Taxe sur le carbone "contribution carbone" annulé en France

Publié avec la permission de Benoît Rittaud. Pour plus d'informations, visiter son blogue et ne pas manquer la sortie de son livre en février 2010 - Le Mythe climatique

La « contribution carbone » est annulée

30 décembre 2009 par Benoît Rittaud La « contribution carbone » qui devait entrer en vigueur en France le 1er janvier 2010 a été annulée par le Conseil Constitutionnel. Cette décision a été annoncée par l’AFP hier soir vers 21 heures, c’est-à-dire 51 heures seulement avant l’entrée en vigueur prévue de la loi : on pourrait donc penser qu’il était grand temps que les Sages se réveillassent, mais en l’occurrence, ils n’avaient été saisis par des parlementaires que les 22 et 23 décembre. Autant dire que leur dinde de Noël a dû avoir un goût de loi de finances 2010.

Baptisé « taxe carbone » par une opinion publique qui, selon les sondages, lui a toujours été hostile, le « nouveau monstre fiscal » que dépeignait en septembre le journal La Tribune est donc mort-né, en attendant sa probable résurrection par François Fillon qui a annoncé un texte de remplacement pour le 20 janvier.

La première dénomination officielle de la taxe carbone avait été « contribution climat-énergie », ce qui sonnait comme une provocation pour les climato-sceptiques, pour qui il n’y a pas de lien démontré entre climat et émission de gaz à effet de serre (contrairement à ce qu’affirme la thèse que, par commodité, j’appelle « carbocentriste »). Les sceptiques avaient tout de même beau jeu de moquer les prétentions du législateur à réguler le climat comme on tourne le bouton d’un thermostat. Les déclarations post-Copenhague qui ont doctement affirmé que l’accord finalement conclu allait correspondre à une augmentation de 3°C de la température moyenne de la Terre au lieu des 2°C espérés relèvent d’ailleurs de la même prétention.

Finalement, le nom retenu pour la taxe avait été « contribution carbone ». Ce nom sonne moins comme un engagement en faveur du carbocentrisme que comme tirant son inspiration de la gabelle, ce médiéval impôt sur le sel – une denrée qui, par son caractère central dans la vie quotidienne d’alors, était peut-être un peu l’équivalent du dioxyde de carbone pour l’« utilisation » que nous en avons. Il sera peut-être instructif de s’intéresser à la dénomination qui sera retenue pour la prochaine mouture de la loi.

Après le Climategate et l’échec de Copenhague, voilà donc un nouveau revers pour le carbocentrisme, revers qui n’a certes pas la portée des deux autres mais dont les carbocentristes se seraient bien passés. De toute évidence, l’événement va contribuer encore un peu plus à brouiller leur message. Les attendus de la décision du Conseil devraient en effet donner à réfléchir sur la manière dont la loi a été conçue. Ainsi de ce passage :

[considérant que] 93 % des émissions de dioxyde de carbone d’origine industrielle, hors carburant, seront totalement exonérées de contribution carbone ; que les activités assujetties à la contribution carbone représenteront moins de la moitié de la totalité des émissions de gaz à effet de serre ; que la contribution carbone portera essentiellement sur les carburants et les produits de chauffage qui ne sont que l’une des sources d’émission de dioxyde de carbone ; que, par leur importance, les régimes d’exemption totale institués par l’article 7 de la loi déférée sont contraires à l’objectif de lutte contre le réchauffement climatique et créent une rupture caractérisée de l’égalité devant les charges publiques ;
Considérant qu’il s’ensuit que l’article 7 de la loi déférée doit être déclarée contraire à la Constitution (…) ; qu’il en va de même, par voie de conséquence (…), de ses articles 9 et 10 (…)

La défaite des uns n’est toutefois pas synonyme de victoire des autres. Si les climato-sceptiques peuvent se réjouir du symbole (et ironiser sur le fait qu’il s’agit de la première décision du Conseil Constitutionnel s’appuyant sur… la Charte de l’Environnement), il reste que la décision du Conseil ne constitue ni de près ni de loin une caution apportée au scepticisme climatique. Les attendus précisent en effet que

