Jon Bereisa to Join Aker Wade Board of Advisors with Focus on Fast Charging
China’s Largest Euro-5 Diesel Engine Plant Comes Online; 300,000 Units in Phase 1, 1M Units Targeted

UK Climate Secretary Declares a “Battle” Against Climate Deniers

In an exclusive interview with the UK Guardian’s Observer, UK climate secretary Ed Miliband declared a “battle” against the “siren voices” who denied global warming was real or caused by humans, or that there was a need to cut carbon emissions to tackle it.

“It’s right that there’s rigour applied to all the reports about climate change, but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it’s somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that’s there,” he said.

“We know there’s a physical effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to higher temperatures, that’s a question of physics; we know CO2 concentrations are at their highest for 6,000 years; we know there are observed increases in temperatures; and we know there are observed effects that point to the existence of human-made climate change. That’s what the vast majority of scientists tell us."

...The danger of climate scepticism was that it would undermine public support for unpopular decisions needed to curb carbon emissions, including the likelihood of higher energy bills for households, and issues such as the visual impact of wind turbines, said Miliband, who is also energy secretary.

Comments

Aureon Kwolek

“The Pollution Migration Effect”

Alarmists have been caught lying and cheating on their scientific data. This is part of a hidden political agenda to create a pseudo universal control mechanism - the regulation of carbon dioxide. Water vapor and carbon dioxide are both factors in the pollution effect, but they are Not pollutants. This agenda boils down to a carbon tax, not on what causes pollution, but on the effect – elevated CO2 levels.

A cap and trade scheme would consolidate power into the hands of a small group of Controllers, who would then have the power to govern all industries. If this is implemented on a global scale, it will be a global carbon tax, and a stepping stone to a global sales tax on non-renewables and a global household carbon tax. They collect the tax, and you pay more for transportation fuels, electric power, food and everything else, across the board. This will increase the cost of living.

Wall Street would also get carbon certificates to play with, which is a new form of money, created out of nothing. It would be traded, securitized, divided up into derivatives, and obfuscated offshore in the electronic realm, without anyone ever knowing. Who will be the watchdog for this? The same type of regulators who looked the other way, while Wall Street went wild with your money and the banking industry collapsed?

Cap and Trade is a greedy scheme to create wealth, while whole industries such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas, simply pay to keep polluting, while they continue to collect government subsidies.

Global Warming / Climate Change alarmists are still floundering on what to call it. Because they still don’t fully understand it themselves. Climate alarmists are struggling to finger CO2, which is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. So their data is manipulated into false assumptions - to fit their political agenda.

The effect is not uniform. It’s concentrated over urban centers and downwind of urban centers, and more concentrated over interstate highways, railroads, shipping lanes, industrial zones, landfills and burning dumps, airports and flight paths, power plants, etc. The effect of this pollution is more pronounced in areas adjacent to or downwind from the sources of pollution. Since winds, water currents, weather conditions and atmospheric conditions are always in flux, then data will naturally be in flux as well. Yet alarmists are religious about proving that the effect is universal and consistent, when it’s not.

Global Warming and Climate Change are not the appropriate names to call it. I call it the “Pollution Migration Effect”, because it’s caused by pollution. Not CO2 – That is part of the effect. Concentrated “causal pollution” migrates to other locations where the effect takes place.

Although he didn’t fully grasp the impact of his findings, this was documented by James Hansen in “Survival of Tibetan Glaciers”:

“The soot noticeably darkens the glacier surface during the melt season, increases absorption of sunlight, and speeds glacier disintegration… We concluded that black (carbon) soot is contributing to the rapid melt of glaciers in the Himalayas.” (NASA)

And a good portion of this is Sulfurous Black Carbon Soot, caused by burning coal, diesel fuel, bunker fuel, industrial oil, and deforested wood for cooking and heating, etc. Black Carbon Soot that is migrating from a distant source and falling-out on ice and snow. This explains why some glaciers in the Himalayas and around the world are receding, while others are advancing. This is because we don’t have universal global warming, and we don’t have universal climate change. We have glaciers that are downwind of coal burning power plants, burning dumps, shipping lanes, urban centers, and other sources of black carbon soot and pollutants – Causing a “Pollution Migration Effect”.

Regulating CO2 is Not the answer. We need to eliminate the actual pollutants at their source of origin. Do that, and CO2 will go back into balance.

sulleny

Well put, Aureon. Someone needs to explain to Ed Millibrand that when his key players are found cheating and lying - game's over. The team has lost all credibility and formal charges are near at hand.

