climate Fund.” The fund, which is moving into a new headquarters in South Korea, is designed to transfer massive wealth from the developed to the developing world to fund mitigation and adaptation to climate change.

    Mitigation refers to efforts to reduce or absorb green house gas emissions while adaptation refers to efforts to cope with the effects of climate change.

    The developed world has promised to pay up for the “ravages” of warming being experienced in Africa, Asia and South America. Yet, data from the UK’s Met Office shows any global warming to have “flat lined” for 16 years and NOAA data (even if you ignore temperature station siting problems) shows only three quarters of a degree Celsius of warming since the 1880s. It is hard to ask an unbiased thinker to accept that the problems of the developing world have been caused by a questionable .74 degrees Celsius of warming, rather than bad government policies marred by corruption and absence of the rule of law.

    Should the developed world fork over trillions then, to satisfy computer climate models which have done a terrible job at explaining the present, leaving little reason to trust their ability to predict the future?

    The last few UN COP meetings resulted in commitments of $30 billion in “fast start” climate finance, however, developed world nations, reeling from weak economies, have been slow to provide actual cash grants. They often chose instead to weasel out of their commitments by attributing current activities they were undergoing in any event as satisfying their obligations.

    Developing nations and climate campaigners intend to use the Doha talks next week to nail down massive new commitments and hope to take control of the funding mechanisms and governance. They hope to double fast start commitments, but in any event intend to make the new Green Climate Fund entity in South Korea independent of oversight from the World Bank or other institutions.

    Green Climate Fund meetings have been taking place behind closed doors with little oversight. Once serious funding arrives there is real danger the Fund will deteriorate from its best case scenario — which is a massive waster of funds without measurable benefit,  into a massively wasteful UN slush fund.

    Climate campaigners and developing nations want the Fund to be financed by direct transfers of taxpayer dollars from developed world economies. They demand this in the name of equity — a way for developed nations to pay for the sin of having undergone the industrial revolution.

    The U.S. and other developed nations prefer to finance the Fund more through private finance. The Fund would likely then become a vehicle for further “green investment” exporting the Solyndra model to the developing world. Nonviable projects will be created, produce no benefits, often go bust, but always a politically favored few will grow rich.

    Huge numbers are in play. Already $100 billion per year is being called inadequate. $400 billion could be the new number with $1.5 trillion per year being estimated as the combined cost of mitigation and adaptation.

    Always follow the money if you want to gain a true understanding of international climate diplomacy. There is no reasonable limit to the amounts that the global warming industry demands. The Green Climate Fund already exists, with trillions of dollars in commitments already agreed to. What remains to be seen is whether the delegates in Doha can transform vague commitments into real and immediate pain for taxpayers. That is their intention.

    What is not on the table is the one rational and responsible solution – abolish the Green Climate Fund now, while the paint is still wet on the walls of the Fund’s South Korean offices and this new bureaucracy has not yet taken firm root. The Fund should be stopped now — before the infant grows into the monster it is destined to become.

  • Obama to UN climate negotiation

    Remember when Obama told Russian President Medvedev, “this is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility”? We fear he told climate campaigners the exact same thing.

    This is dangerous.

    After a campaign of near complete climate silence, America’s newly elected President vowed on election night that he wants “our children to live in an America that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.” President Obama’s reelection, leaving him free from ever facing the voters again, has breathed new life into the global warming movement.


    Climate campaigners, researchers and those seeking to cash in on billions in climate tax dollars and carbon trading schemes have been trying desperately to jump start talks on a successor to the expiring Kyoto protocol since the failure of COP 15 in Copenhagen. Will their worst wishes come true at last?

    Will President Obama listen to Al Gore and position the United States solidly behind a new UN climate treaty?

    The economies of the world are still reeling.

    Locking billions, indeed trillions of dollars into global warming policies which will have no meaningful effect on the climate is economic suicide.

    Yet this is the Obama administration which famously told us “you never let a serious crisis go to waste.” For them a crisis is for exploiting, not solving.

    The Kyoto protocol expires in just over a month leaving all sorts of climate schemes in the lurch.

    There’s HUGE money at stake.

    Carbon traders have lined up to sock away billions in bonuses and commissions for trading in a phony market. The European carbon trading system is on the verge of collapse, leaving would-be carbon traders and bureaucrats scrambling to guarantee funding. They will not give up their dreams of wealth without a fight. Neither will those cashing in on alternative energy scams, research grants and handouts to the dictators of the developing world.

