Em Cancún, Cientistas do Clima caem em Pânico e Mentem

Alarmistas do clima chamam ao racionamento no mundo desenvolvido, embora tudo seja uma farsa.

London Telegraph
Tradução ao Português: Luis Miranda

O aquecimento global é agora uma ameaça tão grave para a humanidade, dizem alguns cientistas, que estão chamando pelo racionamento nos países ricos para reduzir emissões de carbono.

Em uma série de artigos publicados pela Royal Society, físicos e químicos de algumas das instituições científicas do mundo, incluindo a Universidade de Oxford e o Met Office, concordaram que os atuais planos para combater o aquecimento global não são suficientes.

A menos que as emissões sejam reduzidas dramaticamente nos próximos dez anos, o mundo veria as temperaturas subirem mais de 4C (7.2F) até 2060, causando enchentes, secas e migrações em massa.

Enquanto o mundo se reúne em Cancún, no México para a última rodada de negociações das Nações Unidas sobre as alterações climáticas, os acadêmicos influentes pediram medidas muito mais duras para reduzir as emissões de carbono.

Em um documento o professor Kevin Anderson, diretor do Centro Tyndall para Pesquisas sobre Mudanças Climáticas, disse que a única forma de reduzir as emissões globais o suficiente, e permitindo que as nações pobres continuem a crescer, é travar o crescimento económico nos países ricos sobre os próximos vinte anos.

Isso significaria uma mudança drástica no estilo de vida para muitas pessoas em países como a Grã-Bretanha, onde toda a gente vai ter que comprar menos bens e serviços, tais como voos de longo curso e abastecimento de carros.

O Professor Anderson admitiu que “não seria fácil” convencer as pessoas a reduzir o seu consumo de bens.

Ele disse que os políticos devem considerar um sistema de racionamento semelhante ao introduzido durante o “tempo de crise” na década de 1930 e 40.

Isto poderia significar um limite sobre o uso de electricidade para que as pessoas sejam forçadas a diminuir o aquecimento, desligar as luzes e substituir os velhos equipamentos eléctricos como refrigeradores enormes com modelos mais eficientes. Produtos que venham do exterior podem ser limitados e os bens que requerem muita energia para a sua fabricação tambem.

“A Segunda Guerra Mundial e o conceito de racionamento é algo que precisamos considerar seriamente se queremos enfrentar a escala do problema que enfrentamos”, disse ele.

O Professor Anderson insistiu em que parar o crescimento no mundo rico não significa necessariamente uma recessão, ou pior estilo de vida, isso significa apenas fazer ajustes no cotidiano, tais como a utilização de transportes públicos e vestir um suéter ao invés de ligar o aquecimento.

“Eu não estou dizendo que temos de voltar a viver em cavernas”, disse ele. “Nossas emissões foram dez menores dez anos atrás e vivemos bem então.”

A última rodada de negociações em Copenhague no ano passado terminou em um acordo político para manter a fraca elevação da temperatura abaixo do ponto perigoso e decisivo de 2C (3.6F).

Desta vez, 194 países se reúnem novamente para tentar fazer o acordo juridicamente vinculativo e fixar objetivos de redução de emissões.

No momento os esforços estão focados na tentativa de levar os países a reduzir as emissões em 50 por cento até 2050 em relação aos níveis de 1990.

Mas o Dr. Myles Allen, do Departamento de Física da Universidade de Oxford, disse que isto pode não ser suficiente. Ele disse que se as emissões não descerem o suficiente até mesmo uma ligeira alteração na temperatura vai ser muito rápido para os ecossistemas. Também, por medição das emissões em relação a uma referência especial, ao invés de colocar um limite sobre o montante total que pode sempre ser bombeado para a atmosfera, existe o perigo de que o limite seja ultrapassado.

“O aquecimento de pico é determinado pela quantidade total de dióxido de carbono que lançamos na atmosfera, não a taxa que é liberada em um determinado ano”, disse ele. “As alterações climáticas, no entanto, também dependem de quão rápido o planeta está se aquecendo, não só do calor que recebe, e a taxa máxima de aquecimento não depende da taxa máxima de emissão. Não é apenas o quanto emitem, mas o quão rápido o fizermos. ”

Outros trabalhos publicados sobre ‘4 C e mais além “na Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A avisam da subida do nível do mar, secas nas bacias hidrográficas e migrações em massa.

In Cancun, Climate Scientists Panic and Lie

Climate Alarmists call for rationing in developed world even though it’s all a sham.

Telegraph

Global warming is now such a serious threat to mankind -some scientists say- they are calling for rationing in rich countries to bring down carbon emissions. 

In a series of papers published by the Royal Society, physicists and chemists from some of world’s most respected scientific institutions, including Oxford University and the Met Office, agreed that current plans to tackle global warming are not enough.

Unless emissions are reduced dramatically in the next ten years the world is set to see temperatures rise by more than 4C (7.2F) by as early as the 2060s, causing floods, droughts and mass migration.

As the world meets in Cancun, Mexico for the latest round of United Nations talks on climate change, the influential academics called for much tougher measures to cut carbon emissions.

