The Golden Thread

Climate Gate
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Shady Groves [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Climate Gate

Tuesday November 3rd, 2009
Copenhagen Treaty is Open Global Government (Wall Street Journal) ... #printMode

We can only hope that world leaders will do nothing more than enjoy a pleasant bicycle ride around the charming streets of Copenhagen come December. For if they actually manage to wring out an agreement based on the current draft text of the Copenhagen climate-change treaty, the world is in for some nasty surprises. Draft text, you say? If you haven't heard about it, that's because none of our otherwise talkative political leaders have bothered to tell us what the drafters have already cobbled together for leaders to consider. And neither have the media.

Enter Lord Christopher Monckton. The former adviser to Margaret Thatcher gave an address at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota, earlier this month that made quite a splash. For the first time, the public heard about the 181 pages, dated Sept. 15, that comprise the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—a rough draft of what could be signed come December.

So far there have been more than a million hits on the YouTube post of his address. It deserves millions more because Lord Monckton warns that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a transnational "government" on a scale the world has never before seen.

The "scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention" that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a "government." The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.

The reason for the power grab is clear enough: Clause after complicated clause of the draft treaty requires developed countries to pay an "adaptation debt" to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that "by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]."

And how will developed countries be slugged to provide for this financial flow to the developing world? The draft text sets out various alternatives, including option seven on page 135, which provides for "a [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties." Annex 1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada.

To be sure, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a U.N. body responsible for implementing treaty obligations. But the difference is that this treaty appears to have been subject to unusual attempts to conceal its convoluted contents. And apart from the difficulty of trying to decipher the U.N. verbiage, there are plenty of draft clauses described as "alternatives" and "options" that should raise the ire of free and democratic countries concerned about preserving their sovereignty.

Lord Monckton himself only became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government when a friend found an obscure U.N. Web site and searched through several layers of hyperlinks before discovering a document that isn't even called the draft "treaty." Instead, it's labelled a "Note by the Secretariat."

Interviewed by broadcaster Alan Jones on Sydney radio Monday, Lord Monckton said "this is the first time I've ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a 'government.' But it's the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening." He added: "The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start—that's even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do."

Critics have admonished Lord Monckton for his colorful language. He has certainly been vigorous. In his exposé of the draft Copenhagen treaty in St. Paul, he warned Americans that "in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever." Yet his critics fail to deal with the substance of what he says.

Ask yourself this question: Given that our political leaders spend hundreds of hours talking about climate change and the need for a global consensus in Copenhagen, why have none of them talked openly about the details of this draft climate-change treaty? After all, the final treaty will bind signatories for years to come. What exactly are they hiding? Thanks to Lord Monckton we now know something of their plans.

Janos Pasztor, director of the Secretary-General's Climate Change Support Team, told reporters in New York Monday that with the U.S. Congress yet to pass a climate-change bill, a global climate-change treaty is now an unlikely outcome in Copenhagen. Let's hope he is right. And thank you, America.

Ms. Albrechtsen is a columnist for the Australian.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Author:  rutsuyasun [ Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Copenhagen Treaty is Open Global Government (Wall Street Jou

Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’ (PJM Exclusive)

The man who challenged Al Gore to a debate is furious about the content of the leaked CRU emails — and says why you should be, too.

November 23, 2009 - by Christopher Monckton

This is what they did — these climate “scientists” on whose unsupported word the world’s classe politique proposes to set up an unelected global government this December in Copenhagen, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all formerly free markets, to tax wealthy nations and all of their financial transactions, to regulate the economic and environmental affairs of all nations, and to confiscate and extinguish all patent and intellectual property rights.

The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.

Worse, these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up. Unfortunately, the British researchers have been acting closely in league with their U.S. counterparts who compile the other terrestrial temperature dataset — the GISS/NCDC dataset. That dataset too contains numerous biases intended artificially to inflate the natural warming of the 20th century.

Finally, these huckstering snake-oil salesmen and “global warming” profiteers — for that is what they are — have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled. And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.

I am angry, and so should you be.

What have the mainstream news media said about the Climategate affair? Remarkably little. The few who have brought themselves to comment, through gritted teeth, have said that all of this is a storm in a teacup, and that their friends in the University of East Anglia and elsewhere in the climatological community are good people, really.

