Global Warming as Climastrology

Just like the old astrology, they scare and frighten over and over again, and finally they get their chance to rob the taxpayers because that’s where the money is.

FROM-Pajamas Media

by James Lewis

The good news for 2010 is that the climate fraudsters are on the run. The bad news is that they are hoping against hope that the sheriff’s posse won’t catch ‘em. Because the real reason for “global warming” is now clear beyond any reasonable doubt. The reason is ten trillion dollars in taxpayer dough for politicians, transnational bureaucrats, and phony science types. Put away those old world records for the Great Train Robbery and Bernie Madoff. You can junk Bonnie and Clyde. The climate fraudsters have now set the biggest record for massive fraud in human history.

BBC’s climate doom correspondent Paul Hudson asked plaintively a few months ago: “What happened to global warming?” Wrote Mr. Hudson:

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might the fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures

Here’s a guy who built a glittering career on global warming fraud. That BBC headline should have collapsed the whole fraud right there and then. After all, the Bolshie Beeb has been leading this charge for decades. Paul Hudson’s public confession is like Gorbachev finally ‘fessing up that Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Kim, Pol Pot (and Obama) had it completely wrong after all. All those 100,000,0000 dead people and nothing to show for it. The Beeb’s Orwellian Ministry of Truth has been pushing global warming every single hour of the day for lo these many years. Now the New York Times actually had to go out and find an honest man to break the news to its readers (John Tierney). Its global frauding correspondent, Andrew Revkin, has resigned and fled the scene of the crime.

Scientists used to be poor but honest, but that was when they slept in garrets and dressed in grungy sweaters. Today they have glittering dollar signs where their eyeballs used to be, like a Vegas slot machine, and their magic number has 13 zeroes: ten trillion dollars for climate fraud. That’s an official estimate from the “Stern Review,” authored by distinguished British fraudocrat Lord Nicholas Stern in 2006. The same number also comes from the skeptical side, from the Marshall Institute, which has done careful economic projections about the cost of “global warming” abatement.

That’ll be ten trillion dollars, please. Cha-ching! Shall I wrap up that planet or do you want to eat it here? Ten trillion buckarooneys is why all those green fraudsters jetted into Copenhagen, and that’s why they kept going for a while even after Climategate ripped open their fraud for all the world to see.

Mr. Obama himself promised in his Democratic Party acceptance speech that “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Just like King Canute. Even before, that same Senator Obama co-sponsored a Senate Global Poverty Act, which
… would force America to adopt the UN’s “Millennium Development Goals” as official U.S. policy. This means outsourcing to the United Nations all important decisions concerning the use of U.S. foreign aid dollars. Not only that, but the fee for allowing the UN to play the “middle man” in our global war on poverty would be a tax of .7 percent of the U.S. Gross National Product … for an estimated $845 billion over the next 13 years.
But that was before Obama became president and the EPA declared CO2 plant nutrition to be a global warming toxin. You can’t breathe out any more, because all the suckers have been convinced that CO2 is killing Mother Earth.
Actually, ten trillion glittering zlotnicks, while a nice round number, was only going to be the start. For example, here’s the National Resources Defense Council estimate of the cost of global warming for the United States alone:

A comprehensive estimate, based on state-of-the-art computer modeling, finds that doing nothing on global warming will cost the United States economy more than 3.6 percent of GDP — or $3.8 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) — by 2100. On the other hand, a detailed, bottom-up analysis finds that just four categories of global warming impacts — hurricane damage, real estate losses, increased energy costs and water costs — will add up to a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100. “The longer we wait, the more painful and expensive the consequences will be. This report’s findings are undeniable – we must act now,” said Dan Lashof, director of NRDC’s Climate Center.” (emphasis added)

Tony Blair, whose Labour government in the UK helped put the fraudocrats in place at Hadley CRU, actually had the immortal gall to say in Copenhagen, “The world must take action on climate change even if the science is not correct.” That’s like your plumber telling you, “You know what I told you about ripping out all the pipes in your house? Well, that was wrong, but you owe me the same amount to fix it.”