In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.

This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars.

Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods

He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.

This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.

“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” he said.

Prof Anderson insisted that halting growth in the rich world does not necessarily mean a recession or a worse lifestyle, it just means making adjustments in everyday life such as using public transport and wearing a sweater rather than turning on the heating.

“I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.”

The last round of talks in Copenhagen last year ended in a weak political accord to keep temperature rise below the dangerous tipping point of 2C(3.6F).

This time 194 countries are meeting again to try and make the deal legally binding and agree targets on cutting emissions.

At the moment efforts are focused on trying to get countries to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 relative to 1990 levels.

But Dr Myles Allen, of Oxford University’s Department of Physics, said this might not be enough. He said that if emissions do not come down quick enough even a slight change in temperature will be too rapid for ecosystems to keep up. Also by measuring emissions relative to a particular baseline, rather than putting a limit on the total amount that can ever be pumped into the atmosphere, there is a danger that the limit is exceeded.

“Peak warming is determined by the total amount of carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere, not the rate we release it in any given year,’ he said. “Dangerous climate change, however, also depends on how fast the planet is warming up, not just how hot it gets, and the maximum rate of warming does depend on the maximum emission rate. It’s not just how much we emit, but how fast we do so.”

Other papers published on ‘4C and beyond’ in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A warned of rising sea levels, droughts in river basins and mass migrations.

Chicago Climate Exchange Closed

by Bob Adelmann

On Election Day 2010, Reuters noted briefly that Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE) was “shedding some 40 employees from its … Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) by the end of the year, with further cuts [expected] in 2011.” In its curt announcement, Reuters said that all trading on that exchange had virtually stopped in July “due to the lack of U.S. action on climate change.”

Steve Milloy expected much more fanfare from the media. Commenting on the news, Milloy said that over the last 15 years, “cap and trade has been one of the most stridently debated public policy controversies … but it is dying a quiet death.”

Incredibly (but not surprisingly), although thousands of news articles have been published about CCX by the lamestream media over the years, a Nexis search conducted a week after CCX’s announcement revealed no news articles published about its demise. [Emphasis added.]

Outside of a report in Crain’s Chicago Business and a soft-pedaled article in a small trade publication, the media has entirely ignored the demise of the … effort at carbon trading. Even Glenn Beck, who has dedicated quite a bit of Fox News airtime to exposing CCX, has yet to mention the news.

Founded in 2002 by Northwestern University professor Richard Sandor with $1.1 million of grant money from the left-wing Joyce Foundation, CCX was to be the jackpot winner for those planning to profit from the coming cap-and-trade bills pending in Congress. The exchange found investors ranging from Ford, DuPont, Motorola, the University of California, Tufts University, Michigan State University, and the National Farmers Union all the way to Goldman Sachs and Al Gore’s company, Generation Investment Management.

As Raven Clabough wrote, cap and trade “is a system that redistributes wealth from successful companies to less successful companies … by forcing companies that emit more gas [than allowed by the government] to give money to companies that emit less gas. It is Marxism at its best (sic).” The market has been estimated at between $500 billion and $10 trillion and the consequent profit potential is gigantic.

Congress was on a roll. When the Waxman-Markey bill (aka, the Owellian-named American Clean Energy and Security Act) passed the House in June, 2009, it was touted as a system “under which the [federal] government sets a limit (cap) on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted nationally. The cap is [then] reduced over time [in order] to reduce total carbon emissions.” Producers of those greenhouse gases would be issued “allowances” that they could then sell to others, using the CCX to facilitate those trades. Those producing more than allowed would be required to purchase allowances from those under producing, thus the moniker “cap and trade.”

Critics included the Heritage Foundation, which concluded that such caps would

– reduce GDP by $7.4 trillion by the year 2035
– destroy 844,000 jobs
– raise electricity rates by 90 percent, and
– increase the federal debt by nearly 30 percent

The Competitive Enterprise Institute declared that the bill would be “the largest tax hike in world history.”

But momentum for the Waxman-Markey bill began to fade as the Great Recession continued, Climategate exposed the truth behind global-warming claims, and the Tea Party began to push back against big government. Investors in CCX began to bail out, leaving the founder, Professor Sandor with a nice $100 million profit, and the ICE holding the bag.

As Milloy put it,

With the demise of CCX carbon trading, only the still-pending Waxman-Markey bill is keeping cap and trade alive – technically at least – in the U.S…. Despite this good news, opponents of carbon regulation will need to remain vigilant. While radical greens and the…”clean energy” industry are down, they are not out.

Endemic Corruption in Western Climate Establishment

Transworldnews

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) continues raising serious concerns for policy makers and the public as to whether the “adjustments” that government-funded employees continue making to raw surface and ocean temperature data sets can be trusted.

In a new collaborative paper, Is The Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?, Dr. Dave Evans has gathered substantial evidence that corruption has become endemic within government-sponsored climate units.

