“And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.

I am angry, and so should you be.”

“….with supine news media largely owned and controlled by the government, the establishment tends to look after its own.

At our expense, and at the expense of the truth.”

Well said about the biggest scientific and political scandal in modern time!

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/

Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’ (PJM Exclusive)

The man who challenged Al Gore to a debate is furious about the content of the leaked CRU emails — and says why you should be, too.

November 23, 2009 – by Christopher Monckton

This is what they did — these climate “scientists” on whose unsupported word the world’s classe politique proposes to set up an unelected global government this December in Copenhagen, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all formerly free markets, to tax wealthy nations and all of their financial transactions, to regulate the economic and environmental affairs of all nations, and to confiscate and extinguish all patent and intellectual property rights.

The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.

Worse, these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up. Unfortunately, the British researchers have been acting closely in league with their U.S. counterparts who compile the other terrestrial temperature dataset — the GISS/NCDC dataset. That dataset too contains numerous biases intended artificially to inflate the natural warming of the 20th century.

Finally, these huckstering snake-oil salesmen and “global warming” profiteers — for that is what they are — have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled. And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.

I am angry, and so should you be.

What have the mainstream news media said about the Climategate affair? Remarkably little. The few who have brought themselves to comment, through gritted teeth, have said that all of this is a storm in a teacup, and that their friends in the University of East Anglia and elsewhere in the climatological community are good people, really.

No, they’re not. They’re criminals. With Professor Fred Singer, who founded the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, I have reported them to the UK’s Information Commissioner, with a request that he investigate their offenses and, if thought fit, prosecute. But I won’t be holding my breath: In the police state that Britain has now sadly become, with supine news media largely owned and controlled by the government, the establishment tends to look after its own.

At our expense, and at the expense of the truth.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

All the news that fits, they print.

Story from Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

With the release of hundreds of emails by scientists advocates of global warming showing obvious and entirely inappropriate collusion by the authors — including attempts to suppress dissent, to punish journals that publish peer-reviewed studies casting doubt on global warming, and to manipulate data to bolster their own arguments — even the New York Times is forced to concede that “the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.” But apparently the paper’s environmental blog, Dot Earth, is taking a pass on publishing any of the documents and emails that are now circulating.

[...]This is the position of the New York Times when given the chance to publish sensitive information that might hinder the liberal agenda. Of course, when the choice is between publishing classified information that might endanger the lives of U.S. troops in the field or intelligence programs vital to national security, that information is published without hesitation by the nation’s paper of record.

Click here to read all the details.

Glenn Beck gives a good summary of the e-mails here:

Here is my previous post on the hacked e-mails.

Related posts

• Comparison of hockey stick graph data to a larger data set in the same area
• Government-funded research unit destroyed original climate data
• The state of the debate about catastrophic man-made global warming
• Peer-reviewed article in journal Science says solar activity impacts climate
• Famous UN IPCC hockey stick graph is based on cherry-picked data
• Princeton physics professor testifies to Senate about global warming
• Global warming advocates refuse to give their data to skeptics
• Peer-reviewed article in journal Science says prior ice melting caused by solar variation
• Oceans are not warming now
• Polar ice caps are not melting now
• Polar bear populations are not decreasing now
• Global warming is not caused by humans

entreu al link següent:

http://turismo-sostenible.org/co2.php

És una calculadora que fa un càlcul ràpid de les emissions tentint en compte el transport i els kilòmetres recorreguts. A més, a partir del resulat obtingut et diu quants arbres hauries de plantar per depurar les emissions.

El 17 de novembre de 2009 els Estats Units i Xina, els majors contaminants del món, van dir al govern de Dinamarca que no seria possible arribar a un acord per reduir les emissions de diòxid de carboni a l’atmosfera de cara a la reunió sobre el canvi climàtic que se celebrarà del 7 al 18 de desembre de 2009 a Copenhaguen. Els líders d’aquests països van indicar que s’intentarà arribar a un acord en dues etapes, que consistirà en fer una declaració d’objectius, la qual ja està plantejada, a Copenhaguen per arribar a un acord vertader en un moment posterior.

A la vista d’això, les reaccions dels països ha estat diversa. Per una banda, hi ha els països que no donaran suport als acords per frenar el canvi climàtic de Copenhaguen degut a que EUA i Xina han decidit aplaçar l’acord com Japó, Brasil, India i Mèxic. Per altra banda, la resta de països estan molt enfadats però es resignen a contemplar el que diuen els grans motors contaminants i es reuneixen entre ells per trobar solucions, creient que sense el suport d’aquests encara es poden trobar solucions a un canvi climàtic que ens afecta a tots.

