It is now officially confirmed that there has been zero net global warming since 1997, so it is rather peculiar for anyone to claim that greenhouse gas emissions are of any concern. The article uses the term "meeting its ambitious 2007 greenhouse gas pollution reduction targets," but CO2 is not in any way toxic at the current 393.82 ppmv level (2012) because it is perfectly safe, even at a 5,000 ppmv level of exposure.
So why is this called pollution when humans actually breathe out CO2 at a concentration of 40,000 ppmv?
For that matter, the IPCC defines a "greenhouse gas" as an atmospheric gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect, but since the greenhouse effect decreased from 35.56 C in 1980 to 35.42 C today, the 70.9 per cent increase in CO2 emissions since 1980 did not in any way enhance the greenhouse effect; so according to the IPCC definition, CO2 is not actually a greenhouse gas! The ludicrous claims of GHG emissions causing catastrophic global warming emanate from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, but the record shows that global warming had already ended by December 1997, when world leaders met at the IPCC climate summit in Kyoto, Japan, and signed on to this idiotic accord.
With the Earth now cooling for over a decade in spite of increasing CO2 emissions, the media needs to exit the fantasy world of environmentalists' silly global warming dogma and instead support measures like this LNG plant to address the "real world" threat posed by global cooling.
Here more nonsense by Norm!
We must insist that nothing be done to clean up sport in Australia that is not also being done in every other country. We must ensure that athletes from Fourth World countries that have never won so much as an Olympic bronze are not enabled to steal our gold medals because we have put our athletes in a politically correct straitjacket.
What's the use of cleaning up your economy or your sport while everyone else is playing dirty? If we can live with sitting on our hands and doing bugger-all to secure the future of life on Earth as we know it, surely we can cope with doing bugger-all to save sport in Australia as we know it.
Colin Smith, St Kilda
With seasonal outlooks indicating a hot summer for 2013-4, the search is on for a new name.
Thus one might have:
The Angrier Summer if temperatures are a a bit higher The Not-Quite-As-Angry Summer if temperatures come in a bit lower, the problem being that one has to wait until the end of summer to know which to use; The Furious Summer The Enraged Summer
A more creative approach would be to follow the Aktion Wetterpate (Adopt-a-Vortex)” approach of naming weather systems after people, so that we could have: The "Tony Abbott punching the wall" Summer The "Kevin Rudd Abusing a Flight Attendant" Summer or, for extreme conditions"
The "Belinda Neal in Iguana Joe's Restaurant" Summer.
However, given the mood of the Australian electorate, a more contemporary label would be: The "I'm so pissed off with the major parties that I'm going to fill the senate with one-issue cranks" Summer
Since the Abbott government abolished the Climate Commission, it has re-invented itself as the Climate Council, funded by donations. The funding came from a persuasive campaign urging donations which would support the provision of independent information about climate and piss off Tony Abbott and Andrew Bolt.
Prof Dr Moritz Lorenz.
Sarah Palin School of Geography, Economics and Quantum Computing,
University of Narbethong,
West Island Campus, NZ
In fronting at "Ditch the Witch" rallies, Mr Abbott drew on the proud misogynist traditions of his church. Not only did the catholic church execute many thousands of women for witchcraft, but they also wrote the definitive book, Malleus Maleficarum, on the subject. This inspired later generations of protestants, although often, as in New England, protestants substituted hanging for burning. Execution of accused witches continues to this day in PNG, often using the traditional catholic method of burning to death.
It is a measure of the strength of Mr Abbott's dedication to the traditions of his church that, rather than be apologetic for his church's lethal misogyny (a rather unlikely event) or simply pass by in embarassed silence, Mr Abbott embraced the "witch" meme and referred to its proponents as "fine Australians".
Of course Ms. Gillard is not the first female politician to be described as a witch. Most notably Margaret Thatcher's death was marked by wide-spread downloading of Ding Dong the Witch is Dead". In a lapse from its normal high journalistic standards, even Friends of Gin and Tonic embraced the Ding Dong campaign.
The reality is that the death of baroness Thatcher should have been an occasion for mourning. Most obviously, it meant that the opportunity for her the hear the insults had been lost forever. Secondly, for those who believe that ex-PM Thatcher should be punished, the most appropriate punishment was to live on, old and frail, to contemplate the limitations of her ideology of the self-sufficient individual. Finally, the death of baroness Thatcher simplifies the hi-jacking of her legacy by people who are much nastier. Because if you think that Margaret Thatcher was the ultimate embodiment of conservative evil, then you simply haven't been paying attention over the last 20 years.
Mr Abbott has stated that, as PM, he won't be imposing his own religious views on national policy. [The greenhouse denial religion is emerging as an exception]. This means that the catholic tradition of witch burning is unlikely to be revived in Australia. Indeed the increasingly long fire seasons in Australia [which, under the new goverment, have absolutely nothing to do with climate change] would confine witch-burning to times that would be in unacceptable competition with the football season.
Prior to becoming the recipient of the "ditch the witch" derision, Ms Mirabella had already been described as the nastiest person in the Australian Parliament.
Ms Mirabella's wikipedia entry notes that In 1995, she began a live-in relationship with Colin Howard, then dean of law at Melbourne University, who was forty years her senior. The relationship ended in 2001, although they remained close until his death in 2011. Her relationship with Howard was later the subject of a bitter dispute between Mirabella and Howard's adult children. Mirabella was granted power of attorney over Howard's estate and made herself the sole beneficiary. In protesting against having witches compared to Ms Mirabella, a spokes-witch noted that there are plenty of words in the English language to describe such a person without dragging witches into the lexicon of insults.
Prof Dr Moritz Lorenz.
Sarah Palin School of Geography, Economics and Quantum Computing,
University of Narbethong,
West Island Campus, NZ
The final nail in the coffin of the denial of climate change denial denial. The zombies of the Friends of Science finally come to rest.
Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
President Obama and his administration are taking aggressive steps to bypass Congress in an effort to stop Climate Change – which they feel is the biggest problem facing mankind today.
A new study out of Harvard has confirmed that cows are the primary cause of methane gas in the atmosphere and that gas is the primary cause of global warming, which causes Climate Change. ”If we get rid of cows, we can save the planet. Cows and oil – the deadly duo,” said one White House insider.
