Carbon Bribery and Corruption

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called for an end to the practice of governments trying to buy support for their failing Ration-N-Tax Scheme using tax money raised in an underhand fashion from the same people.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense” Mr Viv Forbes, said that since the “Climate Scare-a-Day” campaign of 2009 has failed to spook the people, the New Year will see acceleration of the next ploy – “carbon bribery and corruption”.

“This dodge aims to buy supporters with promises of handouts, exemptions, subsidies, “research” grants and market privileges.

“Handouts and privileges cost money. This is why politicians will promote carbon taxes, both direct ones like that proposed recently by France, and underhand ones like the Australian Ration-N-Tax Scheme which relies on the sale of carbon emission permits.

“The political challenge for warmist politicians is to publicise the bribes and subsidies, but conceal the taxes needed to fund them.

“The Australian Government Treasury mandarins have already concocted figures to show how the government can use their carbon tax slush fund to bribe 2.9 million voters with handouts. But their paltry bribe, estimated at $190 per voter per year, will not compensate for the loss of their jobs to China and India.

“And the other 11 million Australian voters will be much worse off.

“The rejection of the corrupt French carbon tax scheme by their Constitutional Court is a warning to all politicians –

“Don’t bury carbon, bury carbon bribery and corruption”.

Viv Forbes is Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational and sustainable use of carbon energy and carbon food.

French Revolution! Carbon tax ruled unconstitutional just two days before taking effect

This new French carbon tax was scheduled to go into law on Jan1, 2010. The tax was steep: 14 euros per ton of carbon dioxide (USD $20). In a stunning move, and surely a blow to warmists everywhere, the tax has been found unconstitutional and thrown out. Originally found here (Google Translation). Lord Monckton was kind enough to assist me in deciphering the meaning of the ruling and writes:

In France, if at least 60 Deputies of the House and 60 Senators appeal to the Constitutional Council, it has the power to pronounce on the constitutionality of a proposed law – in the present case, the 2010 national budget of France, which contained enabling provisions (loi deferee) for a carbon levy. The Council found that these enabling provisions were unconstitutional on two grounds: that the exemptions contained within the provisions for a carbon levy vitiated the primary declared purpose of the levy, to combat carbon emissions and hence “global warming”; and that the exemptions would cause the levy to fall disproportionately on gasoline and heating oils and not on other carbon emissions, thereby breaching the principle that taxation should be evenly and fairly borne.

The Press release from the French Constitutional Council is here in English (Google Translated) and in original French Here’s a Deustch-Welle news article on the reversal.

France’s Constitutional Council says the country’s proposed carbon tax is illegal. This is a severe blow to French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s plans to fight climate change.

France’s Constitutional Council has struck down a carbon tax that was planned to take effect on January 1st. The council, which ensures the constitutionality of French legislation, said too many polluters were exempted in the measure and the tax burden was not fairly distributed. It was estimated that 93 percent of industrial emissions outside of fuel use, including the emissions of more than 1,000 of France’s top polluting industrial sites, would be exempt from the tax, which would have charged 17 euros per ton of emitted carbon dioxide. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has argued the tax is necessary to combat climate change and reduce the country’s dependence on oil. However, the council’s ruling is a severe blow to both Sarkozy’s environmental plan as well as France’s budget for 2010. The government now has to find a way to come up with about 4.1 billion euros in revenue that was expected from the tax. h/t to WUWT reader Dirk HSource by Anthony WattsMaybe Premiere Gordon Campbell right here in BC will take notice…

Fido and Evergreen – True Canadian Corporate Alarmism

The following is an email we sent to Fido Solutions (a Canadian cellphone carrier) and Evergreen (a Canadian environmental organization)

This email is in regards to the climate change page on your site. It’s too bad your organization is capitalizing on the myth of manmade climate change, and you continue to spread false information about CO2. I just noticed your affiliation with FIDO, and am happy to announce that we have successfully cancelled 4 cellphone lines with Fido because of this partnership with Evergreen.

