And here’s the stagecraft coming.
Here’s how the rest of it might go down.
By William M. Briggs Source: courtesy of Pajamas Media
First, some good news.
A lefty organization sent me an indignant press release stating that the Danish police have “aggressed on protesters outside the Bella Center.” By this, they mean that the agitants, who moments before were shouting “Push the police away!,” were physically held back from entering an already crowded room.
It is true that it is depressing to see the heretofore useful word aggression turned into another mouth-numbing verb. But it’s heartening to hear that a group of professional whiners were told “No.” True to form, when turned away the perpetually petulant started screaming “Rights! [1],” by which they mean, as they always do, “My desires, not yours.”
And can it be a coincidence that we now hear from Russia — the land where the Climategate emails were first posted — accusations that the Hadley Climate Research Unit fiddled Siberian temperature data [2]? The charge is that scientists only considered stations which showed warming, and tossed those which did not fit their preconceptions.
What makes this delicious is that the stations Hadley chose had large chunks of missing data, and the stations ignored had uninterrupted records. This makes sense: it’s easier to homogenize [3] data that isn’t there. The explanations to come will no doubt provide for some light comedy.
The best news of all are the rumors that “progress has been halting [4]” in Copenhagen. The word stalemate is showing up with increasing frequency in news reports.
Government ministers can’t agree on the best way to take money from their own citizens, give it to an opaque, above-the-law organization, and yet still control it; because, of course, with all that money comes power. Negotiators are skittish about how they can ensure that the money pledged will actually be paid into the pot, and if it does, who gets to dole out the funds. Everybody wants a piece of it, but nobody trusts anybody.
However, I believe this is only a spate of temporary sanity.
The forces of darkness will realize that some deal is better than no deal. Lord Monckton, on a guest appearance on the Glenn Beck program a month ago, had it right. He predicted the early stalemate, but said it would end at the last possible minute, after an all-hours marathon session:
From which the bureaucrats would emerge, their ties over their heads, where they will announce, “We’ve done it. We’ve come to an agreement.”
My money is on Viscount Monckton. The Russian revelations about data manipulation, like the rest of the Climategate story, will be resolutely ignored by negotiators. Some kind of real-money deal will emerge. There’s too much momentum and too much vanity on the line. The One himself will even appear on the icy slopes of Denmark. You simply cannot have so many celebrities and political will in one place, and expect them to concede defeat. It is just not in their nature.
But that’s an easy prediction. What about what comes after?
First, the greeny groups will smell blood in the water. They will use the Copenhagen deal, here in the U.S., to claim that cap and trade must be passed. They will say: “The world agrees something has to be done!” Weak-minded politicians — of which there is never a shortage — will find this argument convincing. Still, the best the greens will do this year will be a publicly stated “commitment” to “tackle the issue,” right after the new year, after the left secures its health care power grab. “You’re right, it’s devilishly important” will assuage some greenies, and will quiet them enough so that the Democrats can mount some sort of campaign counterattack in 2010.
Democrats know they’re going to lose a good chunk of seats by passing health care — they don’t want to start a riot by tacking on another tax so soon afterwards. They will wait to see if they lose their filibuster-proof majority. If so, they will be able to blame the failure of cap-and-trade legislation on “uncaring, denialist” Republicans.
Meanwhile, back at the UN, it will be broad smiles and CO2-emitting champagne toasts. “To humanity!” they will cry, but as they place their glasses on the salvers, not a few of them will twist their mustaches and think to themselves: “Money!”
Of which, it will be gradually revealed, some will have gone missing.
Shock! Horror! Who could possibly have known! It will, of course, have gone to brothers-in-law in various countries. Most organizations receiving our coerced largess will turn out to be “green consultancies,” of the kind that spend a ton of money (by hiring cousins and other familia) but produce nothing.
After a decade of global temperatures stubbornly refusing to play nice, and things turning out to be not nearly as bad as predicted, the Copenhagen-created program will not die.