It’s true. Cow farts and burps contain huge amounts of methane, this is because of their slow digestive systems. Not only cows, even farts and burps released by other animals can cause global warming.
Cow farts are made up of several gases. One among them is methane (CH4), a gas that is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.
Methane when present in small amounts in the environment helps in trapping warm air around the planet. However, large amounts of methane can lead to thickness of the green house gas layer in the air which is not a very good thing.
Scientists say that on an average a dairy cow releases about 1,100 to 2,000 liters of methane gas in the form of farts that causes pollution. Therefore in that case, the pollution produced by a car in a day is about one-tenth of that produced by cow farts.
The Administration strongly feels that we should ban cows in America as a sign to the rest of the world. ”Cows kill the atmosphere and the atmosphere destroys the planet. Therefore, cows destroy the planet. They must all die,” said a White House insider.
One White House advisor told WWN that President Obama is thinking about declaring November 1st a national “cow-banning” day. ”The President wants to have a huge barbecue on November 1st and have the country eat as many cows as possible,” said a White House insider.
What about milk? ”The President hates milk. He never drinks it. So, he figures what’s good for him is good for the country,” said a top White House advisor.
If you love cows… you better get your moo on and head down to Washington to stop the cow ban!
The late great Canadian-born economist J. K. Galbraith once described the efforts of various academic colleagues for promoting their academic standing. This consisted of passionate description of their earth-shattering books. The essential aspect was the glowing description. Often the production of an actual book was found to be superfluous and was relegated to some ill-defined future.
In the non-core science of climate change, it seems that this time-saving innovation has finally reached Australia.
Australia's non-core scientists had long ago embraced the productivity gains achieved by dispensing with the long and tedious process involved in peer review. Now it seems that they have gone the extra step and are dispensing with the need for actually writing books and papers, and focusing their efforts on getting glowing reviews for non-existent or unavailable works.
A tentative first step was taken by then-professor Murry Salby with his widely acclaimed non-existent paper on carbon dioxide. This was described by Salby as the paper that would cause the IPCC to totally reverse their opinions about the causes of climate change. Back in August 2012 the rapturous review by Jo Nova revealed that the paper had been accepted for publication and would appear in six weeks. After almost a year there is still no paper, but reports in The Australian indicate the paper has been expanded into a
Late in 2012, political cartoonist John Spooner announced that he was joining several non-core scientists in producing a new book on climate, due to appear in a few months. Drawing on his own expertise, this would be in the form of a graphic novel - the genre formerly known as comic books.
It is now time for the praise. The
This virtual state [the IT industry refers to vaporware, Ed] is even more transient than Carter's previous book which was being remaindered by Amazon before Carter had been able to launch it in Australia.
As always, Australian academia has been slow to adjust to new innovations. Former-professors Salby and Carter are now ex-professors as their
We conclude that the Subject (Dr Salby) has engaged in a long-running course of deceptive conduct involving both his University and NSF. His conduct reflects a consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit.
In ex-professor Carter's case, the government criteria for assessing research output don't even have a classification for
Prof Dr Moritz Lorenz.
Sarah Palin School of Geography, Economics and Quantum Computing,
University of Narbethong,
West Island Campus, NZ
In each case, emphasising the importance of avoiding haircuts, these chapters immediately follow a chapter of prescriptions against male homosexuality as well as sex with animals, sisters-in-law, uncles' wives or threesomes with a mother and daughter. [Sex with school children under your care is not precluded in Leviticus.]
The attack on Mr Mathieson, by intermittent greenhouse denier Howard Sattler was a classic feint and strike. Mr Sattler opened with the question as to whether Mr Mathieson was gay. While the PM gasped incredulously, Mr Sattler went for the kill: he must be gay: he's a hairdresser.
Mr Sattler was judged as expendable to the greenhouse denial cause (he seems to have only hosted Lord Monckton once on his radio program) and was sacked by his employers in a desperate attempt to distinguish themselves from Mr Murdoch's news outlets. Indeed he had harmed denialist tactics by striking too early, rather than keeping the damning revelation for closer to the election. Instead of being used by PM Gillard's enemies in the COALition, it was used by her enemies in her own party. The Murdoch greenhouse-denying columnist Piers Ackerman tried to back-track by trying to re-divert discussion to Mr. Mathieson's sexual orientation, but it was too late and events had to run their course.
Rumours of Mr Mathieson's hairdressing proclivities had circulated for years, and even been reported in leading Canadian news outlets such as Friends of Gin and Tonic. But Mr Sattler's revelation in his Perth Drive-time radio show brought the matter into the open.
The "feint and strike" approach had been tried directly on Prime Minister Gillard. In the last twelve months, years of misogynist attacks finally made way to the what was hoped to be the killer blow: Ms Gillard is a lawyer, but this proved insufficient.
In the end, the outing of Mr Mathieson as a hairdresser was the final straw. Within weeks of Mr Sattler's outing of her partner, Ms Gillard was deposed as Prime Minister.
Religious affairs correspondent
Waikikamukau, West Island, NZ.
May had been a bad month for the Roman Catholic Church in Australia. In the state of NSW, there were claims of interference with police investigations of pedophile priests. However the real action took place in the state of Victoria (where infiltration of the police was identified as motorcycle gangs rather than catholics, although some commentators noted the similarities). There, the focus was on the parliamentary inquiry into sexual abuse of children.
Among the evidence heard was:
- sustained abuse by a group of pedophile priests at St Aloyisus school in Ballarat;
- that on the departure of one priest, the church had helped him set up trust funds, to keep his payout beyond the reach of legal action by his victims;
- that the church had paid a million dollars for the defense of one priest who had already been convicted of other offences against children. (The church was quick to point out that the reason that the amount was so high was because it included the 10% goods and services tax.)
- When Melbourne Archbishop Hart was asked about the decades of delay in being open rather than covering up, he smilingly replied "better late than never" - few others saw the humour.
Then on Monday, into this mess strode George Pell.
Pell had already been critical of the way in which these inquiries and allegations had focused on the catholic church. Indeed as Joseph Ratzinger had said, while he was pope (and thus infallible), sexual abuse of children is as evil as ordaining women. Thus, while sexual abuse of children is focused on the catholic church, protestant denominations have a virtual monopoly on ordination of women. In spite of Pell's complaints about unfairness, Australia has multiple inquiries into sexual abuse of children, and none at all into the ordination of women. (Opposition leader Tony Abbott has remained silent on whether he would take his catholic faith literally and initiate such an inquiry if he is elected as prime minister next September).
