COP15 officially begins today and with it,  56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice (against Climate Change) through a common editorial running on all their papers.

And so we begin. With the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit taking place this week, my attention is squarely on climate change and taking the fast-track to a more sustainable future. I’ll share some recommended resources this week on the blog, twitter and Planeta.com.

Here’s something that caught my eye: an editorial calling for action from world leaders on climate change was published today by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages. (Thank, C!)

Great, right? Sorta. What would have been cooler (sorry, bad pun) would be if the project had been developed with openness and transparency. The Guardian has a blog which accepts comments, but that’s a nice touch after the fact. For this to be a bigger wow – in terms of making use of current technologies and putting into practice collaborative work, it would be good to see process. Use Web 2.0: Make it a wiki. If you want to limit the writers, that’s fine, but make the process open.

Calling for direct action, here’s your turn! We are seeking climate art, reports, posters in World Climate, a group on Flickr.

Ottawa Citizen - Steven McIntyre

The Ottawa Citizen has an interesting story on Steven McIntyre today:

‘M and M’ stick in craw of climate-change crew

It is a very informative background piece for those who may not have followed McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit.

In case you missed it:  The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England had their computer servers illegally trespassed upon and data from their servers stolen by climate change deniers who then cherry picked 13 years worth of data and fed it to their friends in the media who have reported information with zero context in order to create a story.

A textbook example of this comes from the Washington Times, owned by wacko cult leader Sun Myung Moon. From an editorial printed on the 24th:

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline [in temperature].”

Showing that what they are accusing the CRU researchers of doing is all in a days work at the Times, the editorial omits the date of the email and any context as to what the two researchers were studying. Thus, the Times makes it seem as if the researchers are hiding some current evidence of global cooling.

The fact is, this email is from 1999 and the “decline” mentioned was decline in reliable proxy data from tree rings. From RealClimate.org:

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Indeed, “Keith’s” data is the data of paleoclimatologist Keith Briffa, who is well known for his research on using tree rings as a proxy for climate change. From the NOAA summary of his study on tree rings from 1998:

The authors were able to compare (or calibrate) their density records directly against instrumental data; note that the tree-ring density records become de-coupled from temperature after 1950, possibly due to some large-scale human influence that caused wood densities to decline. Thus, the reconstructed temperature record after 1960 is considered unreliable.

So the quote:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

In context means that the author, Dr. Jones was adding instrumental data to the graphic representation, which became known as the “Hockey Stick,” after 1961, when Keith Briffa recommends that his data on tree rings is no longer useful.

But that quote isn’t what the Times printed anyway. They printed a mangled version with the specifics taken out to push an agenda. They are the ones who hid data from readers.

The leaked (or stolen) climate change emails are more disappointing than surprising to me.  See this Washington Post article, In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes:

In another [e-mail], [Phil] Jones and [Michael E.] Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.

“There’s an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors,” he said. “They’re saying, ‘If you print anything by this group, we won’t send you any papers.’”

I’ve encountered bullies like this, and it sucks.  But I agree with Jeff Id of the Air Vent that the e-mails really pale in comparison to the kind of stuff that’s aired publicly.  In “Baby Steps” he writes:

If you are new and have a technical background (of any sort) and you read the hockey stick posts you’ll be asking yourself why the insanity of this can get through peer review and why it’s not a front page story on the New York Times. In my opinion it makes the emails look like child’s play. What’s more is that the hockey stick creators make one method after another which provide similar distortions of the data and FALSE temperature curves. In my opinion, ANY, statistician would say the same thing. — Several have.

These new emails do not provide any huge revelation of collusion, we already knew about that. They don’t provide any smoking gun proving intentional corruption of data for a conclusion (although the Jones quote was good enough for me). They don’t have any proof of making a conclusion in exchange for money or proof of changing a conclusion for personal benefit. I don’t know about you, but I didn’t expect any of that. The mechanism of reward for certain results is exactly what some of us expected it to be.

