The lunacy is the demonization of CO2

Only until CO2 production is left out of the list and transferred to the benefit column where it belongs, will we be able to correctly evaluate how destructive various energy sources really are.

Until people understand that each part per million added to the atmosphere represents an 8% increase in food production, and that humans only contribute less than 12 ppm.of the 385-388ppm, we will not be able to break the hold of the crooks who run the world.

How can we possible expect the correct environmental decisions to be made based on a carefully nurtured fraud, even if we had a government that wasn't as wracked by scandal as the Campbell regime?

The AGW scam has fallen apart on the international level, but the fraud continues herein BC, happily supported by the opposition party.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/04/seeing-red-jobs-initiative-to-limit-californias-ab32-greenhouse-gas-law-will-be-on-the-november-ballot/

Until the Left acknowledges they have been conned, there will be no rational decisions made about anything.

Campbell will be requiring schools and hospitals to by "carbon offsets". Don't you just love the idea of bake sales to raise money to buy carbon offsets from a Crown Corporation instead of supplies?
http://www.pacificcarbontrust.com/

Mopled Ol' Sport........

Hahahahahahaha! Boy, you sure are a riot! You should take your act on the road!

So, when the extra heat generated fries the prairies and makes them an eastward extension of the Sonoran Desert, have you figured this into your "calculations"? Or are you just doing the rote thing, and have no idea what you are saying.
http://www.innovationcanada.ca/en/articles/the-myth-of-abundant-canadian-water

imperial dictates

bc is the hydro power equivalent of iraq/iran and is in the crosshairs of gluttonous bloodthirsty fascist amerika; there will be no discussion about energy sekurity for amerika, or else! what was lapdog harper and gordo doing entertaining the yankee vp and arnold, the [EDITED. -MODERATOR.] governator in kontrol of kalifornia, during the olympic games??

Rick W., CO2 can't do what you think

If CO2 were capable of what you have been led to believe, the world temperature would still be climbing as CO2 goes up. Instead,temperatures have been dropping even as CO2 continues upward.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/07/the-decrease-in-upper-ocean-heat-content-from-march-to-april-was-1c-largest-since-1979/

Remember, "no causation without correlation"?

There is no longer a correlation between temperature and CO2. Mother Nature falsified the hypothesis.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temperatures-ipcc-projections/

You need to educate yourself. I suggest you stop reading PR Agency blogs instead of scientists.

Richard Lindzen (MIT Atmospheric Science Professor) states: “there is a much more fundamental and unambiguous check of the role of feedbacks in enhancing greenhouse warming that also shows that all models are greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity. Here, it must be noted that the greenhouse effect operates by inhibiting the cooling of the climate by reducing net outgoing radiation. However, the contribution of increasing CO2 alone does not, in fact, lead to much warming (approximately 1 deg. C for each doubling of CO2). The larger predictions from climate models are due to the fact that, within these models, the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever CO2 does. This is referred to as a positive feedback. It means that increases in surface temperature are accompanied by reductions in the net outgoing radiation – thus enhancing the greenhouse warming. ... Satellite observations of the earth’s radiation budget allow us to determine whether such a reduction does, in fact, accompany increases in surface temperature in nature. As it turns out, the satellite data from the ERBE instrument (Barkstrom, 1984, Wong et al, 2006) shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative -- strongly reducing the direct effect of CO2 (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) in profound contrast to the model behavior.”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria

Mopled

The instrumental record of surface temperature change is based on a combination of land air, marine air, and ocean surface temperature changes recorded over roughly the past century and a half. While several different datasets exist, the most widely used version has been produced by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in the UK. Issues of consistency and homogeneity of the measurements through time have been taken into account in constructing this global surface temperature database, and measures have been taken to ensure that all non-climatic inhomogeneities (including Urban Heat Island effects) have been removed.