Two thirds of the public DO NOT believe climate change is a serious issue, and they are realizing that human beings have about as much influence on the climate as someone farting into a hurricane. CO2 is not pollution, the planet has been cooling for many years, extreme weather events are at an all time low, and Al Gore and the UN have become laughingstocks around the world.

Please update your “mission” page about “climate change”. If you need proper, accurate information, feel free to peruse our site and the many others in the ‘top sites’ section here:

While we agree that planting trees and focusing on genuine environmental problems is a very good thing and is unfortunately often ignored by many people, the moment you throw the “climate” and “carbon” arguments into your mission it destroys any credibility you may have.

It’s becoming mainstream knowledge that large environmental groups have used and are abusing the debunked climate change theory to increase exposure, donations, and sponsorships. Shame on you for joining that bandwagon. Here’s a couple photos of what’s happening to Greenpeace nowadays:

Best regards and Merry Christmas,


Relax, your footprint is green.

Leaders, Activists Throwing in the Towel in Copenhagen!

NOPENHAGEN — Has Copenhagen collapsed?

By William La Jeunesse, Fox News

That seems to be the growing sentiment inside the city’s Bella Conference Center, where officials, environmentalists and even delegates to the international climate conference began streaming out Friday evening. What began with excitement and anticipation two weeks ago ended Friday night with disappointment and anger for thousands.

“This is a sad day for my country,” said Mama Konate, chief delegate from the West African nation of Mali. “We have worked very hard to reach this agreement. And now it seems over. Without a deadline, I don’t know if we will ever finish.”

The conference, the largest of its kind, attracted scientists, activists and human rights supporters from every corner of the globe, who believe that without a climate accord limiting greenhouse gases, glaciers will melt, oceans will rise and the weather will go so warm it could wipe out 50 percent of the Earth’s species. Until Friday, they saw Copenhagen as their last chance to stop it.

“You can scapegoat the process. That wasn’t it. It was the unwillingness of people to move around big issues: China on verification, the U.S. on deeper emission cuts,” said the head of an NGO that does relief work in Africa.

“Judging by the proceedings and the obvious gulf that remains, this is dead anything short of a miracle.”

That was not the sentiment early in the day when 25 U.S. congressmen showed up at the summit, flying in on a Boeing 757 with Speaker Nancy Pelosi at considerable taxpayer expense. The delegation joined President Barack Obama and nearly 120 world leaders for the conference’s final day.

“This president is very, very unusual,” said Congressman Charlie Rangel. “His power of persuasion and his eloquence somehow brings together how the whole world feels. I think we are very close. I am optimistic.”

But as the hours passed, hope turned to doubt.

What went wrong? To get more than 100 nations big and small, rich and poor, developed and not, all on the same page — over issues that go to the heart of their economies, their standards of living and that reach into the pocketbooks of the public — may have been a bridge too far.

The summit got underway with grand expectations. Many environmental groups said this was the last best chance to get a climate accord, while Obama still had considerable first-year clout in office and a Democratic majority in Congress. The upcoming 2010 congressional elections could swing the Senate to Republicans who are opposed to aggressive environmental legislation, they worried. And without the U.S., any climate treaty is meaningless.

Yet a deep lack of trust underscored the talks from the beginning. As rivals in business, neither the U.S. nor China wanted to agree to anything that would give the other a competitive edge.

“I am very skeptical anything here in Copenhagen is good for the average U.S. citizen,” said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Tex. “The process is falling apart.”

Barton said he was especially appalled by the requests for aid from Third World dictators like Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who said the U.S. owes the world for having raped the planet.

“I owe Hugo Chavez nothing. Nothing-zip-nada,” said Barton. “The U.S. in the last 50 years has given trillions of dollars to the Third World. But to say they are going to be ravaged by climate change and deserve ‘Greenmail’ strains credibility.”

