The real cause of Global Warming
In early November, Al Gore made an interesting admission while in Greece: “First-generation ethanol, I think, was a mistake.” He went on to say, “One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.

In 1994 Gore was the deciding vote in a 50-50 split in the Senate on corn ethanol tax credit, which was $5 billion of last year’s deficit- and that number doesn’t take into account the increase in price for corn-based food and feed. This is incredibly important- ethanol, as an alternative fuel premised purely on the notion that it will improve the environment, has failed. It is less fuel efficient; it contributes more greenhouse gasses (read CO2) and is driving up the cost, while limiting the amount of food globally. There isn’t a win-win here; it is but yet another example of a government solution doing more harm than good.

Not satisfied with the level of damage he had inflicted on the U.S. while in office, Gore moved forward to line his private pockets with public funds in 2008 when he launched a $300 million ad campaign for the Alliance for Climate Protection, who had offices in 25 states. Well, Gore’s Alliance is now down to offices in just seven states. Per the Alliance’s spokesman, Sean Sarah, “We move to areas where it’s most effective. Of course the situation in Congress has changed. So our strategies and tactics have changed along with it.”

Did you catch that? Of course the situation in Congress has changed. So our strategies and tactics have changed along with it. Can you say Cap & Trade. Who do you think was going to benefit from that? You? Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle…

Greedy Bastard
It’s bad enough when our own government gives us the shaft, but it’s beyond the pale when the intellectually bankrupt Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sponsored by the most corrupt, inept organization known to man- the United Nations- does it. From 14 November on the Neue Zurcher Zeitung Online:

Interview: Bernard Potter
NZZ am Sonntag: The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

Ottmar Edenhofer: That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Ottmar Edenhofer was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland. The deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology will be co-chairing the Working Group “Mitigation of Climate Change” with Ramón Pichs Madruga from Cuba and Youba Sokona from Mali.

Copyright 2010, NZZ

One more time: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.

Let’s put this in the proper perspective. The same organization focused on global redistribution of wealth- in the name of saving the planet from global warming of course, ahem- is doing so based on its own faulty reporting. The IPCC has been under a lot of pressure of late because its reports- reports used by governmental leaders to set state policy on climate change- are showing some glaring inaccuracies. In fact, inaccuracies may be too light a term, based on some statements from authors, it is outright deception. For instance…

In the 2007 IPCC report… a predicted melting of the Himalayan ice fields by 2035 — was a fraud. Not an accidental fraud, but a deliberately planted piece of science fiction. The IPCC author who planted that false Himalayan meltdown said the other day “we” did it because “we thought … it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

This also puts the Climategate email scandal in better perspective. Those scientists who intentionally destroyed communications to protect them from disclosure, they were not doing so out of embarrassment, they were doing so to disguise and hide their efforts to manipulate data towards a specific pre-desired outcome. Aside from the flagrant intellectual fraud, the economic fraud that this is inflicting on developed nations in the West makes Bernie Madoff look small time.

Lord Monckton on Climategate at the 2nd International Climate Conference from CFACT on Vimeo.

Bottom line

At some point, there needs to be a serious re-examination of the entire global warming argument. I’m not saying that it is a myth or a hoax, but I am saying that those examining the issue are not doing so as honest, objective observers. The proponents refuse to engage in dialogue with the skeptics, so much so that they even refuse to share the data that they base their theories on. This is ludicrous! The entire point of the scientific method is for ANY scientist to be able to replicate findings using the same data and using the same methods. This is to prevent intellectual fraud, so when scientists treat their signature interest with an almost religious fever, they’re doing neither their issue, nor the scientific community, a service.

The politicization of the scientific community is nothing new, however, in the age of the 24 hour news cycle, one would hope that the constant light would disinfect the process, except when the light is being shone through their own rose colored lenses, but that’s a different story…