That’s when Annie got her gun, and so should we. As a newly minted
Catholic, I trust Tony Blair will go to his priest for a long, long confession
now about telling the biggest whopper of his whole career.

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen told scientists in March, as transcribed by Environmental Research Letters:

I need your assistance to push this process (JL — the fraudocrat climate treaty) in the right direction, and in that respect, I need fixed targets and certain figures, and not too many considerations on uncertainty and risk and things like that.

Translation: To all you science frauds. Don’t give me facts. I need politically correct answers.
And British PM Gordon Brown, not the swiftest kid on the block, attacked “anti-science, flat-earth climate skeptics.”

That’s because poor Gordon is still hoping to become president of the EU some day, and the EU, the most corrupt political organization after the UN, is planning to launch thousands and thousands of new careers with those ten trillion dollars. Meanwhile French President Sarkozy’s plan to start squeezing taxes our of the climate fraud was defeated on judicial appeal in France. The Australians have caught on to the global scam and are in an uproar. In New Zealand they made the mistake of actually releasing their raw temperature records, and within days the blogosphere had nailed the fraud. This wasn’t complicated. It was the audacity of dopes. They just padded the numbers with elementary arithmetic.

Well, we caught ‘em with their pants around their ankles — and when I say “we,” I mean the non-suckers of the world. There are some real heroes who deserve a Presidential Medal of Freedom just as soon as the Chicago gang gets out of the White House. Meanwhile the biggest Bernie Madoff wannabes are facing exposure and running off as fast as they can, lying all the way.

The biggest news for scientists: Science magazine has dropped any mention of “global warming” or “climate change” in its latest issue. This is after eight years of Donald Kennedy, the most sold-out warmist editor in chief of the magazine. Science mag is supposed to be what its name says, not just some union rag to swing big loot for the science lobby. Kennedy was forced to resign as president of Stanford University after a grant fraud scandal, where Kennedy was actually called to testify before a House committee and publicly accused of fraud.

So Science mag naturally appointed Kennedy instantly to become its editor in chief. Science mag is the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. AAAS will now be known as AAC$ — the American Association for the Corruption of Science — because this was no accident. Donald Kennedy was made the most powerful editor in U.S. science and his biggest selling point was the fact that Kennedy had doubled Stanford’s endowment, mostly by squeezing money out of the feds, from 1 billion to 2 billion Golden Zlotnicks.

There are still honest scientists, like Richard S. Lindzen of MIT and Freeman Dyson of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study. Dyson and Lindzen agree on one major point: it’s the big money that has corrupted big science. Lindzen points out that the federal budget for climate modeling has skyrocketed during a decade of increasingly frantic fraud — from a few hundred million dollars to 1.2 billion dollars. All the fraudocrats in Copenhagen were specifically there to launch that ten trillion dollar heist. The United Nations, the EU, and the Obama administration were the biggest dope pushers in Copenhagen. It was China, Russia, and India that kicked at the fraud because they didn’t want their economic development to be ball-and-chained. China has seen the results of socialism gone mad — that was Mao Zedong and more than forty million dead. Russia has seen Lenin and Stalin with tens of millions more dead or sent to suffer in Siberia. It’s only Obama who can still live in the fantasy that the left is the wave of the future. Even Obama’s close friends at the Chicago Carbon Exchange are getting just a little bit worried.

Lord Monckton has called for criminal prosecutions, and he’s right. Without prosecution and jail terms these fraudsters eventually come back. The fraud hasn’t been exposed to the general public; the media are still hoping that billions of suckers will never find out. Until that happens the way it did with Madoff and with Watergate, this smoldering scam can still come alive. Don’t think they aren’t still hoping to make a comeback.

It’s all a twist on the classic Willie Sutton joke:

Q: Why do you scare little children and eco-suckers ‘til they wake up at night screaming?

A: Cause that’s where the money is!

