Jacob's Soap Box

13 December, 2009

As expected, Climategate has done nothing to temper the enthusiasm of the climate ideologues in the funfest of Carbonhagen, even the Danish sex workers harnessed themselves to the task of ensuring a successful event by opening their hearts (and their legs) to the delegates.

Climategate has NOT taught us anything we had not known before, it merely added another level of confirmation that global warming is a fraud of gigantic proportion. I shall explain that later.

The main stream media, who finally could not ignore the story went into a “yes but” mode, glossing over the fact that the “robust science” is a work of scientists who are more preoccupied with politics s and funding that with science. I is all a sceptic stunt to undermine the Crapenhagen conference, and the global warming is still as real as ever and the current cooling is only a natural variability after a long warming and still 2008 was the fourteenth hottest year since …. etc etc etc, whoopee!

Natural variability hey? and what would you call the warming of the 20th century after the Little Ice age that ended at the end of the 19th century? If you go by Climategate that has never happened — Prof Michael Mann, the father of the Hockey Stick theory (as we saw in Climategate I) religiously prefixed the terms Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice age with the words “so-called” as if they had never happened. And they call us “deniers”(?!)

Sure, the Hockey Stick theory is now truly buried, even by the dogmatic IPCC. I was shown to be a plain scientific hoax but the charade goes on.

The Climate Models

The global warmers tell us ad-nauseam that the climate models (there are about six versions) provide the scientific proof to global warming.

Let me explain what a model is.

A climate model is a mathematical model, or model for shot. A model is a set of mathematical (including statistical) calculations, known as algorithms, attempting to simulate the real world. A model is as good, or bad, as the rules and the data put into it, for example:

Suppose I want to model trains time table; I know the distances between stations, I know what speed the train can do, therefore I know how long it takes a train to get from one station to the next. I allow 2 or 3 minutes for every stop and bingo I have a model that simulate the run of one train. But this only a start.

My aim to provide service to the travelling public so I need more than trains, I know how many passengers I need to carry thus I can work out how many cars each train will have (consistent with the length of platforms), I space the trains and run my model to ensure that the no two trains reach a station at the same time, or meet each other in the opposite directions, if they use the same tracks on both direction.

But I also know that the vast majority of the travelling public require to travel to and from work in the morning and the evening, so I run more and longer trains during rush hours. As more people need to get on and off the trains, I need to allow more time at stain stops, meaning yet more trains — it is getting complex but manageable because ,so far, I have dealt with known factors.

The difficulties starts emerging when I deal with known unknowns; mechanical breakdowns (trains and signals), accidents, weather delays (floods, snow, heat waves). I use probabilities that I work out from past records (data) and build it into my model, I then run “what if” scenarios (called sensitivity analysis).

Eventually I will have a model simulating the whole railway network in a quite reliable MODEL, the technology to do it exists, it was done successfully many times in the past, so far so good. BUT,

How successful would be my model if I try to do it for a city in a country that has never had trains before?

Not much because I don’t have the required data to construct my model — I would need to rely on guesstimates and experiences in other places and ASSUME that it is relevant. In technical wards, I built assumptions into my mode.

As I don’t really know the size of the train travelling public, I would try and estimate it from other available data, say, buses statistic – The bus data becomes my “proxy”, that proximates my train travelling public, is the yardstick by which I guess the size of the travelling public, it is not perfect but it the best I have.

You can now see, that usefulness of such model is limited by my lack of data, my confidence in my model would be shrunk by comparison to the earlier model.

What all this has to do with climate? I hear you ask; the climate models akin models that simulate trains that have never run (as yet). They rely on data, such as tree rings, ice core samples (called boreholes), and other proxies to simulate temperatures for the times when there was no methodological collection and recoding of climate data on earth which is the whole of the planet’s 4.55 billion years history barring the last 200 years at the most.

Climate Proxies

There is a legitimate debate about how well the various proxies represent past climate data. Such debate is a matter for the science to resolve and I am not going to buy into it.

This is not a criticism on the use of proxies, science has to use what is available to it, but we must bear in mind that whilst the bus travelling public may give us a good clue as to how many train passengers it is only an indication, that may or MAY NOT come to fruition.

In my second train model I would take bus data and CALIBRATE it. I would try to run my model a number of times with different assumptions such as 50% 60% 70% of the bus passengers will travel by train whiles it start running.

