Promoting anthropogenic global warming

The media promoted alarmism, and discredited skeptics as being in the pay of big oil - while giving a free pass to Gore, who made a movie based on an obvious lie then made millions selling carbon offsets

December 23, 2008

David Evans, a CFACT advisor who served as a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

Kevin Rudd has failed to see through the vested interests that promote anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the theory that human emissions of carbon cause global warming. Though masquerading as "science based", the promoters of AGW have a medieval outlook and are in fact anti-science. Meanwhile carbon is innocent, and the political class is plunging ahead with making us poorer because they do not understand what science really is or what the real science is.

The Renaissance began when the absolute authority of the church and ancient texts was overthrown. Science then evolved as our most reliable method for acquiring knowledge, free of superstition and political authority. Suppose you wanted to know whether big cannonballs or small cannonballs fell faster. In medieval times you argued theoretically with what could be gleaned from the Bible, the works of Aristotle, or maybe a Papal announcement. In the Renaissance you ignored the authorities and simply dropped cannon balls from a tower and observed what happened - this was science, where empirical evidence trumps theory.

From 1975 to 2001 the global temperature trended up. How do you empirically determine the cause of this global warming? It turns out we can learn a lot simply by observing where the warming occurred: each possible cause of global warming heats the atmosphere differently, heating some parts before others. The pattern of warming is the cause's "signature".

The signature of an increased greenhouse effect consists of two features: a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics, and a combination of broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming. The signature of ozone depletion consists just of the second feature. These signatures are theoretically derived by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and are integral to our understanding of how the atmosphere works. [1]

We have been observing temperatures in the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes - weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. The radiosonde measurements for 1979-1999 show broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming, but they show no tropical hotspot. Not even a small one. [2]

Empirically, we therefore know that an increased greenhouse effect was not a significant cause of the recent global warming. (Either that or the signatures from the IPCC are wrong, so its climate models and predictions are rubbish anyway.)

Human carbon emissions were occurring at the time but the greenhouse effect did not increase. Therefore human carbon emissions did not increase the greenhouse effect, and did not cause global warming. So AGW is wrong, and carbon is innocent. Suspect exonerated - wrong signature.

Alarmist scientists (supporters of AGW) objected that the radiosonde thermometers were not accurate and maybe the hotspot was there but went undetected. But there were hundreds of radiosondes, so statistically this is unlikely. They have also suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, and use the radiosonde wind measurements instead. When combined with a theory about wind shear they estimated the temperatures on their computers - and say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hotspot. But thermometers are designed to measure temperature, so it's a bit of a stretch to claim that wind gauges are accidentally better at it. Serious alarmist scientists do not claim that the hotspot was found, only that we might have missed it. The obvious conclusion is that the hotspot was too weak to be easily detected. We cannot collect any more data from the past warming, and there is no sign of the hotspot in the data that was collected - so the occasional claims that appear on the Internet that the hotspot has been found are simply wrong. [3]

So can we tell from the observed warming pattern what did cause the global warming? Unfortunately we have little idea of the signatures of some of the suspects, such as cosmic rays or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, so we cannot say except to note that ozone depletion was one of the causes.

Is there any observational evidence in favor of AGW? As of 2003, none at all.

The only supporting evidence for AGW was the old ice core data. The old ice core data, gathered from 1985, showed that in the past half million years, through several global warmings and coolings, the earth's temperature and atmospheric carbon levels rose and fell in lockstep. AGW was coming into vogue in the 1980s, so it was widely assumed that it was the carbon changes causing the temperature changes.

By the late 1990s ice core techniques had improved. In the old ice cores the data points were a few thousand years apart, but in the new ice core data they were only a few hundred years apart. In the early 1990s, New Scientist magazine anticipated that the higher-resolution data would seal the case for AGW.

But the opposite occurred. By 2003 it had been established to everyone's satisfaction that temperature changes preceded corresponding carbon changes by an average of 800 years: so temperature changes caused carbon changes - a warmer ocean supports more carbon in the atmosphere, after delays due to mixing. [4] So the ice core data no longer supported AGW. The alarmists failed to effectively notify the public.

After several prominent public claims by skeptics in 2008 that there is no evidence left for AGW, alarmist scientists offered only two points.