No government created entity ever kicks off simply because it isn’t needed.
It will morph into an ossified, entrenched behemoth whose mission will, through time, quietly morph into “environmental justice.” Climate change, the original impetus, will have been long forgotten.
Place your bets now.
Us poor buggers in the UK will probably be part of some unilateral agreement made by our unelected EU masters.
God I wish we had guns.
Why would a Middle Eastern kingdom be funding a British Climate research business?
Oman has just completed a massive investment in LNG, and developed and installed new CO2 removal technology in their process; this lowers the carbon footprint of their gas. So using their gas to drive electricity generation will be less costly once CO2 is taxed.
They have no problem with this whole thing.
Saudi Arabia, who have oil and not so much gas, are in a different position, they have a problem with this whole thing.
Just an observation; a 4 degree rise in temperature in the Sultanate of Oman or Saudi
Arabia would change it from really hot to really hot.
Maybe it is just good business.
http://www.omanlng.com/
Oman LNG L.L.C
Formed: Set up by Royal Decree in February 1994.
Location: Head office: Muscat; Plant: Qalhat near Sur (approx 340 km from Muscat)
Products: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
Shareholders: Government of Oman 51 %, Royal Dutch/Shell Group 30%, Total Elf Fina 5.54%, KOLNG 5%, Partex 2% Mitsubishi 2.77%, Mitsui 2.77%, ltochu 0.92%.
The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described in the book: “The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)” By Michael Sanderson. The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK)
This is important to know, for two reasons.
Firstly, the key institution providing support for Global Warming theories and the basis for the IPCC findings receives funding from “Big Oil” and the nuclear power industry.
Secondly, the research from the institution which is perceived to be independent publicly funded research, is actually beholden to soft money, CRU is in fact a business.
The funders of the CRU are on the bottom of this page from their website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
So, there a business set up in the early 1970’s, so what?
I thought that this might explain a bit about how we got to where we are. I am not a conspiracy theorist but to me it looks like this may have been a very, very long term plan. Of course it could all just be coincidental, but it does seem to fit the observable information.
A few weeks ago I explained the apparent CRU fraud to a friend of mine, a believer in AGW; he said ‘Why would they do it?’ I indicated the Jones had received 22 million, etc, but he countered, ‘For a fraud this large, going on for this long, there would have to be billions of dollars to be made, not millions’. That made sense.
So I looked into it a bit. First this is no short term thing, it covers two or three decades, involves many countries and government on both sides of the isle, the US alone has had 4 different presidents and the UK a similar number of prime ministers, Canada the same. So is it not political in the partisan sense of the word.
If, and this is a big if, you make the assumption that the objectives were:
1. Provide a smooth replacement of the use of oil in power generation and transportation, so as to avoid a panic over Peak Oil.
2. Get people to buy into Nuclear Power so that base load electrical power generation would not consume the available fossil fuel supply.
3. Get the people to really want to pay for it all.
Note: The IEA put a date on peak oil production THIS WEEK, so if the CO2 scare does not pan out they are already starting to put the ‘Peak Oil’ story into play. It is also the 2020 date, why am I not surprised.
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15065719
Then the following is not unbelievable.
The newer scrubber technology for coal fired plants was moving along well back then, and in fact today their scrubbers can remove pretty much everything except CO2. However there is really not much money in coal, it is abundant, easy to handle, local in most instance to the base load demand for electricity, and a coal fired power plant is not much more complicated, or expensive, then a good steam engine.
Since there was not enough money in coal it would not be financially rewarding to simply try to promote coal as a replacement for oil.
So they looked at the situation and realized that the difference between the different technologies to replace base load power generation was the amount of CO2 per kilowatt/hour.
At that point CO2 became the target. That happened sometime between 1985 and 1988.
Now, the environmental movement is comprised mostly of followers, you can look up ‘dihydrogen monoxide’ (water), on many occasions at environmental conferences comedians and light news organizations have managed to get lots of environmentalists to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. So apparently they do not do a lot of independent analysis before making a conclusion, they are mostly followers.