The U.S. said China’s planned cuts in “carbon intensity” (CO2 as a unit of GDP) were insufficient

Other developing nations pointed the same finger at the U.S. Obama proposed a 4 percent cut in U.S. emissions from their 1990 levels by 2020. That compares to much larger promised cuts in the EU of 20 to 30 percent. Climatologists say a cut of at least 25 to 40 percent is required if the world is to avert a climate disaster.

One of the problems, according to another NGO representative, is that the draft agreement is complicated and interconnected. When heads of state tinker with the text, they may be editing out a clause that was negotiated for months, in a compromise on an unrelated point. And typically only those who are intimate with the text understand what was compromised to get that language in the first place.

What set Copenhagen up for disaster? When heads of state arrive, an agreement is usually 99 percent complete. Not this time. Because of procedural delays, caused in large part by China, the document was far from finalized, leaving ministers and heads of state over their head on some issues.

“I’m leaving,” said Yousef Diakite, a representative from the Pan-African Parliament. “I’m unhappy, disappointed, not glad. Everyone was waiting for Copenhagen. This was our chance. And today it is over.”


City of Vancouver and VPD: Green police state has begun

By Justin, ILCD founder and editor

Here comes a very special and very personal post. Our website has just surpassed one hundred thousand unique visitors and over 500 articles from some of the best scientists, journalists, and freedom fighters on the planet. We thank all of the contributors, submissions, and news tips sent by all of you.

To mark this special occasion, I coincidentally had a run in with a very scary new “green” authoritarian organization right here in my backyard. This group of legalized criminals is better known as the Vancouver Police Department. Yes yes I know, they’re small potatoes compared to our real enemies at the US administration and the UN which we fight against daily. But nevertheless, the day that many people have feared has arrived. The day that carbon cops coming to visit and ticketing us for living our normal lives. It’s here.

So, what was the police visit about, you ask. Well, no, it had nothing to do with this website, our mission, and our constant fight for the green truth. They weren’t acting as thought police, don’t worry. In fact, it wasn’t about any real crime at all. It was all about the VPD enforcing a feely-goody nonsensical bylaw on a taxpayer who pays their fat salaries.

They decided to send a V8-powered Ford Crown Victoria all the way across town to, get this, tell me to turn off my truck engine! I’m not making this up.

As all our Vancouver readers likely know thanks to the hundreds of taxpayer-funded propaganda street signs all over the city, it is against a city bylaw to idle your vehicle engine for more than three minutes. It is, of course, a bylaw that makes absolutely no scientific sense and should be ignored and protested at every opportunity. Cops leave their cars running for full shifts, hypocrites. And any city bylaw that doesn’t apply to a police car running its engine most certainly doesn’t apply to my car. Police are not above the law, despite their actions to the contrary and whatever fine print is included in the bylaw. Public perception and how officers conduct themselves is all that matters.

It is below freezing tonight thanks to global warming, and as any good mechanic will tell you, it is best to ALWAYS run your engine for five to ten minutes to properly warm it up and get the juices flowing BEFORE you drive. Especially large engines and older engines. There is simply no such law or peace officer who has any right whatsoever to instruct a citizen how to properly start and maintain his/her vehicle.

Furthermore, all vehicles registered here in Vancouver are inspected by AirCare which ensures that vehicle emissions systems are functioning properly. To be precise, if your car passes AirCare, that means your catalytic converter is working properly and your vehicle is emitting primarily CO2 (plant food) instead of actual harmful substances. The officers didn’t get that memo. One of them even claimed “It’s for the environment!” as she handed me the ticket. Oh wait, you mean like pretty much every single eco-scam money grab in existence these days? Yeah, thought so. She’s the criminal, not me. Just like Gordon Campbell, our Premiere, is an even bigger criminal thanks to his carbon taxes imposed on all citizens of this province.