First, laboratory tests prove that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. But that observation tells us nothing about how much the global temperature changes if extra carbon enters the real, complicated atmosphere. Every emitted carbon atom raises the global temperature, but the missing hotspot shows that the effect is negligible.

Second, computer models. Computer models are just huge concatenations of calculations that, individually, could have been performed on a handheld calculator. They are theory, not evidence.

Governments have spent over $50 billion on climate research since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence for AGW. [5]

So if there is no evidence to support AGW, and the missing hotspot shows that AGW is wrong, why does most of the world still believe in AGW?

Part of the answer is that science changed direction after a large constituency of vested interests had invested in AGW. The old ice core data provided support from 1985, the IPCC was established by the UN in 1988 to look into human changes to climate, and the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997 to limit carbon emissions. By 1999 the western political class were doing something, the western media were rallying behind "saving the planet", and scientists were being paid by governments to research the effects of human-caused global warming.

But then the evidence took science off in a different direction: the new ice core data in 2003, the missing hotspot in 2007, and the global temperature has stopped trending up since 2001 [6]. Governments, the media, and many scientists did not notice.

The remainder of the answer for the current belief in AGW is darker and more political. An offbeat theory in the 1970s, AGW was adopted by a group of about 45 atmospheric modelers and physicists. That group dominated climate science journals, peer reviewed each others papers, and hindered competing ideas by underhand methods [7]. AGW gained political support from proponents of nuclear power, and vice-president Gore appointed AGW supporters to science positions in the USA.

AGW grabbed control of climate funding in key western countries. Lack of diversity in science funding has been a major problem since government took over funding science in WWII. Science is like a courtroom - protagonists put forward their best cases, and out of the argument some truth emerges. But if only one side is funded and heard, then truth tends not to emerge. This happened in climate science, which is almost completely government funded and has been dominated by AGW for two decades. Skeptics are mainly scientists who are retired or who have moved on to other areas - their funding no longer depends on allegiance to AGW. The alarmists are full time, well funded, and hog the megaphone.

AGW was always promoted as being supported by nearly all scientists (though polls and history do not support this). Counting numbers of supporters and creating a bandwagon effect by announcing you are in the majority is a political tactic.

AGW always advanced principally by political means; as a scientific theory it was always weak, and now the evidence contradicts it. It's like a return to medieval times, where authority rules and evidence is ignored. Notice how the proponents of AGW don't want to talk about evidence of the causes? Anything but evidence of cause - attack people's motives, someone else "has the evidence", theoretical models, evidence that global warming is occurring, how important they are, what credentials they have, how worthy they are, the dog ate my evidence, "the science is settled", polar bears, anything. Talking about the evidence of the cause of global warming does not advance their cause. Politics says AGW is correct; science says it is wrong.

Science demands evidence. Evidence trumps theory, no matter what the political authority of those promoting the theory, even if they dress up in lab coats and have job titles that say "scientist". The hotspot is missing and there is no evidence for AGW. The alarmists cannot ignore this and continue to play political games forever. They are entitled to argue the case for AGW, but they should also acknowledge the evidence and inform the political class that AGW appears to be wrong - even if it means risking their status and their jobs (and yes, we scientists are also people who have kids and mortgages).

There are two central lies in the political promotion of AGW.

The first appears in Gore's movie. He gave the old ice core data as the sole reason for believing AGW (the rest of the movie presents evidence that global warming occurred, a separate issue). He said that increases in carbon caused increases in temperature in the past warming events. But Gore made his movie in 2005, two years after the new ice core data had established the opposite! Gore's weasel words when he introduced that segment show he knew what he was about to say was false. Who would have believed his pitch if he added "and each temperature rise occurred 800 years before the corresponding rise in carbon that caused it"? [8]

The second lie is the hockey stick graph, which presented the last thousand years of global temperature as the flat handle of a hockey stick and the next hundred as the sharply rising blade [9]. The hockey stick graph was heavily promoted by the IPCC in 2001, and the IPCC even adopted it as its logo before it got discredited. It is significant because most non-scientist AGW supporters seem to believe some version of the hockey stick. When the IPCC "scientists" who produced the graph were asked to show their data for past temperatures, they refused (true scientists share data). But one of those scientists was a British academic and subject to the British Freedom of Information Act, and after two years of stonewalling all was revealed. It showed they had grossly skewed the data (even omitting inconvenient data to a folder labeled "Censored"), and that the computer program used to process the data had the hockey stick shape built into it - you could feed it stock market data instead of tree ring data and you would still get a hockey stick! In reality it was warmer in the Middle Ages than today, and there was a mini ice age around 1700 from which we have since been warming ever since. [10] Finally, the sharply rising blade of the hockey stick is contradicted so far by actual temperatures, which from 2001 to 2008 have been flat - something all of the climate models got wrong.