No, they’re not. They’re criminals. With Professor Fred Singer, who founded the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, I have reported them to the UK’s Information Commissioner, with a request that he investigate their offenses and, if thought fit, prosecute. But I won’t be holding my breath: In the police state that Britain has now sadly become, with supine news media largely owned and controlled by the government, the establishment tends to look after its own.

At our expense, and at the expense of the truth. ... exclusive/

Author:  GT Admin [ Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Copenhagen Treaty is Open Global Government (Wall Street Jou

I wonder if we should keep the stolen email story and the Cppenhagen Meeting all in one thread for easy reference..

This sure is shaping up to be one of the biggest scandels ever, One World Government indeed, all backed by the Tree Huggers who don't know their a$$ from a hole in the ground :headbang

Author:  rutsuyasun [ Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Copenhagen Treaty is Open Global Government (Wall Street Jou

Good idea, GT. This is huge, especially if it puts a monkey wrench in the Copenhagen meeting, which it seems now that it will do. It depends on how fast and hard the spin doctors work. They are already spinning the story like a top, trying to cast the hacker in a bad light
(oh, he only picked the suspicious emails to hack
) uh, duh, that's what s/he (male chauvinist spinner) was looking for..........

Author:  Bluebonnet [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:12 am ]
Post subject:  Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal

of our generation

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
Published: 6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009

A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation , rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

Author:  GT Admin [ Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Copenhagen Treaty is Open Global Government (Wall Street Jou

A few weeks ago, hackers broke into the emails of one of the Climate Research Unit of The University of East Anglia, and climate skeptics have been having a field day making mountains out of molehills about what the emails contain. The verdict on global warming is in -- it's caused by humans and it is happening and nothing in the emails remotely challenges that. However, with the internet abuzz about what has been labeled "ClimateGate," we thought we should set the record straight about the rumors, lies and insinuations about what the emails actually contain -- and what they "prove" about climate change. "ClimateGate" itself is a misnomer, the nickname should be "SwiftHack" for the way people with political agendas have "swiftboated" the global warming reality. As world attention turns to the climate conference in Copenhagen this December, this email hack acts as a distraction from the huge task at hand of getting world leaders to commit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As professor Richard Somerville says, "We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public."

Check out our slideshow and pick what you think the most dangerous lie that is being spread by skeptics about the emails.

Manipulating Data


CLAIM: Scientists have manipulated data.

Skeptics have been pointing to an email from scientist Phil Jones where he said he used a "trick" with his data. As climate expert Bob Ward writes, "Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something -- a short cut can be a trick." RealClimate also explained that "the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to ... 'a good way to deal with a problem', rather than something that is 'secret', and so there is nothing problematic in this at all." ... 71223.html

Author:  GT Admin [ Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Climate Gate

Thanks to Selene for the link ... illed.html

Author:  GT Admin [ Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Climate Gate

Anyone see this Video?
Is thsi true or just more bunk?

Author:  GT Admin [ Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Climate Gate

Author:  GT Admin [ Fri Dec 04, 2009 7:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Climate Gate


Gore Cancels Climate Lecture In Copenhagen

COPENHAGEN — Climate campaigner Al Gore has canceled a lecture he was supposed to deliver in Copenhagen.

The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had been scheduled to speak to more than 3,000 people at a Dec. 16 event hosted by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper group.

The group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says the decision was made because of "all the events going on with the summit." Dec. 16 is a key date for the meeting because that's when the ministerial segment starts.

Chief editor Lisbeth Knudsen says it's a "great disappointment" that Gore canceled and that all tickets will be refunded. ... 79645.html

Author:  L2L [ Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Climate Gate

UN Climate Chief: Hacked E-Mails Are Damaging, But Science Is Strong


COPENHAGEN — The world is entering talks on a new climate pact with unprecendented unity and leaders must seize the moment to create a turning point in the battle against global warming, the U.N.'s top climate official said Sunday. At a news conference, Yvo de Boer called on the 192 nations represented at the U.N. climate summit starting Monday "to deliver a strong and long-term response to the challenge of climate change."

Even so, he worried that e-mails pilfered from a British university would fuel skepticism among those who believe that scientists exaggerate global warming.