Over land regions, more than 3000 monthly station temperature time series are used. Coverage is denser over the more populated parts of the world, particularly, the United States, southern Canada, Europe and Japan. Coverage is sparsest over the interior of the South American and African continents and over the Antarctic. The number of available stations was small during the 1850s, but increases to over 3000 stations during the 1951-90 period. For marine regions sea surface temperature (SST) measurements taken on board merchant and some naval vessels are used. Coverage is reduced away from the main shipping lanes and is minimal over the Southern Oceans. For convenience, the global surface temperature data are interpolated onto a regular grid (e.g. 5 degree latitude/longitude gridboxes) and formed into ‘anomalies’ that represent relative departures from a base period (rather than absolute temperatures). These gridded data are, in turn, often spatially averaged to yield large-scale mean temperature estimates such as hemispheric or global mean temperature.

Preliminary calculations* show that surface temperatures** averaged over the globe in 2004 were the fourth highest (and the past decade was the warmest) since measurements began in 1861. (Actually, there are measurements at some sites before 1861, but this date is generally chosen as the first time when there is a dense enough network of data available to make a global average meaningful). 2004 was slightly cooler than 2003, 2002 and 1998, with the average world temperature exceeding the 30 year average (1961-1990) by 0.44° C. 1998 remains the warmest year, when surface temperatures averaged +0.54°C above the same 30-year mean. October 2004 was the warmest October on record. Sea-ice extent in the Arctic remains well below the long-term average. In September 2004, it was about 13% less than the 1973-2003 average. Satellite information suggests a general decline in Arctic sea-ice extent of about 8% over the last two and half decades.

What's your info source, GW?

The game is over. There hasn't been any significant warming since 1995. Even the disgraced Phil Jones admits that. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

And by now even you should know that AGW and the warming after the Little Ice Age should not be confused.

Your belief does nothing to change the fact that there is no longer a correlation between temperature and CO2 and the period when there was, 1979-2002, was very short in earth history. There have been times when CO2 was high during ice ages.

"In the current or Holocene warm period, which began 11,400 years ago at the abrupt termination of the Younger Dryas cooling event, some 7500 years were warmer than the present (Cuffey & Clow, 1997), and, in particular, the medieval, Roman, Minoan, and Holocene Climate Optima were warmer than the present (Cuffey & Clow, 1997). The “global warming” that ceased late in 2001 (since when there has been a global cooling trend for eight full years) had begun in 1695, towards the end of the Maunder Minimum, a period of 70 years from 1645-1715 when the Sun was less active than at any time in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004). Solar activity increased with a rapidity unprecedented in the Holocene, reaching a Grand Solar Maximum during a period of 70 years from 1925-1995 when the Sun was very nearly as active as it had been at any time in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Usoskin, 2003; Solanki, 2005).

The first instrumental record of global temperatures was kept in Central England from 1659. From 1695-1735, a period of 40 years preceding the onset of the Industrial Revolution in 1750, temperatures in central England, which are a respectable proxy for global temperatures, rose by 2.2 K (4 F). Yet global temperatures have risen by only 0.65 K (1.2 F) since 1950, and 0.7 K (1.3 F) in the whole of the 20th century. Throughout the 21st century, global temperatures have followed a declining trend.

Accordingly, neither global mean surface temperature nor its rates of change in recent decades have been exceptional, unusual, inexplicable, or unprecedented."
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/testimony_of_the_viscount_monckton_of_brenchley_before_congress_may_6_2010/

/2010/20100421185157.aspx

Europe's Carbon Mafia, And Ours
"All across Europe authorities have been conducting raids, rounding up individuals involved in a new version of Climate-gate. This time the data aren't corrupted. Europe's Emissions Trading System is. The system is so sick, it's turned out to be a scam built upon a scam"
continues at:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=532610

ICECAP

"About Us
ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, is the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public. It provides access to a new and growing global society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather. We worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon.

Through ICECAP you will have rapid access to our experts here in the United States and to experts and partner organizations worldwide, many of whom maintain popular web sites or insightful blogs or newsletters, write and present papers, have authored books and offer interviews to the media on climate issues. We spotlight new findings in peer-review papers and reports and rapidly respond to fallacies or exaggerations in papers, stories or programs and any misinformation efforts by the media, politicians and advocacy groups.

ICECAP is not funded by large corporations that might benefit from the status quo but by private investors who believe in the need for free exchange of ideas on this and other important issues of the day. Our working group is comprised of members from all ends of the political spectrum. This is not about politics but about science.