Monday the 23th of November I was invited by KLM to attend the special event regarding the first partly “bio-fueled” flight with passengers on board. The flight would take off on Schiphol, Amsterdam Airport and fly around the Netherlands for approximately one hour. It’s a demonstration flight with one engine running on a mixture of 50% traditional kerosene and 50% biofuel. The biofuel is not yet certified, but this might be an important step towards a “greener” aviation future. The biofuel is made from Camelina, for more info about this plant click here. The flight would be attended by VIP’s like Peter Hartman (CEO of KLM), Maria van der Hoeven (Minister of Economic Affairs) and many others. In total around 40 people would attend the flight. Armed with just my iPhone I covered the event through my KLM Fan Twitter account, but below here you can read my experiences in sentences longer than 140 characters..

The plane from a distance

Bad weather

Before I would attend the “biofuel event” I first had a little trip around Schiphol East in some hangars. I will write down my experiences later on this blog, but it was really fun to check out the amazing hangars at Schiphol. More of that later. The weather was pretty much horrible: rain, some wind and not a single bit of sunshine made this quite a grey day. But that’s typically the autumn weather you can expect in The Netherlands. Due to my early arrival at Schiphol I was also very early in the KLM Jet Centre, where the press that would attend the event was welcomed.

The Boeing 747 close-up.

Jet Centre

I was there too early and saw the flight crew get their briefing for the flight. After a bit of walking around and the usual “where should I register and get my press pass”-hassle I found the area where the press could eat and drink. After a nice bit of small talk with some “colleagues” (and an interview) we saw some familiar faces like Peter Hartman, Maria van der Hoeven, but also Wim Kuijken (Secretary-General of Public Works and Water Management) and André Kuijpers (Dutch astronaut). I also spoke with a woman from Honeywell, the company that made the biofuel that was used for the flight.

After refusing at least 10 glasses of juice/wine/water and 20 slices of bread (catering was great), it was time for some speeching. Peter Hartman officially welcomed Maria van der Hoeven and talked about the importance of this flight and the future of aviation. Next we (the press that did not attend the flight itself) was directed to a bus that took us to the plane to make some pics and cover the boarding process.

Peter Hartman & Maria van der Hoeven are preparing for boarding the flight

For a cool explanation about KLM and biofuel, check this awesome and informative video about everything regarding KLM and biofuel.

Boarding

Luckily it was all dry now, so we could take some excellent pics of the Boeing 747 that would be used for the flight. The Boeing had a special livery with some “eco” messages on it and ofcourse thanks from the WWF (which were also involved in the process). We could walk all around the plane and enjoy the overwhelming sight of the blue & white plane, while the attendees boarded the flight. The plane left to take-off and the press was taken back to the Jet Center.

In-flight

After arriving most of the press left, however there was still the opportunity to cover a flight moment and the arrival of the 747. I decided to stay and we were taken next to a runway were the plane would do a so called “lowpass”. The airplane would pass the runway on a low altitude to make a nice shot. Unfortunately the rain really started to pour at that moment, which made it a true “survival adventure” outside. Luckily after twenty minutes the plane flew really close over our heads, which was just an amazing experience.

Arrival

We hopped back in the bus and drove through the rain back to the place where the passengers would leave. The airplane landed safely and everybody seemed to have enjoyed the flight. Despite the heavy rain and the fierce winds while leaving the plane, most of the VIP’s haircuts remained in good condition. The event would continue in a hangar nearby, but I decided to go home (as my iPhone was empty as well due to all the live covering). So back to the Jet Centre to take the bus to Schiphol Plaza.

The rain poured from the sky when the plane landed

And now?

The event and the flight were both very succesfull and it was great to see the big Boeing take off, knowing that one engine was running on biofuel. Let’s hope this idea is developed further and that we might see more of these flights in the near future. It was great that KLM launched this initiative and that in the future we can look back at this day and state it was the start of a global change in aviation.

For the full press release from KLM, click here.

Thanks to the KLM Crew for making this report possible. If you want to keep up to date about KLM on Twitter, follow my Twitter account KLMfan

A biofueled smile

Dentro de alguns dias acontece a COP-15, Conferência das Partes na Dinamarca que pretende ter como resultado a criação de um novo acordo climático que venha a substituir o Protocolo de Kyoto.

Ao redor do mundo diversas iniciativas tem sido tomadas para fazer com que se construa um acordo efetivo, já que a não construção poderá resultar em uma verdadeira catástrofe para a humanidade.

Entidades de mobilização global como a Avaaz tem desenvolvido campanhas fazendo com que as pessoas cobrem dos grandes líderes uma postura de comprometimento, tendo resultado em ações como a do vídeo a seguir:

O próprio empresariado brasileiro, junto com a mídia e o governo chegaram a realizar acordos consistentes, como a Carta Ambiental (http://j2da.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/mudancas-climaticas/), que conseguiu comprometer mais de 80% do PIB nacional com a questão da redução da emissão de carbono, fazendo inclusive o Ministro Celso Amorim admitir a possibilidade do Brasil se comprometer com uma meta de redução, o que não seria obrigatório para os países não desenvolvidos, no entanto uma necessidade devido ao forte crescimento que os países do BRIC tem apresentado, e devido a representativadade que estes países devem ter na econômia global nos próximos anos.