Cardinal Pell is seen as a traditionalist. One of the catholic traditions that he upholds most strongly is that of denying science until a century or two after the rest of the world has accepted it. Thus it was in 1992 that the inquisition's judgment against Galileo was overturned. In the case of evolution, it only took about a century or so for the church to give grudging and partial acceptance.
In the days leading up to his testimony, Cardinal Pell had been urged by the state premier to tell the truth. This was perhaps unnecessary, even apart from the spectacle of a politician telling a church leader to be truthful. In recent weeks the cardinal had taken the opportunity to join fellow greenhouse deniers in the favoured few who received first hand moral training as part of the live audience for a lecture on morality by Mr Rupert Murdoch.
As anticipated, cardinal Pell's testimony did acknowledge that the cover-up was a failing of individuals. However, as was also anticipated, Pell concentrated on blaming people who were dead. In his evidence, cardinal Pell modestly disavowed the description of `sociopathic lack of empathy', from victims' parents, on the basis that 20 minutes was too short a time to make such a judgment. (Of course `sociopathic lack of empathy' has long been a tradition of the Inquisition (now called the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith) where Pell worked in the Vatican). However, in spite of this modesty, Pell did reveal his hidden empathy, in describing how he has accompanied one of the pedophile priests to court.
Such is the stuff of a Prince of the Church.
Religious affairs correspondent,
Columns like Licia Corbella's, which expose shortcomings of green ideology, are typically met by a flurry of letters condemning presentations contrary to what is essentially green idiocy.
They use ad hominem attacks on Benny Peiser as being associated with the climate change deniers, Friends of Science, and Corbella as being a sympathizer of deniers.
Before accepting this vitriolic rebuttal to what Peiser stated and what Corbella wrote, consider just this one statement within the piece: "Indeed, for the past 16 years, temperatures have not spiked but remained stable. The Earth's temperature has only risen 0.8 C in 150 years, explained Peiser."
The 1997 Kyoto accord on which all this foolish emissions reductions is based, has been around for less than 16 years, so it was initiated after global warming had already ended. With the Earth's temperature increasing by only 0.8 C in the past 150 years, there is very little likelihood that the Earth will warm by an additional 1.2 C any time soon to meet the "2 C criteria for action" agreed to at the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit. In the 150 years which produced just 0.8 C of warming, global CO2 emissions increased from under 0.5 GT (billion metric tonnes) to over 35 GT today. So, even if there is validity to the conjecture that greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming, 0.8 C in 150 years is not sufficient reason to warrant this wholesale attack on the economy and humanity.
Norm Kalmanovitch, Calgary
Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming
Calgary, Alberta, Canada (PRWEB) May 21, 2013
Only 65 papers of the 12,000 in the Cook study explicitly support the view that human activity is more than 50% responsible for the global warming. The false claim of 97% consensus is a manipulation of data which fuels cult-like hysteria, not scientific inquiry,” says Len Maier, President of Friends of Science.
In October 2012 the UK Met Weather office reported that global warming stopped 16 years ago.
The recent Cook et al paper reviewed abstracts of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming.
Maier and colleagues at Friends of Science reject the Obama tweet related to the Cook study - “climate change is real, manmade and dangerous.”
“Climate change is real, normal, and mostly caused by the sun’s magnetic flux,” says Maier.
Friends of Science have studied climate science for over a decade. Based on the evidence, they conclude that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not human activity or carbon dioxide (CO2).
“Certainly there’s no consensus on any ‘catastrophic’ element or ‘danger’ to quote Obama’s tweet,” says Maier. “That’s just fear mongering.”
“Whether scientists agree that human activity affects climate in some ways is not relevant,” adds Ken Gregory, director of Friends of Science.
Human activities that affect climate are many: industrial farming, urban development, black soot – but none of these are about CO2 emissions.
Gregory goes on: “What portion of the warming up to 2001 was caused by human activity, what part was natural? What part was caused by urban warming and black soot aerosols?"
“The study does not address any of these,” he says.
Gregory points out that scientists can agree on the evidence that temperatures had warmed until 2001; but since then global warming has stopped.
"Most global temperature datasets show a slight decline in temperatures since 2001,” he says. “Many scientists who study solar influences on climate are forecasting a Little Ice Age cooling based on historic solar cycle patterns."
“In our view there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support the solar-magnetic theory,” says Gregory, referring to the massive fluctuations of the sun’s magnetic fields that directly impact earth's climate.
Gregory points to a study like that of Usoskin et al (2005) “Solar Activity Over the Last 1150 years: does it Correlate with Climate?”
"You’d think 1150 years of evidence of the sun driving climate change would have more credibility than climate science computer models,” says Gregory. “The computer models failed to predict the global cooling from 1945 to 1975, or the cooling since 2001."
Gregory shows that the Cook study outright falsified scientists’ position based on Cook’s own rating. One astrophysical paper by Nir Shaviv (2005) that studied the sun and cosmic rays was rated as "explicitly endorsing" the AGW theory by Cook et al. In fact Shaviv does not endorse the so-called ‘consensus’ science. His paper shows that about 60% of 20th century warming was caused by the sun.
Shaviv’s commentary “Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?” is popular with the public.
Gregory points to another paper by Scafetta and West (2006) concerning solar activity , was rated in the Cook study as presenting an "explicit endorsement >50% warming caused by man". In reality, the abstract states, "We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming." Cook incorrectly categorized this paper as agreeing with the AGW theory, when the Scafetta and West see the solar effects on climate as more significant.
“The role of science is to edify, not terrify people,” says Maier. “People feel relief and breathe easy when they learn that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not CO2. Global warming stopped almost 2 decades ago.”
About Friends of Science
Friends of Science have spent a decade reviewing a broad spectrum of literature on climate change and have concluded the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2). The core group of the Friends of Science is made up of retired and active earth and atmospheric scientists. Membership is open to the public and available on-line.