Among non-scientists, AGW appeals strongly to two groups. Those who support big government love the idea of carbon regulations - if you control carbon emissions then you control most human activity. And those who like to feel morally superior to the bulk of their fellow citizens by virtue of a belief (the "warm inner glow" and moral vanity of the politically correct) are firmly attached to AGW. These groups are politically adept, are planning to spend your money and tell you how to eat, travel and how to live, and they are strenuously avoiding the evidence.

The media has avoided presenting information that undermines AGW, until recently. Instead they promoted alarmism, and discredited skeptics as being in the pay of big oil - while giving a free pass to Gore, who made a movie based on an obvious lie then made millions selling carbon offsets. The media is very keen to present evidence that global warming is occurring, but have you noticed how quiet it is on evidence that carbon emissions caused it?

In 2007 almost no one in the west knew that the hotspot was missing, that there was no evidence for AGW, that temperatures had been flat for six years, that the hockey stick was a fraud, or that Al Gore lied when he gave the old ice core data as a reason for blaming carbon. But due to the Internet the public is gradually finding out anyway, which risks further discrediting many media outlets. Why buy a newspaper if it's not going to tell you the actual news?

And as the public become generally aware, what politician is going to risk being so ideologically stupid as to unnecessarily wreck the economy by slashing carbon emissions? Hmmm, Kevin Rudd?

Endnotes

[1] The IPCC published several signatures in IPCC Assessment Report 4, 2007, Chapter 9, Figure 9.1, page 675: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

[2] The US CCSP published the observed changes in atmospheric temperatures for 1979 � 1999 in part E of Figure 5.7 on page 116 in 2006: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf

[3] See http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf for links to debates, further commentary, and arguments from alarmist scientists.

[4] Callion's 2003 paper is at http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf, and a colorful but informative and link-filled presentation is at http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html.

[5] The US has spent about $30b (http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/USGCRP-CCSP_Budget_History_Table_2.pdf) and other western countries combined have presumably spent about as much again. The UK will not release its sending figures. See also http://joannenova.com.au/2008/12/02/big-government-outspends-big-oil-1000-to-1.

[6] Look at the data from the four bodies that produce global temperature records. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but only goes back to 1979; satellites operate 24/7, measuring everywhere except the poles. Land based thermometer readings are corrupted by the urban heat island effect-and they show temperatures rising faster in areas with higher populations (see http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm and http://wattsupwiththat.com/test/). 1. Remote Sensing Systems in California. Uses only satellite data: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html. 2. University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). Uses only satellite data: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html. 3. The Hadley Centre in the UK uses a mix of satellite data and land-based thermometers: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.html. 4. The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at NASA uses land-based thermometers (plus a few ocean thermometers), but no satellite data: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/GISSglobal.html.

[7] For many examples from an impeccable scientist in the trenches, see http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf.

[8] A British judge ruled that when Gore presented the ice core graphs of temperature and carbon in his movie, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts". The nine errors found by the judge in Gore's movie are summarized in the graphic at http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-details/Judge+attacks+nine+errors+in+Al+Gore%27s+%27alarmist%27+climate+change+film/article.do.

[9] The Australian Department of Climate Change still sports the hockey stick on its website in 2008: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/science/faq/question2.html. Hear from the scientist who uncovered the fraud: http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf.

[10] What the combined mass of independent researchers say about the historical past in 2007 is in Figure 3 at http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm (the last blue downtick seems to be due to using 30 year averages with the last period ending in about 1975, the end of the last cooling).

First published in abc.net.au.

CFACT

CFACT defends the environment and human welfare through facts, news, and analysis.