    In addition, the $30 billion pledge of aid to the developing world made in Copenhagen three years ago also expires in 2012. This was a major topic at the just concluded preliminary talks in Bangkok. Renewing and expanding what the UN calls “climate finance” will be front and center in Doha. This poses a three-fold threat, these large sums serve to buy the support of developing nations, the funds make the developing nations and their elites dependent and of course the funds are a wasteful drain on the taxpayers of the developed world.

    The UN is taking no chances. It is simultaneously working towards a new international treaty, while hedging its bets through achieving many of its principle (and most destructive) goals through side agreements, massive funding and national policy making.


    The one thing we have going for us is the likely inability of a climate treaty to achieve ratification in the Senate — but will this constrain Obama? The answer seems a clear NO.

    President Obama’s EPA already has crippling regulations lined up and ready to go to give the UN’s climate campaigners by administrative fiat what they could not achieve through the open legislative process. The main threat is that Obama will cut side deals and agreements in Qatar and then bypass Congress and its vexing checks, balances and democratic process.

    Is there any limit to this President’s renewed hubris?

    Would he, could he dare to use this Qatar conference to set the stage to bind the United States to full blown UN climate treaty and then use brinksmanship to push it through this Senate or the next?

    A world in the grips of the fiercest economic crisis since the 1930s can not afford it. We must not permit Qatar to be the wellspring of new treaties, agreements, taxes, carbon markets or redistribution. Recovery for the United States and the world depends on stopping these bureaucrats and profiteers cold.

  • BBC abandoned balanced climate reporting

    In 2006, the BBC decided to stop providing balanced coverage of global warming science and policy after “a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts.”  UK blogger Tony Newbery  filed a freedom of information request to determine just who the 28 “best scientific experts” were.  The BBC refused to comply and went to great (and expensive) legal lengths to avoid the disclosure.

    The original Wayback Machine

    The internet, however, has a long memory.  A search of an internet “wayback” machine revealed the 28 names the BBC was hiding.  Surprise, surprise, the list revealed few “best scientific experts” no scientific experts skeptical of the global warming science and policy the BBC would choose to champion, numerous global warming campaigners and business people seeking to protect and expand taxpayer subsidies to their carbon and alternative energy schemes.

    Four senior representatives of the BBC, including BBC Director General George Entwistle,  who attended the 2006 meeting have just been disciplined or resigned from their posts at the BBC following a serious scandal which paints them not as neutral journalists reporting for a taxpayer funded news service, but as “ends justify the means” left-wing campaigners.  BBC Newsnight falsely reported that Lord McAlpine, who served as Treasurer of the Conservative Party and adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was involved in the North Wales child abuse scandal.  The charges, which have proven false, were made by the BBC without ever contacting Lord McAlpine to hear his side of the story — apparently, a sad pattern at the BBC.  This has left many asking whether these BBC officials were so filled with disdain for Baroness Thatcher that they rushed onto the air a story which would damage her legacy.

    Similarly, were these BBC officials so enamored of the goals of radical global warming advocates to implement their agenda by stifling all question and debate, that they rushed the BBC into its policy of only reporting one side of this expensive and controversial set of policies?

    Consider Christopher Booker’s report The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

    The “Guido Fawkes” blog released the following 28 names as those who counseled the BBC to abandon impartial journalism on climate.   Judge for yourself:

    Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
    Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
    Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
    Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
    Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
    Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
    Trevor Evans, US Embassy
    Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
    Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
    Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
    Claire Foster, Church of England
    Saleemul Huq, IIED
    Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
    Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
    Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
    Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
    Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
    Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
    Matthew Farrow, CBI
    Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
    Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
    Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
    Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
    Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
    Joe Smith, The Open University
    Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
    Anita Neville, E3G
    Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
    Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
    Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia

  • Is the carbon tax the death of democracy? (from Australia)

    By Kate Johnston

    [NOTE:  This article includes an interview with eminent scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the CFACT Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors.]

    On July 1st 2012, Australia joined nations around the world in their move towards a carbon economy through the implementation of a Carbon Tax, which will become an Emissions Trading Scheme in 2015. Yet the underpinning justification for this move, the science behind man-made global warming, is not even close to being settled.

    In fact, an increasingly large body of scientists and researchers are telling us the exact opposite of what the United Nations and governments around the world would have us believe. It is now evident that the science behind man-made global warming that dictates government policy is false, manipulated and corrupt and exists solely to meet a pre-determined political agenda whilst attempting to pass it off as credible science.

    Central to this article is the role of the United Nations. Their treaties, summits and bodies have been responsible for providing the framework and political will that has moved the ‘environmental movement’ to where it is today.

