Hundreds Gather To Protest Global Warming

We must stop global warming, say hundreds of "Frosty Snowmen".......before it is too late.

Obama's Sinking Ship.....

Nearly 60 Percent Say President Obama’s Decisions ‘Bad for America’
(CNSNews.com) – A majority of Americans believe an increased government role in health care would lead to more government corruption, while a plurality of Americans think that scientific data supporting man-made global warming is “mostly falsified.” The poll also shows that 58 percent of Americans believe that decisions by the Obama administration have been “bad for America,” as opposed to 37 percent who think Obama’s decisions have been “good for America.”

Climate Change Fraud: Not A Conspiracy?

The leaked Emails and data in the ClimateGate Scandal are just beginning to reveal the depth and breadth of the lies, distortion, and fraud. Consider the following article and the manipulation of articles published on Wikipedia, the most widely used source of information in the world. Talk about peer-review, and trusted journalism!!!!

I would guess that any student in the world with access to the internet has used Wikipedia as a source of information when asked to write a paper or a report on "global warming" or climate change. The following tailoring of information, even re-writing history explains how we have an entire generation of young people who believe this outrageously stupid myth of man-caused global warming.

People have and are being deceived on a huge scale. Is this "cooking the books" a criminal activity? I don't know. I do know it is a disgrace and shameful.
Peter

Wikipedia’s climate doctor

Written by Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post December 20 2009

How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles

The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm.

The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.

The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.

The Medieval Warm Period, which followed the meanness and cold of the Dark Ages, was a great time in human history — it allowed humans around the world to bask in a glorious warmth that vastly improved agriculture, increased life spans and otherwise bettered the human condition.

Geothermal Energy: Wishful Thinking?

The concept of extracting and using heat energy from within the Earth (geothermal energy) will not go away. In theory the amount of energy available is nearly infinite. However, as is so often the case, "the devil is in the details". Yes, the heat is there, but can it be used in a safe and economic way? In most cases geothermal energy remains a dream, but one that is being increasingly funded by a science and integrity-challenged Obama Administration. Stay tuned.
Peter

Could New Clean Energy Source Trigger Quakes?

Theunis Bates Contributor Source

LONDON (Dec. 18) -- The Obama administration has a lot riding on geothermal energy, which it sees as a future source of clean, green and virtually unlimited electricity. Over the past year alone, the U.S. Department of Energy has invested some $440 million in projects trying to turn heat trapped in bedrock deep underground into electricity. But the trial this week of a Swiss geologist – accused of causing earthquakes during the construction of a geothermal power plant – has raised doubts about the safety of some geothermal schemes, and may have contributed to the collapse of one government-backed project in California earlier this month.

Worries about the link between this new power source and earthquakes came to the fore in 2006, when the building of a geothermal plant in the Swiss city of Basel triggered a series of tremors. Although no one was injured, the quakes caused $9 million in damage and seriously shook the locals. On Tuesday, Swiss prosecutors opened their case against Markus Haering – head of Geothermal Explorers, the firm behind the project – who they accuse of deliberately causing landslides and damage to property. He denies all charges and could face up to five years in prison if found guilty.

When construction of the geothermal plant began in 2006, few residents of Basel, a prosperous city on the border with France and Germany, would have believed it would end in earthquakes and court cases. Residents were told that a new, cutting-edge technology known as an enhanced geothermal system would be used to create enough power for 10,000 homes.

Manny Crisostomo, Sacramento Bee / ZUMA Press

An ambitious project to tap geothermal power at The Geysers in northern California was suspended after reports of earthquakes at a similar project in Switzerland.

Traditional geothermal plants tap water trapped in hot rocks relatively near the surface. The Basel project aimed to harness the energy from a hot layer located three miles below the city made of water-free, impermeable rock. To generate power, Basel would have to pump water down a deep borehole. On reaching the layer of superheated rocks, the water would turn to steam, race back to the surface and be used to spin electricity-generating turbines. Leftover hot water would heat nearby homes.

The first stages of the project went smoothly. By December 2006 the well had been drilled and Geopower Basel was starting to pump in pressurized cold water, which was supposed to open up fractures in the rock, creating pores for water to run through. It was then that Basel started to suffer the shakes -- the greatest of which was recorded at a house-moving 3.4 on the Richter scale -- forcing the company to stop pumping.