So if you need a large number of followers, there is a ready supply, but you need people, a few leaders, to tell the followers what to think. The followers do not need to, or perhaps even want to, know the reason or the facts; they just need something or someone to follow.
Now you gain control of a climate research business, and begin the task of demonizing CO2, you realize that it will take years but that is OK, there are billions of dollars waiting at the end. Slowly over time you manage to get control of the worlds climate data and begin adjusting it, you use what you have been told by the marketing people to present the information needed in as clear and scary manager as is possible. Remember the two biggest motivators are fear and greed, and in this case, because of the number of followers greed will not work. There are simply too many followers to pay them all off.
So there we have it, a campaign of fear, based on non-science emanating from a few leaders that ultimately drive the followers to do something that would just not have been possible after Three Mile Island.
They are marching in the streets of Copenhagen in support of nuclear power. They do not know this of course, but that is what the plan on the table says. Check it out, look at exactly what are the big technologies being pushed at the summit. I will give you a hint, it is not windmills.
They are also marching in Copenhagen against big business, while supporting one of the biggest businesses possible, the World Bank. Is it not strange that the Dutch Text looks to have the World Bank control the trillions being put on the table? So they are marching against exactly what they are supporting, they are simply followers.
Perhaps you can fill in the blanks between the possible objectives I mentioned earlier and where we find ourselves today. Fill in the blanks, connect the dots and follow the money. Look at the funders, how many are involved in delivery, support, financing and maintenance of the movement of liquid energy and the generation of nuclear power.
I do not think this was ever about the environment.
There are lots of other things that may tie into this, like GE buying and now selling a
TV network, they needed then but do not need it now, a bit of a stretch perhaps but GE is a big player in gas and nuclear power generation. Look around, there are others.
That said; I do believe that the world does need to move to nuclear power for base load power generation, and I do believe that the Peak Oil problem is a real threat to stability.
So I agree with the objectives and encourage the outcome, I just do not like them messing with the science and trying, nay succeeding, in conning the masses to agree to it all.
Perhaps there was someone inside the CRU that felt the same way; the means were wrong regardless of the merits of the objectives, so they let slip the package in the hope that someone could figure out what they could not just come out and say publicly.
This thing would not need thousands of scientists to be involved. All that was need was for one or two people in perhaps five or six countries to adjust the raw data. Anyone using the data when making a comparison to CO2 would find the results that had been seeded into the data. The scientists would not be aware that they were being played. They would honestly think that their conclusions were correct. Only none of their predictions would ever be confirmed.
All the papers that used the data, and all the papers that used those papers for support, would therefore be invalid. In the vast majority of the cases I would expect that the authors are without blame, they made no mistake. The mistake was encoded into the base data before they even started.
Only the ones that actually were in control of the raw data and making the ‘adjustments’ needed to know of the exact requirements of the adjustment needed to seed the outcome into the data. When a scientist begins to say things like “the data must be wrong”, or “our monitoring is deficient”, perhaps they might not have been in on the ‘adjustments’ and they are likely frustrated because their model ‘works’ for the past and recent past. Think “We can’t explain the lack of warming”, perhaps the author of that email could not, but perhaps someone else could.
It would only have taken a dozen people in just the right places, and remember it took years to pull this off.
So who might have put these people in just the right place all those years ago, and why?
I’m Up for a bet. I’ll put ten dollars on it but when it comes to pay up the bills will be worth ten cents.
We are forgetting the pending inflation. When Obama makes the banks dump their money, mostly from the 800 trillion bail out, out of excess reserves into the investment market then runaway stagflation will kick in.
Yes the UN will get lots of first world money in the next few years but they will need a wheel barrow full to rip off the price of another bottle of champaign. Copenhagen is a treaty to tax a bankrupt to pay for programs that will only block cheap energy, including solar, and ruin many real ecologies.