Had Ed and clan admitted long ago he had to cook the data he could have redirected the campaign. Instead ego or pride caused denial of fact - that it was never CO2.

Good news is real pollution, black carbon, particulates and UHI effects are issues we can do something about. The approach going forward is to achieve energy independence by reducing foreign oil, increasing alternatives, and lowering real pollutants: particulates, SOx, NOx, CO, etc.

We have to forget the global carbon tax which politicians have been counting on to pay for programs. Forget cap and trade which is a broker scheme, redirect current revenues to energy independence actions. It requires sacrifices called working with current revenue.

Dale

Sounds like secretary Miliband is saying “We will assimilate you. Resistance is futile.”

It's important to “Climate warming Borg” that we change NOW, because what they are telling us is already starting to unravel. They are missing their chance to claim credit for the cooling trend that is coming.

“Climate warming Borg” saw themselves as the "New Government” smarter then benign masses. We are fools to not trust them.

It's all about money and power.

As sulleny said... There are real things to work on. Money better spent.

Paul

"We need to eliminate the actual pollutants at their source of origin" God you people are simple!

It is IMPOSSIBLE to turn a switch and stop all carbon pollution. 1) Billions of people rely on carbon generated power 2) There is no immediate replacement source. These facts would seem obvious!

As an example of how long it will take to swap out carbon power generation, US wind generated power increased by almost 40% last year, and it STILL provides less than 2% of all power required.

It will take decades and TRILLIONS of dollars with massive incentives to change such a huge amount of infrastructure. It's not a F$%king conspiracy!

kelly

From the comments above, the UK climate/energy Secretary isn't the one sounding alarmist.

Clean, renewable energy doesn't sound evil in itself.

What people must consider, ignore Milban's scientists and the Himalayan report page if you wish, is suppose the remaining vast majority of the world's scientists are right about human caused CO2 global warming and decades from now would be too for corrections.

Drought stricken Aussies, Californians, Africans, and sinking islanders seem to take warming climate changes pretty seriously.


Arne

My goodness, the tinfoil hat brigade has marched in in full force. After the assassination of Kennedy, the moon landings and 9/11 they have locked onto a new target: climate change.

Can anyone of you give me some real evidence how this supposed conspiracy has now been going on for more than 150 years? Let me suggest you start with how Tyndall fabricated his measurements on the absorption of CO2. And how subsequent measurements that falsified them have been suppressed. And suppressed by whom exactly? I want names, dates, details. Then go on with the work of Arrhenius, Callendar, Suess. All done more than half a century ago. Who commanded the scientists in those days? How have they infiltrated independent institutions like 'Nature' and 'Science' that have been around since the 19th century? How have the ones pulling the strings been able to keep thousands of scientists in hundreds of institutions the world over in check to prevent the Big Conspiracy from leaking out?

We all know how you accuse Hansen, Mann, Jones, etc. But the foundations of modern climate science were laid before they were born, so they can not be the 'founding fathers' of this conspiracy. They must have continued the work of others. Please tell me how exactly this is supposed to have happened.

If you are so certain about the Big Conspiracy, you must be able answer all my questions. Vague accusations without evidence don't count.

And, no, the stolen emails and the error in the melting year of the Himalayan glaciers is not evidence. Like I said, I want details and cold hard facts, not ambigious personal communications or typos. I want to know who is exactly commanding who and how it is being done and since when this has been going on and what hard evidence you have to prove this.

Will S

Many non-scientists are easily mislead with pundit rants, especially if those pundits are political mouthpieces that align with the listeners' biases.

Countless climate scientists agree that 1 paragraph out of a 983 page document does not change the scientific findings about global warming.

Fossil fuel companies comprise a $6 trillion/year industry, and it's not too hard to use a small percentage of that money to buy shills and pundits, who then influence bloggers and other pundits. One must separate the wheat from the chaff...

Beancounter

Aureon,
You seem like someone who likes to read. What I would suggest is that you focus your readings on material published by reputable editors and journals, not random facts collected from the Internet.
Thank you in advance.

sulleny

"I want to know who is exactly commanding who and how it is being done and since when this has been going on and what hard evidence you have to prove this."

Why yes, Officer Anne. First I'll step away from the crumbling foundation of "climate science," and then tell you everything you want to hear.