Paul Younger, a professor of energy and environment at Britain's Newcastle University, says that it's not unusual for much smaller tremors to be felt on the surface when pressurized water is forced into rock deep underground. But, he adds, the process is normally only carried out in seismically stable areas, as the shakes caused by hydro-fracturing can interact with existing deep faults and cause larger trembles.

And Basel is anything but stable. The city has a long history of quakes and was all but wiped out in 1356 by an estimated magnitude 6.5 earthquake – the largest ever known to have occurred in Western Europe. "What they were doing was actually fairly conventional," Younger says. "It's where they were doing it that was unconventional. If you go drilling and stimulating near a known active fault, you're asking for trouble."

The Basel plant, which was finally closed on Dec. 10, didn't just cause trouble in Switzerland. On Dec. 11, U.S. firm AltaRock Energy shut down a California geothermal project known as the Geysers that was based on a similar design as Basel. The Energy Department – which supplied $6 million in funding – had been investigating the project's safety following reports by federal officials that the company had failed to supply sufficient information about the Basel quakes when applying for the go-ahead. But AltaRock also had other serious engineering problems at the site: It couldn't break through shallow formations known as caprock to reach the hot strata.

Experts accept that the closure of Basel and the Geysers is a setback for geothermal power. But, says Colin Williams, a research geophysicist at the U.S. Geological Survey, neither closure "is a showstopper." He says the technology behind projects such as Basel is still at a relatively "early stage." And while he has no doubts it will eventually be advanced enough to use in urban areas, "it's wiser that we do this in less sensitive locations at the moment, so then we can build up a series of case histories."

Younger believes a key advantage geothermal holds over most green energy sources – that it can be on 24 hours a day – means new projects will continue to spring up around the world. "It's not dependent on wind, tide or sunlight," he explains. "That means that it can deliver baseload power much like an ordinary fossil-fuel power plant." Or possibly more. According to a 2007 Energy Department report, advanced geothermal power in the U.S. could – at least in theory – produce up to a staggering 60,000 times the country's current annual energy usage.

That explains why Switzerland and the United States still have the hots for geothermal, despite the Basel quakes. AltaRock has received some $25 million in U.S. government funding to start a new project in Oregon, and the Energy Department is backing more than 120 geothermal initiatives across several states. Engineers in Zurich, meanwhile, started drilling last month to see whether the area was suitable for a new scheme. Geothermal, it seems, could still shake up the world. But in a good way.

Filed under: Nation, World, Tech

Obama Tries To Save Face In Copenhagen

..Obama’s short speech to the conference plenary was probably the most insulting and patronising speech delivered by a US President in a long time. Obama poorly understood the mood of the audience and chose to behave like an infallible school master lecturing children about the importance of keeping their socks up to maintain school dignity, rather than appealing to each leader’s hopes to share in collective victory....

source
Tim Wilson

"NO WE CAN'T !"

FROM-UK Telegraph

Copenhagen climate conference: global warming talks meltdown

The Bella Centre in Copenhagen looks more like the aftermath of a particularly messy house party rather than the place where 120 of the most powerful men and women have just met to discuss saving the planet. The largest gathering of world leaders in recent history began with hope and excitement as President Barack Obama himself swept into town.

He said America was ready to fight climate change by cutting greenhouse gases as long as other countries also cut their emissions - and crucially agree to being monitored by the outside world.


“Yes we can!”

Umm, actually no we can’t.

It soon became clear that China was not signing up to any treaty that allowed other countries to snoop around in their dirty emissions laundry.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao reportedly left for his hotel in a huff and suddenly the whole conference was plunged into chaos.

Despite two weeks of hardcore talks it now seemed like the world could not agree after all – or rather the two main superpowers would not agree.

Negotiations were cancelled and thousands of delegates wandered the corridors looking confused and rather sad.

Meanwhile, somewhere in a posh hotel in town or perhaps in the Bella Centre itself, no one is really sure, President Obama and his counterparts met to try and salvage an agreement.



Copies of the Copenhagen Accord, as it has now become known, began to circulate. But as soon as one was agreed another would emerge – each weaker than the next.

Environmental groups began to panic as any reference to binding targets was removed, then a date for emissions peaking. The need to report emissions was watered down so that countries could do it domestically and then simply tell the world what they are doing. Finally – and most importantly perhaps – a date at which to make the whole thing into a legally-binding treaty was dropped.