On Lew Rockwell’s site http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north791.html
Gary North wrote about climategate and used a post I made on this site.
I suggested that they would declare victory and go home. Copenhagen has botched even that.
Actually I don’t gamble at all I’m to broke. lol.
The global financial system is teetering. Held up by props that are as hollow as the hockey stick.
It will be interesting to count the ‘weasel’ words that are sure to be found in the final Copenhagen ‘accord’ document.
As per Kyoto, there will be plenty of promises, but little action. As science hasn’t a clue of the future direction of Earth’s climate, this is a good thing.
How I laughed – Mann talks of being smeared.
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/41272
I wouldn’t compare it to health care if I were you, most developed capitalist countries have perfectly decent national health care without it being some kind of socialist plot. To argue otherwise is a global projection of a silly American domestic conservative obsession.
Not that I’m saying I approve of Obamas health care plans, i’m not American, it is not my place. I’m just saying that to the rest of the world the health care comparison may seem a little silly.
Oups bad day for typos the above should read:
‘Gary North wrote about climategate and used a post I made on his site.’
Has the US got this sort of money to be practicing this kind of largesse? Add’s to the trillions of $ of debt – much of it owed to China!!! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Of course printing the 100 billion/year is an option.
The world and the US have gone mad. Well the useful idiots in the western democracy certainly have.
In Aus , Krudd and Wrong are on a slide out of power..yay!
avoiding double dissolution enabled them to manage to screw it up that little bit more for the incoming party.:-(
And yes I hope to be here and reading the reports on the mass psy-ops that suckered the rich wanna be rich, and infamous..!
imagine, with a shudder, if it wasn’t for communication on the net these mongrels could have gotten away with it.
now I wonder also as USA is more than broke..how does Hillary think you are going to pay all that money to 3rd world??
more fiat money perhaps?
ah well depression disaster and act of whatever you believe in, regardless You WILL be forced to keep paying them..well after the temps have got colder, and the seas don’t rise!
because theres No way the 3rd world PTB will ever give up such a cash cow as USA and Aus. at least leeches drop off when sated, this lot, no way!
Why is it that the greenies have not noticed that they have been had over by the politicians, the market makers and big business? Its the money that counts. If they had stuck to pollution and green ideals like wildlife and deforestation they could not fail to win battle after battle. If cap and trade is pushed through it will be the end of the greenies. They will be sidelined with “move along nothing to see here”
Are Hillary and Obama going to pay for this $100 billion out of their own pockets?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Or just hope that the Chinese will want to buy more bonds? Sadly, the words Republic and Banana spring to mind.
(Not that things are much better in the UK – after 10 years of boom we got nothing to show for it, apart from two illegal wars and £175 billion public expenditure deficit).
Carl Chapman (01:01:41) :
At some point China will get sick of lending money to the US to squander.
Not as long as we keep buying their products. Only when we can no longer purchase their wares to their advantage will they cut off the lending. They have learned how to use capitalism to their communistic aspirations.
Just listening to Stern – he’s just claimed that deserts will be under water due to Climate Change – in the next breath he says this is simple fact and not alarmist.
Oh the irony.
This is truly obscene. No news of this so far or have I missed things already?However, those of us who have half a brain, can see that the lie is a lie, they know it is & so do we, I won’t er-run the panto routine again.
The BBC are doing their dammedest best to perpetuate the lie. I was away in Southampton on Wednesday watching darling daughter get her award after getting a First in her Nursing Degree, proud & tear moving moment for Dad!