No entanto, apesar destes esforços, muito pode se perder com a possibilidade dos países desenvolvidos não se comprometerem com uma meta de redução condizente, uma vez que o seu não comprometimento pode prejudicar o desenvolvimento dos países emergentes em vários aspectos, caso estes se comprometam sozinhos. Logo, sem o comprometimento dos países desenvolvidos, os países em desenvolvimento, em especial países do BRIC não deverão apresentar um comprometimento ousado e necessário para a causa.

O cenário de fato é muito complicado, já que o não comprometimento, o não estabelecimento de um acordo pode resultar em catastofres como:

• a floresta amazônica transformada em savana;
• rios com menor vazão e sem peixes;
• uma redução global drástica da produção de alimentos, que já está ocorrendo;
• o derretimento irreversível de geleiras;
• o aumento da elevação do nível do mar, que faria desaparecer cidades costeiras;
• a migração em massa de populações em regiões destruídas pelos eventos climáticos e
• o aumento de doenças tropicais como dengue e malária.

O que inclusive pode gerar consequências econômicas  muito mais sérias que se as econômias se comprometessem  agora com a redução da emissão de CO2. Portanto, o que se faz necessário daqui até o dia 07 de Dezembro, quando começa a COP-15 é que as empresas, pessoas, governos se mobilizem acima de tudo para persuadir aqueles que ainda não perceberam a extensão do problema.

Ajude com esta causa, faça isto divulgando esta informação no Twitter, por e-mail,  Orkut, Facebook, no seu blog e para quem puder espalhar.

Hacker haben den Server eines britischen Klima-Instituts geknackt und E-Mails sowie Dokumente im Internet veröffentlicht. Für Skeptiker sind sie der Beweis, dass der Einfluss des Menschen auf den Klimawandel übertrieben dargestellt wird.

Ausgerechnet zwei Wochen vor dem Klimagipfel in Kopenhagen erfolgte eine Hackerattacke auf die University of East Anglia in Norwic. Die Hacker veröffentlichten Hunderte E-Mails und Forschungsergebnisse im Internet. Nach Ansicht von Skeptiker des Klimawandels offenbaren die Dokumente eine geheime Absprache zwischen Wissenschaftlern, um das Ausmass der Klimaerwärmung zu pushen.

Die Echtheit der veröffentlichten E-Mails wurde von einigen Wissenschaftlern bestätigt, Hinweise auf Fälschungen liegen keine vor. Der Institutsdirektor, Phil Jones, wies jedoch den Vorwurf der Datenmanipulation zurück. Der US-Wissenschaftler Kevin Trenberth, dessen Mails ebenfalls gehackt wurden, sagte am Sonntag, die im Internet gestreuten Daten seien aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen worden.

Folgende Zeile aus einem Mail von Trenberth ist den Skeptikern besonders ins Auge gestochen: „Es ist eine Schande, dass wir die derzeit fehlende Erwärmung nicht erklären können.“ In einem anderen Mail von 1999 schreibt ein Forscher des Klimainstituts, er habe einen „Trick“ angewendet, um den „Rückgang der Temperaturen“ in einer Grafik zu verbergen. Daneben enthalten die Dokumente auch abschätzige Bemerkungen über Journalisten und Klimaskeptiker, die unter anderem als „Idioten“ bezeichnet werden.

Nachfolgend zwei Beispiele:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

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) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich

Oder

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***

Klimaskeptiker Steven McIntyre, der auf seinem Blog climateaudit.org seit Jahren die offiziellen Daten zum Klimawandel anzweifelt, bezeichnete die Enthüllungen der New York Times gegenüber als “ziemlich atemberaubend”. Der US-Klimatologe Patrick J. Michaels, der nicht an einen menschlichen Einfluss auf das Klima glaubt, sagte, die Dokumente seien „keine Rauchfahne, sondern ein Atompilz“. Sie zeigten, dass „diese Leute bereit sind, die Regeln zu beugen und den Ruf Andersdenkender auf ernsthafte Weise anzugreifen“.

Die betroffenen Forscher wehren sich vehement gegen die Vorwürfe. Michael Mann von der Pennsylvania State University sagte in der “New York Times”, das Wort “Trick” sei unglücklich gewählt. Es werde von Wissenschaftlern jedoch oft verwendet, um einen guten Weg zur Problemlösung zu finden, dahinter verberge sich nichts Verschwörerisches. Im konkreten Fall sei es um das Problem gegangen, dass gewisse Jahresringe von Bäumen den Temperaturanstieg seit 1960 nicht anzeigen. Es sei seit mehr als zehn Jahren bekannt und nie versteckt worden, erklärte Mann.