    This article seeks to go into more depth into current day science which overwhelmingly suggests that global warming is not caused by human Carbon Dioxide emissions. Furthermore, I will outline the role of key players on the international stage that have worked tirelessly to convince us otherwise.

    Finally, I will begin to look in more depth at what the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is and where it actually originated. As the article progresses it will become clearer that the Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading Scheme do absolutely nothing for the environment.

    Given this is the pretext used by governments for introducing carbon economy, I will attempt to convey some deeper social, political and economic influences at work here. In doing so, I hope to assist in understanding the reasons why we are moving towards a carbon economy and how this global movement abolishes our inalienable rights as human beings and basic freedoms – most of which many of us take for granted.

    United Nations Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC)

    According to the UN IPCC’s website “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.”

    The UN IPCC’s findings are directly responsible for government policy being implemented around the world and this is carried out through four assessment reports produced in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007. There are currently 192 countries signed up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – an important international framework that commits governments to tackle climate change through a reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions. There are 194 recognised countries in the world.

    Despite its global dominance, overwhelming evidence suggests that these powerful assessment reports that dictate policy and are directly responsible for the introduction of the Carbon Tax are false and full of misinformation. How is it that such a powerful tool as the United Nations with immense influence over world governments was able to progress so far in an agenda that was based on lies?

    Key Players: Maurice Strong, Al Gore, and the Chicago Climate Exchange

    One name that constantly comes up in regards to the global ‘environmental movement’ (Climate Change Industry) is Maurice Strong. Strong has been driving the climate change bandwagon since its origins back in the 70′s. Having made his fortune in oil, Maurice became very involved with the United Nations and headed many programs and summits on climate change.

    Maurice Strong fled to China in 2006 after being implicated in a million dollar bribe to himself involving the Oil for Food Program. He has been there ever since and is still very active in the ‘environmental movement’ and Chinese politics.

    To further understand how we got ourselves to where we are today, we have to understand where the myth of man-made global warming really gained traction. Al Gore’s book and ‘documentary’ – An Inconvenient Truth – was a hit worldwide, it even received not one but two Oscars! Reminds me of when Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize – what a joke!

    Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, was highly successful in instilling fear around the world that imminent climate cataclysmic events would soon follow all because of human produced Carbon Dioxide. The documentary spread like wild fire and found its way into classrooms across America. The fate of humanity was sealed; disaster would fall upon us and entire cities would be under water, unless, we acted now.

    So what else do these two powerful men have in common besides being strong proponents behind the ‘environmental movement’? It’s called The Chicago Climate Exchange and it is North America’s sole carbon exchange centre (think stock market). Yes, that’s right these men are raking in massive profits from the global Emissions Trading Scheme.

    Conflict of interest? I think so! The same men that sold us the myth of man-made global warming are the same men that sold us the ‘solution’ of a Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading Scheme and now they’re profiting off their lucrative investments which are based on lies.

    Dr. Vincent Gray: senior climate skeptic and UN IPCC expert reviewer

    Dr. Vincent Gray is an internationally eminent retired scientist with a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Cambridge, who enjoyed a long career as a coal industry researcher before spending the last 22 years of his life in climate science. He lives off his pension and receives no funding for his climate research work, hence his interest in the climate debate is not influenced by any financial ties or interests.

    He has published hundreds of scientific papers spanning many topics with several on climate appearing in peer-reviewed publications. But due to the institutional corruption and politicisation surrounding the Climate Change debate, much of his work is censored. He also authored two books: The Climate Change Delusion and Confessions of a Climate Skeptic.

    Dr Vincent Gray is an expert reviewer of all four UN IPCC assessment reports and is responsible for thousands of comments on the reports – most of which were ignored. The blatant disregard of contrary scientific findings by the UN IPCC conveys the UN IPCC political agenda at the expense of the science. Dr Vincent Gray’s comments were not peer-reviewed — an essential method used in the science world to ensure consensus and accurate scientific findings.

    In an interview with Dr. Vincent Gray, I asked him about the UN IPCC’s credibility and track record.  Among his comments:

    The 1992 Rio Conference endorsed a legally binding definition of ‘Climate Change’  that the climate is largely controlled by human-produced trace gases…. They wished to show that the globe is warming, but this cannot be done as it is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth.

    I delved further, questioning the system that governs the Climate Change Industry where Dr Vincent provided some further interesting insights:

    The whole system is supported, supervised and financed by the governments who signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change….  They intimidated editors of scientific journals to control the ‘peer review’ process in their favour…. They took control of many university departments, National science organisations and media outlets…. People who tell the truth are intimidated.