We are an open society that welcomes your membership and appreciates your endorsement and support. Icecap is now a 501C3 corporation. As such, contributions are tax exempt under section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code. Any bequests, transfers or gifts are also exempt under sections 2055, 2106 and 2522 of the code. For your records, we are ICECAP US."

Does ICECAP believe in global warming? Maybe, but they believe human activity is changing the environment on the Earth. Global Warming is part of that change. We must not only stop global warming but also the other environmental changes due to our pollution. The human footprint is stepping on too much of our ecosystem.

Icecap is based on science

"Belief" is about religion.

Do you "believe" Campbell...or Arnie...or Al Gore...or Goldman Sachs? Why would anybody vaguely rational trust any of them?

"The forecasting procedures described in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report violated 81% of the 89 principles relevant to climate forecasting. For example, the methods and data were neither fully disclosed nor were they easy for independent researcher to access, no reasonable alternative forecasting methods were assessed, and prediction intervals were not assessed objectively (see “Global warming: Forecasts by scientists versus scientific forecasts”).

Those who were responsible for making the forecasts had no training or experience in the proper use of scientific forecasting methods. Furthermore, we were unable to find any indication that they made an effort to look for evidence from scientific research on forecasting. It is perhaps not surprising then that their implementation of their forecasting method was inappropriate."

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/6451/Team-of-Scientists-Counter-US-Govt-Report-Global-warming-alarm-will-prove-false--Climate-fears-based-on-faulty-forecasting-procedures

The head of the IPCC is a railroad engineer with no climatology credentials, but he owns stock in the Chicago Climate Exchange, along with Gore and Obama.
http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2009/03/28/the-privately-owned-chicago-climate-exchange-is-heavily-influenced-by-obama-cohorts-al-gore-and-maurice-strong/

You can't be that naive.
You are being conned.

the overwhelming bulk

of the world scientific community supports anthropogenic global warming. We will proceed from that point and behave accordingly. On a personal note, I look forward to the coming trials for crimes against humanity of all those who seek profit or power by denying the obvious.

The ever-faithful Takuan wants an Auto Da Fe

The old saying "a fool and his money are soon parted" continues to apply, especially those who are so naive as to believe that Goldman Sachs, the IMF and the World Bank, which all plan to cash in on the carbon scam, have the best interests of humanity at heart.

The IS NO scientific consensus on AGW...it's as phony as the hypothesis. they bought a great many people by spending $80 Billion on junk science.
It took interested amateurs to blow the scam.

Do read about the Canadians who broke the Hockey Stick. We have a great deal to be proud of in McIntryre and McKittrick. The scientific community should be ashamed of itself for going along with the scam for so long.
http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-

"Clive Crook, former deputy editor of the Economist and now an Atlantic Monthly columnist, not a partisan in the debate, described the “stink of intellectual corruption” as overpowering."

"The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any
lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of
intellectual corruption is overpowering. .. this scandal is not at the margins of the
politicised IPCC process... It goes to the core of that process.
One theme, in addition to those already mentioned about the suppression of dissent,the suppression of data and methods, and the suppression of the unvarnished truth,comes through especially strongly: plain statistical incompetence. … it is an ongoing issue in Steve McIntyre’s campaign to get hold of data and methods. I had given it
insufficient weight. Some of the correspondents in these emails appear to be out of their depth. This would explain their anxiety about having statisticians, rather than their
climate-science buddies, crawl over their work…"
http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2009/11/more-on-climategate/

mopled:

endlessly repeating a lie does not make it truth. As nazi propandists noted, dinning faleshoods into the people's ears may sway them, but the truth remains. At least they kept track of their lies. Indeed, that is what gave them their power, Goebbels himself never really believed the filth he spewed, it was just a means to an end.

Trust me, names are bing taken and there WILL be a second Nuremberg.

Exactly so, so why do you do it?

You might as well have your fingers in your ears while singing "Come to Jesus".

There is no longer any reason to believe the crooks...there hasn't been any warming for over 10 years, and CO2 continues rising anyway. To continue with this nonsense is the most stupid and destructive path the Left could take.

As for your Nuremberg crack, be careful what you wish for. I'd love to see the real criminals on trial...Goldman Sachs, Gore, Strong,Campbell, Arnie,Mann,Jones,Briffa, Pachauri...