…c’est en fonction de l’adéquation des dispositions critiquées à cet objectif [ainsi défini : « réduire significativement les émissions de gaz à effet de serre afin de lutter contre le réchauffement de la planète »] qu’il convient d’examiner la constitutionnalité de ces dispositions ;

Les attendus montrent ainsi un Conseil Constitutionnel « carbocentriste par principe » mais qui, à raison, ne se donne pas pour fonction d’exprimer un avis sur la controverse scientifique autour du climat. À cet égard, la décision des Sages peut être rapprochée de celle de l’Ofcom, l’office de régulation britannique des télécommunications, saisi en 2007 après la diffusion sur Channel 4 du fameux documentaire climato-sceptique de Martin Durkin, The Great Global Warming Swindle [« La Grande Fraude du réchauffement climatique »]. Cet équivalent britannique du CSA avait eu grand soin de ne pas déborder de ses attributions, d’en rester à la loi sans prendre parti en faveur de l’un ou l’autre des avis scientifiques sur le climat. (L’Ofcom avait finalement débouté les plaignants de la plupart de leurs plaintes notamment au nom de la nécessité de permettre aux opinions minoritaires de s’exprimer.) La grande différence entre les deux décisions est que celle du Conseil Constitutionnel est très éloignée du débat sur le climat proprement dit, même si elle contribuera sans doute indirectement à l’alimenter.

La gifle infligée par le Conseil Constitutionnel montre que le terrain légal n’est décidément pas favorable aux carbocentristes. Les sceptiques peuvent logiquement s’en réjouir, non sans rester prudents sur l’impact de l’événement. En particulier, rien n’assure que celui-ci rapprochera la question climatique du terrain qu’elle n’aurait jamais dû quitter : le terrain scientifique. À cet égard, la divulgation toute récente par le Met Office (le Météo France britannique) d’un volumineux ensemble de données et de codes sources portant sur mille cinq cents stations météos, plusieurs mois après d’infructueuses demandes de sceptiques, est un exemple d’événement moins médiatisé mais dont l’impact à long terme est potentiellement au moins aussi grand. Les carbocentristes, en effet, sont loin d’être toujours sortis indemnes de la divulgation forcée de leurs données.

Is Al-Qaeda used for more war and control over our lives?

This seems more and more obvious and more and more are being aware of it.
I see this Al-Qaeda fear used to put more control on people as the similar kind of tactics used to control our development with the fear of CO2.

Like I said before on FEAR versus Climate change can apply to the war machine.

Fear is a powerful emotion, given that people don’t know they are being manipulated. Fear becomes a powerful tool for governing and control

Fear is the basis of the “green” movement WAR machine . Fear is the tool of powerful people. When you see the use of FEAR, ask yourself why?

Fear is the path to the dark side… fear leads to anger… anger leads to hate.. hate leads to suffering. – Yoda

Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position and can take many forms.

Here's some examples.

Precautionary Principle and climate Change

How to debate with people that say: It does not hurt to be precautions, even if CO2 is not a problem...

Short Answer:
The 'Precautionary Principle' should work both ways. If a causal relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and 'climate change' is uncertain, the 'Precautionary Principle' should restrain us from making drastic and impoverishing reductions in our energy usage to reduce CO2 emissions.

Long Answer:
It cuts both ways. If we make it harder or more expensive for people in Africa to use their coal, it means they keep inhaling smoke from wood fires; babies get lung disease; forests are razed for fuel. Meanwhile electric trucks cost more to run, and that makes fresh food more expensive; desperate people eat more monkeys–wiping out another species; children die from eating meat that’s gone off or get Kwashiorkor–severe protein deficiency. More children could miss out on refrigerated vaccines and die of dysentery as a result. At the same time in the West, money could have been used for gene therapy or cancer research but wasn’t; the delay in medical advances means over 10 years, say, half-a-million people die who wouldn’t have if we’d put that money into medical labs instead of finding ways to pump a harmless gas underground. Either way we can’t afford to get this wrong. That’s why the responsible thing to do is look at the evidence.

---

There’s a point about cost-benefit here. How many people are we willing to kill in order to protect us from the unproven threat of CO2?