Der Nasa-Klimatologe Gavin A. Schmidt äusserte sich zu den veröffentlichten Dokumenten folgendermassen: „Wissenschaft funktioniert nicht, weil wir alle nett sind. Newton war vielleicht ein Arsch, aber seine Gravitationsgesetze gelten noch heute.“

Ob Klimawandel oder nicht: Es ist sicher keine schlechte Idee, zu seiner Umwelt Sorge zu tragen. Die Förderung von erneuerbaren Energien, sowie der Konsum von regionalen Produkten und viele andere Massnahmen, die von Klimaschützer gefordert werden, bringen uns auch ohne Klimawandel nur Vorteile. Bevor man jedoch CO2-Abgaben und Ähnliches einführt, muss es eine Untersuchung zu den neusten Enthüllungen geben. Nur so kann verhindert werden, dass sich einige Menschen an der Angst vor der Klimakatastrophe eine goldene Nase verdienen.

So some new news from Greenpeace.  Kumi Naidoo was appointed executive director of the environmental campaign group Greenpeace International this month after two decades leading civil society groups in Africa and internationally. Mr. Naidoo, 44, who is from South Africa, takes over the role at a time when environmentalism increasingly enjoys mainstream status.  Here is his introduction video.

Hummmm… So will there be any real change or will Mr. Naidoo tow the exaggerated and exceedingly irresponsible party line.  Well as he suggested in an interview with the New York Times blog Green inc.  he intends to maintain the party line thing.

Question;

Greenpeace has staunchly opposed nuclear power on a variety of grounds. But a number of former opponents of nuclear have come around to accepting this form of energy and now say that it may have a role to play in the future low-carbon power mix. Do you see any room for nuclear power — including the extension of licenses on existing nuclear power plants — in an era when governments and citizens are searching for low-carbon energy sources?

Answer;

No. Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction to real solutions. When you extend a nuclear plant’s life beyond what it was designed for, you make an unsafe technology even more dangerous, create even more waste, and put off decisions on adopting real solutions.

Why?

Actually it seems to me Mr. Naidoo, that more and more countries are considering, planning, or constructing nuclear reactors to supply clean, electricity to their populace.  I guess the belief that ‘civil disobedience is the only way to push our governments’ isn’t really working on the nuclear issue.  Like any industry, nuclear has grown to meet the challenges that has hindered it in the past.  The answers to the following questions were taken from ‘The nuclear Imperative‘ by  Jeff W. Eerkens, PhD Adjunct Research Professor, Nuclear Science & Eng’ng Institute University of Missouri

1) Nuclear is too expensive

Well this question must be taken in relativity to other solutions that have been offered to limit Co2 emissions namely a massive ramp up in renewable power sources.

Contrary to false propaganda by anti-nuclear groups, the cost of tera-watts of electricity is three times less expensive with nuclear than for wind or solar. Solar and wind power generation requires expensive energy storage systems (batteries, etc) when there is no sunshine or wind. Also many miles of access roads for maintenance and repair are needed to keep blades or solar panels clean from bird droppings, dead birds, sand erosion, and storm damage, and to periodically replace electrodes on storage batteries.

2) Nuclear is dangerous

Today’s nuclear power plants are absolutely safe. Because of the negative “coefficient of reactivity”, reactor fuel elements can only melt (an explosion is not possible) during a maximum credible accident in which the emergency core cooling system totally fails. This was “experimentally” proven in the Three-Mile-Island (TMI) accident. A negative coefficient of reactivity means that neutron multiplication is automatically stopped when the temperature in the reactor gets too high. The Russian Chernobyl reactor which took the lives of 57 people, had a positive coefficient of reactivity because it used graphite as moderator. That design for nuclear power plants was prohibited in the USA since the birth of nuclear power in 1950 and now prohibited worldwide. Furthermore the Chernobyl reactor had no containment vessel, as was/is the law in all Western countries and now globally. The assertion that perhaps thousands of people could still die from the fallout around Chernobyl is nonsense. Of the 60,000 inhabitants of Pripyat who had been exposed to fallout, about 12,000 will die at an advanced age of cancer because worldwide 20% of all people ultimately die from cancer. To ascribe those 12,000 deaths to Chernobyl’s fallout is equally ridiculous as claiming that such a death toll is due to drinking coffee because 20% of all people drink coffee.

3) What about the waste?