Just as it seemed all was lost, it was reported President Obama was giving a press conference. Hundreds of journalists sprinted through the corridors and cafes only to be told it was cancelled and see a fleeting glimpse of the President leaving for the airport.

Twitter alerts were going mad as rumour and counter-rumour flew around the conference centre saying the deal had collapsed, or was imminent, or coming in few hours. Eventually, of course, it was announced by the White House.

The President calmly pronounced that a deal had been done. It was not sufficient to fight climate change and it was not legally binding but it would do, he said.

The 'Copenhagen Accord' was immediately attacked by the French, the Germans and the British but they accepted it and so did the world’s press as deadlines loomed.

However there are 192 countries in the UN process and they all need to sign. Many are angry. They call the “accord”, pushed through by the Americans and barely acknowledged by China – even though they have apparently signed up – a joke.

In the early hours of the morning, as delegates limped out into the snow it was still unclear whether a deal has actually been done.

More...

Copenhage: The Global Warming Circus

This is too good to not share. For more, go here.
Peter

It's settled; climate circus was a fairy tale

COPENHAGEN, DENMARK - DECEMBER 15: Environmental activists hold a demonstration in the centre of Copenhagen on December 15, 2009 in Denmark World leaders started arriving today to attend the Climate Summit where they hope to work towards a global agreement. (Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

FROM-OC Register

By MARK STEYN

The best summation of the UN climate circus in Denmark comes from Andrew Bolt of Australia's Herald Sun: "Nothing is real in Copenhagen – not the temperature record, not the predictions, not the agenda, not the 'solution'."

Just so. Reuters, for example, carried a moving account of the speech by Ian Fry, lead negotiator for Tuvalu, the beleaguered Pacific island nation soon to be under water because of a planet-devastating combination of your SUV and unsustainable bovine flatulence from Vermont farms. "The fate of my country rests in your hands," Fry told the meeting. "I make this as a strong and impassioned plea ... I woke this morning and I was crying and that was not easy for a grown man to admit," he continued, "his voice choking with emotion," in the Reuters reporter's words. Who could fail to be moved?

My country, 'tis of thee

Sweet land near rising sea

Of thee I choke!"

Alas, nowhere in this emotionally harrowing dispatch was there room to mention that Ian Fry's country is not Tuvalu but Australia, where he lives relatively safe from rising sea levels given that he's a hundred miles inland. A career doom-monger, he's resided in Queanbeyan, New South Wales for over a decade while working his way, in the revealing phrase of his neighbor Michelle Ormay, to being "very high up in climate change." As to whether the emotion-choked lachrymose pleader has ever lived in "his" endangered country of Tuvalu, his wife told Samantha Maiden of The Australian that she would "rather not comment." Like his fellow Copenhagen delegate Brad Pitt, Ian Fry is an actor: He's not a Tuvaluan, but he plays one on the world stage.

Whether he's an Aussie or a Tuvaluan, Fry's future king is Welsh, since under the British Commonwealth's environmentally responsible king-share program, the Prince of Wales is simultaneously heir to the thrones of Britain, Australian, Tuvalu and a bunch of other countries. His Royal Highness was also in Copenhagen last week, telling delegates that there were now only seven years left to save the planet. Prince Charles is so famously concerned about the environment that he's known as the Green Prince. Just for the record, his annual carbon footprint is 2,601 tons. The carbon footprint of an average Briton (i.e., all those wasteful, consumerist, environmentally unsustainable deadbeats) is 11 tons. To get him to Copenhagen to deliver his speech, His Highness was flown in by one of the Royal Air Force's fleet of VIP jets from the Royal Squadron. Total carbon emissions: 6.4 tons. In other words, the Green Prince used up seven months' of an average Brit's annual carbon footprint on one short flight to give one mediocre speech of alarmist boilerplate.

But relax, it's all cool, because he offsets! According to The Sydney Morning Herald, the Prince will be investing in exciting new green initiatives. "Investing" as in "using your own money", you mean? Not exactly. Apparently, it will be taxpayers' money. So he'll "offset" the cost of using up seven months of an average peasant's carbon footprint on one flight by taking the peasant's money and tossing it down some sinkhole. No wonder he feels so virtuous. Oh, don't worry, though. He does have to pay a personal penalty for the sin of flying by private jet: Seventy pounds. Which is the cost of about six new trees, or rather less than the bill for parking at Heathrow would have been.