BARACK OBAMA, AL GORE, GOLDMAN SACHS, AND THE GREATEST SWINDLE IN HUMAN HISTORY

$10,000,000,000,000

Ten trillion dollars. That’s the conservative estimate of the amount of money Barack Obama, Albert Gore Jr., and a whole cast of criminals stand to make yearly (gross) off of the greatest scam in human history: “global warming.”
http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/Columnists/A_Time_For_Choosing/BARACK_OBAMA_AL_GORE_GOLDMAN_SACHS_AND_THE_GREATEST_SWINDLE_IN_HUMAN_HISTORY/29819

Try paying attention to what real scientists are saying. http://climaterealists.com/?id=5659

oh

lord...

Here's a more neutral report of the fraud story

The $10 Trillion Climate Fraud Cap-And-Trade: While senators froth over Goldman Sachs and derivatives, a climate trading scheme being run out of the Chicago Climate Exchange would make Bernie Madoff blush. Its trail leads to the White House.

Lost in the recent headlines was Al Gore's appearance Monday in Denver at the annual meeting of the Council of Foundations, an association of the nation's philanthropic leaders.

"Time's running out (on climate change)," Gore told them. "We have to get our act together. You have a unique role in getting our act together."

Gore was right that foundations will play a key role in keeping the climate scam alive as evidence of outright climate fraud grows, just as they were critical in the beginning when the Joyce Foundation in 2000 and 2001 provided the seed money to start the Chicago Climate Exchange. It started trading in 2003, and what it trades is, essentially, air. More specifically perhaps, hot air.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) advertises itself as "North America's only cap-and-trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide." Barack Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002 when the CCX startup grants were issued. As president, pushing cap-and-trade is one of his highest priorities. Now isn't that special?
more:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=531731

I suppose in your case

we'll make a humanitarian exception and commute it to life in an institution.

MY BELIEF!

Goof grief Mopled; look who's talking.

Investor's Business Daily, you think Monbiot would touch it?

The business ties between Gore, Strong, Goldman Sachs and Obama are all a matter of record.

"Currently, CCX members agree to a voluntary but legally binding agreement to regulate greenhouse gases.

The CCX provides the mechanism in trading the very pollution permits and carbon offsets the administration's cap-and-trade proposals would impose by government mandate.

Thanks to Fox News' Glenn Beck, we have learned a lot about CCX, not the least of which is that its founder, Richard Sandor, says he knew Obama well back in the day when the Joyce Foundation awarded money to the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University, where Sandor was a research professor.

Sandor estimates that climate trading could be "a $10 trillion dollar market." It could very well be, if cap-and-trade measures like Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer are signed into law, making energy prices skyrocket, and as companies buy and sell permits to emit those six "greenhouse" gases.

So lucrative does this market appear, it attracted the attention of London-based Generation Investment Management, which purchased a stake in CCX and is now the fifth-largest shareholder.

As we noted last year, Gore is co-founder of Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offsets of dubious value that let rich polluters continue to pollute with a clear conscience.

Other founders include former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood, as well as Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris, also of Goldman Sachs. In 2006, CCX received a big boost when another investor bought a 10% stake on the prospect of making a great deal of money for itself. That investor was Goldman Sachs, now under the gun for selling financial instruments it knew were doomed to fail.

The actual mechanism for trading on the exchange was purchased and patented by none other than Franklin Raines, who was CEO of Fannie Mae at the time.

Raines profited handsomely to the tune of some $90 million by buying and bundling bad mortgages that led to the collapse of the American economy. His interest in climate trading is curious until one realizes cap-and-trade would make housing costlier as well.

Amazingly, none of these facts came up at Senate hearings on Goldman Sachs' activities, which may be nothing more than Ross Perot's famous "gorilla dust," meant to distract us from the real issues.

The climate trading scheme being stitched together here will do more damage than Goldman Sachs, AIG and Fannie Mae combined. But it will bring power and money to its architects."

Rampant croney capitalism disguised as environmentalism, exposed by people we don't like, doesn't change the nature of the scam.

Thanks to Glenn BECK!

For what, my God, the idiot has turned Fox News into an even bigger joke than it was before.