Dr. Evans finds that, “The Western Climate Establishment has allowed egregious mistakes, major errors and obvious biases to accumulate — each factor on its own might be hard to pin down, but the pattern is undeniable.” Evans asks, “How many excuses does it take?”

Continues Dr. Evans, “These photos speak for themselves. The corruption of climate science has become so blatant, so obvious, that even non-scientists can no longer throw their hands in the air, and say ‘I don’t know’.  You don’t need a PhD to know it is cheating to place thermometers near artificial heat sources and call it ‘global warming’.”

Key findings of the paper include:

* Official thermometers are overwhelmingly in warm localities such as near air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, asphalt, and even fermenting vats of warm sludge.

* Officials hide the modern ARGO data which shows the world’s oceans are cooling.

* They ignore hundreds of thousands of weather balloon results that show the climate models overestimate future warming by at least 300%.

* Officials frequently point to the last 130 years of global warming. But almost never mention the full story: that the planet started the current global warming trend before 1700, over a century before humans started pumping out meaningful amounts of CO2.

* Leading authors publish a crucial graph with a deceptive colour scheme designed to imitate the results they wish they’d got. Why did a leading journal publish such a naked and childish attempt at cheating?

* Their adjustments blatantly transform the original raw data from thermometers, often creating rising trends. They also selectively ignore thousands of other thermometers.

* Researchers repeatedly go out of their way to hide their records, and dodge FOIs.

* The Russian, Chinese and Indian climate establishments, which are financially independent of the western financial establishment, are all skeptical. As are scientists from other branches of science, as well as many older or retired climate scientists (who have nothing to lose by speaking their minds).

Concludes Dr. Evans, “Once one or two major news outlets start printing these photos of official thermometers near artificial heating sources, and points out the deception, the rush will be on for our elected representatives to abandon the Global Warming Crusade. No one would want to be seen to be taken in by half-truths and shameless deception. Who wants to look gullible because they didn’t ask the obvious burning questions? Those who support conclusions based on corrupt behaviour will be seen as negligent for not having considered the serious evidence here.

Observes SPPI President, Robert Ferguson, “For years, non-government scientists and researchers have expressed the urgent need to have the validity of government temperature adjustments audited.  Dr. Evans’ findings exhibit ongoing revelations surrounding the shoddy, often enigmatic science and data handling practices at government funded institutions like the CRU, GISS, NOAA and the IPCC.  A growing body of such findings only enhances the urgency for unbiased Congressional oversight investigations.  The policy implications are far too dire to allow government scientists to persist in stonewalling a full investigative audit into their surface and ocean temperature data handling practices and computer programs.”

Dr David Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering.

The full report can be read here:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/western_climate_establishment_corrupt.html

Climate Scientists fear Budget cuts and prepare to Counter Sceptics

Scientists plan campaign against global warming sceptics, continue to warn of doomsday if people do not accept their gospel

Los Angeles Times

The American Geophysical Union plans to announce that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. Other scientists plan a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

Climategate Fraud starred Michael Mann and his inverted Hockey Stick Graph.

Faced with rising political attacks, hundreds of climate scientists are joining a broad campaign to push back against congressional conservatives who have threatened prominent researchers with investigations and vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in Tuesday’s election.

On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country’s largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution.
John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to climate change skeptics, is also pulling together a “climate rapid response team,” which includes scientists prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows.

“This group feels strongly that science and politics can’t be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists,” said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York.

“We are taking the fight to them because we are … tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed.”

During the recent campaigns, skepticism about climate change became a rallying cry for many Republican candidates. Of the more than 100 new GOP members of Congress, 50% are climate change skeptics, according to an analysis of campaign statements by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

Prominent Republican congressmen such as Darrell Issa of Vista, Joe L. Barton of Texas and F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin have pledged to investigate the Environmental Protection Agency‘s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. They say they also intend to investigate the so-called Climategate scandal, in which thousands of e-mails of leading climate scientists were hacked and released to the public last year.

Climate change skeptics argued that the sniping in some e-mails showed that scientists suppressed research by skeptics and manipulated data. Five independent panels subsequently cleared the researchers involved and validated the science.

“People who ask for and accept taxpayer dollars shouldn’t get bent out of shape when asked to account for the money,” said James M. Taylor, a senior fellow and a specialist in global warming at the conservative Heartland Institute in Chicago. “The budget is spiraling out of control while government is handing out billions of dollars in grants to climate scientists, many of whom are unabashed activists.”

Ongoing public interest in Climategate has prompted the scientists to act.

The American Geophysical Union plan has attracted a large number of scientists in a short time because they are eager to address what they see as climate misinformation, said Jeffrey Taylor, research fellow at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado and manager of the project.

Still, the scope of the group’s work is limited, reflecting the ongoing reluctance among many scientists to venture into politics.

A rapid-response team, however, is willing to delve into politics. In the week that Abraham and others have been marshaling the team, 39 scientists agreed to participate, including Richard Feely, senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.

“People who’ve already dug their heels in, we’re not going to change their opinions,” Mandia said. “We’re trying to reach people who may not have an opinion or opinion based on limited information.”