Thanks to the hugely successful environmentalist campaigns we always talk about here which have managed to convince many average Joe’s that CO2 is a “pollutant”, that has become the very basis for this city bylaw along with curbing “GHG” emissions they still believe are harmful. (“Bylaws” are certainly not the law of the land, and the more of them that are created the less significant they all seem to become. This one is beyond common sense)

At any given time you’re always doing something illegal no matter what, and therefore the police can harass you whenever they want. That’s not much of an exaggeration.

But here’s where it gets even more insane: Of course it’s perfectly okay to DRIVE AROUND for ten minutes, but if your vehicle is stopped, they can hit you with a fine! This is madness, a slap in the face to our rights, and due to the enforcement officers’ decision to serve me with a fine tonight, I’m fighting back. Funny, how the police actually cause their own battles, eh? They could have expressed their opinion on the matter or better yet, do what feels right. Instead, like the drones that they are, they must do everything by the book and trained to immediately intimidate if you show resistance. Or maybe they actually buy into the carbon-is-bad religion? I don’t know, but I attempted conversation. No dice. Here’s your fine, good night. As soon as they left I started my engine. Assholes. And yes, they were videotaped. I will catch them doing something wrong at any opportunity possible.

This entire issue must be fought, and I shall never pay any fine which is immoral to me. It’s immoral because there is no reason for this bylaw aside for making money for the city coffers and giving the police yet another reason to make themselves feel powerful. Any law or bylaw as assinine as this heeds no respect and I do not recognize the authority of anyone who attempts enforcement of it. I don’t give a rats ass if you have a badge, you’re not doing your duty as a peace officer if this is how you earn your payroll. And, as I told it to their faces, it’s beyond ridiculous and I will fight it.

It is unthinkable that it takes them over half an hour to show up if your house is broken into (if they show at all), but within ten minutes they’re harassing someone for the horrible crime of warming up their vehicle. Why? Easy money. Or perhaps some greenie complained thanks to their new “weapon”. If this is not the true beginning of a green police state, I don’t know what is. Now, just imagine if those UN criminals in Copenhagen manage to get even deeper into our lives. Will the VPD and RCMP attempt to enforce “carbon limits” through various laws and bylaws such as this? Will you be told to turn off and restart your engine at red lights and traffic jams, therefore ruining your starter and causing unneccesary wear and tear on your engine?

Time to speak up. And if the UN, federal government, RCMP, and local police start restricting travel rights and threaten property rights, then it’s time to arm yourself, Canadians. Not just physically but also with knowledge. This “bylaw” is a small step towards a much scarier picture, such as the proposed Cap-and-tax legislation being pushed by the Obama administration. Part of that legislation calls for issuing fines to homeowners if their house isn’t deemed “energy efficient” enough. And charging you with “unlawfully occupying” your own home. I know that Americans will not stand for that, and will fight back with force if necessary.

What I’m dealing with here is just the beginning of that nightmare. Cops already have a false sense of authority in many regards, such as driving rights VS what the police like to call driving “privileges”, dealing with “Motor Vehicle acts” and so-called bylaws that hamper our inalienable right to drive. Another unrelated matter I looked into was regarding the VPD being under the delusion they have any right to tell a citizen that they cannot be in a public park or beach after 10pm (yes, it’s another city bylaw with no teeth). Turns out the VPD are out to lunch on that one too, and consistently violate people’s rights anyhow. Is it just bad training? Probably. Is it also our fault? Yes. People need to learn their rights. But cops believe what they’re told, and they don’t expect us to be armed with knowledge they are either unaware of or don’t care about.

On this site, we usually hit much larger issues. But when bylaws that affect our everyday lives are applied, and are based on an ideology instead of facts and science, we’ll speak up. And never forget that your basic common-law rights supersede even the Charter and constitutions and cannot be affected by any legislations that impact your rights. Is idling a right? Well, owning personal property (your car) and being told you can’t use it as it was intended, use it for comfort (heat/AC), use it to keep it maintained (battery), warm it up properly in the cold, etc etc etc, is certainly unacceptable and outside the jurisdiction of those who supposedly serve and protect us.