The volume of waste amounts to one aspirin tablet per year per person using nuclear electricity, compared to many tons of air pollutants and mega-tons of globe-warming gaseous CO2 emitted by coal or fossil-fuel combustion. Nuclear waste can be easily stored and safely transported, as the US nuclear navy has done for half a century. Contrary to allegations that uranium and plutonium in spent fuel elements pose a problem because of million-year half-lives, they will be separated from fission products by reprocessing and burnt as fuel in future fast-breeder reactors; they will not be dumped. This reduces 400 tons from a one-year accumulation of spent fuel per reactor to 2 tons of fission products, taking centuries instead of decades to fill Nevada’s Yucca or other waste repository. The notion that long radioactive lifetimes are undesirable is also erroneous. The longer the decay lifetime, the less the radiation emitted per gram of radio-isotope. All humans are “hot” because everyone has radioactive potassium-40 (K-40; 0.012% abundance) in the cells of his/her body, which continuously emits beta particles with a half-life of one million years! Man successfully evolved in this environment.

This perfectly sums up Greenpeace and its position on Nuclear.  No scientific basis.

It seems that on the nuclear issue there is no negotiation with the Greenocracy.  Their positions has been and will always be ‘If you hate it come and march with us.  If you’re on the fence you’re just ignorant and if you’re pro-nuclear you are Satan incarnate’.  The antiquated notion that nuclear is dangerous, predisposes Greenpeace out of any balanced debate on how to tackle climate change.  Its like having a debate with a creationist,  the ability to employ objectivity alludes them, rendering their position inadequate. Real solutions are needed quickly in our fight against Anthropogenic Global Warming, not hopeful suggestions and unachievable goals.  Thanks anyway Greenpeace, best of luck with your future endeavors in skewing the debate, clouding the issue and holding on to unjustified positions, but it seems that people are starting to move beyond your fear tactics and are begining to realize the potential of nuclear as a real substitute to fossil fuel generation.

MUST READ! Scientists lie to prove Global Warming!
CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Hacker leaks thousands of emails showing conspiracy to “hide” the real data on manmade climate change

James Corbett
The Corbett Report
November 20, 2009

A hacker has leaked thousands of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University that appear to show how climate change data was fudged and the peer review process skewed to favor the manmade climate change hypothesis.

The importance of this information will not be lost on The Corbett Report’s audience, as a recent interview I conducted with Tim Ball discussed the very issue of the Climate Research Unit and Phil Jones’ intense secrecy regarding their data:

Unsurprisingly, there has so far been deafening silence on this issue in the controlled corporate media, but in light of the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty talks, it is imperative that we have a true and open debate about climate change before we make potentially world-changing decisions based on this science. It is up to all of us to push this story and its staggering implications into the mainstream.

New EU President: 2009 is the “first year of global governance”
Sees Copenhagen as step towards global management

“2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.”

Rompuy attended a Bilderberg dinner at Hertoginnendal, Brussels on November 15th, during which he announced a plan to implement EU wide taxes that will be paid directly to Brussels. Recently Mario Borghezio (Italy), member of the European Parliament, spoke openly against the influence of globalist organizations such as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. “Is it possible that no one has noticed that all 3 (EU Presidential candidates) frequently attend Bilderberg or Trilateral meetings?,” asked Borghezio. Rompuy will undoubtedly serve globalist interests during his reign of the European Union.

The Road to Copenhagen part III: A “Planetary Regime” in the Making

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
November 22, 2009

Global strategy. That’s the talking point we hear over and over again from all agencies, UN or otherwise, who have an interest in profiting from the deal they are proposing. Never mind that all nation-states who sign on to the Copenhagen treaty will effectively forfeit their representative systems to this global authority, deciding which taxes will be paid by which nation-state. In the end, all roads seem to lead to a “planetary regime” envisioned by the elite long before “global warming” was even heard of.

Da mega impianti eolici a rami e radici per i biocarburanti: in Europa tutto fa energia rinnovabile. Olanda, Ungheria e Svezia sono tre esempi di impegno per favorire l’elettricita’ da fonti ‘pulite’.

Nella regione olandese di Flevoland si e’ puntato sul vento e nel 2012-2013 si iniziera’ a realizzare il progetto ‘Windenergy Noordoostpolder‘, il piu’ grande impianto eolico del paese. Obiettivo dell’ambizioso progetto, che coinvolge nove consorzi e piu’ di 100 agricoltori, e’ di produrre 450 MW, quanto basta per fornire elettricita’ a 480.000 famiglie e a ridurre ogni anno la produzione di CO2 di 827 chilo tonnellate.

Forte del suo patrimonio boschivo la regione svedese di Norbotten ha invece indirizzato ricerca ed investimenti verso la produzione di nuovi biocarburanti prodotti a partire dai rifiuti boschivi. Nel progetto ‘Il futuro delle macchine-biocarburanti di seconda generazione’ vengono valorizzati rifiuti come i rami, le radici ed anche gli alberi di piccola dimensione. La Svezia conta di poter sostituire il 45% del suo attuale consumo di benzina e diesel con i biocarburanti di seconda generazione prodotti a partire dagli scarti boschivi.