And that’s the key to Climastrology, I’m sorry to say. Just like the old astrology, they scare and frighten over and over again, and finally they get their chance to rob the taxpayers because that’s where the money is. That’s what Copenhagen and Kyoto were all about: finally getting all that loot. That’s why Obama flew to Copenhagen — to rescue his friends at the Chicago Carbon Exchange.

Money, limitless egomania, power, fame, sex, money, political clout, money, big careers, big grants, academic tenure, money, ego trips, junkets to Copenhagen, money, free sex from Green Party prostitutes, Euro-Marxist fantasies of world conquest, money. They are interchangeable.

Keep an eye out. The Green left is going to try to revive this fraud. Either they get prosecuted for criminal fraud or they’ll be back. Think Bernie Madoff and just multiply the numbers ‘till you get to ten trillion dollars. The incentive is still there. They’ll be back unless they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law


More...

" misplaced power exists "

"The partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians and alarmist campaigners truly is an unholy alliance."

FROM-WSJ
By BJORN LOMBORG


The Climate-Industrial Complex

Some businesses see nothing but profits in the green movement.



Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets.

The tight relationship between the groups echoes the relationship among weapons makers, researchers and the U.S. military during the Cold War. President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned about the might of the "military-industrial complex," cautioning that "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." He worried that "there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties."

This is certainly true of climate change. We are told that very expensive carbon regulations are the only way to respond to global warming, despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test. We must ask whether a "climate-industrial complex" is emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over money to please those who stand to gain.

This phenomenon will be on display at the World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen this weekend. The organizers -- the Copenhagen Climate Council -- hope to push political leaders into more drastic promises when they negotiate the Kyoto Protocol's replacement in December.

The opening keynote address is to be delivered by Al Gore, who actually represents all three groups: He is a politician, a campaigner and the chair of a green private-equity firm invested in products that a climate-scared world would buy.

Naturally, many CEOs are genuinely concerned about global warming. But many of the most vocal stand to profit from carbon regulations. The term used by economists for their behavior is "rent-seeking."

The world's largest wind-turbine manufacturer, Copenhagen Climate Council member Vestas, urges governments to invest heavily in the wind market. It sponsors CNN's "Climate in Peril" segment, increasing support for policies that would increase Vestas's earnings. A fellow council member, Mr. Gore's green investment firm Generation Investment Management, warns of a significant risk to the U.S. economy unless a price is quickly placed on carbon.

Even companies that are not heavily engaged in green business stand to gain. European energy companies made tens of billions of euros in the first years of the European Trading System when they received free carbon emission allocations.

American electricity utility Duke Energy, a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council, has long promoted a U.S. cap-and-trade scheme. Yet the company bitterly opposed the Warner-Lieberman bill in the U.S. Senate that would have created such a scheme because it did not include European-style handouts to coal companies. The Waxman-Markey bill in the House of Representatives promises to bring back the free lunch.

U.S. companies and interest groups involved with climate change hired 2,430 lobbyists just last year, up 300% from five years ago. Fifty of the biggest U.S. electric utilities -- including Duke -- spent $51 million on lobbyists in just six months.

The massive transfer of wealth that many businesses seek is not necessarily good for the rest of the economy. Spain has been proclaimed a global example in providing financial aid to renewable energy companies to create green jobs. But research shows that each new job cost Spain 571,138 euros, with subsidies of more than one million euros required to create each new job in the uncompetitive wind industry. Moreover, the programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs for every job created.

The cozy corporate-climate relationship was pioneered by Enron, which bought up renewable energy companies and credit-trading outfits while boasting of its relationship with green interest groups. When the Kyoto Protocol was signed, an internal memo was sent within Enron that stated, "If implemented, [the Kyoto Protocol] will do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory business."

The World Business Summit will hear from "science and public policy leaders" seemingly selected for their scary views of global warming. They include James Lovelock, who believes that much of Europe will be Saharan and London will be underwater within 30 years; Sir Crispin Tickell, who believes that the United Kingdom's population needs to be cut by two-thirds so the country can cope with global warming; and Timothy Flannery, who warns of sea level rises as high as "an eight-story building."