Filed under: atmosphere

Comments

Be the first to comment!

Javascript is not currently enabled on your browser. If you can enable it, your input will be checked as you enter it (on most browsers, at least). You may find this helpful.

A chill hits wind power

CFACT continues their mission in Cancún

After Copenhagen: Greens disappointed and directionless

Haiti's Desperate Food Crop Outlook

EPA set to Impose Strict New Ozone Standard on U.S.

Greenpeace Opts for Millions of Blind Kids

Not Exactly Mother Teresa

CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships

In daring land and sea raids, activists tag Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior with “Propaganda Warrior” banner; Arctic Sunrise hit with “Ship of Lies” banner earlier in the day...

Monckton names names on Climategate

Lord Christopher Monckton debunks climate fears in Copenhagen...

All pain, no gain

The reality behind the mythology of Cap and Trade...

The rainforest issue: Myths and facts

CFACT briefing paper compares two very differing views about people and nature in the tropics...

The clear-cutting facts about the rainforest

Are we really losing one football field every minute?...

Melting the facts about Greenland's ice sheet

Viking history, ice core samples, and observations of solar cycle cast doubt on human responsibility for climate change...

Addressing the root causes of illegal immigration

Focusing on property rights and economic opportunity back home could help solve growing border issue...

CFACT arrives in Copenhagen

CFACT's delegation arived in Copenhagen, Denmark to educate delegates and media from around the world that the climate change treaty is All Pain No Gain....

Climate Depot is impacting Obama's climate initiative

Columnist notes that President Obama must speak out or there will be an increase in climate change skepticism....

Are organic foods really better?

Facts challenge organic's benefits over modern agriculture...

Disclosing the real risks of climate change

SEC says companies must disclose risks due to climate change. Seize the opportunity....

A chill hits wind power

How likely is it that wind turbines can add to Oregon’s generating capacity in the midst of the winter electricity demand surge, and offset the hydroelectric generating restrictions? Not very....

CFACT continues their mission in Cancún

...

After Copenhagen: Greens disappointed and directionless

...

Haiti's Desperate Food Crop Outlook

...

Haiti's Desperate Food Crop Outlook

...

EPA set to Impose Strict New Ozone Standard on U.S.

Welcome to Washington....

EPA set to Impose Strict New Ozone Standard on U.S.

Welcome to Washington....

Greenpeace Opts for Millions of Blind Kids

We can't prevent earthquakes, but we can prevent blindness....

Not Exactly Mother Teresa

In fact, unethical Greenpeace actions threaten the livelihoods and lives of millions ...

rgonz71

"Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science"

LOL

Exxon can save their money. The AGW fraudsters don't need help discrediting themselves....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

rgonz71

"You're not an 'activist' if you're being paid by Exxon. You're just a thug on the payroll."

Personally I don't think Exxon or any other oil company is better or worse than any other corporation out there. Corporations are nothing more than groups of people selling a product people need. A product btw that YOU need to sit comfortably at your computer all nice and warm making such idiotic statements.

Also, the Oil industry gives money to both sides of the debate. So I guess those on the AGW side are thugs as well....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

BobDevine

I have no problem with anyone using wind power but they should do so at their own convenience not with government subsidies. The same goes for solar power. You like it you buy it the operative word being "you"....

{ from A chill hits wind power }

ibykus

Not Bad. They should take things from a slightly higher standpoint and expose this swindle as part of the policy of empire....

{ from Laughs for Greenpeace "Climate Caper" turning into international roar }

mcharris

http://just-me-in-t.site40.net/1_3_AGW-Climate-Change.html

I am curious to know if anyone in the USA has worked out yet how much it cost in $$$'s and in carbon emissions to send your 'team' and 'your President' to Copemhagen?

The Australian Contingent has passed some comment about their own carbon emissions being 'off set'...... what about the rest of the world?

http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2009/12/carbon-credits.html...

{ from Taxpayer Robbery Gate }

mcharris

http://just-me-in-t.site40.net/1_3_AGW-Climate-Change.html
Aussie support the fight agains the theory - coz that is what it is ONLY A THEORY of AGW... need to find a way to stop the politicians from ruining our future.

Thanks for the great articles...