    Dr Vincent’s comments on the UN IPCC reports conveys the inherent institutional corruption that occurred allowing inaccurate science of ‘man-made global warming’ to infiltrate society’s perceptions thus forming the foundation of government policy.

    Science – The Facts

    The next section of this article will be concerned with the science underpinning man-made global warming, specifically human Carbon Dioxide emissions and whether or not humans are responsible for a rise in temperatures, Global Warming and/or Climate Change.

    This key point is at the heart of the entire debate because it is on this false and misleading science that a global re-structuring of the economy, politics and society as we know it is occurring. So if the science that justifies the Carbon Tax, Emissions Trading Scheme and other massive global transformations are in fact based on lies, wouldn’t you like to know?

    Firstly, the world hasn’t actually been warming since 1998 — it’s been cooling. This explains why ‘Global Warming’ has been re-branded as ‘Climate Change’.  UN IPCC’s underpinning science purports that a rise in man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions is responsible for a rise in temperature, but this simply isn’t true. It is the other way around. It is temperatures that dictate Carbon Dioxide levels. Dr. Tim Ball, a prominent speaker on Climate change and climate skeptic, outlines this in a radio interview with Alan Jones:

    UN IPCC temperature data, from which their conclusions on man-made global warming are drawn, is fundamentally flawed for several reasons. The data is taken from weather stations from around the world and then assembled into computer models which frame our understanding of global warming today. Yet in 1990 when over 6000 weather stations worldwide were being used, three quarters dropped out, which left a clear bias towards warmer temperature recordings from the remaining active weather stations.*

    [*NOTE:  In Australia alone, hundreds of weather stations were eliminated from the GISS network in the 1990’s, though most are still operating today.   The UN IPCC uses data from only one mainland rural Australian site that has continuous data from 1930. (Source: Watts Up With That?)]

    This suggests that the recent warming that we know of is connected to the methods of recording and not an actual increase in temperature. More details about how this crucial data is flawed can be found within this report from Science and Public Policy.

    Dr. Vincent Courtillot, Professor of Geophysics at University Paris Diderot, formed a research group with other established scientists from around Europe to determine the cause of temperature fluctuation. After requesting UN IPCC’s data that forms their theory of man-made Global Warming, he was denied; therefore he and his group had to re-collate the data independently.

    His research found that temperature change is determined solely by Solar activity. Yes, that’s right!  The sun dictates temperature, not Carbon Dioxide levels, of which humans have a minuscule influence compared to what is produced naturally by nature. Their scientific findings are well documented and are available on YouTube.

    And what about the global rise in sea levels devastating coastal cities around the world? Well science around the world shows no change in Global Sea levels, with Tidal Gauge stations recording an average of 18cm Global Sea Level Rise every century with no variation recorded during increased temperatures. That’s 1.8mm a year.

    This information can be viewed from a joint report by the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change, a consortium of independent scientists established to analyse published and peer-reviewed literature available on global warming from around the world producing a report that directly responds to the UN IPCC’s reports. Another excellent research paper on sea level rise around the world is available at www.galileomovement.com.au.

    A 1000 international Scientists who dissent and disagree with man-made global warming speak out in the Climate Depot Report. One scientist, Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center said:  “Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!”

    The information is available for anyone to read. We have been lied to. Global warming is a scam. But why has the United Nations gone to such great lengths to have us believe otherwise? Is an Emissions Trading Scheme so important? Or is there something else going on?

    The carbon tax and emissions trading scheme

    The initial step of the Carbon Tax in the move towards a Carbon Economy is underway [in Australia and elsewhere]. If left unchallenged, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will be introduced in 2015 paving the way for the new Global Carbon Economy. This integrated global economic system is based on trading and control of carbon emissions.

    This is how it works.  Companies are designated with an amount of carbon credits in line with the government’s cap of carbon emissions that they’re allowed to emit. Companies that emit less are left with carbon credits which can be sold for a profit. Alternatively, if they use all their credits they purchase more carbon credits from companies around the world on the carbon exchange market.

    The idea is to give an economic incentive to polluters to reduce their carbon footprint. As the world moves closer to their goal of reducing emissions as outlined at the United Nations Kyoto protocol, we are told that we are helping the environment by limiting pollution. But again, the incentive for polluters only occurs if it is profitable.

    There is much criticism about the effectiveness of this system where it is currently implemented in Europe and has nothing short of failed. Fraud and corruption are rife and emissions have not yet been reduced – and even if they were it wouldn’t actually have any effect on the climate change anyway!