Nice try

Beck schmeck...the crooks have been exposed. After both Climategate and the financial debacle, can there be any doubt the world is run by criminals?

Buddy - your problem - not mine

You BROUGHT Beck into the debate.

Now you're gonna have to wear that one too.

heh!

"Glenn Beck", heh!

Nothing Beck is changes the facts

How about this one!

We are being taxed, why?

Gore, Strong, Obama,Campbell and Arnie plus Goldman-Sachs are trading our breath, why?

You are supporting this fraud, why?

"Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995" * Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

More...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Again, why?

How can you continue to support this fraud?

Nope mopled

It's possible to agree with the science without becoming a believer. And without thinking Al Gore and David Suzuki (among others) are heroes.

Y'see, there are religious zealots singing in both the choirs...but, on balance, guys like Rush and Beck and Imhof are more off key....and they're on your side of the church.

Not my church or my creed

I prefer Watt,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/10/the-union-of-concerned-scientists-tackles-gardening-to-save-the-planet/

McIntyre,
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/06/trinity-college-presentation-march-2010/

Jo Nova
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/be-afraid-melting-sea-ice-causes-infinitesimal-sea-level-rise/

and Donna La Framboise
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/05/cutoff-dates-what-cutoff-dates.html

And it is not possible too agree with non-science...since there is nothing left without the fakery of the Hockey Stick.

old news my friend

We've been there before.

Neither you nor Glenn Beck is at all convincing...not to say Al Gore is either...but, on balance, if I had to choose between your army of wing-nuts and neo-cons and Al Gore's cast of characters and the hard science behind THEM it's clear who's on the right track and who's playing games.

I mean, seriously, Donna La Framboise?

You've got to be kidding. Why not cite Camile Paglia for God's sake?

You keep harping on something totally irrelevant

The facts are there has been no warming for over 12 years even though the CO2 continued to go up. Take a look at the graph.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/

They got caught faking data and throwing out whatever was inconvenient to the agenda...like data from dropped Russian and Canadian Stations.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

"The global data bases have serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long term temperature trends. Especially since most of the issues produce a warm bias in the data.
The Climategate whistleblower proved what those of us dealing with data for decades already knew. The data was degrading and was being manipulated. The IPCC and their supported scientists have worked to remove the pesky Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and the period emailer Tom Wigley referred to as the “warm 1940s blip.” They have also worked to pump up the recent warm cycle that ended in 2001.
Programmer Ian “Harry” Harris, in the Harry_Read_Me.txt file, commented about:
“[The] hopeless state of their (CRU) data base. No uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found...I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.
This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!
There has clearly been some cyclical warming in recent decades most notably 1979 to 1998. However the global surface station based data is seriously compromised by major station dropout. There has been a clear bias towards removing higher elevation, higher latitude and rural stations. The data suffers contamination by urbanization and other local factors such as land-use/land-cover changes, and improper siting. There is missing data and uncertainties in ocean temperatures. These factors all lead to overestimation of temperatures. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in the last several years have shown this overestimation is the order of 30 to 50% just from the contamination issues alone. The cherry picking of observing sites and the increase of interpolation to vacant data grids makes these estimates very conservative. The data bases on which so many important decisions are to be made are “Non Gradus Anus Rodentum!”

Why do you continue to support a clear and obvious fraud?

And Donna Laframboise has done a great job helping to show what a sham the IPCC is.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/05/citizen-audit-report-is-now-pdf.html

I disagree

And so do the vast majority of reputable scientists.

But that's fine. You keep listening to, reading and posting the work of unknown feminists and unqualified radio hosts as if it were gospel.

She has NO credibility.

She's not the only one.

I don't think I'm the one supporting a fraud.

And I know I'm not the one posting the same damn thing from 30 different angles here and elsewhere.

As a rule, I don't read blogs - I can hear enough garbage at the water cooler!

PULEEZE spare us the false consensus nonsense

Even the climate crooks admit the MWP was warmer
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/05/climate-research-from-briffa-esper-jones-moberg-mann-all-confirm-the-extreme-medieval-warming.html

The warming is over, it was less and of shorter duration than that of the MWP and Donna Laframboise can survive attacks from the likes of you.