{ from Don't Get Mad About the Weather - Get Even }

cindym03

CFACT is mainly funded by private citizens. A smaller proportion of CFACT’s funding comes from corporations in various industries, as well as foundations. Its financial backers have included The Exxon Mobil Corporation (although Exxon no longer donates to CFACT),[6] The Chevron Corporation,[7] The DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund,[7] The U.S. Council on Energy Awareness,[8] The Carthage Foundation, and The Sarah Scaife Foundation.[9]

...

{ from Monckton names names on Climategate }

TheViewMaster

The "Warmies" Must Convert To "Come Clean" Energy NOW, Or They Are DOOMED!!!

...

{ from Don't Get Mad About the Weather - Get Even }

mkwrk2

Is any possible link between the Rosenfeld Effect (a "flat" per capita energy consumption)http://www.mercurynews.com/green-energy/ci_14059885?nclick_check=1 and this topic, in California especially?

Probably, it is enough time an expert to officially clarify an issue till 13 January 2010.

M. Kerjman...

{ from Addressing the root causes of illegal immigration }

RationalKeith

Isn't Paul Watson of the Sea Shepard the same confrontational person who was one of the founders of Greenpeace, the organization that Patrick Moore dumped because their whole focus is negative, anti-life?

Was Paul Waton ousted from Greanpeace because of his more violent approach to "protest"?

Why does “Curative_Process” claim the the organization are different?”

(Beware Greenpeace plays the name shuffle game.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watson

...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

ExxonShareholder

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

MichaelGOP

CFACT receives no funds from Exxon. CFACT and its allies are winning the climate debate with sound science, despite being outspent by far....

{ from Monckton names names on Climategate }

MichaelGOP

CFACT'S Bills are paid by average people who care about free markets, sound science and open minds.

...

{ from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda }

MichaelGOP

CFACT receives no funding from Exxon. Time to think up fresh propaganda. Or maybe actually engage in the science & policy debate and stop looking for a reason not to? Sorry, left wingers, you're losing the debate on every level....

{ from Knute suit }

Harmen

Well the first one on this site is denying global warming.
This guy denies that the warming is not caused by man.

Let me tell you something about logic. If A causes B, and you believe (or measure, as you like) that B is not the case, why do you spend any effort on denying that A causes B?
And doesn't that imply that this guy thinks that B is the case?

...

{ from Is global warming from man? }

clothcap

CRU has asked Exxon Mobil for cash. Does that make them shills for "big oil"?...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

plaidness

Al Gore and Dr. Pachauri must be cut from the same cloth. Surprise surprise!...

{ from Lord Christopher Monckton questions IPPC chairman }

Claudeeb

Good to see the neo eco-fascists getting a little hot under the collar.
TRUTH does that.
What you do not see from the lefty loonies is a little common sense.
Blind - lemming like - adherence to the political script.
Do not label me a sceptic as I do listen and observe with sincerity.
Do not call me a denier as I am open to consider any hypothesis based on actual science.
Do not seek to take steps to exercise fascist control over me or my children on any account.
In terms of AGW = No longer do I give the IPCC the benefit of the doubt.
God bless Australia...

{ from Monckton names names on Climategate }

mistamillions

Well cfact get 10 out of 10 for that greenpeace stunt, It winds me up that greeenpeace are perpetuating the global warming myth... peeps need to open there eyes and get wise.

Also why is it that whenever anybody speaks out against global warming they get accused of being on the payroll of oil companies?

Your Greenpeace action tells me all I need to know... Well done....

{ from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda }

ExxonShareholder

shill [shil] Show IPA Slang –noun
1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill

So let's say you're a guy who runs a website for climate change skeptics, you travel to Copenhagen and throw up some fake grass roots graffiti. In actuality your organization is funded by Exxon, and you don't disclose this information on your website where you post pictures of that fake grass roots graffiti. Would you consider that yourself a shill? If CFACT disclosed their sources of funding on this website I wouldn't have to waste my time mentioning it.
...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

Kenshin

Awesome work CFact!
You also could have included GPs' stance on whaling and seal hunting.
They've ran countless propaganda on those 2 subjects so much so that I bet you guys didn't even know some of these facts.

