NASA Fudging Climate Change Data Video — Climategate: another smoking gun… — Leaked agreement rocks Copenhagen — Copenhagen: Leaked draft deal widens rift between rich and poor nations — Copenhagen climate summit: UN pleads for investment deals to be done — California Announces Project To Power 250,000 Homes Using Energy Beamed From Space — First Space-based Solar Project Gets California’s Green Light — Rush: Starving Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism — The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero — Climate Change Deception Video — Torquemada in East Anglia


CNN’s Gupta: Climate change makes pollen dangerous to your health

Watch out, folks! Climate change is making plant life grow at a faster rate, thanks to the uptick in the pollen count, according to CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Oh the horror! Dr. Gupta seems genuinely concerned about longer and earlier allergy seasons, lung disease, and cardiovascular disease. In the end, he attributes the health concerns from pollen to climate change.

Unfortunately, this can only mean that busy bodies are just waiting to levy agriculture and subsidize taxpayer ailments. Moreover, it is the environmentalists who are usually complaining about plant life being cut down. Apparently, this group has issues making up their minds…

Source:  Washington Times



Climategate: another smoking gun…

Telegraph – By James Delingpole

Despite the Al-Gore-Kool-Aid-drinkers’ best efforts to suppress it, the Climategate scandal continues to blossom and flourish. (Or should that be putresce and pullulate?)

I think my favourite comic detail this week just has to be the one about the amazing not-so-fast-shrinking glaciers. As you’ll know if you’ve been reading reports like this scare stories about glaciers retreating “faster than predicted” are a central plank of the IPCC’s case that we should carbon-tax ourselves back to the Dark Ages NOW. According to the IPCC, the Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035.

Or should that be 2350? Yep it seems those scientific experts who make the IPCC’s reports so famously reliable and trustworthy have a bad case of numerical dyslexia. The mistake was spotted by a Canadian academic:

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

He is astonished they “misread 2350 as 2035″.

In its 2007 report, the Nobel Prize-winning Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said: “Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.

“Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2035,” the report said.

It suggested three quarters of a billion people who depend on glacier melt for water supplies in Asia could be affected.

But Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.

“The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates – its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350,” Mr Kotlyakov’s report said.

Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and “misread 2350 as 2035″.

“I do suggest that the glaciological community might consider advising the IPCC about ways to avoid such egregious errors as the 2035 versus 2350 confusion in the future,” says Mr Cogley.

Well quite.

But just when you think it can’t get any better, along comes this cracker of an expose at Watts Up With That, courtesy of scientist Willis Eschenbach.

Eschenbach has been looking more closely into one of the big unanswered questions of the great Climate Wars: how reliable is the climate data used by the IPCC?

He focuses on just one country, Australia, and on one weather station – at Darwin Airport – and compares the raw temperature data recorded at the station with the “adjusted” version of the data.

Here’s what he found:

Notice the anomaly? It’s not exactly difficult. The blue line is the trend on the raw data, showing a slight cooling. The red line is the data once it has been adjusted by scientists at the Global Historical Climate Network – which is one of the main sources of temperature data used by the IPCC. Eschenbach finds the extremity of this “homogenization” adjustment rather shocking:

YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C.

But just how shocking is this discovery. We-e-ll – as Eschenbach reminds us, it is only one weather station. Also, he points out, it is quite normal for scientists to make these homogeneity adjustments, as he explains quoting the GHCN:

Most long-term climate stations have undergone changes that make a time series of their observations inhomogeneous. There are many causes for the discontinuities, including changes in instruments, shelters, the environment around the shelter, the location of the station, the time of observation, and the method used to calculate mean temperature. Often several of these occur at the same time, as is often the case with the introduction of automatic weather stations that is occurring in many parts of the world. Before one can reliably use such climate data for analysis of longterm climate change, adjustments are needed to compensate for the nonclimatic discontinuities.

What he can’t fathom at all, though, is the mind-boggling scale of these adjustments. They can only be explained in terms of scientists with a very particular agenda.

Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

Do read the full piece. Its wonderfully revealing of the dirty tricks used by the scientists pushing AGW to exaggerate their case. And what’s particularly damning is that it shows how the Climategate scandal extends far, far beyond those so far implicated at the Climatic Research Institute at the University of East Anglia…]


CLIMATE CONFERENCE: People watched an animated projection showing the effects of climate change at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen Tuesday. The conference opened Monday, with organizers warning diplomats from 192 nations about calamitous global warming. (Miguel Villagran/Getty Images)


Leaked agreement rocks Copenhagen

Australian Broadcasting Corporation – By Emma Alberici

The Copenhagen climate talks have been rocked by the leak of a draft final agreement which weakens the role of the United Nations in climate change negotiations and abandons the Kyoto Protocol.