"NOconsensus.org believes everyone has a right to participate in this discussion - even scientists who work for oil companies. Al Gore has an interest in making things sound dire so organizations will continue to pay him $175,000 to deliver a speech. Greenpeace has an incentive to exaggerate so people will donate to its cause. Journalists know alarming headlines sell newspapers. If all these folks get a seat at the discussion table, a broad cross-section of scientists deserves to be present, too.

A great deal of online global warming commentary shoots-the-messenger. Rather than debating the issues, many bloggers attempt to silence other people by declaring them morally or politically suspect. Rather than discussing matters in respectful, professional tones, many websites insist those with contrary views are marginal individuals whose ideas don't merit consideration."

She joins McIntryre, McKittrick, Ball and Solomon as brave Canadians exposing international scientific corruption.

'As a journalist, Ms. Laframboise frequently championed unpopular causes. After Guy Paul Morin was wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison in 1992, most journalists forgot about him.

Ms. Laframboise repeatedly used her weekly column in the Toronto Star to expose the flawed forensic science that led to his conviction. (He was exonerated in 1995 and eventually financially compensated.)

The same critical-thinking skills that led Ms. Laframboise to bear witness to the Guy Paul Morin story are at work here. Just because a jury has reached a consensus on someone's guilt or innocence, doesn't mean that consensus is correct. Just because most people believe human activity causes global warming doesn't make it so."
http://noconsensus.org/about.php

May I remind you the head of the IPCC is a railroad engineer with no climate credentials either...but he sure knows how to make money from all of the uproar.

"What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/21/pacharuris-carbon-choo-choo-off-the-rails/

I'll tell you something mopled

YOU'RE the one pushing the FALSE CONSENSUS...I actually looked at LaFramboise's blog - against my better judgement - and I'm actually convinced I was 'generous' with my assessment of her.
I won't be taking any climate assessments on the basis of her analysis or her lame analogies.

Your opinion is another irrelevancy

There are serious people who are impressed with the work done by her in showing how the IPCC pretended its judgement was based on peer-reviewed science...when in fact at least one third of it was junk from activist organizations.You are in denial, because there is more fraud.

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming Climategate has already affected Russia.
"On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations."
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BOMBSHELL.pdf

You keep trying to shoot the messenger, but the message is loud and clear.

AGW is a fraud based on $80 BILLION worth of US government grants.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/we-paid-to-find-a-“crisis”/

Mopled

GET THIS:
The feeling's mutual.

Awww, shucks!

You are such a loyalist, but it is ill-placed given who jumped the IPCC ship very publicly.

"Even big time warmists like Andrew Weaver are jumping ship now:

Andrew Weaver, probably Canada’s leading climate scientist, is calling for replacement of IPCC leadership and institutional reform. If Andrew Weaver is heading for the exits, it’s a pretty sure sign that the United Nations agency is under monumental stress. Mr. Weaver, after all, has been a major IPCC science insider for years.

Weaver is of course the scientist who said that it is "dangerous" to give both sides equal weight in the AGW debate and when speaking of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report said, it "isn’t a smoking gun; climate is a battalion of intergalactic smoking missiles""
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/1/27/and-another.html

But it just won't stop...."In Dr Rajendra Pachauri and the IPCC – No Fossil Fool, author Dennis Ambler shows that the UN Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) directly benefits energy companies in India with which Pachauri has previous or present connections, demonstrating a very clear conflict of interest with his position as head of IPCC.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 to investigate the pre-determined and contentious conclusion that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are causing unprecedented warming of the planet. It has delivered four assessment reports on the state of climate science and is currently preparing a further, fifth report. The first three reports were used to underwrite the political objective of carbon trading, which translated into the Kyoto Protocol, whereby developed countries agreed commitments for reducing their emissions relative to 1990."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/11/ipcc’s-chairman-pachauri-conflicted/#more-19410

past a certain point

it's just spam. (clean up in aisle three?)

It is more than strange that you could say this

so now the power company

,and therefore the government, will have an in-home,real-time window into the behaviour and activities of every citizen. There is NO way they could abuse that.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/05/13/SmartGridWay/

and somehow miss one of the biggest government sponsored scams ever attempted. AGW aka "Climate Change".