    Eventually the Emissions Trading Scheme and carbon credits will be transferred to individuals in the form of a carbon card, much like a credit card we use today only it is for our energy consumption. Individuals will be designated with an annual carbon allowance to meet their energy, fuel and travel needs. The concept remains the same as the Emissions Trading Scheme, only the individual is designated carbon credits to be exchanged on the Carbon Stock Exchange markets.

    Plans in the UK for the carbon trading credit cards are well underway and will follow around the world soon enough. As nations attempt to meet their emission reduction goals, individual carbon allowances will also be capped and decrease over time.

    This system of carbon trading and carbon economy is in the hands of the major banks such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan. Personally, I don’t feel too good about handing over the reigns of control of many aspects of my life to be regulated by the banks and governments. How do you feel about that?

    Social transformation

    As we slowly move into a carbon currency, we replace our current price based system with one that deals with energy, which will essentially lead to a cashless society. We are already seeing this happening voluntarily around the world. As people increasingly start to use their credit cards for all their transactions, money in circulation will eventually be replaced with purely electronic transactions and energy allowances or individual carbon credits.

    This was on the Bilderberg 2012′s Agenda with the move towards electronic I.D. cards already happening – an essential step towards a cashless society. Every detail about us is recorded on these cards through micro chip technology. But keep in mind, individuals in a cashless society hands over all their rights to the government and banks that control the system.

    Another worrying aspect of the ‘environmental movement’ in the name of ‘saving the planet’ is the United Nations’ Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development, adopted by more than 178 governments around the world at the United Nations Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

    Agenda 21 is a detailed global action plan already adopted and being implemented by governments around the world which openly calls for population reduction, abolition of property rights and a complete re-structuring of populations around the world into high-volume smart cities.

    This is not a joke; it is a United Nations international treaty and a working document that governments are already implementing on both national and local level. I will dedicate an entire article to this issue in the coming weeks.

    The coming age of Technocracy

    But probably of most interest about the Emissions Trading Scheme and the move towards a carbon economy is its startling parallels with Technocracy. Technocracy is a social movement and alternative political system that gained quite a bit of traction in the US in the 1930′s during the Great Depression.

    Technocracy is a social, economic and political system based on individual’s energy consumption and is controlled wholly by experts and scientists – not elected leaders like the system we live in today. Instead of people being rewarded with money for their work, they would be given energy allowances.

    One key aspect of Technocracy is the Energy Distribution Card. Sounds familiar? Well it should, the idea is being rolled out around the world now all in the name of fighting man-made global warming yet the idea originated long before man-made global warming even existed. Are we moving towards a Technocratic society?

    Central to Technocracy is a system that allows for the measurement of energy consumption of both individuals and households. The political system cannot be implemented otherwise. This may sounds familiar to some of you as the Smart Grid and Smart Meters currently being rolled out around the world.

    This technology is being hooked up to households around the world and infrastructure is being designed that will allow Smart Grids to be integrated into a much larger global system of measuring energy production and consumption.

    A brilliant question by Patrick Wood: “Who is orchestrating this?”

    So now what?

    All of the ‘solutions’ I have outlined in this article are being sold to the world via media and education in the name of ‘saving the environment’. But the very same entities responsible for creating the ‘solutions’, are the ones responsible for the problem to begin with and pose a serious threat towards truly sustainable solutions.

    The state of technology and resources existing today to transform our society towards a truly sustainable global community are infinite. All that stands in our way are the political, economic and social systems currently in place. But we must remember that they only exist because we allow them too.

    One way or another a fundamental transformation of our global society is underway. The only question we need ask ourselves is do we want to be a part of the alternative and co-create a sustainable global community together? Or do we want to let the bankers, politicians and technocrats do it for us under the guise of ‘sustainability’ whilst moving towards a world where every aspect of our lives are governed and controlled.

    Freedom as we know it will no longer exist and along with our freedom will go the mechanisms that are now available to us to protect it.

    Things are moving fast, faster than we can comprehend. It’s time to make your choice. By doing nothing, you are complicit to their plan. By remaining indifferent you allow this repressive and controlling global system to be built right in front of your very eyes.

    But by saying no, educating yourself and beginning to actively participate in opposing this system you make room for the new fair, equal and just paradigm. A world to be built by the collective, by all of us. An alternative system that we can all be proud to call our own. We don’t have much time left, we must act and we must act now.

    Kate Johnston is an activist and writer originally from Melbourne, Australia.