What the emails show is that there is some good science going on. There are some quality open discussions in them for sure. What they also show however, is a pattern of elimination of dissenting views. They show an advocacy by some ’scientists’ which belies scientific credibility. These few names are universally limited to the top people in the field — think about what that means. These are the ones who actively work to make sure that dissent is unpublished and are often the loudest in public to discredit others. Mann (creator of the bogus Al Gore hockey stick) seems to be the worst offender along these lines but he clearly has a circle of trusted friends. Finally, these files show a lot of money involved in the industry. Big dollars are in play with big travel budgets, prestige and a lot of power for those who follow the main player’s lead.

I think the distortions that are occurring in public view are the most frightening, along with the marginalization of anyone who disagrees.  You don’t have to invade some scientist’s privacy to find accusations that dissenters are oil company shills and the like.  Left-feminists seem particularly amnesiac, with their apparent willingness to repeat terms like “denialist.”  It seems they have already forgotten about the hurtfulness of the epithet “feminazi,” and are perfectly willing to appropriate the tactic of mindlessly smearing, rather than engaging with, anyone they disagree with.  Comparing or linking your ideological opponents to Nazis is a cheap tactic intended to shut down serious debate, particularly when the topic of debate was never practiced by the Nazis (it’s one thing, however misleading, to point out that Hitler was in fact a vegetarian, or that the National Socialists wanted universal healthcare; it’s another to link them to practices they simply have no meaningful association with, like contemporary feminism or climate science.)

Essentially:  the e-mails are bad, but I hear worse things in supposedly polite conversation.  Also, like Real Climate, I can’t endorse a criminal invasion of privacy.  But, like many others, I’m willing to bend my principles if the New York Times does it first.

Update: this weekend the National Department of Commerce “strongly opposes” taking action on Climate Change. Mr. Donahue said that the bill was a “job-killer” and a “regulatory nightmare,” and classified the vote as crucial with determining who it would endorse for Congressional elections next year. With 18 full-time lobbyists telling leaders this in Washington, who’s going to go out of their way to question that authority?

The policy response: strong incentives to develop a clean technology sector. Government deficit-spending can encourage real production growth in the economy, as shown in New Deal in the thirties. A green jobs potentials report shows growth across all sectors breaks down like this:
—about 490,000 (65 percent) are in engineering, legal, research, consulting, or government administration sectors;
– about 197,000 (26 percent) are in renewable power generation, construction, systems installation, and manufacturing sectors.

America needs these jobs. Download this fact sheet (pdf). Massachusetts will gain 38,410 new clean energy jobs from The American Clean Energy and Security Act, or spend 4.5b to oil and adaptation in the next ten years if it doesn’t pass. (not to mention the loss of the fishing sector). MA fact sheet: The Economics of Clean Energy.
Carbon tax as uncompetitive? Just the unsustainable businesses which are harming our planet. Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act as a start to a new economy. Thank you.

So, to Mr. Donahue:
Reorienting our antiquated energy infrastructure around the platforms of sustainability, efficiency, and reduced greenhouse emissions represents an economic engine for innovation, productivity growth, and international competitiveness in coming decades.

Senator Kerry, stay strong! Know in Copenagen that we
support you. (please click!)

New York Times Article on Green Jobs: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/business/businessspecial2/26collar.html
New York Times Article on Chamber of Commerce Decision: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/business/energy-environment/19CHAMBER.html?scp=1&sq=Storm+over+the+chamber&st=nyt
Clean Energy Resources: http://www.americanprogress.org/projects/energy_hub/
The Leadership Campaign.
A Global Organic Mindset: My own post on: 350 for the Economy

For Change.
Eddie Miller, concerned Student Activist
Community Outreach, the Leadership Campaign.

Please comment/forward!

Hello folks, so here’s how we need to tell politicians, businesspeople, and the American public about Change.