---

Source : The Skeptics Handbook from Joanne Nova

UPDATE: There is a good article on WattsUpWithThat about this principal.


I particularly like the comment from this article that talk about the Proactionary principle

An ethical principle formulated as part of extropian philosophy, the proactionary principle is formulated by the extropian philosopher Max More as follows:

People’s freedom to innovate technologically is highly valuable, even critical, to humanity. This implies several imperatives when restrictive measures are proposed: Assess risks and opportunities according to available science, not popular perception. Account for both the costs of the restrictions themselves, and those of opportunities foregone. Favor measures that are proportionate to the probability and magnitude of impacts, and that have a high expectation value. Protect people’s freedom to experiment, innovate, and progress.

The Laws

Here's a list of "Laws" that may apply in a lot of debate we see these days. Funny and true at the same time. Found here from a certain " Baa Humbug"

Langmuir’s Laws of bad science
1 The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results.
3. There are claims of great accuracy.
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to zero.

Parkinson’s Laws
The progress of science is inversely proportional to the number of journals published.

Maier’s Law
If the facts don’t conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.
Corollaries:
1) The bigger the theory, the better.
2) The experiment may be considered a success if no more than 50% of the observed measurements must be discarded to obtain a correspondence with the theory.

Le Chatelier-Braun Principle
If any change is imposed on a system in equilibrium, the system will change in such a way as to counteract the imposed change.

The Bureaucrat’s credo
I cause change therefore I am.

The first law of toxicology
The poison is in the dose.

Law of unintended consequences
The actions of people (and especially of governments) always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended. These often outweigh the intended effects.

Brignell’s Laws
The law of league tables
All measures used as the basis of a league table always improve.
Corollary 1
All other measures get worse to compensate.
Corollary 2
What you measure is what you get.

The law of scientific consensus:
At times of high scientific controversy, the consensus is always wrong.

The law of beneficial developments:
The intensity of the scaremongering attack on any new development is proportional to the level of benefit that it endows.
Corollary:
Alternative therapies do not come under attack.

The law of computer models
The results from computer models tend towards the desires and expectations of the modellers.
Corollary
The larger the model, the closer the convergence.

The fundamental law of trends
If you can’t see it, it ain’t there.

The law of It
Whatever it is, someone will find a way of making money out of it.

The law of scientific equilibrium
If it is settled, it is not science.
If it is science, it is not settled.

Climate Change: Is the science settled ?

Not according to those people. Here's a small sample:

---

Climate change by Jupiter

The alignment of the planets, and especially that of Jupiter and Saturn, control the climate on Earth.

The sun's own orbit, he found, has eight characteristic patterns, all determined by Jupiter's position relative to Saturn, with the other planets playing much lesser roles. Some of these eight have orderly orbits, smooth and near-circular. During such orbits, solar activity is high and Earth heats up. Some of the eight orbits are chaotic, taking a loop-the-loop path. These orbits correspond to quiet times for the sun, and cool periods on Earth. Every 179 years or so, the sun embarks on a new cycle of orbits. One of the cooler periods in recent centuries was the Little Ice Age of the 17th century, when the Thames River in London froze over each winter. The next cool period, if the pattern holds, began in 1996, with the effects to be felt starting in 2010. Some predict three decades of severe cold. Read More

From this PDF file, you can read the impact of planets on the Solar cycles

Barycenter of the Earth-Venus resonance group seems to have a major impact on the Solar cycles, possibly through tidal forces, by stimulating and damping the widths, heights and frequencies of p-Modes.

Other links to Solar - Climate connections

---

The Unbearable Complexity of Climate

When you hear someone say:
When CO2 increase, temperature increase, it is simple physics... Be skeptical... Very skeptical.

Unfortunately, while the physics is simple, the climate is far from simple. It is one of the more complex systems that we have ever studied. The climate is a tera-watt scale planetary sized heat engine. It is driven by both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial forcings, a number of which are unknown, and many of which are poorly understood and/or difficult to measure. It is inherently chaotic and turbulent, two conditions for which we have few mathematical tools.