Well, on Newnight, the BBC got its pet green promoting reporter to host in his own home a group of neighbours, supposedly some doubters, some believers, & some neutrals, naturally enough as a pretence to balance. Well to sway the neutrals & doubters, they had a “scientists” who conducted an experiment live on tv in reporter’s own kitchen. The experiment consisted of two 1 gallon plastic water jugs, the type used in water dispensers the world over, with sealed lids fitted with thermometers, one would have just “air”, the other CO2 added via a third smaller container, with dissolved bi-carbonate of soda to generate CO2. Now, I did not see all the experiment start to finish, it was a long day followed by a delightful family dinner, then back to the hotel. What I saw was the bi-carb being dissolved, the “scientist” had mentioned earlier that most of the earth was covered with ocean & I got the impression that the containers had water in them. The “scientist” said they needed heat from sunshine, at which point the camera panned to the outside window to show snow falling at night, the irony clearly being missed by one & all there, so two heat lamps were applied to the containers. At first & embarrassingly the plain air container was warmer than the CO2 filled one, but over several minutes the CO2 container started to warm considerably! The whole thing was broadcast with an air of desparation to convince the public of their guilt based on a failing conference jooly in Copenhagen. Guess what, all present were miraculously convinced it’s all our fault.
Now, from what I have read here, on ICECAP, CA, Climate Change, from Lord Monckton, SPPI, Bishop Hill, & several others, something seemd a little too convenient to me. Was there some small exo-thermic chemical reaction when dissovling the bi-carb that caused the heat? Were there other factors I did not see or figure out – I’m no chemist – or did the CO2 cause the heating up to occur or was the water vapour contributing to the temp rise as well? I am very suspicious of the experiment. Any one, especially the chemists out there, any ideas as to what I actually saw? As I say it was late in the day when I saw that part of the programme.
BTW, it’s frigging cold over here right now, with half the Uk covered in snow with icey winds, as is Denmark. We in the west just have the usual British weather at this time, after weeks of heavy rainfall, it all freezes down with icey winds, ( at least the dog didn’t get too wet over the fields this time). Oh the irony is unbelievable!
AtB
BBC:
09:50 GMT, Friday, 18 December 2009
“Uncertainty over Copenhagen deal”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/8420016.stm
——
It ain’t over till the fat lady sings 😉
I have to wonder: If these people are so intelligent, why would they schedule a conference on global warming in Copenhagen in December? Have they never heard of Murphy’s Law?
Here is the proposal for Copenhagen COP15 declaration with plenty of Xes inserted:
http://www.berlingske.dk/klima/aftaleudkast-til-klimaaftale
on Danish paper Berlingske Tidende. Have fun reading it.
Carl Chapman (01:01:41) :
“At some point China will get sick of lending money to the US to squander. It will be interesting to see how much of the madness survives when there’s no money left.”
China can’t pull the rug from under the U.S. too abruptly, but I agree that they will soon put the lid on the cookie jar (loans to the U.S.).
On Thursday, Hills (Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State) indicated that a large block of the funding from the U.S. would be to “mitigate” the impact of global climate change in the poor, undeveloped/developing nations.
mit·i·gate (mtgt)
v. mit·i·gat·ed, mit·i·gat·ing, mit·i·gates
v.tr.
To moderate (a quality or condition) in force or intensity; alleviate.
See Synonyms at relieve.
v.intr.
To become milder.
——————————————————————————–
[Middle English mitigaten, from Latin mtigre, mtigt- : mtis, soft + agere, to drive, do; see act.]
——————————————————————————–
miti·ga·ble (-g-bl) adj.
miti·gation n.
miti·gative, miti·ga·tory (-g-tôr, -tr) adj.
miti·gator n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved
This means that IF your glaciers melt and your rivers run dry, IF the ocean rises
and your seacoast is inundated, or IF your seals and polar bears actually suffer
a loss of range, THEN you’re in line for the $$$.
Something has to have actually HAPPENED for any mitigation to kick in. This
mean real events, not computer projections that print out fantasies not backed
up by documented observations.
You can be certain the fiscal “conservatives” in many nations will INSIST the
the proof is scientifically valid… not eminating from any of the recent peer
groupings.
Once the Copenhagan rally is over, reality will take over.