So just to recap: The Prince of Wales, a man who has never drawn his own curtains, ramps up a carbon footprint of 2,601 tons while telling us that western capitalist excess is destroying the planet. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who heads the International Panel on Climate Change and has demanded that "hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying," flew 443,226 miles on "IPCC business" in the year and a half before the Copenhagen summit. And Al Gore is a carbon billionaire: He makes more money buying offsets from himself than his dad did from investing in Occidental Petroleum.

All of the above are, as that ersatz Tuvaluan delegate's neighbor would say, "very high up in climate change". But what about all the non-high-ups? Not just the low-level toadies like Associated Press "science" reporter Seth Borenstein, who dutifully pooh-poohed the idea that the leaked Climategate e-mails were of any significance and for his pains was rewarded by having to stand in line with thousands of other no-name warm-mongers for seven hours in the freezing streets of Copenhagen. All because the IPCC accredited 45,000 delegates to a space that accommodates 15,000 – but don't worry, when it comes to recalibrating the planet's climate, I'm sure they'll run the numbers more carefully.

But forget Borenstein and other hangers-on. Even making allowances for the stupidity of youthful idealism, the protesters in the streets of Copenhagen seem especially obtuse. Far from sticking it to the Man, they're cheerleading for the biggest Man of all: they're supporting a new globalized feudalism in which Prince Charles, Prince Al, Prince Rajendra and others "very high up in climate change" jet around the world at public expense telling the rest of us we need to stay put. A British parliamentarian recently proposed that everyone be issued with an annual "carbon allowance" that would be drawn down every time he booked a flight, or filled up his car, or bought a washer and dryer instead of beating his laundry on the rocks down by the river with the village women every week. You think the Prince of Wales or any other member of the new global elite will be subject to that "allowance"?

If you're young and you fall for this, you're a sap. Indeed, you're oozing so much sap the settled scientists should be measuring your tree rings. Remember that story a couple of weeks ago about how Danish prostitutes were offering free sex to Copenhagen delegates for the duration of the conference? I initially assumed it was just an amusing marketing cash-in by savvy Nordic strumpets. But no, the local "sex workers' union" Sexarbejdernes Interesseorganisation was responding to the municipal government's campaign to discourage attendees from partaking of prostitutes. The City of Copenhagen distributed cards to every hotel room showing a lady of the evening at a seedy street corner over the slogan "BE SUSTAINABLE: Don't Buy Sex."

"Be sustainable"? Prostitution happens to be legal in Copenhagen, and the "sex workers" were understandably peeved at being lumped into the same category of planet-wreckers as Big Oil, car manufacturers, travel agents and other notorious pariahs. So Big Sex decided they weren't going to take it lying down. Yet, in an odd way, that municipal postcard gets to the heart of what's going on: Government can – and will – use a "sustainable" environment as a pretext for anything that tickles its fancy. All ambitious projects – Communism, the new Caliphate – have global ambitions, but, when the globe itself is the cover for those ambitions, freeborn citizens should beware. Nico Little, a Canadian leftie at the Rabble Web site, distilled the logic into a single headline:

"Hookers Are Killing Polar Bears And Now You Can't Water Your Lawn."

Write that down. And next time the Prince of Wales, Al Gore, Dr. Pachauri or the delegation from Tuvalu give an "impassioned" speech, keep it handy as a useful précis.


More...

The Truth From The Copenhagen Climate ConferenceT

The true story coming from Copenhagen, and which you will not read or hear from the mainstream media, (e.g. NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, NY Times) is nothing was accomplished other than another huge waste of taxpayer money. Call it the Copenhagen circle jerk, lead by Obama, and attended by Al Gore, "Swift Boat" Kerry, and Arnold "Steroid" Swartzenegger. Obama's Nobel "Peace Prize" is beginning to look as tarnished and ridiculous as is Al Gore's. Sir(?) Monckton in the following article, says it well.
Peter

Parturient montes: nascetur ridiculus mus

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen (source)

The mountains shall labor, and what will be born? A stupid little mouse. Thanks to hundreds of thousands of US citizens who contacted their elected representatives to protest about the unelected, communistic world government with near-infinite powers of taxation, regulation and intervention that was proposed in early drafts of the Copenhagen Treaty, there is no Copenhagen Treaty. There is not even a Copenhagen Agreement. There is a “Copenhagen Accord”.

