Pete'sPlace: Surprise, Surprise -- The Climate Is Always Changing

Pete'sPlace: Surprise, Surprise -- The Climate Is Always Changing

Obama Being Told To Take A Seat And Shut Up

Obama being told to shut up and take a seat after lecturing the Chinese about the environment and climate change.

Obama's Waterloo

It looks like Obama wants to go down with his ship. Climate control through taxation......otherwise know as "Cap and Trade", or trading "carbon credits" is the biggest scam in the history of the world. People are finally waking up to this. It is worse than the health care fiasco, worse than all the other Obama rhetoric and false promise
Obama hints at action during climate talks

In China, he talks of accord with 'immediate operational effect'

The Associated Press

updated 7:58 p.m. CT, Tues., Nov . 17, 2009

BEIJING - President Barack Obama, with China's leader at his side, lifted his sights Tuesday for a broad accord at next month's climate conference that he said will lead to immediate action and "rally the world" toward a solution on global warming.

Obama and President Hu Jintao talked of a joint desire to tackle climate change, but failed to publicly address the root problems that could unravel a deal at the 192-nation conference in Copenhagen: how much each country can contribute to curb greenhouse gases and how the world will pay the billions of dollars needed to fight rising temperatures.

Hu said nations would do their part "consistent with our respective capabilities," a reference to the now widely accepted view that developing nations — even energy guzzlers like China, India and Brazil — should be required only to set goals for reining in greenhouse-gas emissions, not accept absolute targets for reducing emissions like the industrialized countries.

Nonetheless, the symbolism of the world's two largest polluters pledging no half-measures in an agreement during the Dec. 7-18 conference took the sting out of the admission by Obama and other leaders over the weekend that Copenhagen would be only a way station rather than the endpoint envisioned two years ago when negotiations for a new climate treaty began.

Obama administration officials acknowledge that the Copenhagen talks are not expected to produce a final legal agreement, putting that off until next year. The administration sought to make clear Tuesday that Obama expects the talks to produce something more than "an agreement to have an agreement" at a future date.

"We need numbers on the table in Copenhagen," said Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen, speaking to the top negotiators of 44 nations meeting for informal consultations. He said the agreement should be "concrete and binding on countries committing to reach targets, to undertake actions, and to provide agreed finance."

‘Not a partial accord’
Using language that went further than before, Obama said the aim of the summit "is not a partial accord or a political declaration, but rather an accord that covers all of the issues in the negotiations, and one that has immediate operational effect."

He said an all-encompassing agreement "would be an important step forward in the effort to rally the world around a solution to our climate challenge."

Obama did not elaborate. But the United Nations and the European Union have called for a fund of at least $10 billion annually in the next three years to help poor countries draw up plans for moving to low-carbon economies, slow deforestation and take emergency steps against the effects of climate change.

The agreement is meant to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which required 37 industrial countries to cut emissions an average 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, but which made no demands on rapidly growing economies like China's.

The Copenhagen agreement would require developing countries to curb their emissions growth, but it was unclear how their plans would be enshrined in the accord and what would happen if their promises were broken.

Delay binding treaty for a year?
White House aides said Sunday that a fully binding legal agreement would be put off until a December 2010 meeting in Mexico City, even though the new agreement must be ratified and in force when the Kyoto pact expires at the end of 2012.

Together, the U.S. and China emit 40 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, and a new study said the recent growth of emissions during the economic downturn was almost entirely driven by China. Worldwide carbon emissions jumped 2 percent last year, said the study, published Tuesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, adding urgency to efforts to rein in pollution that traps the Earth's heat.

In a joint statement, Obama and Hu said Copenhagen should produce an agreement that would "include emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries."

Obama administration officials are pushing for Copenhagen negotiators to tackle specifics on the major issues such as financing for poor nations, technology cooperation and some commitments among developing nations — though not legally binding — on emission reductions.

That is what Obama was referring to when he said in Beijing that whatever comes out of Copenhagen should have "immediate operational effect," according to administration and congressional officials with knowledge of the administration's preparation for the climate talks.

In Washington, Carol Browner, the White House adviser on energy and climate, said the United States is ready to participate in a commitment by developed countries to help poor countries deal with the impacts of climate change. Browner declined to say how much the United States might contribute, but indicated those details would be worked out in Copenhagen.

U.N. estimates say about $150 billion a year will be needed by 2020.

The summit's Danish hosts and other European leaders understood Obama's comments on his Asian tour as a signal that he will deliver specific pledges of U.S. action on carbon emissions and financing in Copenhagen — even at the risk of moving faster than Congress would let him.

U.S. negotiators have persistently resisted pressure to commit to figures for emissions reductions or financing until Congress completes domestic climate legislation.