The climate science does just that, so as you can clearly see, it is an educated estimate, at best, and with all the care I take, I would not stick my house on being 100% right, would you?

It may take some 10 or 15 or twenty years before the new trains, which I just modelled, will start running. Would you now, base on my MODEL, commit yourself to be at the station at 8:17 am on Monday, 2025? of course not. Yet these global warmers not only want us to commit ourselves to be in station that has been built yet but they also want us to buy the tickets, (carbon credits) NOW because the models say so.

But there is more.

Suppose I see a bump in the number of passengers between 2pm and 3:0pm (presumable caused by school kids going home) and I ignore it as a “natural variability” as it does not suit my model. This is exactly what the Hockey Stick theory does — ignore available data because it spoils the model!

In fact, it is worse than that, the global warmers goes further and tell us that the trains are already running. Yet a mere 8 years into their predictions and the trains are running indeed but in the wrong direction!!! yet they insist that the model is 95% accurate.

This bring us to the question of:

How Certain Are The Models?

We often hear that the accuracy of the models are within 95% probability. No, it is Not!!!

The warm mongers are in fact referring to the statistical term known as degree (or level) of confidence, (also Confidence Interval) which measures the accuracy of their models.

That term has little to do with probability. It is a statistical measurement of an interval , a “window” around the model result into which a certain percent of the eventual and real life events expected to falls. It is typically 95% or 97.5% but it can be any number under 100%. I’ll give an example

Taking the trains again, it means that within a certainty of, say,95% a train will arrive within a time” window” around the schedule time. In other words, 95% of trains will arrive within a certain time before or after the appointed schedule time. Naturally, it stand to reason that the larger the time window is the more trains will be “on time”.

As you can see 95% confidence interval is meaningless without knowing what is the actual interval — it is one thing if 95% of trains arrive within one minute of the time table and a completely different story if 95% of trains arrive within three hours of the schedule time and still “be on time”.

Climate is a lot more complex than my trains model example and whilst in the case of running trains we know all there to know about what affect the trains running on time , when it comes to climate science, we don’t even know that the track is reaching the next station let alone the our final destination.

The best science do is forecast the weather reasonably accurately for FOUR DAYS into the future, any further then that is an educated guess and they want to tell me that they can tell the weather in 2050?

Enjoy you cold showers in the dark if you still think that you are saving the plant.

All aboard!

© copyright Jacob Klamer 2009 — all right reserved

29 November,2009

Can you imagine that you are about to go into a dangerous military mission just to discover that the intelligence reports on which you mission is based, are fraudulent, would you still go on that mission?

Can you imagine that you are about to board a plane and just to discover that the licences your pilots are holding are forged, would you still board that plane?

Can you imagine that the new breaking system just fitted on your car is based on a mathematical model which was never been road tested, would you still take your car for a spin?

The answers of course are no, no and no.

Yet our politicians are going to Copenhagen to agree measure to combat global warming, in a complete disregard to the fact that the globe is cooling, in a complete disregard to the fact that NONE of the climate models used by the IPCC (the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) forecasted the current cooling and in a complete denial to the recent discovery of Climategate.

Climategate is the term given to the posting of email files on the Internet, files that were hacked from a computer of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the UK.

These exchanges show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the science behind global warming is controlled by a relative small group of scientists, activists, journalists (surprise surprise) and bureaucrats whose motivation is anything but science. The pear review we heard so much about is a sham, akeen to the police investigating itself, the member of the clique review each other, reciprocate kudos and not only exclude any opposing science from the “reviw”, but use their clout to silence it.

Here is an example, on 14 October 2009, Tom Wigley, a senior researcher with the University Cooperation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) wrote:

Dear folks,

You may be interesting in this snippet of information about Pat Michaels. Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?

In a classic approach of the global warmer ideologues of “kick the man, not the ball”, Prof Phil Jones of the UEA replied (inter-alia):

I recall Pat [Michaels] wasn’t very good at writing stuff up.

What was Dr Michaels’s sin that necessitates a re-education Mao style ? Apparently Dr. Michaels had the audacity to publish a (PhD) thesis on the relationship between crop and climate that contradicts findings of one of the group members. So What? you ask, in simple words, it means what we all know intuitively and that is that (global) warming is beneficial to crops and we can have that, can we?