350 does primarily refer to the environment. It’s what prevents a 2 degree rise and the majority of bad effects worldwide. But what’s more important is that it refers to an inspiration to the economy. Get to 350, for the economy. The struggle is be a productive force, like going to the moon, or development and change. Here’s the breakdown of how jobs work:
Jobs in the clean energy economy were distributed among the following sectors in 2008:
–– Conservation and pollution mitigation: 65.0 percent
–– Environmentally friendly production: 7.0 percent
–– Training and support: 6.8 percent
–– Energy efficiency: 9.5 percent
–– Clean energy: 11.6 percent

Worldwide, it’s largely up to America’s economy to make these things. Most are process innovations and services assistance. But the clean energy sector? Fire up the steel mills, get drafters going to work, and the construction crew of new young people with “only” college degrees. These people are going to require jobs. Hundreds of thousands of them. Enough to Repower America with new work.

View and share a fantastic factsheet from the Energy Hub Project: here (.pdf)

Oil production is running out. tidal shifts, water shortages and storms are nothing compared to this inevitable economic and anarchic resource war crisis that we’re going to have otherwise. Why? We have no idea what’s going to replace energy yet! The news of peak oil, that AFPOUSA puts around 92-115 million barrels a day, happens around 2015 to 2030. Most of that oil is in OPEC Countries. It’s the energy that powers growth and the persistence of our economy that we have to develop! It’s easier to design solutions now.. efficiency improvements, reduce waste, alternative energies.. and stop giving our money to terrorists. We need to develop that alternative in advance to avoid shortages, a recession, and high prices as everything else responds! Food is so dependent on fossil fuels! (Michael Pollan’s landmark letter) Oil peaking leaves businesses stuck. It’s much more of a problem for them than a tax now, trust me. Inflation on all your prices and business and consumers will harm businesses that are voluntarily-unsustainable. The US will be the worst hit by the recession, guaranteed.. All the input prices of basic commodities (food), lumber, ore, oil will rise, causing consumer complaint and rising production costs= an economic depression. We are the biggest consumers of oil.

All this causes war and diplomacy issues. In more volatile regions, it means huge political gain to take over oil mines and strategic straits, war and unrest as the effects follow naturally, and build. Oil peaking is the first case, after which it plateaus and falls. As soon as we hit peak, that price is going to go up a lot with lasting effects in the areas of recession, job loss, and war. All for something that could be avoided.

If we don’t develop an alternative before 2050, the oil economy will cost a lot to fix rapidly. If we do it now, we get green jobs and get to be a leader again. Where will we with incentives for energy? If we can develop this new technology now, it solves our short-term recession and burnout (spends our way out, mainly for the lower middle class). The air will be cleaner, yes, our international reputation will be restored, yes, and we’ll finally see change and revitalization along the Eastern coast. Let’s get to 350 by making new renewable industries!

Do not solve climate just for the polar bears any more. One can easily argue that we can’t afford to save them, like Department of Commerce chairman just did. The truth, though, is that America can’t afford not to, it’s in our nation’s interest: it will bring money and jobs and national security back into the country within 10-25 years even as the oil runs out.

-Eddie Miller
November, 2009

Related posts:
Movement building: http://eddiemill.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/350-as-an-inspiration/
Home: http://eddiemill.wordpress.com/
Facebook: http://facebook.com/eddiemill

Interesting to read this from the excellent Polis website. The idea for this came from the story of coal which ran on Le Monde and apparently had 1 million visitors. We are not sure if we believe these stats but the concept of an exploration of a peopled landscape effected by climate change was something we wanted to develop. So far the Guardian traffic has led some significant action and is an interesting comparison for another web project – http://www.theclimatechallenge.org – which we have developed which has Tennant, Bernal and others going through a climate quiz show. It will be interesting to see what how these very different projects come off. On a seperate point, I think NGOs have been “thinking like the media” for years but have never had the space to create and develop stories that are independent of such channels until now. Digital changes the rule book but organisations need to be bold and not consider digital as an add on to an old way of working but remodel themselves around the new platforms which people live their lives through…

The government is solid. Recently, there was a contest on Whitehouse.gov for GreenGov, how the country can go sustainable. They received a ton of responses to the initiative, on which everyone with a federal .gov or .fed email account had to submit votes for the best ideas to implement a full sustainability plan by June of next year, many of which are actionable immediately. Watch the meeting here: your-greengov-ideas.html Our ideas are being listened to, and the President’s priorities are in place.