The ban on commercial whaling was bought in large part by Green Peace and NGOs like them.
http://ufdcweb2.uflib.ufl.edu/ufdc/?b=WL00001269&v=00001

Minke whales (the ones hunted back then and now) are not endangered, and never have been.
The same is true with Harp Seals (the ones Canadians go after.)

Scientists agree they can be sustainable hunted. The IWC's scientific committee, which regulates international whaling, agree on this point.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5103378.stm

Even Australian (the country who has come out and said whaling itself is immoral!!) scientists agree.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/flannery-worried-about-small-fish-not-big-whale-culls/2007/12/31/1198949702750.html
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/48884/2/18822079.pdf

So why does GP have such a huge propaganda machine on anti-whaling and anti-seal-hunting??
Easy. They're cute and bring in tons of cash. Listen to ex-GP member Paul Watson explain it perfectly. Ironically, Watson now uses the exact same theory with his eco-terrorist NGO Sea Shepherd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_gTBDFTXE0

On whaling, they get away with so many lies because the media does 0 fact-checking and reports SS and GP propaganda as FACT. They report things like Japanese breaking "laws" or using "loopholes" or "attacking" or "kidnapping" when every single one of those is complete propaganda and lies.

I will finish saying... I used to believe in global warming. But the actions of NGOs like Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd have really forced me to re-evaluate that stance, and how much the media reports.
I still think global warming is happening and we play some percentage in that but what percentage? 1%? 5%? 20%? 50%? And at what percentage should we start to look at our own actions? These are the questions I would like to see more debate on.

I do not want to see ridiculous santa claus "the polar ice caps are melting" appeal-to-emotions commercials and demonizing of people who have a different opinion.
...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

Curative_Process

THE REAL FACE OF COPENHAGEN is an Aussie Farmer named PETER SPENCER.

Spencer is his Day 27 of his HUNGER STRIKE, as a last resort in his long battle against the Eco-Fascist doctrine of Agenda 21. He is perched high up on a wind tower on his property just outside of the nations capital Canberra.

Photos of Peter high up on the wind tower where he intends to stay on his hunger strike until his demands are met are on his Support Website
http://agmates.ning.com/group/peterspencerhungerstrike

Excellent Radio Interview with Peter and his Barrister (by Alan Jones of 2GB, same guy who interviewed Lord Monckton exposing ‘The Copenhagen Treaty’ that sparked the Revolution in Australia to oust Malcolm Goldman Sachs Turnbull and Vote Down the ETS)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQUEmV7Fv58

Background info BLOG written by Mr Peter Spencer in 2005, where he outlines the problem back then.
‘A Proposed Environmental Services Protocol’
http://web.archive.org/web/20060820010057/peterspencer.id.au/archives/stewardship/

Peters original BLOG from 2005 where his first post explains his plight
http://web.archive.org/web/20051124044926/http://peterspencer.id.au/
...

{ from Climate skeptics gain steam }

Michael_H_Anderson

I can post mainstream media links too if you like. Try these on - a little more recent than yours:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6815470/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Al-Gore-condemned-over-Arctic-ice-melting-prediction.html

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=119061

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/putting_our_economy_in_the_hands_of_chavez_fans

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dutch-gore-wrong-on-snows-of-kilimanjaro/

...

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

Michael_H_Anderson

Look whopays, let's be reasonable: you are here to disrupt this website. That's pathetic. You could try getting a life, you know. You're not going to change anyone's mind here, your information is outdated and no longer relevant, which makes your entire presence here irrelevant and frankly I'm embarrassed for you and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Do that, and I'll stop showing you up as the ignorant fellow you well and truly are. Deal? Or are you just a garden-variety Net troll, doing damage to your entire cause by acting like a third-grader? Keep it up then....

{ from CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ships }

Michael_H_Anderson

'Scientific data doesn't go bad after a few years'? That's brilliant. What part of this did you miss, fool?

I just checked those links...December 2004 for crying out loud! You IDIOT, are you living in a CAVE? Have your handlers not notified you of the huge global crisis assaulting the entire edifice of AGW theory? How cruel of them, and how pathetic of you to let them use you that way! Dumbass!!!

Yeah, damn right I have different view of global warming than you do. I have a non-partisan, intensively researched, unpaid, critically observed view, and you have a pre-
Climategate, outdated, pathetically ignorant view....