The “Danish text” draft agreement, published by the UK’s Guardian newspaper, has been described as a dangerous document for developing countries.

Over the past week, parts of Denmark’s proposal have leaked into the public domain, but this is the first time it has been published in its entirety.

According to the Guardian, the secret agreement has been worked on by a group of individuals known as the ‘circle of commitment’.

It is understood to include Australia, the US, the UK and Denmark, which are all said to have finalised the deal in the past two days.

The document abandons the Kyoto Protocol, sidelines the United Nations in future climate change negotiations, and hands most of the power to rich countries.

The Kyoto Protocol relied on the principle that rich nations – responsible for the bulk of emissions – can and should be compelled to take on the biggest burden when it comes to cutting those emissions.

Under Kyoto, poorer nations were not required to act at all.

The leaked agreement not only brings the developing world into the frame, it allows rich countries to emit twice as much carbon as poor countries.

Elephant in the room

Oxfam International is troubled by the absence of any reference to the Kyoto Protocol, which is the only legally binding agreement on the table.

Oxfam’s climate change advisor Antonio Hill says the sidelining of the UN in future negotiations is particularly troubling.

“What it reflects is what you can expect at this stage in the game – when the elephant’s in the room the ants get squeezed out,” he said.

“And so the concern here is that poor countries will get left out.

“That’s a huge concern for us. The attention to this document takes the focus off the negotiations that are actually still in course just this minute, and I think the responsibility of the Danish presidency is to clear the air and then focus on those crunch issues.

“And I think those [issues] are about long-term finance and making sure that rich countries are going to deliver what’s needed to help developing counties do their part, as well as some complicated things around how we measure emission reductions both in rich countries and in developing countries as well.

“And finally on the legal form, making sure that everyone is clear that a legally binding agreement is on the table and will be on the table right until the last minute here in Copenhagen.”

‘Spaghetti bowl’ funding

The “Danish text” hands control of the global adaptation fund to the World Bank, and the new financing accord is intended to help the poor cope with rising temperatures while also cutting their own carbon emissions.

The draft includes a figure of $10 billion a year, which Mr Hill says is way short of what is needed.

“Coming out of Copenhagen, that’s what we need – to get away from the spaghetti bowl of random funding channels that we now have and set something up that allows large-scale funds.

“At least $200 billion is needed every year by 2020 to allow developing countries to cope with climate changes that are already inevitable, and secondly to join the international effort to actually slash emissions.”

A statement issued this morning by UN climate chief Yvo de Boer says that the draft decision paper put forward by the Danish Prime Minister was an informal document for the purposes of consultations.


This 2010 photographic calendar is sold in support of ‘Trees For Life’, an award-winning Scottish charity that aims to restore the native Caledonian Forest to a large area in the Scottish Highlands. It contains outstanding photographs of trees from every continent by some of the worldÌs finest nature photographers, and plenty of insightful information.

Trees For Life works to transform barren landscapes into healthy, young forest, complete with insects, birds, mosses and lichens etc. This work is carried out by volunteers under expert guidance, and TFL’s long term vision is to restore the forest to an area of 600 square miles, and eventually to reintroduce the missing species of wildlife, such as beaver, wild boar and lynx, that are an essential part of the forest ecosystem.

Printed on recycled paper containing 75% post-consumer waste. Dimensions: 30cm x 33cm  Our price £9.95


Copenhagen: Leaked draft deal widens rift between rich and poor nations

Climate talks are in disarray barely days into the summit, putting at risk international unity to fight global warming

Guardian – John Vidal in Copenhagen

Three hours after the “Danish text” had been leaked to the Guardian, Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chairman of the group of 132 developing countries known as G77 plus China, spelt out exactly why the poor countries he represents were so incensed. “The text robs developing countries of their just and equitable and fair share of the atmospheric space. It tries to treat rich and poor countries as equal,” said the diplomat.

The text is a draft proposal for the final political agreement that should be signed by national leaders including Barack Obama and Gordon Brown at the end of the Copenhagen summit on 18 December. It was prepared in secret by a group of individuals known as “the circle of commitment” but understood to include the US and Denmark.

Five hours later, the UN’s top climate diplomat had responded. Yvo de Boer said: “This was an informal paper ahead of the conference given to a number of people for the purposes of consultations. The only formal texts in the UN process are the ones tabled by the chairs of this Copenhagen conference at the behest of the parties [involved].”