******

On 9 October, 2009, Paul Hudson, a climate correspondent, wrote on the BBC web site an uncharacteristic (for the BBC) article titled What happened to Global Warming? , he wrote:

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that 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.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

He goes on to suggest, what many of us already know, that perhaps the 1990’s warming was part of a natural cycle as indeed is the current cooling.

The ensuing email discussion revealed that, other than a few guesses, the scientists don’t really have an answer to the current cooling. Dr. Kevin Trendberth of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) was honest enough to say that:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Professor Michael E Mann of Pennsylvania State University (PSU), Mr Hockey Stick (more about him later) ,suggested a real scientific way to resolve the quandary and that is to put Paul Hudson in his rightful place, he said:

extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?

You see, these people not only run the global climate fraud, they also in bed with the liberal media.

* * * * *

There are over 1,000 Climategate email files, mostly with more than one message in them (because of the apparent use “Reply” and “forward”) going back to 1996. I do not pretend to heave read them all, or even a significant number of them, nor do I claim to understand many of the scientific arguments and counter-arguments made, from these that I studied, somewhat randomly, it is abundantly clear that a lot of scientists’ time and efforts is devoted to sheer ideology and politics rather than to science.

Whilst there is nothing new in the fact that the science of global warming is heavily tainted by ideology and politics, a claim that had been made by many reputable scientists, we now have the smoking gun as a proof, if we even need one.

Too often we are told that the science (of global warming) is settled and passed the scrutiny of peer review. It appears that this is not so! It is more like the scientific consensus was brought about by peer pressure, rather than by peer review.

Let me pick a subject.

The Hockey Stick Theory

Had you watch Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, you would no doubt recall this scene where Al Gore stand in front of two large graphs.

The left graph depicts the Northern Hemisphere’s (NH) variation from (a long term) average temperatures going back to 1,000 years and on the right one, the average carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentration in the atmosphere. You can clearly see that the temperatures were relatively stable until the twentieth century as it shot up, resembling a hockey stick on its side, hence the term.

The so-called hockey stick theory was a brain child of Prof Michael Mann (albeit not by name), the very same Prof. Mann I cited earlier. So powerful were those graphs that when shown by Al Gore they swayed many uncommitted into the global warming believers camp, I personally know a few.

The graphs, together with Prof. Mann’s theory made their way into the IPCC report with the blessing of the climate scientists and, naturally, activists, journalists, bureaucrats and the politicians.

In his book Heaven + Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science, Prof Ian Plimer of the University of Adelaide (Australia) described how two Canadian mathematicians, Steven McIntire and Ross McKitrick, obtained Prof. Mann’s raw data (despite great obstacles put him) and concluded, amongst other things, that the data does not support Mann’s conclusions, or in their words:

due to collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolations of source data, obsolete data, geographical location error, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control. defects.

[- Page 90]

So much for peer review scrutiny.

In fact, Prof. Mann somehow missed two significant climatic events in the last 1,000 years, the Medieval Warming Period (MW or MWP) of 900-1300 AD (when Greenland was green and and grapes were growing in northern England) and the Little Ice Age of 1280 to 1850 AD (when the Thames was frozen solid).

Here is a comparison between the hockey stick theory and the real climate history of the Northern Hemisphere (at least).

By 2006 the Medieval Warming period and the Little Ice Age that had been expunged from the IPCC report in 2001, miraculously reappeared with no explanation.

Was it just an error in good faith on the part of Prof. Mann? Not so according to Climategate.

Apparently two honest scientists, Dr Edward R Cook and Dr. Jan Esper, both tree rings specialists, had raised the existence of both the Medieval Warming Period and the little Ice Age with Dr. Mann back in May 2001.

(If you open the link, read it from the bottom upward, last message first. Don’t worry too much about the science itself but rather note that: a) The existence of both the Medieval Warming period and the Little Ice Age was proven by 2001, and b) How “moderate” peer pressure was applied on those who strayed from the orthodox path)

This is what Ed cook says to Michael Mann in a message dated 2 May 2001, inter-alia:

Jan [Esper] also had to compare his record with the hockey stick … the [Jan] Esper series shows a very strong, even canonical, Medieval Warm Period – Little Ice Age – 20th Century Warming pattern, which is largely missing from the hockey stick

You would have thought that the existence of a study that contradicts his previous scientific findings would trigger Prof. Mann’s scientific interest. No fear, as we say down under, Professor Mann is not interested in the science, politics is far more important, Prof. Mann replied that:

I’m just a bit concerned that the result is getting used publically, by some, before it has gone through the gauntlet of peer review [meaning: pressure]. Especially because it is, whether you condone it or not, being used as we speak to discredit the work of us, and Phil et al, this is dangerous.