The White House spinmeisters spun, and their official press release proclaimed, with more than usual fatuity, that President Obama had “salvaged” a deal at Copenhagen in bilateral talks with China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, which had established a negotiating bloc.

The plainly-declared common position of these four developing nations had been the one beacon of clarity and common sense at the foggy fortnight of posturing and gibbering in the ghastly Copenhagen conference center.

This is what the Forthright Four asked for:

Point 1. No compulsory limits on carbon emissions.

Point 2. No emissions reductions at all unless the West paid for them.

Point 3. No international monitoring of any emissions reductions not paid for by the West.

Point 4. No use of “global warming” as an excuse to impose protectionist trade restrictions on countries that did not cut their carbon emissions.

After President Obama’s dramatic intervention to save the deal, this is what the Forthright Four got:

Point 1. No compulsory limits on carbon emissions.

Point 2. No emissions reductions at all unless the West paid for them.

Point 3. No international monitoring of any emissions reductions not paid for by the West.

Point 4. No use of “global warming” as an excuse to impose protectionist trade restrictions on countries that did not cut their carbon emissions.

Here, in a nutshell – for fortunately nothing larger is needed – are the main points of the ”Copenhagen Accord”:

Main points: In the Copenhagen Accord, which is operational immediately, the parties“underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time”; emphasize their “strong political will to urgently combat climate change”; recognize “the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 C°” and perhaps below 1.5 C°; aspire to “cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible”; acknowledge that eradicating poverty is the “overriding priority of developing countries”; and accept the need to help vulnerable countries – especially the least developed nations, small-island states, and Africa – to adapt to climate change.

Self-imposed emissions targets: All parties will set for themselves, and comply with, emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted to the secretariat by 31 January 2010. Where developing countries are paid to cut their emissions, their compliance will be monitored. Developed countries will financially support less-developed countries to prevent deforestation. Carbon trading may be used.

New bureaucracies and funding: Under the supervision of a “High-Level Panel”, developed countries will give up to $30 billion for 2010-12, aiming for $100 billion by 2020, in “scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding” to developing countries via a “Copenhagen Green Fund”. A “Technology Mechanism” will “accelerate technology development and transfer” to developing countries.

And that’s it. Expensive, yes. Unnecessary, yes. But earth-shaking? No.

The disconnect between the gaseous halations of various grandstanding “world leaders” about the supposedly urgent need to “Save The Planet Now” and the puny outcome of the Copenhagen Non-Event is dazzling. And it is welcome.

For all the rhetoric – or the flatulence that passes for rhetoric these days – it has begun to dawn on the “leaders” of those nations that subject them to regular recall and re-election that the people no longer believe the mad scientists are telling them the truth. And the people are right.

What is more, after the failure of the mainstream news media to report what the malevolent and unpleasant scientists involved in the Climategate affair had written to one another about those with whom they disagreed, or about what they had done to invent, fabricate, contrive, fiddle, tweak, alter, massage, conceal, hide or even destroy scientific data for the sake of protecting and peddling the pseudo-science in which environment correspondents had so readily and so ignorantly believed, the people no longer trust the media.

And that is bad news for a governing class that has come to develop a far-too-cosy relationship with the mainstream media. It is also very bad news for the mainstream media themselves, which are now rapidly losing circulation and ad revenue as the people rightly desert them for the Internet, where - notwithstanding various expensive attempts by the over-funded international Left to interfere with Google and Yahoo searches - the truth is still available if you know where to look.

Copenhagen was the last-chance saloon not for the planet, which does not need saving, but for the UN’s world-government wannabes. They blew it, big-time, by believing their own overspun propaganda about planetary peril and thinking they had “world leaders” where they wanted them. They overreached themselves, and have paid the price.

Even though next year is an el Nino year accompanied by fast-recovering solar activity, 2010 may not, after all, set a new global-temperature record to overtop that which was set in 1998, the year of the Great el Nino. By the time the next yackfest takes place in Mexico City in December 2010, the steam will have gone out of the “global warming” scare. We should not let our guard down, but Copenhagen is more than the end of the beginning for Green fascism: it is the beginning of the end. The eco-Nazis’ attempt at global bureaucratic coup d’etat has failed, and no such attempt is likely to succeed again. Too many of you are watching.