The climate is comprised of five major subsystems — atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere. All of these subsystems are imperfectly understood. Each of these subsystems has its own known and unknown internal and external forcings, feedbacks, resonances, and cyclical variations. In addition, each subsystem affects all of the other subsystems through a variety of known and unknown forcings and feedbacks.Read more.

---

Fact-based climate debate By Lee C. Gerhard, IPCC Expert Reviewer

It is crucial that scientists are factually accurate when they do speak out, that they ignore media hype and maintain a clinical detachment from social or other agendas. There are facts and data that are ignored in the maelstrom of social and economic agendas swirling about Copenhagen.

Greenhouse gases and their effects are well-known. Here are some of things we know:

• The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.
• Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history.
• Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not statistically significant.
• There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes.
• The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.

We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes:

• Global temperature changes naturally all of the time, in both directions and at many scales of intensity.
• The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world.
• Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature.
• Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the “hockey stick” graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century.
• During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change.

Contrary to many public statements:

• Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change.
• Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-year lows. Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or severity of storms.
• Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years - extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes.
• The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records.
• Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten centimeters rise in this century.

The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data and computer programs. The computer programs are the source of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data. Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.

Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and inflammatory language. For instance, the word “ever” is misused by media and in public pronouncements alike. It does not mean “in the last 20 years,” or “the last 70 years.” “Ever” means the last 4.5 billion years.

For example, some argue that the Arctic is melting, with the warmest-ever temperatures. One should ask, “How long is ever?” The answer is since 1979. And then ask, “Is it still warming?” The answer is unequivocally “No.” Earth temperatures are cooling. Similarly, the word “unprecedented” cannot be legitimately used to describe any climate change in the last 8,000 years.

There is not an unlimited supply of liquid fuels. At some point, sooner or later, global oil production will decline, and transportation costs will become insurmountable if we do not develop alternative energy sources. However, those alternative energy sources do not now exist.

A legislated reduction in energy use or significant increase in cost will severely harm the global economy and force a reduction in the standard of living in the United States. It is time we spent the research dollars to invent an order-of-magnitude better solar converter and an order-of-magnitude better battery. Once we learn how to store electrical energy, we can electrify transportation. But these are separate issues. Energy conversion is not related to climate change science.

I have been a reviewer of the last two IPCC reports, one of the several thousand scientists who purportedly are supporters of the IPCC view that humans control global temperature. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us try to bring better and more current science to the IPCC, but we usually fail. Recently we found out why. The whistleblower release of e-mails and files from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University has demonstrated scientific malfeasance and a sickening violation of scientific ethics.

If the game of Russian roulette with the environment that Adrian Melott contends is going on, is it how will we feed all the people when the cold of the inevitable Little Ice Age returns? It will return. We just don’t know when. Read more

Another hockey stick. Visitors to my blog for 2009

If I continue on this trend, either my blog or my head will explode. Those topics are more and more popular. Don't worry, the climate will not suffer!

Main stream media waking up to the global warming scam

Here a quick list of links to article showing what is becoming an awakening of  some media to the true outcome of the IPCC and some climate change - global warming - end of the world advocates.


Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

Time for a Climate Change Plan B By NIGEL LAWSON in the Wall Street Journal

Or, at least, that is the assumption on which the climate scientists' warming projections are based. It is projected economic growth that determines projected carbon emissions, and projected carbon emissions that (according to the somewhat conjectural computer models on which they rely) determine projected warming (according to the same models).

There is no doubt that calling a halt to the high-profile climate-change traveling circus risks causing a severe conference-deprivation trauma among the participants. If there has to be a small public investment in counseling, it would be money well spent.

Chris Selley: Never trust a PR firm - National Post

Journalism and the climate change debate aside, it’s awfully sad to see people casually abusing statistics with one hand while grim-facedly flying the flag for science with the other. Even if we survive the climate change crisis, it doesn’t augur well for us ever coming to a consensus on how to address the next one.

From Global Warming Believer To Skeptic By: Bradley Fikes - North County Times

A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate scientists.

Boy, was I naive.

Ok we need to show some warming here, before people believe this is all a SCAM

Climate change: Corruption, manipulation, where will it end?