People are good. Already, we’ve found that here at the frontlines in Massachusetts, (not just) young people are ready to give up time, money, or comfort for the cause of global environmental sustainability. These are the basic tenants that you need to give up in business, economics, or sociology to have a national will.

The solution lies there. It does. You can see some of my research on the commercial feasibility of clean energy designs in my other posts, but things that can participate in by the people are number one. My next post is going to be on the strategy of social change, bottom up (revolutionary) versus top-down (political mandate) sustainability and who’s going to win out. [ANSWER:) Both]

History’s evidence.
In all cases, having a healthy sense of historical context is good to correct any unrealistic presumptions. 1. Things happen when they are a priority to people; they give the time to make sure that it’s implemented. 2. Most of the work is in implementation, that is the real physical processes of business: who gives what to whom, how does it get there and what is the application to finish the job. 3. We are in an unprecedented time for the environment. What we decide in the next 50 years really will go down in history as either a mitigation or disaster management story.

… but Oftentimes what would happen to social groups like these is they get coopted into the jargon of organization itself. “Change” was fought out to be some point in the distant future, when we’d be Comparable to the “legendary” protests of the 1960s. Sometimes, we felt we are making a difference, but politicians couldn’t work over it until thousands of the world’s icebergs had collapsed. The forces of lobbying are ever-powerful.. has our cooptation meant too little, too late? Change comes only to those that are open to it.

In the news recently I see disturbing trends of Glenn Beck and the Fox news network… less people believing in Climate Change and more people worried about pennies the government is spending. Is America really becoming more divided as one side progresses? I am worried about the effect of these groups to stop a largely north-led revolution. How can we reach out to them? Even the food lobby is really holding us up.

Finally, real change requires community. It must target the public. Without these essential characteristics no leader can stay sane indefinitely. Leadership must be balanced and in control. However, they have to be able to get the goods there on time.

In almost all cases, it is the youth that lead social change. This is exciting to me, because it means we have the ability to effect change. We are not alone here, or misguided in any way. If the younger generation feels that it’s a priority, that means that the necessary steps should occur. For example, from the bottom left can come the protests, from the top come the reforms. From the young come the ideas (now, submit online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/), and from our super-awesome rockstar politician president come the executive mandates! (Like for a federal sustainability program by next June at the latest, that he already DID

Maximize power. Here are more basic steps on what you can do.

Accept responsibility to compromise: Listen to the people around you, even especially the ones with a soft voice.
People like visuals. People also like food. Start here in your planning.
Expect results, but be flexible with your goals. And the methods on how to get there.

Conclusion:

Change, I’ve learned, also doesn’t happen from within a vacuum. This is a common mistake which includes a 300-person “Hillarycare” drafting session, the 2-person small office at Small Planet, or a 8-person closed steering committee over one summer trying to solve “the world’s” problems. It doesn’t come from the left (see previous posts!), or the right (link). But requires both. If you are in charge of outreach or communications, how much can you forget what you think you know and move towards reality. That’s where the chance to save our future lies at.

I am going to keep working on it, and hope that you continue to follow on the bright path ahead. Now, to the sleepout! http://theleadershipcampaign.org/participate !

Other posts: Http://Eddiemill.WordPress
Twitter microblog: Twitter.com/EddieMill
Twitter for my campaign: Twitter.com/theLCampaign
Facebook: Facebook.com/Eddiemill
the Man

George Monbiot writes an article saying ‘we cannot change the world by changing our buying habits‘, which sounds like a promising title (need to address it on a bigger level etc).