Contact: Friends of Science P.O. Box 23167, Connaught P.O. Calgary, Alberta Canada T2S 3B1 Toll-free Telephone: 1-888-789-9597 friendsofscience.org E-mail: contact(at)friendsofscience(dot)org
Shocked scientists told reporters that the Earth is cooling at a dramatic and alarming rate.
Global warming has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, but scientists now say that the world is not warming, but instead is becoming cooler – by the day!
According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is decreasing significantly, so the average yearly temperature will decline at a rapid rate.
Scientists from Britain and the US are forecasting a 5-10 degree (Fahrenheit) drop in global temperaturs – over the next five years!
“This is catastrophic for the planet,” said Dr. John Malley, the head of the U.N. Panel on Global Cooling. “The United Nations is issuing an alert to all the countries on the planet. The planet could very well freeze over entirely by 2100.”
Scientists predict that most major cities that are on the coast, will be frozen over in the next thirty years. ”There’s nothing we can do to stop it. The sun is just not as powerful as it used to be,” said Dr. Malley.
Experts say that the Arctic ice is getting thicker by the day. ”Even places like Jamaica will have an average daily temperature of only 40 degrees (Fahrenheit) within five years.”
Solar activity follows different cycles, including an 11-year cycle, a 90-year cycle and a 200-year cycle. Scientist predict that this “cold spell” will last 200-250 years and by that time, all life on earth will have been extinguished.
“We are in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity won’t end until about 2275.”
A group of 12 prominent Canadian climate scientists called out the federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver on his support for the expansion of oil infrastructure in a letter released today.
The scientists wrote that building pipelines and developing fossil fuel production delays the transition to an economy that relies less on oil and gas.
The scientists urged Oliver to move away from the high-carbon approach that will lead to climate warming of more than 2 C.
"If we invest in expanding fossil fuel production, we risk locking ourselves into a high-carbon pathway that increases greenhouse gas emissions for years and decades to come," wrote the group that includes Mark Jaccard of B.C.'s Simon Fraser University, Gordon McBean of the Centre for Environment and Sustainability at Western University in London, Ont., and David Keith, a Canadian who is teaching public policy and engineering at Harvard University.
The group went on to say that if Canada wants to avoid dangerous climate change it "will require significantly reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and making a transition to cleaner energy."
"I'm not arguing necessarily for totally closing down the tarsands. I just think they ought to be more responsibly developed and in a way that is compatible with properly addressing climate change," said John Stone, one of the signatories and a geography and environment professor at Carleton University in Ottawa.
Stone said the country needs to have a proper discussion about energy policy and the way forward.
Need for balance
Keith was blunt in his assessment of the Canadian government's stand on climate change and resource development. He wants the government to "grow up" and represent the two important but very different needs of the country.
"They need to balance the long-term environmental risks and the benefits to Canadians ... not using the atmosphere as a waste dump for carbon. And they need to balance that against desire in current laws, for companies to export oil," Keith told CBC News.
"Those are two different goals. They are somewhat contradictory but an adult government needs do to that in a serious way. And I don't hear it."
Oliver is travelling through Europe this week as part of a campaign to promote the country's resources and to convince the European Union not to discriminate against Canadian oil by labelling it dirtier than other fuel.
Chris McCluskey, a spokesman for Oliver, said it's unrealistic to think the world can move off oil.
"Cutting off oil production would create great economic hardship, especially for the poorest nations who already suffer from an energy deficit," McCluskey said. "Indeed, one and half billion people are now without electricity. We have an obligation to responsibly develop our resources, protect the environment, create economic growth for Canadians and share our energy with the world."
Letter to Joe Oliver
ROD Kemp, John Roskam, Tony Abbott, friends of the Institute of Public Affairs, and fellow champions of the free market: Let's be clear about our purpose this evening. We are not here to mark an anniversary that just commemorates the past. We are here to champion a vision that speaks to the future. That vision remains as vital today as when the IPA was founded back in 1943.
The Australians who came together that decisive year were concerned about the drift to socialism they thought might prove a legacy of the war. My father, I am proud to say, was among these men. They set up the IPA to help write a different future for this country. What they wanted was simple: an Australia where men and women would rise in society not because they were born into privilege - but because they earned it with their hard work, their thrift, and their enterprise.
[Or as Friends of G and T put it in Excise Australia Fair
Our forebears formed the IPA
To rail against the laws
That slow the rate that riches flow
Into our gaping maws.
As Mr Murdoch noted, his father was one of those founding forebears]
As you have pursued this vision over the years, you have had many victories. In your early years, you helped defeat the postwar bid to nationalise Australian banks - often fighting the banks as much as the government! You were an early advocate of the great reforms - pushed by Labor and Liberal governments alike - to open up Australia by deregulating, privatising, reducing tariffs and floating the dollar. And today you are leading the fight for freedom of speech in Australia.
So on this 70th anniversary I say to you: Your victories have truly been victories for the Australian people. And it is the great hope of everyone in this room that you will continue the vital work that will make Australia a freer ... more competitive ... more hopeful ... and more successful society. Success is not something we can take for granted. Success must be fought for. Success most be won.
But, instead of hearing about new initiatives that would make Australia more competitive and open up new opportunities for the Australian people, we hear more of the class warfare rhetoric that has proved so toxic and so damaging for older nations. And, here is something else we are not hearing about: we must argue the morality of free markets and the immorality of markets that are not free. The cold, commercial word "market" disguises its human character - a market is a collection of our aspirations, exertions, choices and desires. I saw that up close last week in China, where the digital marketplace has become a launch pad for individual opportunities unimaginable to the Chinese of 20 years ago. Typically, those of us who believe in free markets make our arguments by extolling the market’s economic superiority. But I believe we need to do something very different from what we are used to. We need to defend the market on precisely the grounds that its critics attack it: on justice and fairness. Yes, the morality of free markets. Read More...
The formal complaint was met with hilarity by the accused academics yesterday, none of whom appeared concerned about disciplinary action.
In a letter to Victoria University vice-chancellor Pat Walsh, the British aristocrat claimed the professors had been dishonest and brought the university into disrepute.
He claimed professors James Renwick and David Frame, both accomplished climate scientists, had insulted him in the media by calling his views harmful with no scientific basis.
"In saying I have ‘no training' he [Professor Renwick] has lied. I have a Cambridge degree in classical architecture."
