“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

- Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

So, if the data doesn’t matter, and you don’t base your recommendations on what can be found in the data, but models of chaotic systems that obviously don’t have to take the data into account, you are not presenting science, but beliefs or lies.

In the light of climategate, this statement actually makes some sense in that the Hadley series is one of the series that was/is being used by CRU, and if the outcome of their work is based on something where the data is not relevant, then the next logical step is not that far away. The climate models fails to predict, or even follow the real events, and guess what? This is exactly what has been happening, and what has been shown by independent researchers looking into the results presented by CRU and related climate research centras.  The results just doesn’t add up when compared to reality.

Here [www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org] are some independent researchers that truly disagrees with the current agenda of COP15.

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

Is removing money from individuals and companies the right thing to do, forcing them to opt for the cheapest (and dirtiest) alternatives, when that money is not being re-invested into green technology by the states?
Taking money off someone without just cause, has a different name and meaning in the more commonly used variations of the languages.

Someone, please define the “right thing”, as the idea I get from listening to these people are along the lines of the “Right Thing” being:

- Outright lies to people,
- Applying non-science (beliefs) to political policies without consideration of the effects,
- Wiping far more pressing environmental issues under the rug,
- Ignoring settled and solid science in favor of non-validated science
… and the list goes on.

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

– Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

So, if you can’t convince people that you are right using true and honest arguments, then do the next best thing, try to scare the living daylight out of them in order to cough up some dosh for anything they do, and if they don’t buy into that, let’s just tell some lies. Case solved.

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

– Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations

Now, finally something that actually makes some kind of a sense in relation to what we can see happening, but I can’t say that I like the implications of what is being said.

Reference:
Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations

“If carbon dioxide would be such a big threat to humanity, how come there is such thing as emissions trading? Who could give anyone the right to sell out the survival of mankind in the name of the earth?”

Damien Fields, December 8, 2009

Welcome back then!