Translation: Don’t you ever publish results that we don’t approve of! It is dangerous (for you) to do so.

As professor Plimer said in relation to climate data: “If the data does not fit the model, you torture it into submission” (or words to that effect). Now, who are the real climate deniers?

Why is it that I feel that Climategate will keep me busy for week?

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer – all rights reserved (except images and clips).

21 May, 2009

Studies have shown that 95% of people die whilst laying in bed. I can no longer remain silent on such mass slaughter of innocent people by the multinational bed and linen corporations, in particular women and children. I therefore resolved to create awareness of the challenges ahead and establish the Coalition For Sleeping On the Floor.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel For Sleeping Change (IPSC), that comprises of the best scientists research funds money can buy and Unocrats, recognised my efforts and produced its First Report On Sleeping Change in preparation for the Bedford Protocol On Sleeping Change.

According to the IPCS report, unless a drastic action is taken to reduce sleeping in beds habits, mathematical models have shown that nearly 40% of all people living today will die by the year 2050 and 99.9% will be dead by 2110, shocking results indeed!!!

In a speech before the Bedford Protocol delegations I said:

There is a sufficient scientific body of consensus, the science is settled, we must act and we must act now! sleeping on beds is no longer a sustainable option. We must come together (but not in beds) and meet the challenge bed-head on and rid the world of beds before we shall all perish.

Former Vice-President, the inventor of the Internet and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, joined my efforts and produced an astonishing docoganda called The Embedded Truth in which he revealed astounding statistics that the death rate per hospital bed is 97.3 times that of a domestic bed actualised the urgency of action. Mr Gore moved for the immediate ban on hospital beds to the applaus of the enthusiastic crowd.

In his docoganda, Mr Gore, holding a hockey stick, pointed to large graphs on the wall behind him showing a steady death rate against number of beds going back to the stone age until the 20^th century when both number of beds and death rate picked suddenly hence the name hockey stick. He added:

The is no doubt, ladies and gentlemen, that the increase death rate is due to manmade beds. As you can see [pointing to the beginning of the graph] the death rate in the stone age is very law indeed, we now know for certain that it is attributable to the lack of beds.

Despite a concentrate efforts scientists were unable to unearth any death certificate from the stone age thus concluded that people did not die during the stone age because there were no beds back then

The Bedford protocol for sleeping change called for a gradual reduction in concentrations of beds to 50% by year 2050, 100% by year 2100 and 150% by 2150 (to be on the safe side). At the suggestion of the Women Against Going To Bed With Men, the habit of two people using the same bed was declared disgusting and banned (unless both bedded are of the same sex).

Ms. Penny Worth, the Australian Minister responsible of sleeping change said:

We cannot allow irresponsible people negating the benefits of reduction of beds by sharing the remaining beds. However, we are cognisant of the human rights issues involving with same sex bonking thus have made some welcome exceptions

* * * * *

Sleeping on the floor has been proven environmentally friendly too. Not only you will be closer to nature and to your ancestors but by us all sleeping on the floor we shall no longer be depended on foreign imports of lead pained beds (ichs) from China carried by foreign own ships propelled by dirty fossil fuel!!! Sleeping on a the floor has a smaller carbon print thus it is considered socially responsible.

It was also shown that as people sleep in floors their lower position viz-a-viz the stratosphere means that the carbon dioxide they exhaling is less likely to reach the stratosphere, thus reducing global warming.

In a teleprompter shattering speech, president Bedvasser said:

America is addicted to its beds, we can no longer sustain such out of control beds. In future American bed manufacturer shall be required to conform to the government smaller SBEU (Single Bed Equivalent Unit – a scientific bed measurement unit) per person.

America can no longer afford irresponsible behaviour such as person sleep alone on a king size bed of 2.75 SBEU’s. I therefore announce a new bedding targets which will come into effect immediately.