This anti-idle bylaw is logistically unenforceable, is a money grab, scientifically invalid, and is nothing more than a PR campaign for the new “Green Vancouver” image our city officials have been trying to push on the world. And of course, it helps secure the voters on the left. I will absolutely not pay this fine, and any action to reach into my wallet, hamper my vehicle, impede my travel, or just waste my time, either by the city or VPD is equal to a criminal act in my opinion.

In protest, I will be running the truck every night for ten thirty minutes, and will record a video of this “unlawful act” while parked in front of the new Carbon Cop station itself. (Watch for video soon)

The pair who visited tonight (badge #’s PC2659, PC2553) should be ashamed, their boss should be held accountable, and the COV and VPD can take turns sucking on my exhaust. That’s the closest they’ll ever get to my money.

This article and my defiance would not exist if they had not decided to issue me with their fake fine for breaking their fake laws. This is not about the $45 ticket, it’s about honesty and common sense. If we allow this to continue, where will it end? And let’s put things in perpective while we’re at it. Millions of us fight against the UN and the world’s wealthy elitists who are pushing their CO2-is-evil hoax on the public, and we have been gaining strong ground. Thanks to the Climategate scandal and a massive 360 degree turn in public opinion, we are winning the green battle. Hundreds of people show up to anti-Al Gore protests on a regular basis. Imagine if the police started enforcing this phony CO2 bylaw on a wide scale!

The UN is beginning to run scared, scientists are speaking out, people are stepping down, and media coverage is helping our cause. Do local police departments and local city councils really think they’re going to intimidate and bully us? I think not. And I won’t play along.

Regards, and 100,000+ thanks to all our readers,


Email the Mayor with your thoughts:

Those interested in reading more about the VPD and RCMP “serving and protecting” Canada, please click here and here, and support your local Copwatchers such as this one. Although police power abuse is a subject for a different website, I’m sure many of you are interested. Especially now that it’s hitting home.

UPDATE 1: Prominent scientist emails the City of Vancouver.
UPDATE 2: Another local reader gets hit by the carbon clowns.

Please leave your comments. What would YOU do if you faced this situation? What should the Police do? Should this bylaw be fought in court? Your comments will be included in a submission to the VPD as well as to our Mayor and City Council. Thanks! (Comment approval is delayed up to a few hours so don’t be surprised if your comment takes a while to appear)

Copenhagen Climate Conspirators should all Walk Home

For Immediate Release 13th December 2009 A Statement by Mr Viv Forbes, Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition, Australia.
“They should all Walk Home.”
The Carbon Sense Coalition today claimed that the Climate Conspirators attending the Copenhagen Carnival should all walk home.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense” Mr Viv Forbes, added:

“Right now, over 15,000 green hypocrites, mostly funded by the world’s suffering tax payers, have winged their way in comfortable carbon-fuelled air travel to Copenhagen’s best VIP accommodation. There they will be seeking ways to forcibly reduce our carbon footprint while inflating theirs.

“Top rated airlines are booming as prominent people top up their frequent flyer carbon credits. Concierges are smiling as limousines glide in, full of exalted envoys with their entourage of minders and courtiers. Lights are blazing, air conditioners humming, kitchens cooking, champagne bubbling and caviar disappearing.

“The Global Warming Industry will also be there, creating scares, drowning polar bears, melting ice, generating publicity, demanding handouts, seeking exemptions, defending paper credits, and pushing for subsidies and special deals.

“And of course we will have battalions of largely gullible and fawning media, many also from government media monoliths touring on the tab of the tax payers.

“We are told that Australian tax payers have sent 114 official delegates there, all concerned to reduce our consumption of carbon fuels.

“If they are fair dinkum, they should all lead by example, use Green Energy, and walk home.”