How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles - Trying to remove the medieval warm period.

Read more:

Want to understand the big Ponzi scheme that is the scare on climate change.

La science des changements climatiques - Cyclique?

Vu à très court terme

La « science du réchauffement climatique » peut être facilement illustrée:
04 :00 – Il fait noir à l’extérieur
06 :00 – Plus clair qu’a 4
08 :00 – Plus clair et chaud qu’à 6
10 :00 – C’est vraiment clair dehors maintenant
12 :00 – Wow, c’est vraiment clair et chaud.
Hypothèse: Il fera plus de plus en plus chaud et de plus en plus clair de façon exponentielle jusqu'à ce que nous prenions feu et mourrions. Nous DEVONS faire quelque chose!!
16:00 – Oh attendez, maintenant ca ce refroidie …
18:00 – Hey, la noirceur s’en vient
NOUVELLE Hypothèse: Il fera de plus en plus froid, de plus en plus noir… Oh mon Dieu c’est un REFROIDISSEMENT GLOBAL!! Nous allons tous mourir, Nous DEVONS faire quelque chose!!

Vu à Moyen terme

Source

Vu à long terme

 Source

Mise à jour:

source

Science against Belief...

Cost of cleaner energy

Conclusion: Support nuclear power, drive clean diesel until we have better batteries for electric cars.

Source

Climate Demotivators

Source

 

The world is COOLING not warming says scientist Peter Taylor ... and we're not prepared

I am not 100% in agreement with Peter Taylor, but he makes some interesting point. He is a bit on the esoteric side of the fence, but many climate science observations seems in line with others like Henrik Svensmark and Richard Lindzen.



Source

UPDATE:
I have found a PDF of his presentation and the reference made of the Fibonacci sequence and climate prediction.

Landscheidt’s system of prediciton, as we have noted, was entirely mathematical. It involved Fibonacci series applied to the Newtonian mechanics of planetary movement and the centre of mass of the solar system. He published these predictions in a peer-reviewed journal and the method ought to be readily testable – yet I have found no other workers who have tested the theories.

Climate change scare used for depopulation goals.

From this web site: http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.earth.html

At a 1990 per capita emission rate of about four tonnes of carbon dioxide per person per year, the world's optimum population level would not be much higher than two billion, living at an average 1990 lifestyle, in order to stabilise carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. This can be simply demonstrated by integrating advice from the IPCC with basic facts about carbon dioxide emissions: see The crucial CO2 limit, OPT Journal, October 2003.

So based on projection and unproven theories, we need to get from 7 billions to 2! 

How are we supposed to do that.  Is this called GENOCIDE on wide scale.

More on this here.

Our Climate Saviors, What! Using limos!!! What about CO2?

Monkton Debunks climate fears in Copenhagen

Monckton names names on ClimateGate


Lord Monckton on Climategate at the 2nd International Climate Conference from CFACT on Vimeo.

Some skeptics will say but wait a minute, there is this new study on the ice being "rotten", you can read it more here to debunk this one also.

Other skeptics will say, wait there is the sea level rise, like Tuvalu.  Here some links to debug this one also. One from Willis Eschenbac, this one by Vincent Gray and this by John Daly. Here's a detailed analysis of sea level rise.

Others will say... But But.. You can read on any concern you have here by a simple search.

Climategate revelations 'are but the tip of a giant iceberg'

Source

Extract

There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO_2 ) induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.

Votre signe astrologique. En êtes vous sur?

Capsule scientifique du code Chasteney:

l'astrologie déphasée Notre signe astrologique correspond à la constellation du Zodiaque vis-à-vis laquelle le Soleil se trouvait le jour de notre naissance. Mais ces données datent de 2000 ans et le Soleil s’est déplacé dans le ciel depuis. Notre signe n’est donc plus celui qu’on pense!

Lien vers la capsule vidéo

C'est intéressant de voir l'importance porté par une grande partie de la population au signe astrologique. J'aimerais bien voir la réaction des "croyants" qui vont apprendre que tout leur vie durant, leur signe n'était pas le bon!!!