But the representatives of developing nations felt betrayed by the intent of the proposals in the draft.

“This text destroys both the UN convention on climate change and the Kyoto protocol. This is aimed at producing a new treaty, a new legal initiative that throws away the basis of [differing] obligations between the poorest and most wealthy nations in the world,” said Di-Aping.

The existing treaty is the only global agreement that legally obliges rich countries to reduce their emissions.

Di-Aping is one of the most outspoken of developing country leaders, at once charming and radical.

What the west had failed to grasp, he said, was the very deep hurt that had been growing steadily since the climate negotiations were effectively taken over by heads of state and were conducted outside the UN, the only forum in which poor countries feel they are equally represented.

The text is now likely to be withdrawn because of its reception by China, India and many other developing countries. It suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.

Few numbers are included in the text, because these would be filled in later after negotiation by world leaders.

However, it does seek to hold global temperature rises to 2C, the safe limit according to scientists, and it mentions the sum of $10bn a year in aid to help poor countries cope with climate change, starting in 2012.

Last night the G77 reaction was seen by some developed world analysts as an exaggerated but fundamentally correct response to the way that the US, the UK and other rich countries have sought to negotiate.

Development NGOs were particularly scathing in their criticism.

Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: “This is only a draft, but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurt.”

Hill added: “It proposes a green fund to be run by a board, but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN.

“That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on [emissions in] developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks.”

A spokesman for Cafod, a development charity with close links to some of the poorest countries in the world, said: “This draft document reveals the backstage machinations of a biased host who, instead of acting as nonpartisan broker, is taking sides with the developed countries.

“The document should not even exist…]


A melt-lake lying on the surface of the Humboldt glacier on July 31, 2009. Reuters


Copenhagen climate summit: UN pleads for investment deals to be done

The United Nations executive secretary has begged companies to “do some deals” behind the scenes at the Copenhagen climate change conference to encourage market investment, as the US leaned towards more regulation on industry emissions.

Telegraph – By Rowena Mason

Yvo de Boer’s pleaded for market-based mechanisms such as carbon trading to be made a priority over regulation, after US President Barack Obama’s administration decided to classify carbon dioxide as a health hazard.

US companies, including oil major ExxonMobil, on Tuesday strongly criticised the US Environmental Protection Agency’s decision, saying it would cause untold harm to the energy industry.

Speaking about the US plans, Mr de Boer said: “We all know taxes and regulation tend to be a lot less efficient and much more expensive than market based approaches.”

“Please please, please, if you are a business man, do a deal in Copenhagen and please, please, please make it market-based. Because if we fail to get a market-based agreement, we will be forced to turn to tax and regulation.”

However, his defence of market-based solutions to funding climate change measures came as the UN admitted its administration of global carbon offsetting, the Clean Development Mechanism, had lost its way.

The UN, which unveiled an independent review of the system by consultants McKinsey, said they needed to get the system “back to its original intent” and acknowledged it suffered long delays, poor documentation and staff shortages.

“The subjectivity is demotivating project developers,” Martina Bosi, a senior carbon-finance specialist for the World Bank said at the Copenhagen conference.

The multi-billion pound Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows big tilities and heavy industry in Europe to “offset” their emissions by buying certificates from low-carbon projects, such as wind farms, in emerging nations.

But many green campaigners and investors alike argue it has not been properly monitored, allowing low-carbon project developers to engage in creative green accounting.

The UN last week banned several Chinese wind farms from participating in the scheme, having temporarily suspended the whole country, over fears they had been playing the system.



California Announces Project To Power 250,000 Homes Using Energy Beamed From Space

Business Insider – Graham Winfrey

California is making waves today by announcing a first-of-its-kind space-based solar project that will transmit energy down to earth from space. According to estimates from developers, the project will generate enough electricity to power 250,000 homes per year.

SolarFeeds.com: California’s biggest energy utility PG&E has announced that they would purchase 200MW off solar power that will be beamed from space by 2016.

The experimental solar plant will make use of orbiting satellites equipped with solar cells that transform the sun’s energy into electricity. Electricity generated by the process would be converted into radio frequency transmittable energy, which will be collected by a receiving station in Fresno, California, before being transferred to PG&E’s power grid.

First Space-based Solar Project Gets California’s Green Light

California’s state legislators have finally given a green light to the first-of-its-kind space-based solar project. California’s biggest energy utility PG&E has announced that they would purchase 200MW of solar power that will be beamed from space by 2016.

The experimental solar plant will make use of orbiting satellites equipped with solar cells that transform the sun’s energy into electricity. Electricity generated by the process would be converted into radio frequency transmittable energy, which will be collected by a receiving station in Fresno, California, before being transferred to PG&E’s power grid.