“rjb (00:46:28) :
im with mauibrad on this they can pledge all the money in the world, but just like kyoto it will be a meaningless gesture. the regressive wing of the democrat party has made the rest of the party walk the plank too many times on unpopular legislation…”
This is far from meaningless. I believe the intent of this gesture is to show that Obama’s “policies” are supported by and are part of the “world society”…and that aura would help pass both health care AND crapNtrade back here at home. See?…everyone ELSE in the world supports what we do!…YOU should TOO! The perception at home is that people are questioning the bills…this shows that everyone ELSE supports what’s going on.
“Cassandra King (01:38:26) :
I wonder how much of the recently agreed one trillion plus dollar stimulus money will be frittered away by the new socialist regime headed by obama?”
This is a layup…ALL of it. Why stop now?
“I wouldn’t compare it to health care if I were you, most developed capitalist countries have perfectly decent national health care without it being some kind of socialist plot. To argue otherwise is a global projection of a silly American domestic conservative obsession.”
A bit O/T, but I beg to differ. I have friends in both Canada and England, none of whom would agree with your statement. Allowing politicians to add further complexities in the form of over 100 additional bureaucracies and untold costs to a system that 85% of the population in the country are very satisfied with is considerably more than a domestic conservative obsession.
And for those that are continually surprised that “science doesn’t matter”…it never mattered, other than providing a highway by which the flow of vast amounts of money could be controlled.
I think it’s time to move to one of these 3rd world island communtities that will benefit from all of this largesse…life is going to be pretty damned good there with this sudden influx of cash, even if only a small percentage makes it there.
Definitely time for some umbrella drinks. I’m tired of buying oil and wood to stay warm in the midst of the hottest decade on record.
JimB (a.k.a Palau Jim)
Redistribution of Wealth = The socialist dream of the Robin Hood Syndrome.
I.M.H.O Most of the leaders will now be waiting for ClimateGate and the flow on from this to hit the fan.
LB 1:59
A lot of your ROW patients come to the US for your healthcare. Why is that?
Apparently quite a lot of “things”are rotten in the state of Denmark. As usual, common sense is less common than one whishes. The panhandling of a non event as man made global warming, driven by “herd”instincts of supporters and profiteers, will do great harm to numerous people. In stead of focusing on efficiency improvements including our coal based technologies we experience religeous belief systems. As long as more than a billion people need decent facilities to live we better improve all technologies (including nuclear) in stead of concentrating only on”green”. Never forget CO2 is the most important gaseous fertilizer.
Sorry to be defeatist but this article ‘The Great Green Land Grab’ by AA Gill in the Sunday Times has the strong ring of truth to me:
“This chilly melee is the tipping point. Not the climatic one — more important than that. Copenhagen is where
the principle and the process of environmental change and global warming have gone from being the
exclamation of a pressure group, and a charity whine, to being the orthodoxy, the accepted wisdom, the
mainstream.
The environment was outside the big tent. Now it’s inside and it makes absolutely no difference what opinion
polls or referendums say. It matters nought that the Green party has singularly failed in every democracy. It
doesn’t matter that they’re all as boring and righteous as goodness. It doesn’t matter that scientists fake
messages and bury statistics, that they do everything in secret. None of this matters now. It doesn’t even
matter if it’s actually going to happen. All that matters is that the people who matter think it matters.
When the heads of nearly every government turn up here to make promises, sign agreements that they will
undoubtedly break and fudge and chuckle over and lie about, that’s not what’s important. They may bounce the
cheque, but they won’t bounce the reason for writing it. They’re on board for global warming.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6954391.ece
Unless there is a smoking cannon about to be revealed, I fear that all the revelations in the world about the railroad engineer’s conflicts of interest won’t matter a jot. For now, they’ve won.
Was watching BBC2 last night and after Newsnight, on came a documentary entitled ‘The Climate Wars’.
I must confess that I turned off after amidst the preamble came the obligatory line “no serious scientist now doubts that the Earth is warming and that human beings are causing it”.
How can they broadcast this shit with a straight face?