The legislative struggle in Congress is now certain to extend into next year. One version, calling for an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by mid-century, has passed the House and a similar version recently emerged from a Senate committee, despite solid Republican opposition.

The administration hopes the U.S. position in Copenhagen will be fortified by evidence of some progress in Congress on climate, along other action the White House has taken to promote clean energy and rein in carbon dioxide emissions. In turn, they believe, some additional commitment from developing countries — even in terms of specific goals — could help get a climate bill through Congress, where opponents have repeatedly argued U.S. action alone won't help solve the climate problem.

Loekke Rasmussen said he told Obama and other leaders last week at an Asia-Pacific summit they must come up with hard commitments at Copenhagen, and Obama did not object.

Anders Carlgren, the environment minister of Sweden, said U.S. pledges would likely spur greater promises from developing countries to curtail their emissions growth. Obama could then take those results back to Congress, Carlgren said.

Obama's comments in Asia signaled he is trying to balance domestic concerns with international demands and is in intense conversation with Congress in advance of the summit, said Jake Schmidt, the climate policy director for the New York-based Natural Resources Defense Council.

He said it was possible Obama might make a conditional pledge or give a range of emissions targets.

"It's a positive shift in what the administration thinks it can bring to Copenhagen," he said.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34001621/ns/us_news-environment/

Surprise, Surprise -- The Climate Is Always Changing

And it has little to do with human activity, especially carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. As they say in California, "duh, we know that dude".
Peter


Stalagmite Data and Climate Change
November 17, 2009 UCDavis

“California experienced centuries-long droughts in the past 20,000 years that coincided with the thawing of ice caps in the Arctic, according to a new study by UC Davis doctoral student Jessica Oster and geology professor Isabel Montañez.” Quoted from the UCDavis press release.

The "Green" Con Job Continues

When are people going to realize the push for "green power" is a scam, a fraud, and a con-job? The following article addresses the issues. The fact is, we're going to be dependent on coal, oil, and gas for a long time.
Peter

Paying Extra for Green Power, and Getting Ads Instead

By KATE GALBRAITH

The solicitations have been flooding people’s mailboxes lately: pay a bit more on your electricity bill for 100 percent clean wind power. Or, the fliers say, buy “green power certificates” to offset your global warming emissions.

Close to a million electricity customers have signed up for such payments voluntarily, and the amount of electricity sold in this way has nearly tripled since 2005, amid rising concern about climate change and energy security. But the participants are in a distinct minority, with a sign-up rate of only about 2 percent in programs run by utilities.

The low sign-up rate raises a question: If large majorities of Americans favor increased government support for clean energy, as polls suggest, why are so many people reluctant to back such programs when it comes to paying extra themselves?

One reason might be that they think the added expense is too high. Solar and wind power generally cost more than power generated with fossil fuels. While many people support alternative energy in principle, they personally may not want to spend hundreds of dollars more for electricity, especially in the current economic environment.

(continued here)

From the above article, a typical brainwashed "sucker" says:

"It's about what's good for the Planet," said Mark Renfrow, a Dallas homeowner who this summer began paying his electric company an extra $26 dollars per month for "wind energy". My guess is what he's really getting for his money is a lot of hot air.

Recent Papers From SPPI On Global Warming

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/_global_warming_a_debate_at_last.html

The following papers represent some of the discussion taking place about global warming, (more specifically the lack thereof), climate change, politics, and economics. There is far more to this subject than meets the eye, or that the mainstream media and their controlling pupetteers in the Obama Administration want anyone to know.
Peter



Global Warming Science and Public PolicyGlobal Warming A Debate at ...
In the April/May 2009 Journal of the Chartered Insurance Institute of London, Paul Maynard and Christopher published an article entitled Let Cool Heads Prevail, expressing grave scientific doubt about the supposed magnitude of the anthropogenic effect on global temperature, and providing substantial evidence from the published data and from the peer-reviewed literature.

Global Warming Science and Public Policy The Climate Torquemada ...
Climate alarmists are growing ever more incendiary in their criticism of people who disagree with them. And these disagreements are not simply about the science, but about the favored policy choices of leftist environmentalists, many of whom have no training in public policy or economics.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/450_peer_reviewed_papers.html
Andrew at Popular Technology has taken the time (quite a bit of it) to compile a list of papers that have skeptical views.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/dr._tim_ball_responds_to_gore_video.html
In this short clip Gore repeats most of the falsehoods from his movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” What’s amazing is he does this even though many other groups have identified the errors. For example, among scientists Lord Christopher Monckton identified 35 major errors.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/global_warming_global_government.html
Radio interview of Lord Christopher Monckton by Glenn Beck on October 19, 2009