The developers of this ingenious project estimate that the panels will generate about 1700GWh of energy annually, which can be used to power up to 250,000 average homes.


The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents.

Photograph: Attila Kisbenedek/AFP/Getty Images


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: So Copenhagen started yesterday. Remember the false, hoaxed, totally Photoshopped pictures of polar bears frolicking on little, small, ice cube type things that were said to be the remnants of melting glaciers, and they were just ice floes. And polar bears hang around on them all the time because they’re cold. It’s ice. Polar bears hang around ice. You put one in a zoo in New York in the summertime, and they have to put blocks of ice in there for the polar bears to lay on. So they put these pictures all around, Gore uses them in his movie, and little kids, “Oh, no, the polar bears are dying, they’re going to drown!” Polar bears can swim 60 miles.

Reuters has done it again. I’m holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers: “Starving Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism,” on the second day of Copenhagen. It’s from the UK Telegraph, and there is a picture of a polar bear eating another polar bear. Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah. “New pictures show that polar bears are beginning to cannibalise each other as global warming destroys its hunting grounds. The images, taken in Hudson Bay, Canada, around 200 miles north of the town of Churchill, Manitoba, show a male polar bear carrying the bloodied head of a polar bear cub it has killed for food. Polar bears usually subsist on seals, which they hunt from a platform of sea ice. But the melting of sea ice as a result of rising global temperatures has made it more difficult for polar bears to hunt seals at sea.” None of this is true. If you know anything about polar bears, and this whole article is based on a few photographs, and little kids are going to be scared to death seeing this, but if you know anything about polar bears, you know that there are any number of reasons why polar bears attack each other. Anybody who watches nature shows, nature shows are about what? Animals eating each other. I used to watch those things and say, “Where’s the animal rights crowd on this?”

Keeping out the chill...

I watched the Planet Earth show that BBC put together, Blu-ray, a lot of it is animals eating each other. The poor wildebeests seem to be targeted by everything that walks or crawls over in Africa. But did you know that polar bear males are well known for eating their young if given half a chance? They do. The mother, the female polar bear has to protect the cubs from the father and other males. Polar bears are a vicious species. They’re not this cuddly little old English sheepdog type thing. People go out on ice floes to study these things, and if they attack they have to shoot them. They’re not at all in any way tame, and they’re huge. They can rip you to shreds inside of five seconds, they wouldn’t care, and Reuters would run a picture and blame it all on global warming, not the fact that a polar bear is a polar bear. Polar bears eat their young, if given half the chance, males do. So another hoax, 100% total fraud on the second day of Copenhagen.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, a dead polar bear is a good thing, right? I mean no methane. No expelling gas. Right? Let me tell you something else about polar bears. And, by the way, this is true of brown bears, and even lions do this. The male polar bear will attack and kill the cubs of another, not his own, but another. The reason for this is to send the mother, the female, back into heat so that polar can do a Tiger Woods and get some and also father his own brood. It’s who they are, and it’s not just exclusive to polar bears. A lot of birds do this. I mean it’s really, really rough out there in the animal kingdom, very, very, very competitive. There’s nobody passing out welfare benefits there, except human beings who are excited about seeing these cuddly little things, so we feed them in zoos and so forth.


DEVIL EFFIGIES: A woman arranged effigies of the devil, which are to be burned as part of the annual tradition of the “Burning of the Devil,” at a Guatemala City factory Monday. The government asked revelers not to light traditional bonfires for the centuries-old Christian festival to avoid carbon emissions. (Daniel LeClair/Reuters)


The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero

Whats Up With That: by Willis Eschenbach

People keep saying “Yes, the Climategate scientists behaved badly. But that doesn’t mean the data is bad. That doesn’t mean the earth is not warming.”

Let me start with the second objection first. The earth has generally been warming since the Little Ice Age, around 1650. There is general agreement that the earth has warmed since then. See e.g. Akasofu . Climategate doesn’t affect that.

The second question, the integrity of the data, is different. People say “Yes, they destroyed emails, and hid from Freedom of information Acts, and messed with proxies, and fought to keep other scientists’ papers out of the journals … but that doesn’t affect the data, the data is still good.” Which sounds reasonable.

There are three main global temperature datasets. One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, where we’ve been trying to get access to the raw numbers. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The three groups take raw data, and they “homogenize” it to remove things like when a station was moved to a warmer location and there’s a 2C jump in the temperature. The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data.