The Australian Prime Minister Kevin Tucheslaker said me-too and introduced similar measurers in Australia in order to save humanity, as he put it. Somehow the fact that if we all perish tomorrow the affect on the world population would be a reduction of 0.35% escaped him as did the fact China will make up such shortfall by next Friday.

However, member states of the Non-Aligned Movement of the UN, otherwise known as the Third World countries, who in fact controls the voting of the UN General Assembly were allowed to continue to develop sleeping in beds habits. Their UN spokesman, Mr. Bunkie Moon said:

For centuries we slept on the floor whilst people in America and Europe were tucked in beds under worm quits on soft matrasses with electric blankets turned on “max”, it is now our turn to enjoy such luxuries.

(Privately Mr. Moon was concerned that unless there is allowance to his country his first name may be politically incorrect.)

When the USA representative, Ms. Julia Gotobeds, attempted to warn Mr. Moon of the dangers in adopting such risky sleeping strategy, Dr. Shi Tin Bed from China mumbled something in Chinese, a keen simultaneous translator voice was heard whispering in the earpieces a second later:

We don’t care if our people will die, we have too many of the anyway, serve them right for breeding like rabbits.

In order to avoid objections and procrastinations by the all powerful Bedding Industry, the conference decided to establish a new financial instrument Bed Sleeping Credits (BSC) a system by which a Monopoly-like money is transform to real money. Governments will issued large corporations with BSC’s on the basis of contributions in the last elections (when relevant). Those credits will be traded on the stock exchange. People who cannot fall asleep on the floor can buy such credits to compensate society for their anti-social behaviour. The system will be known as Nap And Trade.

* * * * *

One small bald with glasses and goatee German mathematicians, Dr Hans Sensemacher, tried to explain to the conference that the existence of strong mathematical correlation between two variables is not a proof of cause and effect. It is possible, he argued, that laying in bed may be not be a cause of death but a consequence of the more likely causes, such as illness, accident or old age.

He was booed down by angry participants calling him sceptic, right winger, redneck and neo con. Later the conference heard From Congersman Bernie Klieneweewee that Dr Sensmacher been receiving moneys for his research from the giant Gootschluf matrasses manufacture, of Bavaria and the Iranian president’s cousin, Dr Ahmedpeeinbed.

Post scriptum

On the following morning Greenpeace, World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) and the Wilderness Society raised a strong objection to the elimination of beds altogether because, they claim, it destroys the habitat of bed-bugs and, if such destruction of habitat proceeded with, it will bring bed-bugs to the brink of extinction.

A world without bed bugs is considered even greater environmental disaster than a death of a few people.

The BBC together with the New-York Times, launched the Save The Bed-Bug campaign featuring the great environmentalist Mr David Attengetter shown on TV playing with cute bed-bugs providing running commentary of their contribution to our planter’s fragile eco-system (must have one of those).

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2009 – all rights reserved.

12 May, 2009

As of  Monday 4^th may 2009, supermarket plastic bags are banned in the state of South Australia (capital: Adelaide). Like it or loath it, it is another landmark win for the green social engineers.

In fact this is a win for emotional mediocrity, shallowness, ignorance and stupidity of the South Australian public that allow itself to be anaesthetised by morally corrupt journalists and their editors. Not to be overly harsh on the South Australian public, I am certain that, had it been another state, the results would have been the same – no one would hit the streets with banners because of shopping plastic bags.

But plastic bags are not the real issue, they are only a stage the takeover of our lives by the social engineers in the name of the environment.

Was it only me? I listen to an interview on the ABC Radio (no relation to the American media organisation with the same name) with the South Australian Environment Minister, whose name escapes me and not sufficiently important to look it up, that proudly bragged that ” now the landfills of South Australia have been saved” (or words to that affect).

Let me just put it in proportion; South Australia is nearly one and a half times the size of Texas (1.4 to be precise) with a population of 1.6 million, or 6.6% that of Texas. Take off 1.1 million people who live in Adelaide that leaves 400,000 people, who mostly live in coastal towns, for the rest of the state and a vast empty desert for hundreds of miles – saving landfills? Who are they kidding?

But wait a minute, by law we are required, at least here, to wrap our house refuse in plastic bags. Most people indeed re-use shopping bags for that very purpose which means that from now on, in South Australia, shoppers have to buy plastic bags to wrap their garbage in. How do landfills get to be saved with purpose purchased plastic bags as distinct from the re-used shopping variety? Anyone? Anyone?