But I think he has the wrong reasoning. He says it doesn’t work because people feel so pleased with themselves for recyling their plastic bag that they fly off to America. He might well be right, but surely there are two bigger problems. Firstly most people don’t give a toss about climate change at all (and often confuse it with environmentalism, which I don’t give a toss about either). And secondly (touched on in the second half of the ‘don’t give a toss’ article), most people find it very expensive to be green and are put off by the smugness of the upper-middle class who can afford it.

How do we sort this out?

Hello leaders, we found this out at BU. When we had bread and a small camping stove set up as a center of our camp, it brought about twice as many supporters in to the site. These supporters were often interested in what we were doing, and sometimes able to sign our clipboard and join us the next night. Here’s how we doubled support in one night:

1. Scope out bakeries in your area. Panera is what I went with because it is on the way and closes at 10 which is when we start the S-Os. Go by during the day.
2. Ask if they usually give away their extra bread at the end of the day. If they don’t, and they bake the bread there, they’ll usually be throwing a lot out.
3. Get a number of a night manager you can contact, thank them, and then call that night. Tell them that you were hoping to confirm the donation of extra bread and pastries, and go by either just before close or up to 30min later.

If done properly, you are going to have a lot of bread for your event. We got donations of wrapped baguettes, loose bread, pastries, donuts, bagels, and sweets. (The Blondies were delicious). We were able to have open boxes and plenty to share around. It was a source of community and friendly gesture to the people who were interested in the campaign.

I hope to follow up with Panera now to arrange a weekly schedule pickup. From just one load with 2 volunteers (we couldn’t carry it all!), we could support the S-O for two days.

Next up: figuring out coffee donations. Stay tuned for more from BU!
-Eddie
Community Outreach,
Tuesday Night Site Coordinator @ BU
440-935-5434

Until I read this in the Guardian this morning I was starting to think concerns about climate change and global warming had gone out of fashion and that it was just another trendy good cause that we can no longer afford because of the recession.   I certainly haven’t heard David Cameron mention it recently.

But it’s back on the agenda and it still seems there is only one view in town.  Any suggestion that the case for man-made global warming is not totally convincing puts you on a par with the earth is flat brigade.  I try to keep up to date with current affairs and world issues (though I draw the line at the detailed scientifics) and if the future really is as bleak as made out then I’m ready to do my bit but I’m just not convinced it is so clear cut.  

There is no debate.  It feels like there is an unstoppable bandwagon presenting one side of the argument as the whole truth and nothing but the truth.   I’m sure I read somewhere that global temperatures have been falling since 1998.  It might be true, it might be reasonably explained, it might be made up but it surely warrants some kind of discussion?   Anyone who even stops to think about it (never mind asking questions like Clive James) is branded a dinosaur, stupid, dangerous or worse. 

But then why let an inconvenient truth spoil everything?  Too many people, too many companies and too many organisations have a vested interest in keeping this thing going.  There is too much money at stake and too much face to be lost to turn round now and say, ‘hang on a minute I’m not sure about this’.  If only climate change denial could be made profitable or vote-winning then maybe it would get a fair crack of the whip.

Below is an article, (reprinted for educational reason) by Dr Tim Ball on the current trend in global temperatures based on REAL data. It seem that the overwhelming ACTUAL data related to climate change as we now call it is proving only one thing. That the planet is is mortal danger of cooling down at a very rapid rate. The data collected since Al Gore’s error ridden film An Inconvenient Truth has shown the opposite to all the predictions he and the IPCC have made.

So with the science clearly disproving the theory of the IPCC, the question remains, why are they ignoring the data and pressing on with their agenda based on a lie? (comment after article)

Current Global Temperatures Impossible According to IPCC ‘Science’.

By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, November 2, 2009

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon says, “Unless we fight climate change, unless we stop this trend, we’ll have devastating consequences for humanity.”

Other leaders make similar silly statements. Obama claims the “threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing.”

But which way is it growing? Which trend are they going to stop? The one predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the one Mother Nature is providing? They’ve chosen the IPCC even though all their predictions (scenarios) are wrong. But it is worse. Global temperatures of the last few years are impossible according to the ‘science’ of the (IPCC).