La regione North Hungary si e’ invece focalizzata sullo sviluppo di un modello integrato di un cluster bioenergetico e di uno sulla decentralizzazione dell’energia, destinato ad essere copiato e sviluppato nell’intero paese. Il progetto, con un’industria ambientale diventata uno dei settori piu’ importanti della regione, risponde inoltre alla duplice sfida di sviluppare l’occupazione e preservare l’ambiente.

Fonte: Ansa
Subscribe to EcoPensiero – efficienza e sostenibilità by Email

Due scienziati di Princeton, rispettivamente ecologo e ingegnere, Pacala e Socolow, hanno sviluppato un’analisi tecnica ed economica delle misure che utilizzano tecnologie esistenti per evitare il raddoppio delle emissioni di gas serra nei prossimi 50 anni. Le diverse opzioni di mitigazione (efficienza energetica, solare, eolico, idrogeno, ..) devono essere integrate perché nessuna da sola è in grado di assolvere per intero (neppure per metà) la sfida di contenere le emissioni di CO2 a 7 miliardi di tonnellate anziché lasciarle lievitare fino a 14 e più miliardi di tonnellate se continueranno ai livelli attuali. Nel mix delle tecnologie stabilizzatrici identificate da Pacala e Socolow non solo c’è l’energia nucleare ma questa dovrebbe nel 2054 raddoppiare la capacità produttiva. Secondo i due scienziati dobbiamo agire subito, quindi dobbiamo impiegare soltanto tecnologie già industrializzate e bisogna stabilizzare la CO2 a 500 ppm per rimanere in sicurezza. Adesso siamo a 384.78 ppm.

Per risolvere il problema i due scienziati hanno proposto 15 possibili approcci fra i quali sette contributi, importanti e su scala mondiale, possono risolvere un problema irrisolvibile con l’impiego di una sola tecnologia.

Gli approcci sono i seguenti:

1) Raddoppiare la distanza media per litro di ogni automobile. Facile costruendo macchine più leggere e meno potenti.

2) Diminuire della metà il percorso medio annuo di ogni automobile.

3) Aumentare l’efficienza delle abitazioni.

4) Aumentare l’efficienza delle centrali elettriche.

5) Spostare la produzione dal carbone al gas naturale (aumentanto del 400% l’impiego di gas).

6) Catturare e stoccare la CO2 prodotta.

7) Aumentare la produzione di idrogeno utilizzando la CO2 catturata (aumento del 600% produzione di H2)

Utilizzo della CO2 catturata in synfuels plants.

9) Fissione Nucleare, la produzione di 700 GW occorre raddoppiare la produzione attualmente erogata.

10) Eolico, installare 2 milioni di turbine, occupando 30 milioni di ettari (il 3% degli USA)

11) Fotovoltaico, occupare 2 milioni di ettari installando 700 volte l’attuale quantità di pannelli solari.

12) Veicoli ad idrogeno.

13) Biofuel, uno “spicchio” di etanolo richiederebbe 250 milioni di ettari (un quarto degli USA!), la questione morale è seria, si rischia di affamare gli essere umani per dar da bere alle macchine.

14) Riduzione della deforestazione.

15) Agricoltura e gestione del suolo, trasformare foreste in terreni coltivati aumenta l’emissione di carbonio.

Naturalmente tutte e 15 le soluzioni hanno l’effetto collaterale di costare, qualcuna un po’ di piu’ e qualcuna un po’ meno.

 http://bitingthequeen.blogspot.com/

Vi taler så meget om, at vi skal nedbringe udledningen af CO2 drastisk for at forhindre en katastrofal global opvarmning… – måske er det rigtigt… – måske er det ikke rigtigt?!

Nu ser det (måske) ud til, at risikoen tværtimod er en global afkøling…

Hvad skal man efterhånden tro på???

Læs denne spændende artikel fra videnskab.dk: Hvornår falder temperaturen?

Også DMI har en artikel om problematikken: Solen blev så stille

Se solpletudviklingen på billdet herunder:

Solpletaktiviteten i 2001 (til venstre) og i 2009 (til højre)

L’incontro tra il presidente statunitense Barack Obama e quello cinese Hu Jintao ha sancito il mancato accordo sui tagli alle emissioni di CO2 tra i rappresentanti delle nazioni che hanno partecipato al vertice dell’APEC, (Organizzazione per la cooperazione economica dei paesi dell’Asia-Pacifico).