Lesson number one; environmentalists do not care about contradictions in their massages.

On this very issue, it is some 25 years since the paper bags were banned because they damaged the environment, “save the forest” the echo-Whacko told us, yet if you do not wish to buy the “green” shopping bags in South Australia you will be supplied with … wait for it! … paper bags!

How about Dr (PhD on butterflies) Paul Erlich, the guru of population control who wrote in his book “The Population Explosion” in 1968 that, unless drastic measures are taken to limit population growth, by 1980 there will be insufficient food for all of us. We are nearly 30 year past that point and the social engineers are gearing up to fight …. oh no! Obesity!

* * * * *

Let me see, the environmental message is about pollution, right?

How many of you think that the atmosphere is more polluted now that it was 30 years ago? If you do you are wrong! By all yardsticks that measure pollutants in the air, such as the level of ozone (O₃), Carbon Monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (SO₂), lead and others in the atmosphere, the air quality in the in the developed countries is much higher than it was thirty years ago despite the increase in number of motor vehicles (40% in the USA) during that time.

Yes, the air in the USA and in Australia got cleaner during the tenures of George Bush and John Howard (respectively) but do not expect the media to admit that by all impartial accounts the air quality in the USA in the Bush years was better than in the Clinton’s tenure. In fact the media along with the environmental industry tell you the exact opposite.

Lesson number two; the environmental message is not necessarily true, as a matter of fact it is a pack of lies most of the time.

Greg Easterbrook, an environmental writer, asked a New York Times’ journalist why is it that the paper knowingly misleading the public and allows environmental “news” that otherwise would be edited out as sheer lies? the public would become complacent [about the environment] was the answer. You see my friends, the elitist journalistic profession do not trust you with the truth they need to chew it for you before serving it but what else is new Charlie?

The so-called profession is no longer about impartial reporting, it is about pushing a left an agenda. A left wing agenda supporting the liberal left.

Lesson number three; environmentalism has nothing to do with the environment all to do with social engineering.

In order to facilitate social change, the social engineers need to create a crisis. When people feel threatened they are more likely to agree, or at least no object, to more government control – this is what it is all about, CONTROL!

Patrick Moore, the Canadian co-founder of Greenpeace who left the organisation over policy disagreements provides us with some insight into the movement. In May 2000 he said in the Daily mail that:

“…we have an environmental movement that is run by people who want to fight, not to win.

In other words, the movement select unwinnable issues, such as global warming, that enable the perpetuity of their very existence with a healthy sources of publicity and funds. Take Greenpeace which was founded in 1970 primarily resist the nuclear tests in the Pacific by the USA and France – Once the international nuclear test ban can into force, Greenpeace was forced to diversify to other environmental issues to remain in business.

Why don’t you do a small experiment, walk to the nearest environmentalist and tell him or her: I see that the global temperature declined since year 2000, isn’t it great? Watch their reaction. If you think that they will be relieved that “the imminent” perils of global warming been averted, you are up for a bitter disappointment.

* * * * *

Let us examine the largest con ever perpetrated on humanity, global warming or its predecessor in name only climate change. The demonisation of inert, odourless, colourless gas that is naturally occurring in nature and comprises some 0.03% of the atmosphere as the villain that is destroying the civilisation as we know it. Oh sinful people the end is nye!

Let me see if I get it; the echo-whackos want us to destroy our civilisation in order to save it? How does that work? If we go back to live as the stone age Aborigines that came to meet our First Fleet in 1788, our civilisation will be saved?

Do the echo-whackos want us to destroy our civilisation in order to save it? Not at all, they want everything to stay exactly as it is. Remember, they want to fight not to win and they don’t care much for contradictions.

However, in the meantime and with the help of the liberal media, academia, our education systems and … Hollywood, they have created a monster of a propaganda machine that has the world has never seen before, the two Josephs, Stalin and Goebbels, notwithstanding.

What all these bedfellows have in common with the echo-whackos or with each others, for that matter, that they all banded together against us? The answer is simple; ANTI-CAPITALISM! Sounds familiar?

Yes, the green movement is a watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside. Browse the platform of the various “Green” parties and you quickly see familiar motifs straight out the Communist Manifesto. The reds did not passed away with the death of the Soviet Union, they simply grew green skins.