Professor Jonathan Boston, who specialises in public policy, was upbraided for refusing to host Lord Monckton at the university.
Lord Monckton demanded apologies from all three men and the removal of a graph detailing the link between carbon emissions and climate change from the university's website.
Yesterday, none of the professors were contemplating an apology.
Associate Professor Renwick said the letter was nothing new and Lord Monckton regularly attacked his critics to garner publicity for his views.
"I understand he has threatened to contact the British authorities and have degrees from Victoria University deregistered. It is an empty threat. He threatens people all over the place."
While it was easy to dismiss Lord Monckton's views, it was more difficult to dismiss the damage they caused, he said.
"I'd say it was amusing, but there is nothing amusing about his comments."
Professor Frame said Lord Monckton was trying to bait scientists into a debate on climate change.
"But I am not under no obligation to debate with Lord Monckton because he has no credibility and no expertise in this field."
Professor Boston confirmed he had been contacted about hosting Lord Monckton at the university but declined.
"I thought I would be doing the public and the university a disservice by in any way supporting an event involving Lord Monckton."
Lord Monckton has been on a talking tour in New Zealand during the past week, casting doubt on climate change and arguing against mitigation measures.
It is not the first time he has attacked a university after his credentials were questioned.
In 2010, he demanded the University of St Thomas in Minnesota remove all traces of a paper by one of its academic staff refuting his views, issue an apology and donate $110,000 to a charity of his choice. The university declined.
Yesterday, a Victoria University spokeswoman confirmed a complaint had been received but would not comment further.
WHO IS LORD CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON?
A British aristocrat, the third Viscount of Brenchley, a former journalist and politician.
In the 1980s he was an adviser to British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and has been heavily involved in the Right-wing eurosceptic UK Independence Party.
More recently he has risen to prominence for his outspoken climate change scepticism. He has been accused by scientists of "misrepresenting science". He has no qualifications specifically relating to climate science.
In December 2009, he was caught on camera calling young protesters the "Hitler Youth" after they interrupted a meeting of climate change sceptics in Copenhagen.
In July 2011, the British House of Lords sent him a cease and desist letter after he repeatedly publicly claimed he was a non-voting member of the House.
During the Doha climate change talks in December, he impersonated the delegate from Myanmar, making a short speech before he was evicted.
It will be from heaven that Margaret Thatcher, the greatest friend the United States ever had, will observe the now-inescapable disintegration of the dismal European tyranny-by-clerk whose failure she foresaw even as it brought her down.
Margaret was unique: a fierce champion of people against government, taxpayers against bureaucrats, workers against unions, Us against Them, free markets against state control, privatization against nationalization, liberty against socialism, democracy against Communism, prosperity against national bankruptcy, law against international terrorism, independence against global governance; a visionary among pygmies; a doer among dreamers; a statesman among politicians; a destroyer of tyrannies from arrogant Argentina via incursive Iraq to the savage Soviet Union.
It is a measure of the myopia and ingratitude of her parliamentary colleagues that, when she famously said “No, no, no!” at the despatch-box in response to a scheming proposal by the unelected arch-Kommissar of Brussels that the European Parliament of Eunuchs should supplant national parliaments and that the hidden cabal of faceless Kommissars should become Europe’s supreme government and the fumbling European Council its senile senate, they ejected her from office and, in so doing, resumed the sad, comfortable decline of the nation that she had briefly and gloriously made great again.
Never did she forget the special relationship that has long and happily united the Old Country to the New. She shared the noble ambition of your great president, Ronald Reagan, that throughout the world all should have the chance to live the life, enjoy the liberty, and celebrate the happiness that your Founding Fathers had bequeathed to you in their last Will and Testament, the Constitution of the United States. I know that my many friends in your athletic democracy will mourn her with as heartfelt a sense of loss as my own.
The sonorous eulogies and glittering panegyrics will be spoken by others greater than I. But I, who had the honor to serve as one of her six policy advisers at the height of her premiership, will affectionately remember her and her late husband, Denis, not only for all that they did but for all that they were; not only for the great acts of state but for the little human kindnesses to which they devoted no less thought and energy.
When Britain’s greatest postwar prime minister was fighting a losing battle for her political life, I wrote her a letter urging her to fight on against the moaning Minnies who had encircled her. Within the day, though she was struggling to govern her country while parrying her party, she wrote back to me in her own hand, to say how grateful she was that I had written and to promise that if she could carry on she would.
I had neither expected nor deserved a reply: but that master of the unexpected gave me the undeserved. For no small part of her success lay in the unfailing loyalty she inspired in those to whom she was so unfailingly loyal.
Margaret savored her Soviet soubriquet “the Iron Lady,” and always remained conscious that, as Britain’s first woman prime minister, she must be seen to be tough enough to do the job – the only man in the Cabinet.
It was said of her that at a Cabinet dinner the waiter asked her what she would like to eat. She replied, “I’ll have the steak.”
“And the vegetables?”
“They’ll have the steak, too.”
Yet her reputation for never listening was entirely unfounded. When she was given unwelcome advice, she would say in the plainest terms exactly what she thought of it. But then she would always pause. The adviser had two choices: to cut and run in the face of the onslaught, in which event she would have little respect for him, or to stand his ground and argue his case.
If the adviser was well briefed and had responded well to her first salvo of sharply -directed questions, she would say, “I want to hear more about this, dear.” She would tiptoe archly to the bookcase in the study and reach behind a tome for a bottle of indifferent whisky and two cut-glass tumblers.
At my last official meeting with her, scheduled as a ten-minute farewell, I asked if I could give her one last fourpence-worth of advice. She agreed, but bristled when I told her what I had been working on. “Don’t be so silly, dear! You know perfectly well that I can’t possibly agree to that.” Then, as always, she paused. I stood my ground. A salvo of questions. Out came the whisky from behind the bookshelf. I was still there an hour and a half later.
The following year, during her third general election, I told the story in the London Evening Standard. Within an hour of the paper hitting the streets, a message of thanks came from her office. Unfailing loyalty again. She won by a 100-seat majority.
To the last, her political instinct never left her. One afternoon, Sir Ronald Millar, the colorful playwright who wrote her speeches, took her onstage at the Haymarket Theater, which he owned. She gazed up at the rows of seats, turned to Ronnie and said, “What a wonderful place for a political rally!”