What’s Actually Happening?

Temperatures were predicted to increase but are declining (Figure 1). Even their lowest scenario says the world should be at least 0.3¬∞C warmer. Doesn’t sound like much but it equals half the warming they claim occurred in the preceding 130 years.

Figure 1: Global average temperature 2002 to 2009 and IPCC scenarios.

As physicist David Douglass said, “If the facts are contrary to any predictions, then the hypothesis is wrong no matter how appealing.”

Facts Contradict Hypothesis

Many people pointed to facts contradicting the “appealing” hypothesis but were ignored or marginalized for several reasons. These included; apparent support from rising global temperatures between 1980 and 1998; evidence too technical for most people; effective personal attacks on skeptics; Gore’s slick propaganda movie An Inconvenient Truth despite 35 scientific errors; and the mainstream media was ignorant of the science and biased.

A plethora of evidence has not brought the hypothesis down. For example,

The Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago was warmer than today.

The Holocene Optimum from 3000 to 8000 years ago was warmer than today.

The last three Interglacial periods were warmer than the current one.

The claim of 0.6 degrees C rise during industrial times was unverifiable because the scientist refused to disclose the evidence and then the government ‘lost’ the data.

Four of the warmest years on record in the US were in the 1930s not the 1990s as claimed.

1934 was the warmest in the US not 1998 as claimed.

The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) adjusted historic data down to make the modern record relatively warmer.

Temperature increases before CO2 in all records.

CO2 levels currently at 388 ppm are the lowest in 300 million years.

There’s a limit of at most 1.4 degrees C to the amount of temperature can increase even if CO2 doubles or triples.

In the 20th century human production of CO2 didn’t fit the temperature record. From 1900 to 1940 human CO2 production levels were low but temperatures increased the most. From 1940 to 1980 human production levels increased the most but temperature declined.

The models predicted the atmosphere would warm faster than the surface but the opposite is happening.

These are more than enough facts to show the hypothesis is wrong. Polls indicate the public is learning, but AGW proponents and politicians are not and continue to push their political agendas.

Nature Not Playing By The Rules

Now they face facts everyone can grasp. The Earth is cooling with record low temperatures everywhere, a contradiction with the IPCC hypothesis anyone can grasp without scientific understanding. Figure 2 shows 1998 was an unusually warm year attributed to El Nino. 1999 was cooler and AGW proponents correctly said the drop from 1998 was not evidence of a trend.

Figure 2: Global temperatures 1985 to 2009 and atmospheric CO2 levels.

Temperatures increased slightly again in 2000 (Figure 2) seeming to support the AGW contention. However, since 2002 temperatures declined gradually, making a trend that began in the Southern Hemisphere 10 years earlier global. AGW proponents are now trying to prove the trend doesn’t exist.

They play statistical games by pre-determining the trend by the starting point chosen. Choosing 2002 as a starting point appears to play the same game, however, there’s a major difference. The decline can’t happen according to the IPCC hypothesis. Their report says, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.”

“Very likely” is defined as greater than 90 percent likelihood.

They reinforce the point; “During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings.” But according to their Reports CO2 levels have continued to increase due to human additions. “Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004.”

The second statement is also false because they don’t include two of the three known mechanisms of solar causes of temperature change in their models. They did acknowledge, “Difficulties remain in simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller than continental scales” They must say this because they report, “It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica).” If CO2 was causing temperature increase it should be global. So what is happening cannot happen. The hypothesis and the models built on it are wrong. Temperature declining while CO2 increased did force one change; they switched focus from global warming to climate change.

Climate Change: What Happens When Nature Disobeys Government.

Political leaders say they are going to stop climate change. It is an arrogant, ignorant claim adopted because they accepted IPCC claims and then chose to ignore scientific evidence showing they were wrong. Now they’re ignoring nature, which doesn’t listen as the evidence shows. As Douglass says, “One finds the truth by making a hypothesis and comparing observations with the hypothesis.” The observations don’t support the hypothesis but that doesn’t matter because it fits the political objective. British MP Jeremy Thorpe said “Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his political life.” Our leaders are laying the people down for their political lives. Sadly none of them will ever be held accountable, but the people will pay the price.