Now you see the mutual exclusive relation between Communism and environmentalism, every environmentalist is a Communist and every Communist is a greenie and they have one aim which is simply MORE GOVERNMENT. In order to get average Joe and Sheila Citizen to agree, or even demand, bigger government intervention in their affairs, one must create a crisis. Crisis also means more government money for the cause. More money for “research”, more money for “education” (of the public at large) of the impeding “disaster” and the “need to act” NOW!

As The White House Chief Of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said recently: Never let a serious crisis go to waste, much less if you have gone into the trouble of creating such crisis (the second part is my addition)..

And if we are talking about more crises and more government, who is to say that we mean our own respective sovereign governments, oh no! Global emergencies require global solution. Rather than get tangled with pesky individual constitutions, we need solutions that need not be limited by national laws. So now it is not your elected government who calls the shots, it is the United Nations the most corrupt body of unelected officials on earth who wants to rule the world from New York, Geneva or wherever.

Wait! Just before you decide that you had enough conspiracy theory here, instead of clicking the close button, how about clicking here and check out Agenda 21 and see, amongst other things, how the UN attempt to control every aspect of our lives. If you thought that your local council has to deal with the three “R”, rates, roads and rubbish, you are wrong, chapter 28 is devoted to them.

When recently I demanded to know why my local council waste my rates money on signs that call for the “saving” the Tasmanian forests, not even in my state, Agenda 21 was the answer.

This is how it works, A bunch echo-whacko official UN comes up with an idea and they push it through a committee with fancy name (you bet) till it comes out as UN treaty, declaration, resolution, protocol or agenda and however named such piece of paper that goes to individual members countries, that your country and mine.

Anonymous obscure unelected people in Rio De Janeiro (in this case) decided that my council rates should pay for the greenies agenda in Tasmania, irrespective of what I or any other rate payer think of it.

Our power grabbing politicians, of all persuasions, are happy to push it through because it gives them more powers, how often have you heard that we must adopt one paper or another because even the UN agrees with it? Now and then we see heads of states such George W Bush and John Howard who stand up and refuse to ratify a UN paper, such as the Kyoto Protocol on the ground that it is against the interests of our respective countries, but at great personal cost in term of personal hate campaign by the “companionate” greenies!

And then there is the Kyoto Protocol, a UN agreement to limit the developed (but not other) countries’ emissions by unrealistic levels thus causing untold damage to their economies for … 3% reduction in global warming by 2050. This is a conclusion of a scientist who SUPPORTS the global warming swindle.

Thomas Wigley, a senior scientist with the National Centre For Atmospheric Research (NCAR) said in his article The effect of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming (scroll down) that:

Wigley concluded that the impact on projected temperature increases, with all countries doing only what is required under Kyoto and then continuing with business as usual, would be a scant 0.06 to 0.11°C (0.11 to 0.20°F) shaved off the total warming, roughly a 3% reduction [in global warming].

[emphasis provided]

Hey, with conclusions like these who needs sceptics?

But we already know that the echo-whackos are not concerned about the planet, they want to destroy our economies by attacking the very basis for our lives, energy.

* * * * *

And if you still remain unconvinced that Kyoto was a real attempt to address a problem, albeit unproven one, please address the question why is it that countries, such as France, who rely on nuclear energy for 80% of its electricity production, nor would any other country who would go nuclear, can obtain carbon credits for their effort to reduce omission. Here we have a perfect solution, but no, the echo whackos would not have a bar of it. Of course not, if nuclear power would solve our problem, two things will happen: It will prove that carbon dioxide has no real affect on the weather and more important it will destroy the basis for their agenda – no problem no money.

Planting trees to absorb that retched carbon dioxide was originally excluded from approved activities. Can you imagine that? Turning carbon dioxide into oxygen was banned. The echo whackos later relented somehow but with a caveat, the trees must be native to the areas and MONOCULTURAL, do you get that? We are not allowed to interfere with the “culture” of the trees but we must warship multiculturalism when it comes to … people!

Our government can allow in people with culture even abhorrent to us (try “honour” killings of women for size) and we suppose to treat such culture as sacred in the name of multiculturalism but when it comes to trees, oh no! No foreigners allowed.

All of you out there with eucalyptus trees in your countries, your tree are multicultural, pull them out, they belong to us!

These people have no shame!

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer 2009, all rights reserved.