Si vous ne connaissez pas encore cette merveilleuse émission scientifique à téléquébec, visitez ce site.

Kids innocence exploited

This is simply disgusting

Source

GW alarmists continue their exploitation of children

Posted: 09 Dec 2009 09:34 AM PST

This, I think, has to go down as one of the creepiest “editorials” written by global warming alarmists recently. Clive Hamilton, ABC News in Australia’s public “intellectual,” has an open letter to the child of someone who works for the fossil fuel industry. Here are some selections:

“Hi there,

There’s something you need to know about your father.

Your dad’s job is to try to stop the government making laws to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution. He is paid a lot of money to do that by big companies who do not want to own up to the fact that their pollution is changing the world’s climate in very harmful ways.

Because of their pollution, lots of people, mostly poor people, are likely to die. They will die from floods, from diseases like dengue fever, and from starvation when their crops won’t grow anymore.

The big companies are putting their profits before the lives of people. And your dad is helping them.

. . . . .

I am sure it’s hard for you to hear these words, but there is something you can do to help. Why not sit your dad down and have a good talk to him. Tell him you want him to stop helping the big companies that are spoiling the future for you and all the other kids at school. Tell him that the family would rather have less money if he had a different job, one you could be proud of.

Tell him that you know he will feel much happier inside if he is doing something to make Australia and the world a better place, instead of going to work every day to make it a worse one.

Your dad has lost his way, and you might be the only person in the world who can help him find it again. So talk to him.

Yours sincerely”

This is on par with the official opening video for the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen – full of nightmare visions of a child caught in a global-warming-produced catastrophe - producing earthquakes, no less. (It’s very well-produced, of course.)

Do these people have any idea what their fear-mongering is doing to the minds of children - other than making them terrified, anxious, and sleep-deprived?

RDI propage les mensonges sur le ClimateGate

Ce matin à RDI, nous avons entendu que les courriels du ClimateGate dataient de 10 ans.

Est-ce vrai?

Une simple recherche sur les fichiers que j’ai téléchargés sur mon serveur linux prouve le contraire.

Un simple grep nous montre la vérité.

Voici le format de Date des courriels (quelques uns en 2009) :

1257874826.txt:Date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009
1257881012.txt:Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:23:32 -0500
1257888920.txt:Date: Tue Nov 10 16:35:20 2009
1257888920.txt: Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:35:37 +0000
1258039134.txt:Date: Thu Nov 12 10:18:54 2009
1258053464.txt:Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:17:44 -0000

Voici un compte du nombre de courriels pour les dates 2009 à 2006.

grep Date: *.txt | grep 2009 | wc -l
163
grep Date: *.txt | grep 2008 | wc -l
151
grep Date: *.txt | grep 2007 | wc -l
103
grep Date: *.txt | grep 2006 | wc –l
206

Mise à jour:
RDI m'a répondu en quelque minute avec ceci:

rdimatin @SimonFili Les courriels cités par tous les médias qui parlent "d'astuces" et qui ont donné place à la controverse datent de novembre 1999.

rdimatin @SimonFili Est-ce un "mensonge" de votre part de ne parler que des courriels récents dans votre post?

Intéressant de voir ces réponses. Ils affirment en onde que ces courriels datent de 10 ans, ceci donne l'impression que ces informations sont veilles donc sans grande importances.

Il me demande si c'est un mensonge de ne parler que des courriels récents??? La je ne comprends pas. Le point que je fessais était sur le fait que c'est courriels ne dataient pas seulement de 10 ans.

L'information aurait du être comme ceci: Ces courriels couvrent une plage de 10 ans.

RDI devrait s'inspiré de Rex Murphy à la CBC.

Pour des analyses approfondies voir ce site.

Mise à jour #2
Steve McIntyre à fait une analyse approfondie des trucs utilisé par le CRU (ClimateGate). Nous voyons des indices dans des email de 2008. Donc une autre "preuve" que c'est email ne sont pas vieux de 10 ans comme prétendais RDI.

Global warming... Test it yourself.

Here's some analysis done online with this database. You can play with the data to see for yourself the trends of the so called global warming. I have used the NOAA GHCN Database with stations around Canada. Look at the graphs for details of how I created the graphs.