(2) Reader Feedback | Subscribe

Dr. Tim Ball Most recent columns

Copyright © 2009 CFP

“Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.”

Dr. Ball can be reached at: Letters@canadafreepress.com

Original article in Canada Free Press

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16460

For the answer we must look at who stands to gain from this plan to implement the “cure” for this non existent problem.

The “cure”, apparently, is multi-faceted and includes plans to monitor and tax every carbon creating activity known to man. Also there is a plan to create a carbon credit trade to allow developing countries to sell offsets to developed ones. There doesn’t however seem to be any attempt to cut any of the carbon these people are still blaming for the now non existent problem. With no limits being put on developing countries and developed ones being able to buy offsets to allow them to continue to produce carbon, then what exactly will the carbon trade achieve?

This is where you find out who gains. The Carbon credit trade will be run by the very man who is pushing the lie, Al Gore. His company will make billions in trade fees from trading these carbon credits. This is Gore’s pay off for pushing the agenda that will establish a carbon tax that will be paid to the UN run Environmental Government that is about to be created in Copenhagen in December. This carbon tax is the funding the World Government requires to further it’s aims to become a full World Government of the New World Order.

The aspect of this “cure” that is uppermost in the aims of the people behind it is the control and tracking aspect of carbon taxing. In order to be taxed, you must be monitored and controlled. The result of monitoring is that your every move, whereabouts and activity will be known to the governments. Total control means the powers that control you can never be removed.

It is very simple when you look at the reality behind pushing the lie against all evidence to the contrary. So please realise that nothing these people do happens for your benefit, as you will be the ones paying. Everything they do is for a reason they do not divulge to us, but when you look at the evidence it is so obvious.

An op-ed in today’s NYTimes, “The Carnivore’s Dilemma:” NICOLETTE HAHN NIMAN argues that the farming practices that score the environmental weight of eating meat are not all the same.  Read the full piece here.

Hello, friends! This is Eddie Miller from BU with a weekly post. The subject is of the Sunday protests, and recent campaign call that changed everything. The story involves food, a grassroots protest, and a new vision for our platform: follow along!

So I’d like to start out by saying that this is largely hypothetical what is in this post. Under no conditions do I represent food not bombs or the LC in drawing this out. If you want to hear about how the process of leadership happened, contact me 440-935-5434

What Could Have Been: Uniting Social Change Movements

Climate change, rising Carbon dioxide from global levels, and a new clean energy future mandated by strict cap-and-trade law. These are the premises we’ve agreed upon for the founding of our mission in creating Massachusetts Power Shift — The Leadership Campaign. But what if our platform could include so much more! Justice, green jobs, pollution, food, war, economy and security. There has been some feedback in the community area from choosing not to include these things, but from a lobbying standpoint it is just not possible to stray too far off of a single message. (Look at what happened at the G20 Protests..) A position at the bargaining table is about discipline.

Tenting is also a strategy that has worked before. Historically, it brought down a bad dictator (Kiev, Orange Revolution), raised awareness for Palestine/Israeli peace conference, and recently brought thousands to Bush’s ranch during the worst of the Iraq war period. Cindy Sheehan wiki Food not Bombs was, often, at the center of them.

What about a climate revolution? What about the grassroots, earth lovin’, sustainability, “get us out of iraq” crowd that describes most of Boston and the Northeast? While we have been expanding S-Os along the lines of well projected campus goals, I’ve been cautious to discount these people who are also very involved in our movement. After all, they are the constituents of Massachusetts. But, then, it would be hard to get real community members to sleep out, right?

Not so fast..