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/letter_to_epa_on_the_so-called_endangerment_finding.html
It has been often said that the “science is settled” on the issue of CO2 and climate. LetDr. Howard Hayden puts this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/the_science_of_deceit.html
A well-accepted aphorism about science, in the context of difference of opinion between two points of view, is “Madam, you are entitled to your own interpretation, but not to your own facts”.
The world stoker of the fires of global warming alarmism, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), cleverly suborns this dictum in two ways, Dr. Robert Carter.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/klaus_washtimes_speech.html
“We are meeting one month before the Climate Change Copenhagen Summit and several weeks before the U.S. Senate hearing regarding the cap-and-trade scheme. For these reasons, today’s meeting can’t be an academic conference, even though the topic still needs academic discussion. There is no consensus – neither in science, nor in economic analysis or politics.” President Vaclav Klaus.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/peers_warns_dangers_of_un_summit.html
Lord Monckton has warned the public in Europe and the United States that the upcoming Copenhagen Summit in December this year will use global warming hype as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world unelected ‘communist-style’ government with enormous powers.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/four_degrees_celsius_in_50_years_.html
Last week, Yugratna Srivastava, a 13-year-old Indian girl, was hired by the United Nations to present a poem to the world's leaders and the humanity. In the tradition of Nazi and Soviet methods of propaganda, a kid was asked to explain that our world is gonna fry unless everyone buys all the ideology and policies that her propagandistic employers wanted her to disseminate.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/that_famous_consensus.html
Yet another example of the ‘research’ masquerading as science that is used to reinforce the man-made global warming fraud. One of the difficulties the green zealots have had is that Antarctica has been not warming but cooling, with the extent of its ice reaching record levels.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/the_absurd_results_doctrine.html
'In recent years, many Americans have had cause to wonder whether decisions made at EPA were guided by science and the law, or whether those principles had been trumped by politics," declared Lisa Jackson in San Francisco last week. The Environmental Protection Agency chief can't stop kicking the Bush Administration, but the irony is that the Obama EPA is far more "political" than the Bush team ever was.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/what_happened_to_global_warming_.html
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/the_dog_ate_global_warming.html
Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December. Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/treason_in_the_air.html
Discussions about global warming are marked by an increasing desire to stamp out “impure” thinking, to the point of questioning the value of democratic debate. But shutting down discussion simply means the disappearance of reason from public policy.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/the_con_is_on.html
The American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act of 2009 is worse than nothing: it is a con and a fraud. It pretends to be a vehicle for reductions in CO2E emissions. In fact it is designed to permit increases in CO2E emissions.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/cap_and_fade.html
All great national powers have relied on access to and control of large quantities of natural resources, including energy and foodstuffs, to maintain their influence and status. Government policy that limits access to these resources must certainly weaken the nation as a whole.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/himalayan_review_of_glacial_studies.html
In some ways, a paper on the Himalayan Glaciers is a befi tting way to launch this working paper series, as it is an issue on which there is considerable academic and popular limelight, with a number of varying points of view. Study of the phenomenon of glaciation and glacier dynamics in the Himalayas has, in recent years, attained signifi cant attention, on account of the general belief that global warming and climate change is leading to fast degeneration of glaciers in the Himalayas.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/the_coming_climate_dictatorship.html
The House and Senate climate bills contain a provision giving the president extraordinary powers in the event of a "climate emergency." As chief of staff Rahm Emanuel says, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/rudd_fights_for_foreign_committee.html
The world is considering a new financial market larger than any commodity, it’s “based on science”, but if you ask for evidence, you’re called names—“Denier”, and by our Prime Minister, no less. This is supposed to pass for reasoned debate?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/blog_watch/another_normal_year_for_u.s._temperatures_.html
Early last January, when the final 2008 numbers were in for the U.S. annual average temperature, we ran an article titled “U.S. Temperatures 2008: Back to the Future?” in which we noted that “The temperature in 2008 dropped back down to the range that characterized most of the 20th century.”
2009 seems to be following in 2008’s footsteps.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/blog_watch/austrailian_pm_rudd_warms_skeptics_are_holding_the_world_to_ransom_-_climate_depot_responds.html
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd spewed out a rhetorical barrage on climate skeptics worldwide. Climate Depot has undertaken a point by point rebuttal to Rudd's claims.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/blog_watch/and_then_what_happens_.html
“At first I was concerned about this poll and the language involved. Now from comments I’m seeing a number of people whom aren’t worried and see an opportunity to voice their opinion. I’ll leave it up to the reader to decide if they wish to participate,” says Anthony Watts.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/copenhagen_climate_treaty_framework_draf
Text of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty Framework Draft.

Let's Congratulate Andrew At Popular Technology

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/450_peer_reviewed_papers.html
Andrew at Popular Technology has taken the time (quite a bit of it) to compile a list of papers that have skeptical views. (about the idea of man-caused global warming)