Sarah Palin reacts to Climategate: "The President should boycott Copenhagen"

Copenhagen’s Political Science

By Sarah Palin

With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.
“Climate-gate,” as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle — the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won’t change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse. The e-mails reveal that leading climate “experts” deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What’s more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate. This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I’ve always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of “climate change impacts” was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska’s economy and the nation’s, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.
Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits — not pursuing a political agenda. That’s not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate — far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska’s communities and infrastructure. But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen — which actually allow them to increase their emissions — President Obama’s proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That’s not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress’s cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people. In fact, we’re not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia’s Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a “deal.” Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats’ cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs — particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science. Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.
UPDATE: Steven Hayward has a great article in The Weekly Standard on the Climategate scandal. Be sure to check it out.

The response to my op-ed by global warming alarmists has been interesting. Former Vice President Al Gore has called me a “denier” and informs us that climate change is “a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”

Perhaps he’s right. Climate change is like gravity – a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it.

However, he’s wrong in calling me a “denier.” As I noted in my op-ed above and in my original Facebook post on Climategate, I have never denied the existence of climate change. I just don’t think we can primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes.

Former Vice President Gore also claimed today that the scientific community has worked on this issue for 20 years, and therefore it is settled science. Well, the Climategate scandal involves the leading experts in this field, and if Climategate is proof of the larger method used over the past 20 years, then Vice President Gore seriously needs to consider that their findings are flawed, falsified, or inconclusive.

Vice President Gore, the Climategate scandal exists. You might even say that it’s sort of like gravity: you simply can’t deny it.

– Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin was the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president and governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009.


BREAKING: Over 140 scientists challenge UN's climate claims in open letter

Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations

His Excellency Ban Ki Moon Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America
8 December 2009

Dear Secretary-General,

Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ – the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:

1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.

Signed by: [click here to view the entire list of scientists]

Visit for more information.

Washington Examiner: Copenhagen Climate Scam Conference

With delegates from 194 nations present, the Copenhagen Climate Conference in Denmark got off to a fitting start with a film focusing on the alleged apocalyptic consequences of not acting to stop global warming before it’s too late. The planet will be ravaged and millions of people will die horrifying deaths as increasing temperatures in the Earth’s atmosphere result in a monumentally devastating deluge of man-made floods, droughts, storms, and rising seas. At the end of the terrifying film, a sweet little girl plaintively begs the conference attendees to “please help save the world.” It’s a script right out of Hollywood, made to order for an Academy Award-winning spectacular produced by Cecil B. DeMille or George Lucas. There’s just one problem: It would have to be titled “Climate Scam” because of the ultimate inconvenient truth: The case for global warming is based on junk science. This reality became clear recently when thousands of e-mails were made public by an unknown person or persons who somehow gained access to the computers at ground zero for global warming data and research, the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University in Britain. Among the e-mails were multiple messages in which many of global warming’s most respected advocates discussed how to suppress data that contradicts their view that the Earth’s atmosphere is being warmed to dangerous levels by the burning of fossil fuels like oil, natural gas and coal. There were also multiple e-mails in which they discussed how to prevent studies by global warming critics from being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and how to avoid answering or at least deflect freedom of information act inquiries about their data and research techniques. In the most disturbing of the e-mails, Phil Jones, the CRU’s director, asked colleagues to “hide the decline” in recent temperature data. Jones has since stepped aside, pending the outcome of an investigation. Instead of ignoring this science fraud, the Copenhagen delegates ought to be demanding that an independent investigation be undertaken as soon as possible of the CRU data used in the United Nations’ Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC report is the fulcrum upon which all global warming policymaking rests, both internationally and here in America. Experts from across the spectrum of opinion for and against global warming agree that suppressing CO2 emissions sufficiently to avoid the predicted calamities would be prohibitively expensive. Since the IPCC report is based on faulty data and the Copenhagen delegates refuse to acknowledge East Anglia’s climate scam, President Obama should challenge the United Nations to put the Denmark deliberations on hold. The one thing global warming advocates and skeptics ought to agree on is that policy must be based on credible data.Source