Will S

sulleny, you are remarking upon a perception, not the actual state of the science. That's an important distinction to goes missing to often, regrettably.

sulleny

I'm afraid the "science" is being dismantled every day because of the mob-like behavior of "climate experts."

Unfortunately that perception is borne out in hard print. Now arriving daily from all corners of the world. Here's the latest on IPCC "peer review:"

http://xrl.in/4ef9

Will S

The 'mob' is made up of pundits and the victims of their propaganda. The overwhelming bulk of the IPCC's work remains intact and valid. A couple of more BBs shot at the battleship still don't sink it.

Aureon Kwolek

The Carbon Dioxide Diversion

The work of many scientists is subject to their purse strings - steered, restricted and skewed by special interest funds and grant money. That’s what’s influencing mainstream science. And behind the purse strings is often a commercial or political agenda. And behind the agenda is the objective of control, money, and even greed.

It’s not just an error in one paragraph. Climate-Gate emails and the false claim of all Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 is just the tip of the iceberg. There are numerous other false claims being embraced: “It is standard for groups like World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) to say that deforestation contributes to 20 per cent of global emissions, but it’s closer to 5 percent as shown in our research report,” (Alan Oxley, Chairman of World Growth). Here’s another one: Last year, the EPA censured Dr. Alan Carlin, a 25 year senior analyst, who found evidence that conflicted with the agency’s global warming political agenda. The EPA had deceptively based its science on, of all things, the dubious work of UN climate scientists, instead of their own in-house scientific data. Ask yourself what the EPA is doing in bed with the UN.

There is more deception unfolding over how the EPA and C-ARB embraced indirect land use theory, which is based on false conjectures that can’t be scientifically proven. This unproven theory, false assumptions and all, was suspiciously fast-tracked into EPA RFS-2 rules, until the EPA was exposed and had to admit that there were “serious uncertainties” with the theory. C-ARB also based their low carbon fuel standard, on the bogus theory, without prior peer review, which is illegal under California law. This was even after 111 scientists sent a formal letter of dissent, led by 3 prominent experts, which C-ARB illegally ignored. C-ARB is now being sued by The Renewable Fuels Association and Growth Energy for violating State and Federal law.

Also see: “Just 16 Ships Expel as Much Pollution as All the Cars in the World,” by E. Huff (naturalnews.com). These 16 “super ships” (1/4 mile long) burn bunker fuel which spews sulfurous black carbon soot on the surface of the oceans – more than all the cars in the world. And this does Not include the rest of the ocean going cargo ships, pleasure craft, and military vessels that burn bunker and diesel fuel. And it doesn’t include military and commercial aircraft burning jet fuel and spewing black carbon soot over the oceans, which is 80% of the earth’s surface. Imagine that. This thing is HUGE! Instead of mitigating black carbon soot, the remedy that scientists falsely advocate is to control ocean acidity by regulating CO2. Why? Because they’ve been paid to blame CO2… and to ignore the causal effect of black carbon soot from burning coal, bunker fuel, diesel fuel, jet fuel, heating oil, and deforested wood used for heating and cooking… and to ignore the acid rain, caused by these same polluters – acid rain that runs-off into the watershed and into the ocean. This is a deliberate diversion.

The glacier issue is blatant and deliberate also. Climate scientists know that not all glaciers are receding. It’s obvious that they are guilty of omission and cherry picking of the glaciers that are receding. Otherwise it would expose their false conclusions: If you have some glaciers receding and some advancing, then you don’t have universal global warming, and you don’t have universal climate change. What you have is “a Pollution Migration Effect”. And when you have layers of sulfurous black carbon soot showing up in glaciers and ice caps – the excess melting is not caused by universal carbon dioxide. It’s caused by the solar heating effect of the soot accumulating on the snow and ice. And, in the case of remote glaciers and ice caps, that soot migrated from a concentrated source of black carbon soot, especially sulfurous soot.

The effects of sulfurous soot were also documented in an article here at Green Car Congress: “Sulfate Lens Enhances Climate Warming Properties of Atmospheric Soot”. This report summarizes how sulfurous black carbon soot, while suspended in the air, combines with other pollutants and amplifies solar heat absorption 1.6 times. This same soot migrates hundreds or even thousands of miles until it falls-out onto land, water, snow and ice, including glaciers – Where it continues to absorb solar heat, accelerates the melting of ice and snow, and acidifies water.

Again, put CO2 aside, and mitigate the “Real Pollutants” directly.

The comments to this entry are closed.