Free speech is important. But these visions of catastrophe are a long way outside of mainstream scientific opinion, and they go much further than the careful findings of the United Nations panel of climate change scientists. When it comes to sea-level rise, for example, the United Nations expects a rise of between seven and 23 inches by 2100 -- considerably less than a one-story building.

There would be an outcry -- and rightfully so -- if big oil organized a climate change conference and invited only climate-change deniers.

The partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians and alarmist campaigners truly is an unholy alliance. The climate-industrial complex does not promote discussion on how to overcome this challenge in a way that will be best for everybody. We should not be surprised or impressed that those who stand to make a profit are among the loudest calling for politicians to act. Spending a fortune on global carbon regulations will benefit a few, but dearly cost everybody else.


More...

The Catlin Arctic Fraud (2)

More than two weeks before the scheduled end of the insurance company sponsored Catlin Arctic Survey the trio of explorers are resting comfortably in Resolute, a small hamlet in the Nunavut province in northern Canada. In an attempt to call attention to global warming and to secure a climate accord in Copenhagen this December, arctic explorer Pen Hadow teamed up with Ann Daniels and Martin Hartley to embark on a 100 day mission to measure how fast the arctic sea-ice was melting by hiking to the North Pole.

During the early stages of their trek across the arctic sea-ice they endured biting cold temperatures of lower than -50°F, rendering state-of-the-art ice measuring equipment, such as the SPRITE, useless as the wiring became brittle and snapped like dry twigs. The extreme cold also caused members of the team to suffer bouts of hypothermia and frostbite, which compounded the fact that it was too cold to fly in supplies.

As the sun climbed higher in the arctic sky through April and temperatures warmed, though still remaining below zero, massive blizzards would sweep across the landscape. Once again the team would be forced to hunker down and ration food supplies as it became too dangerous to fly in resupplies to the team due to zero visibility in heavy snow.

Despite all the set backs, all the fights for survival, all the climbs over pressure ridges and the one and only swim across a lead, this expedition has some how become new poster child of global warming. Environmental groups have claimed the Survey to be one of the greatest pioneering efforts to call attention to climate change in the Arctic, but why?

The team failed not only to make it to the North Pole, their intended destination, but failed to reach the halfway point. Temperatures encountered on the mission ran below normal during most of the time, the extreme cold was punctuated only by intense blizzards.

“It’s mostly first year ice”, the team exclaimed, seemingly mystified by the lack of multi-year ice. Truth be told, satellite data beforehand showed their route as consisting of mostly first year ice so what’s so astonishing? Considering they couldn’t make it to the field of multi-year ice which lie in wait past the halfway point to the pole it comes as no surprise that they hardly found any. Traveling across what were once leads later frozen would help to ensure that caveat as well.

Discussed previously was this teams’ questionable supporters, radical environmental groups with political agendas; their sentiment for this mission, “to secure a solution" in Copenhagen; and their funding sponsor, Catlin, an insurance company in the market to profit from global warming. Now that they’re off the ice and the ‘data’ has been collected one still must consider their motives and question the statements coming from this group.

For example, upon reaching Resolute the expedition leader, and most vocal member regarding climate change, Pen Hadow, said that the teams’ decision to end their mission was due to “an earlier than expected start to the summer melt season”. One must wonder how Pen didn’t come to the same conclusion in 2003 during his solo mission to the North Pole when sea-ice extent was over a quarter million square kilometers less than the same date this year.

This misinformation will undoubtedly spur on more dire predictions of how soon it will be until ice in the Arctic completely melts away. The latest coming within hours of the team being plucked from the ice, "By 2013, we will see a much smaller area in summertime than now; and certainly by about 2020, I can imagine that only one area will remain in summer." Or so says Peter Wadhams, head of the polar ocean physics group at the University of Cambridge.

Meanwhile, readers can continue to watch the latest ice extent data in the “2009 Arctic sea-ice watch” located on this page. Currently, this date in 2009 places highest in extent over the time period covered over the previous 7 years, as seen below.