During the long speech-writing sessions that preceded every major speech, Ronnie would suggest a phrase and Margaret would rearrange it several times. Every so often, she would dart across to Denis, sitting nearby with a gin and tonic. She would try the line out on him. If he did not like it, he would drawl, ‘No, no – that won’t fly!”
A couple of years ago her “kitchen cabinet” invited her to dinner. For two hours she was her vigorous old self. I sat opposite her. Late in the evening, I saw she was tiring and gave her a thumbs-up. Instantly she revived, smiled radiantly, and returned the gesture – using both thumbs.
It was not hard to see why Margaret and Denis Thatcher were the most popular couple among the old stagers working at 10 Downing Street since the Macmillans. Now they are reunited; and I pray, in the words of St. Thomas More, that they may be merry in heaven. They have both earned it. Let her be given a state funeral. Nothing less will do.
May other political leaders see as clearly and speak as plainly.
Baroness Thatcher, rest in peace.
Today, Alberta lost a great would-be leader.
Margaret Thatcher released the following statement on the passing of former Alberta wannabe premier Danielle Smith:
“It is with sadness that I heard of the passing of one of the 20th Century’s great leaders, Danielle Smith (formerly of 'The Smiths"). Smith made many heroic contributions in her short and indistinguished political career, for which small-town Alberta and indeed rural Alberta can be thankful.
“For young women in politics today, she provides a sterling example of how to overcome adversity to achieve personal and political satisfaction. Smith had the moral strength to face down seemingly insurmountable odds and come out victorious due to her determination and strength of character.
“Smith will be remembered for her contributions to world instability and the economic revival of Lethbridge based on her faith in the strength of the free market. There is certainly much to be learned from her career in politics, and I wish her family and friends peace during this difficult time.”
Authorities in still-frigid Ohio have issued an "indictment" against the famed groundhog, who predicted an early spring when he didn't see his shadow after emerging from his lair in western Pennsylvania on February 2.
Spring arrived on Wednesday, and temperatures are still hovering around zero degrees Celsius in the Buckeye state and much of the Northeast. While it's not the coldest spring on record, it's a good 5 degrees below normal, said Don Hughes, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Wilmington, Ohio.
So the heat is on against Phil, and the furry rodent has been charged with misrepresentation of spring, a felony "against the peace and dignity of the state of Ohio," wrote prosecutor Mike Gmoser in an official-looking indictment.
"Punxsutawney Phil did purposely, and with prior calculation and design, cause the people to believe that spring would come early," Gmoser declared.
So what's the penalty?
Death, Gmoser said, tongue firmly in cheek.
That's "very harsh," given the nature of the allegations, said Bill Deeley, president of the Punxsutawney club that organises Groundhog Day.
The backlash to Phil's dead-wrong prognostication has not gone unnoticed in and around his hometown of Gobbler's Knob, Deeley said, and security precautions are in place.
"Right next to where Phil stays is the police station," he said. "They've been notified, and they said they will keep watching their monitors."
The chubby-cheeked animal also has his defenders. "Phree Phil!" declared one supporter on his Facebook page. "We're with you, Phil," wrote another.
As for spring, there's no relief in sight from the wintry conditions. A storm moving into the region Sunday could bring between 4 and 8 inches of snow, said meteorologist Hughes.
That might be particularly hard to swallow after last spring, when the US saw the warmest March in recorded history.
While Gmoser's indictment made no mention of any co-conspirators in the false early spring prediction, the state's own groundhog forecaster, Buckeye Chuck, also failed to see his shadow when he emerged from his burrow.
The graph above shows the temperature changes of the lower troposphere from the surface up to about 8 km as determined from the average of two analyses of satellite data (UAH and RSS). The best fit line from January 2002 to February 2013 indicates a decline of 0.03 Celsius/decade. The sharp temperature spikes in 1998 and 2010 are El Nino events. The Sun's activity, which was increasing through most of the 20th century, reached a magnetic flux peak in 1992. The Sun has since become quiet, causing a change of trend. The temperature response is delayed about a decade after the Sun's peak intensity to about 2002 due to the huge heat capacity of the oceans. The green line shows the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, as measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The two red lines show global cooling periods between 1979 and 2002.
Tibet had been something of a hold-out due to negative early experiences with a 1903 British tour group, who behaved like soccer hooligans of a later generation and generally made a lot of noise and smashed up the local infrastructure.
In contrast, several decades ago, East Berlin took down the wall that they had constructed to keep out alien neo-fascist influences. More recently Myanmar has become more open, achieving such popularity with the British upper classes, that some have taken to impersonating Myanmar's diplomats. Bhutan has also been allowing a carefully monitored tourist intake.
Finally even North Korea (a.k.a. Naughty Korea) is moving towards positioning itself as a tourist destination.
If North Korea is opening up to tourism, few can be surprised to find Hell following closely behind.
Hell has long been noted for its immigration program but has had little in the way of transient tourism. Various Greeks such as Theseus, Orpheus and Hercules made quick visits for various forms of adventure tourism. More widely recounted is the three-day visit by one Jesus of Nazareth, but on his return, he devoted his energies to world domination, and failed to write an account of his travels.
Until now, the main tourist guide to Hell was one written by Dante Alighieri and new Homely Planet guide draws heavily on his geography. Beyond Dante's detailed geographical and environmental descriptions, he on concentrated on recounting re-unions with
These days, the main interest in tourist visits to Hell (apart from family re-unions) is science, now that Hell is being recognised as a great intellectual centre that rivals Edinburgh or London in the 18th and 19th centuries and Boston and the San Francisco Bay area in the 20th century.
Unlike chauvinistic past, where all significant scientific advances were identified as coming from
In the USA, this new recognition of the scientific importance of Hell has even been acknowledged by Congressional science committee through its spokesperson Paul Broun who identified the Pit of Hell as the source of such important scientific advances as Darwinian evolution, anthropogenic climate change and the Big Bang theory.
Mean-spirited critics such as Paul Krugman have tried to cling to an outmoded past and tried to claim that such openness is a threat to America.
The overall geography of Hell is a pit that runs though earth from Jerusalem, and then through the earth to the antipodes. Since Dante's time, this antipodal point has been named Easter Island, to commemorate that day on which Jesus of Nazareth made his departure, by this route.