Molti autorevoli esperti avevano realisticamente previsto che gli interessi di Cina e Usa (le due maggiori potenze industriali del mondo e i due paesi più inquinatori), ma anche quelli di numerosi paesi asiatici, a partire dall’India, non hanno voglia, denaro e fantasia per impegnarsi in un gravoso e costoso programma di lotta all’emissione dei gas serra, almeno in termini di scadenze precise, livelli prestabiliti e sanzioni per chi non è in regola.

Nessuno negli ultimi tempi ha negato a parole la necessità di affrontare l’emergenza climatica, ma da Obama al presidente dell’Indonesia Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, dal russo Medvedev, al brasiliano Lula, tutti hanno preso, o lo stanno facendo, dei provvedimenti in merito. Ma nessuno di loro vuole impegnarsi in modo vincolante, con un’autorità che controlli standard di riduzione dei gas serra, tempi di raggiungimento dei livelli determinati, in una comune condivisione di sforzi e di obiettivi.
E su questo si costruirà il fallimento della Conferenza di Copenhagen e si metterà a rischio il futuro della Terra, soprattutto perché è passato il principio che non esistano delle scadenze improcrastinabili.

A pochi giorni dalla conferenza di Copenaghen, i ministri Ue dell’Ambiente si dedicano a due giorni di consultazioni informali. Si trovano a discutere la nuova situazione che si é determinata a Singapore, con il sì del presidente americano, Barack Obama, alla proposta danese di un accordo in due tempi. I ministri della Ue così si trovano presi in contropiede e in evidente difficoltà nel preparare una trattativa, destinata fin d’ora al fallimento. L’assenza di target vincolanti per le emissioni è il problema maggiore.

Fonte: Rinnovabili.it
Subscribe to EcoPensiero – efficienza e sostenibilità by Email

Manipulatie door wetenschap en politiek is een heet hangijzer. Aan alle kanten wordt er gewerkt aan het in de wereld helpen van ‘feiten’ die eigenlijk in het achterklap- en geruchtenstadium thuishoren. Dit wordt – bewust en onbewust – gedaan om de massa klaar te stomen voor één of ander doel. Mooie voorbeelden zijn de gekte rondom de H1N1-griep, de ‘noodzaak’ tot het invoeren van een kilometerheffing (die er overigens al bestaat, want je betaalt elke keer als je tankt), het langer doorwerken na je 65 (terwijl we nog steeds meer dan een miljoen inactieven hebben) en de nog steeds sombere berichten over de economische ‘crisis’.

Manipulatie is een heet hangijzer.

Gemasseerd
De massa wordt gemasseerd. Het is heel moeilijk om als scepticus tegengeluiden te laten horen. Die worden namelijk niet gepikt en onder het kleed van de ingebeelde waarheid geveegd. Soms wordt het gemanipuleer duidelijk. Een mooi voorbeeld is de schrikcampagne over de zure regen in de jaren tachtig van de vorige eeuw. De bossen zouden massaal sterven. Niet dus! De bossen zijn er nog. Wat wel verdween is de hele discussie over de zure regen. Die maakte plaats voor een nieuw spookbeeld: een opwarmende aarde! Allemaal de schuld van de mens zelf met zijn immer toenemende uitstoot van kooldioxide. Ook al is meermalen bewezen dat de aarde afkoelt en ook al is meermalen aangetoond dat kooldioxide een tegengesteld effect heeft (en zelfs nodig is om de fotosynthese bij planten en bomen op gang te houden, waardoor er mede zuurstof in onze atmosfeer komt), nog steeds wordt vastgeklampt aan het door de politiek vastgestelde doemscenario. Je hele leven wordt er door beïnvloed. Het is allemaal CO2 wat de klok slaat. Zeker na die rampenfilm van Al Gore.

Het toekomstbeeld van Al Gore.

Een échte ongemakkelijke waarheid
Dit weekeinde werd bekend dat er een échte ongemakkelijke waarheid is. Hackers zijn namelijk flink bezig geweest. Zij logden in op de systemen van een Brits onderzoeksinstituut over klimaatverandering. De whizzkids konden zo duizenden privé-mailtjes van topwetenschappers uit Amerika en Groot-Brittannië lezen. Ook hadden zij inzage in allerlei belangrijke documenten. Veel van deze informatie staat inmiddels op internet. Uit deze informatie blijkt, dat wetenschappers informatie over klimaatverandering hebben gemanipuleerd! De wetenschappers hebben het onder meer over een ‘trucje’ om informatie over temperaturen te manipuleren. Op die manier zouden ze temperatuurdalingen verbergen. In een ander bericht wordt ingegaan op het manipuleren van publicaties door sceptische klimaatwetenschappers. De betrapte wetenschappers hebben het ook over het in een VN-rapport persen van cijfers.

Geloof niet alles wat er wordt gezegd.