Food is the start, and a new celebrity

Food Not Bombs Founder Keith McHenry is in Boston this weekend. If you’ve never seen him speak before, he’s a stunning personality that is combination of ex-hippy, new rioter, pagan believer, and impromptu chef. He’s cooked food for millions of people before, including organizing a thousand-person Tent City Protest in Washington, D.C. One thousand is a lot to turn out for an event like this (*as anyone from the LC can tell you!), but the impressive thing is that it was all grassroots organized. Yep, email chains and word of mouth spread this event like wildfire to people and the media to trek out for a 27-day long protest at the White House for peace. It was at it’s most basic a peace conference, but also included aspect like justice, freedom from oppression, and a diverse movement of participating groups. It was, in a word, revolutionary.

If Food Not Bombs founder managed outreach, food and Logistics at a sleepout-level, it would bring a whole new diverse coalition to our cause.
• For one, it would double our weekly outreach goals and potential endorser pool. The messaging is different, such as “just bring a fork and reusable plate and come support us,” rather than having to commit to be there every week.
• Food keeps people warm and attracts new onlookers. The media warm up at the tent near the food not bombs and LC start-up table. An event like this brings attention! Besides, there is no reason to not stop in on the common if lured by the smell of sweet apples with cinnamon, signs and banners and a guitar behind the bikes.
• The left community associates really well with the mission of the group. These are the ones who know how to Rally behind a food not bombs partnership. Boston has a full punk scene waiting to support a new riot. And MAPS Could be there behind them, with a real political message along the lines of our platform to enact the political-level social change.
• Finally, it would RePower the Leadership campaign and launch a new segment of permanent presence. It’s going to get cold out, we’ll need all the supporters we can get! Especially in the cold..

The vision, and the reality.

Unfortunately, according to LC Coordinator Craig Altemose, “how much you accomplish in this system really depends on what you look like. If we look professional, we’re going to get a lot more respect as equals.” And he’s right. Maintaining an image is important if we’re to be taken seriously as a youth movement, we don’t want to cause trouble. Things could easily escalate if we included the full spectrum in our lobbying efforts, so the campaign team has chosen to back off from bringing on Food Not Bombs as a part. Keith is still welcome to speak; on the condition that he supports our goals and invites no one who seems too controversial. It is an organizational priority not to scare off our “partners” by seeming too radical. We already have the numbers we need for a sustained media presence hopefully, and a committed and well-trained leadership team.

For more information about the sleepouts, follow hashtag #sleepout or http://theleadershipcampaign.org/participate/

If you’re left wondering more, please visit my Friday weekly post on the theory of social change, at A Global Organic Mindset or friend me on facebook. |twitter

Go LC! Out next sleepout will be Sunday, November 1st. Dress as a climate refugee!

Until next time, onward and upward,
-Eddie Miller
BU ‘10
Community Outreach, Food.
eddiemill@gmail.com

Good morning! I say good despite the fact that good and morning and (*shudder*)Monday never seem to go together, but there is reason for good cheer, because this is the start of a weekly series on Environmental News (or whatever I feel like, actually). I will of course try my best to dish out posts that will whet your intellectual appetite, so I hope you’ll keep coming back for more!

To start it all off, I would bring to your attention (as if not enough attention has been paid to it) to Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, who received the award because “Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting”, placing him in the company of great humanitarians such as Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, and of course Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The highly contentious decision by the Nobel committee has drawn vehement criticism, which was, of course, met with perfervid counters by Obama fans. Of course, like many others, I choose to think of the award as a sly move by the committee, to pressure Obama into upholding his promises on many issues and problems to which he has guaranteed solutions, including of course, on that of climate change.

Obama’s track records on the Environment look encouraging. The Waxman-Markey bill, and even the Car Allowance Rebate System (better known as Cash for Clunkers), are significant steps forward for America, with the former described as “first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change”. They indicate, at long last, a willingness to assume responsibility after decades of finger-pointing. Attempts at involving China and India, as well as the G20 has been met, at best, with limited success, but as we approach the upcoming COP15, I am hopeful that Obama will be indeed be a change we can believe in. Your comments?

~ Cai Yong