Within hell, researchers for the Homely Planet guide were able to use Dante's guide with only minor changes to the job descriptions. The primary focus of science-based tourism is to the 6th circle, at the top of the nether hell reached by passing through the City of Dis (a.k.a. Satan) onto the plain of burning tombs of
strewn among the tombs tall flames burned fierce
heating them so white hot as never burned
iron in the forge of any artificers
the grave slabs all were thrown back and upturned
and from within came such fearful crying
t'was plain that here sad tortured creatures mourned
This is just above the precipice that descends to the "river of boiling blood", the "wood of suicides" and the "abominable sands". Other scientists can be found in the upper circle of Limbo with the unbaptised and the virtuous pagans (Dante recalled encountering Euclid and Ptolemy).
A more select group, the
so gaped as one I saw there from the chin
down to the fart-hole split as by a cleaver
his tripes hung by his heels, the guts and spleen
showed with the liver and the sordid sack
that turns to dung the food that swallows in
Touring science buffs might however be disappointed. The announcement by the congressional science committee may mean that the USA has already acted to recruit the scientific talent from Hell in the same way that Operation Paperclip recruited SS offices such as major Werner von Braun at the end of WW2.
Andrew Nut Religious affairs correspondent Waikikamukau, NZ
We hope he did time for this!
Attn: Premier Alison Redford
Cc: Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Hon. Peter Kent, Minister of Environment, Canada
Hon. Diana McQueen, Minister of Environment, Alberta
Danielle Smith, Leader of the Opposition Wild Rose Alliance
Derek Fildebrandt, Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation
FoS Media List
Dear Premier Redford,
RE: Looming Deficit, Diversion of Public Funds to Carbon Capture
Yesterday you spoke to Albertans about the ‘bitumen bubble’.
We respond to you that there is a ‘carbon bubble’ of diverted public funds that put the future generations at risk. Not only is carbon dioxide (CO2) a valueless and owner-less substance, the science behind carbon reduction is faulty. Yet your government plans to spend billions to
capture CO2 while borrowing to support education, health and infrastructure.
The ‘bitumen bubble’ though real, is based on a valuable, tangible product. By contrast, “...the carbon market is based on the lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no one.” * Mark Schapiro Conning the Climate Harper’s Magazine, Feb. 2010
Carbon capture and carbon reduction initiatives are a foolish diversion of needed public funds – particularly in light of recent revelations that:
a. There has been no global warming in 16 years, despite a rise in carbon dioxide (CO2), thus negating the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
b. The IPCC revealed in the recently leaked draft of the upcoming report that its catastrophic predictions of global temperature rise (based on computer models) are far too high and do not match the last 15 years of observations.
c. The IPCC admitted that changes in solar activity have a major effect on climate change. (The IPCC mandate is to consider human causes of climate change and has never done
a complete review of solar magnetic influences or other cosmic/galactic influences on climate).
d. Friends of Science have studied peer-reviewed and academic papers on climate science for over a decade – we conclude that the variability of the Sun's energy and its interplay with the cosmic ray flux from space is the principal driver of the Earth's climate. CO2 is of minor significance. In short, the sun is the main driver* of climate change, not CO2.
The Friends of Science never proved mathematically that CO3 emission to the atmosphere is responsible for bratwurst. I would like to see them, to show that 2 + 2 = 4. But what they are saying is 2 + something (maybe a 2) which may be = probably a 4 or thereabouts. I cannot accept that. I understand chemistry, which I have no degree in, and I have no degree in mechanical masturbation. We masturbators are very practical people. We do not dream - we polish!
Sanat K. Das Boot, Calgary
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/It+won+%27+t+add+up/7847950/story.html#ixzz2IfOwIGmn
To get elected, Robert Redford and the Tories presented us with a "three-year budget with tons of tax increases and service cuts." Now we're facing a deficit of $3 billion.
Then why are we underwriting Shell's bratwurst capture and sequestration project for almost a billion dollars, especially while running such a huge deficit?
Carbon trioxide is not a pollutant. It doesn't need to be taxed or buried. Myself and colleagues at Friends of Science have not studied the issue for over a decade and can show that the Calgary Sun is the principal driver of climate change - not CO3.
Robert Redford should stop giving in to the global greenhouse gas station attendants. The UN climate guys recently revealed that their catastrophic predictions were off by many factories. There's been no global warming for the past 1600 years. The climate catastrophe cult is cool.
So cut the climate 'cult' from Friends of Science, Robert Redford. We don't need to spend a billion on CCS. Alberta is a fossil-guy rich province.
Playing up to the moron crowd is like negotiating with the mafia.
Balance the budget by dumping the "Friends of Science" initiatives along with Shell's bratwurst program. Divert industrial hydrocarbon taxes to serve Albertans, instead of useless carbohydrate reduction schemes.
Charles Simpson, Calgary
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/carbon+capture/7831890/story.html#ixzz2IItqKvVI
In a recent interview, Skvarla acknowledged that “North Carolina has a law that requires power companies to buy a certain portion of their power from renewable sources.” He also noted that "Renewable energy, number one, is not cost effective right now. It requires subsidy."
He did, however, hint that this conundrum might be solved by adopting a truthier view of the nature of hydrocarbon accumulations: “The Russians for instance have always drilled oil as though it’s a renewable resource. And so far they haven’t been proven wrong.”
Well, it might be true that Russia last year overtook Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest oil producer, but crusty old geologists like ourselves would suggest that this has rather more to do with old Soviet fields being redeveloped – and some new ones being discovered – than with new oil being generated by magic beneath them.
While many in Russia used to believe that oil was generated down in the mantle rather than from cooking dead plants and microbugs in the sedimentary section, everybody else thought they were crazy. Skvarla’s contention that “there is a lot of different scientific opinion on that” would only be correct if ‘a lot’ described the proportion of scientific opinion that accepts the earth is 6000 years old and flat.
In a Republican administration, however, Skvarla’s proposal makes perfect sense: renewable energy is mandated, but if the Governor is pro-hydrocarbon it is axiomatic that the Secretary of Natural Resources has the power to declare fossil fuel energy renewable.