So I’m still on my multi-year quest to understand the climate data. You never know where this data chase will lead. This time, it has ended me up in Australia. I got to thinking about Professor Wibjorn Karlen’s statement about Australia that I quoted here:

Another example is Australia. NASA [GHCN] only presents 3 stations covering the period 1897-1992. What kind of data is the IPCC Australia diagram based on?

If any trend it is a slight cooling. However, if a shorter period (1949-2005) is used, the temperature has increased substantially. The Australians have many stations and have published more detailed maps of changes and trends.

The folks at CRU told Wibjorn that he was just plain wrong. Here’s what they said is right, the record that Wibjorn was talking about, Fig. 9.12 in the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report...]



Torquemada in East Anglia

It’s not illegal. But it’s not science.

NRO – By Mona Charen

Though professional hysterics may seek to “hide the decline,” there has been a noticeable drop in the number of Americans who believe that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. Pause on that for a moment. Though Americans have been harangued about global warming for more than a decade, only 35 percent told a recent Pew survey that global warming is a serious problem, compared with 44 percent the previous year.

This skepticism predated the exposure of the East Anglia e-mails — those playful missives that reveal some of the most prominent climate researchers to be, if not outright charlatans, at least partisans.

Why don’t people buy global warming? Doubtless the poor economy has pushed less immediate worries to the background. But even before the e-mails revealed that supposed neutral truth seekers were prepared to “redefine peer review,” and engage in statistical sleight of hand “to hide” inconvenient truths, there were ample reasons for skepticism.

It’s chilly. There is the pesky fact that, contrary to the dire predictions of climate alarmists, there has been no measurable increase in world temperatures since 1998. Yet the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere has continued to rise. The computer models immortalized by Al Gore did not anticipate this; in fact, they predicted that temperatures would continue to rise steeply more or less forever, except that human beings would all die in 50 years or so with unknown (though presumably salutary) effects on the by-then Venus-like surface of planet Earth.

Bullying. Every time a scientist or policymaker slammed his hand on a desk and growled, “The science is settled!” he demonstrated how remote he was from the scientific method. In true science, nothing is ever settled.

It’s Freudian. The Viennese analyst taught that if you say you hate your mother, you hate your mother. And if you say you love your mother, you are in denial about hating your mother. Climate-change believers are like Freudians. If the weather is warm, it’s proof of global warming. But if the weather is cool, this is evidence of the sinister tricks global warming can play.

Sunspots. Look at the graphs comparing sunspot activity since 1860 with global sea surface temperatures. They look like matching S curves (unlike the graphs comparing temperatures with CO2 output). Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon notes that 2008 may have been a cold year because sunspot activity was low. The sun has been quiet in 2009 too. “If this deep solar minimum continues,” Dr. Soon explains, “and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very telling time and it’s very, very useful in terms of science and society, in my opinion.”

Nuclear energy. Global-warming priests, while sermonizing about the need to spend trillions on new energy sources, almost never have a kind word for nuclear power — casting doubt on their motives. If the goal were really to reduce our carbon output (and not to recast our way of life), clean, efficient, affordable nuclear power would be the obvious choice.

Fool me once. The same people whose hair is on fire now about climate change have dressed up in fright masks before. Thirty years ago they were (no joke) enormously agitated about the coming new ice age. From these same precincts (the Club of Rome, 1972) we were warned that the world was rapidly running out of oil, gas, aluminum, lead, zinc, copper, tin, and uranium. (We didn’t.) At the same time, all of the smart people were absolutely convinced that overpopulation was the greatest threat to the globe and to humanity itself. Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, offered in 1980 that “if I were a gambler, I would bet even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” That same year, the Carter administration issued a global forecast predicting that “the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically . . . and the world’s people will be poorer in many ways than they are today.” Um, no.

The scaremongers’ track record is poor. For people who seem to worship Mother Earth, they are oddly arrogant about their ability to understand complex systems like climate. Every day brings new discoveries about the incredibly complicated interplay of oceans, atmospheric gases, algae, wind, plants, animal excretions, solar radiation, and so forth.

The East Anglia e-mails reveal a priesthood becoming more and more hysterical as their certainty evaporates. Like all orthodoxies under duress, they are making war on heresy.

It’s not illegal. But it’s not science.


Related Links:

Washington Post:  Copenhagen’s political science (Sarah Palin)

Reuters: China demands more from rich to unlock climate talks

Chinaview:  Africa to demand compensation at climate change summit

Family Security Matters:  Socialists Demand Trillions in ‘Climate Debt’

Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations

Herald Sun (AU): Climategate: Gore falsifies the record


end

Advertisements