Heel anders vergaderen
Nu de feiten van deze ongemakkelijke waarheid bekend zijn, wordt het heel anders vergaderen tijdens de komende klimaattop in Kopenhagen. Of niet: de delegaties van 192 landen zullen wel weer boter op het hoofd hebben. Er zal flink worden gesomberd over de broeikasgasproblematiek. En natuurlijk worden er maatregelen voorgesteld. Alle media zullen er flink wat aandacht aan schenken. De waarheid die de hackers aan het licht hebben gebracht, zal in de marge van het nieuws verdwijnen.

De broeikasdiscussie èn de aarde zullen afkoelen, dat is zeker.

Een wereldbedreigend probleem
Over een jaar of twintig zullen we heel anders tegen de zaken aan kijken. Dan beseffen we dat we weer eens zijn beetgenomen door de wetenschap en de politiek. Tegen die tijd hebben we vast en zeker weer een heel andere wereldbedreigend probleem. Idee: de aarde wordt bedreigd door meteorieten. Er is een wereldomspannend verdedigingsschild nodig om ons tegen die buitenaardse dreiging te verweren. Als we dit niet doen, is de aarde gedoemd te imploderen door de vele inslagen van de meteorieten. De mens als soort zal verdwijnen. Er is actie nodig. Snelle actie! Dus voeren we een verdedigingsschildbelasting in!

Jim Morrison zag het goed, toen hij schreef: "Whoever controls the media, controls the mind."

Dowody na oszustwo klimatologów z ociepleniem i CO2 – naukowcy?

Haker ukradł ponad tysiąc maili z brytyjskiego Instytutu Naukowego Hadley CRU udowodniono, ŻE największy ośrodek badań klimatycznych w Wielkiej Brytanii ustawia dane tak, żeby wskazywały globalnego ocieplenia Istnienie – czytamy na americanthinker.com. Dziennikarze australijskiej gazety “Herald Sun” przebili się przez większość z 1079 maili i 72 dokumentów Wszystko wskazuje na to, Że mamy do czynienia z największym skandalem naukowym naszych czasów. Zamieszani są najwięksi klimatolodzy  – donosi news.com.au.

Ps. Moje poprzednie stanowisko w tej sprawie

http://jaron.salon24.pl/60435, globalne, ocieplenie-ekologicznym-mitem-polemika-dyskusyjna

Professor do MIT abre fábrica de bioplástico – material que é degradado na natureza e pode ser produzido a partir do milho.

De acordo com Anthony Sinksey, do Massachusetts Institute of Technology, mais de 113 milhões de toneladas de plástico são produzidos no mundo por ano. O problema não está somente na fabricação, mas na poluição gerada com o descarte do material.

Muito do plástico produzido vai parar nos oceanos, onde ele nunca se decompõe: só é quebrado em minúsculas partículas.

Como resultado de um trabalho de mais de 25 anos, no mês que vem o professor Sinksey e seu antigo aluno Oliver Peoples irão abrir a fábrica Metabolix, que usa tecnologia patenteada do MIT para fazer plástico de milho. A fábrica pretende produzir anualmente 50 mil toneladas de bioplástico, que será degradado no solo ou oceano.

Isso é apenas 1% do que somente os Estados Unidos produzem, mas espera-se que a indústria tenha potencial de crescimento. Segundo os cientistas, o mercado global de polímeros biodegradáveis gira em torno de 259 mil toneladas por ano, e deve dobrar até 2012.

O projeto teve início quando Peoples começou a seqüenciar o gene da bactéria R. eutropha no laboratório de Sinskey.

Esse gene codifica uma enzima que permite à bactéria produzir polihidroxialcanoato (PHA) — uma forma natural de poliéster. Ela precisa apenas de luz do sol, água e uma fonte de carbono para sintetizar o material que utiliza para armazenar carbono e energia.

A ideia, a partir dessa descoberta, era aumentar a capacidade de produção da bactéria para que ela pudesse ser usada para fins comerciais. Em 1994 eles fundaram a Metabolix e utilizam desde então as patentes do gene sintetizador de PHA, tentando viabilizar a produção em larga escala.

No processo de engenharia metabólica desenvolvido por eles, diferentes genes de diferentes bactérias são incorporados na espécie E. coli, criando uma raça que produz PHA em níveis muito maiores que em bactérias naturais.

A nova fábrica em Clinton, Iowa, usa milho como ponto de partida para as bactérias, mas ela também pode funcionar com outros materiais, como celulose, óleo vegetal e cana de açúcar.

O uso de materiais agrícolas ajuda a reduzir a quantidade de petróleo utilizada para fazer plásticos tradicionais. Atualmente, segundo os pesquisadores, são necessários dois milhões de barris de petróleo por dia para fabricar plásticos.

Fonte: Eco4Planet