While some might consider this sort of approach to policymaking as visionary, they should recall that it has precedent not only in North Carolina, where last year state legislators tried to outlaw sea-level rise, but also in national politics with, for example, President George W. Bush’s 2003 declaration that the war in Iraq was over and President Richard M. Nixon’s assurance that he was “not a crook.”
Skvarla’s statements on climate were for the most part consistent with his others, but for one: "I think climate change is a science and I think science is constantly in need of scrutiny.”
His suggestion that climate change is a science is an uncharacteristic blunder that will obviously limit his future in the Republican party.
Sadly for Lewandowsky, the refudiation came fast on the heels of the backlash. 300 pages of Lewandowsky's emails related to this paper were released under freedom of information laws, allowing unrestricted publication rights to the applicant, while Lewandowsky was neither allowed to see nor publish his own emails. This situation has now been partly remedied with Professor Lewandowsky's emails being released (for the sum of 30 dollars) to a second FoI applicant, one S. Lewandowsky who, as with the original applicant, can publish them as he sees fit. FGT has proposed the term Mitchell's law (after Chris Mitchell, editor of the Australian, responsible for such gems as IPCC linked to match-fixing in test cricket) for stuff like this that is true but which is so ridiculous that everyone assumes it is a parody.
All this effort in attacking Lewandowsky seems wasted, since new data is now indicating a much stronger epidemiological connection between greenhouse denial and prostate enlargement.
Such an association between greenhouse denial and prostate enlargement had long been suspected by those who had observed the demographics of the Lavoisier group in Australia, the Friends of Science (movie for old men) in Canada and the science board of the Australian Climate Science Coalition in Australia and Lord Lawson's Global warming policy foundation in the UK. FGT has explored such urological links Lack of Solar Activity causes erectile Dysfunction in Climate Change Deniers Other climate/urology links had been raised previously by FGT Is Monckton a Wanker and Why it Matters positing a desire for higher CO2 for enhancing auto-eroticism. However it seems that no-one has put these cases together in a meta-analysis.
Such difficult and controversial statistical methodology has now been rendered unnecessary with new data taken from the list of signatories to Tom Harris' letter to Obi Wan Kenobe. Overwhelmingly these signatories fall into the demographic in which prostate enlargement peaks. For a symptom-free man of 46 years, the risk of developing Benign prostate enlargement over the next 30 years is 45%. Incidence rates increase from 3 cases per 1000 man-years at age 45–49 years, to 38 cases per 1000 man-years by the age of 75–79 years. Whereas the prevalence rate is 2.7% for men aged 45–49, it increases to 24% by the age of 80 years. Similar demographics apply for prostate cancer and so the clinical significance of greenhouse denial as a men's health issue remains unclear. This contrasts to the demographics for other conspiracy theories such as the concentration of younger female conspiracy theorists in the anti-vaccination lobby.
In itself, the statistical association between groups subject to prostate enlargement and groups subject to greenhouse denial does not show which is the cause and which is the effect. It is the time history that shows the causation. Prostate enlargement has been relatively static over time and has not spiked as greenhouse denial soared. Clearly, what has happened is that a large pool of enlarged prostates have been around for centuries, ready to trigger denial of global warming just as soon as there was any warming to deny.
As with the link between smoking and lung cancer, the link between prostate enlargement and greenhouse denial is neither inevitable nor essential. Nevertheless, greenhouse deniers who are younger than average, or more rabid than average (or both, as in cases like senator Bernadi) might be well advised to see their doctors for regular checks.
Prof Dr Moritz Lorenz. Sarah Palin School of Geography, Economics and Quantum Computing, University of Narbethong, West Island Campus, NZ
the errors put out by the Viscount?"
"It's to see if eventually
Lord Monckton of Brenchley
exceeds Ian Plimer's great lie count."
Friends of G and T dedicated these words to John Abraham who did a detailed dissection of a Monckton lecture. George Monbiot compared this to the efforts of Dave Rado analysing the Great Global Warming Swindle, Ian Enting analysing Ian Plimer and Howard Friel's book The Lomborg deception. Since then there has been Oreskes and Conway's book Merchants of Doubt on the wide ranging non-core science of Fred Seitz and colleagues (reviewed here) and John Mashey's analysis of the Wegman report (which popularised the concept of Southern hemisphere denial).
Against competition such as Monckton, Plimer, Wegman and Durkin, small scale liars Thesaurus stretchers like Bob Carter struggle to get noticed. When Carter's book The climate counterconsensus was launched in Australia by obscure NZ politician Rodney Hide, the decline in Carter's profile became pathetically apparent. Gone are the glory days when Carter rejoiced in the status of scientific advisor to senator Steve Family First's Fraudulent Fuckwit Fielding, (now ex-senator) in spite of FGT proposing Carter for canonisation. Then he worked alongside such luminaries as Stewart Franks, who discovered that Australia [if it exists - remember Wegman, ed,] is moving north a several degrees per century and Bill Kininmonth who discovered that climate denial is greatly facilitated by moving beyond the constraints set by the laws of thermodynamics.
Nevertheless Carter has been trying. Enting's book Twisted pointed out that the claim the logarithmic nature of CO2 meant that current warming would be only 45% of that from doubling, rather than 75% claimed (on oath) by Carter.
More recently, the revelations of Carter's funding from the Heartland Institute rather contradicts Carter's various pieces of denialist testimony that begin being denying such funding.
Most recently Carter has lied (not on oath this time) by impersonating a professor from James Cook University, when signing Tom Harris' letter to Obi Wan Kenobe as Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia. Carter later followed this up in an interview with Sydney shock-jock Alan Jones with more extensive lying. Carter's signature explicitly violates the rules of Carter's adjunct status which states http://www.jcu.edu.au/policy/allatoh/JCUDEV_008264.html Adjunct titles shall not be used outside of University related business viz appointees should not use a University title in their normal professional capacity but limit their usage to involvement in University activities.
In an swift response to what was quite frankly weak competition, Lord Monckton, used his visit to Doha to counter Carter's challenge by impersonating a delegate from Myanmar at the Doha Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC and was summarily ejected.
Prof Dr Moritz Lorenz. Sarah Palin School of Geography, Economics and Quantum Computing, University of Narbethong, West Island Campus, NZ
He’s obviously regained his greenhouse-denial faith!