Here's two example


So you may ask, how did they get graphs showing warming? Good question. The short answer is adjustments... See this article for more information on the subject.

Petition on Global Warming. Please go sign now!

Establish a Royal Commission to determine the cause and extent of Global Warming - Petition signatures - GoPetition

I am #905 to sign with this comment:

I have followed this anthropogenic global warming for many years now, never seen any evidence that the CO2 we put in the air is putting us or the planet in any danger.

Policies, politics, economics and lack of education are the biggest threats we and our planet faces.

CO2 is food for plants and natural. Trying to control CO2 is only based on a Malthusian agenda with a touch of opportunism for the "green" to buy indulgence and sell low efficient energy sources, they could not sell otherwise

UPDATE:
Is the science settled? if so, why do we have those scientist asking for proof?

The Copenhagen Climate Challenge
As of Dec 09, 2009, there is 141 scientist asking 10 questions to prove human CO2 is causing anything. They will host a conference Dec8,9th, 2009, here the programme.

Also this one with over 31,000 signature, or this one from a conference in New-York, with 114 signatures at the conference, 707 signatures not at the conference and 600 signatures from the public

Also those 450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

Establish a Royal Commission to determine the cause and extent of Global Warming - Petition signatures - GoPetition

Establish a Royal Commission to determine the cause and extent of Global Warming - Petition signatures - GoPetition

Climate Scare Story vs Real Questions and Answers

I invite you to listen to those two videos and compare how the climate scare is presented without any discussion on one side and a proper Q&A on the other side. Which one do you like more? Comments?

A primer on climate change - Understand Copenhagen debates

50 more videos here

Humour: Do we worry too much?

At last, some real data graphs on the climate

You should be aware of the ClimateGate scandal, the data manipulation, if not check the other entries in my blog...

So how much manipulation was done... a picture is worth a thousand words...

Thanks to Jo Nova, for a very well done article.

I am so tired about CLIMATE CHANGE and ClimateGate

Listen to this report from CTV.ca skip to minute 02:20.

At the end the interviews climate research Tom Duck said: I would be famous if I could prove "climate change" did not exist.

The issues are not about climate change. The issues are about the relation of anthropogenic CO2 and Climate Change.

The question should be:
Do we affect in a statistically significant way the earth climate with anthropogenic CO2?

Let me be clear:

• No one denies that the climate is changing. It always has and always will be.
• No one denies that CO2 play a part in the green house effect that permit us to live

Calling people who ask questions about the science, deniers, denialists, is unscientific.

Here's a list of 450 scientific papers that are "skeptics" about the main drivers on climate change.

• The science is not settled
• The consensus is not real
• The main driver of climate change is not CO2.

Now for some REAL journalistic work we rarely see

Comment on REAL NEWS on ClimateGate

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4537#comments

Climate Change... Not the real question... The climate has been changing for millions of years and will change in the future, even if we stop putting CO2 in the air. The real question; is there a clear link between anthropogenic CO2 and temperature.

All the talks about Copenhagen are to reduce emissions to stop warming and to avoid a 2 Celsius increase in global mean temperature. The global average temperature did not see any statistically significant increase in the last 10 years while CO2 have increased.

What if the science and consensus is wrong and curbing emissions will do nothing?
Many scientists are skeptic about the link between anthropogenic CO2 and the climate change issues. See those 450 papers.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

This study done on real data shows a negative feedback of CO2 increase on the climate, contrary to the positive feedback of the computer models used by the IPCC to “prove” that we are causing harm to the planet. The science that claims those feedbacks has been debunked.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N48/EDIT.php

As we see here, the past climate as seen “worst“ temperature and CO2 concentration in the past than we have today.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

What is it that makes the actual temperature the best we can have?
What is it that makes the CO2 concentration we have the optimum?

Please document the REAL news, not some FAKE news that serves some “green” interest.

For more REAL information on the climate, consult: http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Images from ClimateGate en images

Source


Source


Source


Source


Source


Source


Source


Source


Source




Source : Pookies Toons


Source


Source


Source