"I think a lot of people are skeptical about this issue in any case," de Boer told The Associated Press earlier Sunday. "And then when they have the feeling ... that scientists are manipulating information in a certain direction then of course it causes concern in a number of people to say 'you see I told you so, this is not a real issue.'"

E-mails stolen from the climate unit at the University of East Anglia appeared to show some of world's leading scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others' work.

Those who deny the influence of man-made climate change have seized on the correspondence to argue that scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence about global warming.

"This correspondence looks very bad," de Boer said, but noted that the matter was being investigeted by the university, police and the head of the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change. He also defended the research – reviewed by some 2,500 scientists – that shows man has fueled global warming by burning fossil fuels.

"I think this is about the most credible piece of science that there is out there," he said.

U.S. climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing called the science on global warming "very robust, very substantial." He told AP that the controversy surrounding the leaked e-mails came at an "unfortunate" time, just before the long-awaited U.N. talks, "but has no fundamental bearing on the outcome." ... 81698.html

Author:  rutsuyasun [ Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Climate Gate

Editorial - New York Times
Beyond Copenhagen

Published: December 6, 2009

Nobody should expect a planet-saving agreement from the negotiations that begin this week in Copenhagen aimed at reducing global emissions of greenhouse gases. But the talks were in real danger of blowing up not long ago. Now there is a good chance for at least an interim deal, mainly because the United States and China, the world’s two biggest emitters, have promised to reduce or slow their emissions and their two leaders have agreed to attend.

An interim deal would still leave a great deal for President Obama to do, starting with getting Congress to deliver on the promises he is taking to Copenhagen. Mr. Obama has pledged a modest cut of 17 percent over the next 10 years and more aggressive cuts in later decades. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao’s proposal to slow the growth in China’s emissions is considerably less ambitious because energy efficiency measures that China has already put in place should be enough to do the job.

Still, neither country has offered specific goals before. Their 11th-hour willingness to do so could be just enough to persuade the other 190 countries in Copenhagen to take the first step in what is now seen as a two-stage process. It would start with a nonbinding political agreement to reduce emissions and give aid to developing countries. This would be followed by a legal agreement next year with firm targets, enforcement mechanisms and specific dollar amounts for poorer countries.

In other words, the tough slog lies ahead. Copenhagen is all about attitudes and aspirations. Next year will be about results. And there can be no meaningful outcome without the leadership of the United States — second only to China in overall emissions and the biggest emitter by far in terms of per capita emissions.


Here is where the danger lies; a legal agreement among countries that sign the Copenhagen Treaty next year would also have "enforcement mechanisms". IOW, if a country does not comply with the targets it is assigned, they will be "forced" to comply. That country's sovereignty will be caput - non existent. This is what the plan is, though they wanted it this year, but will have to wait now until next year for binding agreements.

Author:  Bluebonnet [ Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Copenhagen climate summit

1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden." :roflmao

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges. :roflmao

At the takeaway pizza end of the spectrum, Copenhagen's clean pavements are starting to fill with slightly less well-scrubbed protesters from all over Europe. In the city's famous anarchist commune of Christiania this morning, among the hash dealers and heavily-graffitied walls, they started their two-week "Climate Bottom Meeting," complete with a "storytelling yurt" and a "funeral of the day" for various corrupt, "heatist" concepts such as "economic growth".

The Danish government is cunningly spending a million kroner (£120,000) to give the protesters KlimaForum, a "parallel conference" in the magnificent DGI-byen sports centre. The hope, officials admit, is that they will work off their youthful energies on the climbing wall, state-of-the-art swimming pools and bowling alley, Just in case, however, Denmark has taken delivery of its first-ever water-cannon – one of the newspapers is running a competition to suggest names for it – plus sweeping new police powers. The authorities have been proudly showing us their new temporary prison, 360 cages in a disused brewery, housing 4,000 detainees.

And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning. :spit

At least the sex will be C02-neutral. According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.

The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.

Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office. :roflmao

Even if they had agreed anything binding, past experience suggests that the participants would not, in fact, feel bound by it. Most countries – Britain excepted – are on course to break the modest pledges they made at the last major climate summit, in Kyoto.

And as the delegates meet, they do so under a shadow. For the first time, not just the methods but the entire purpose of the climate change agenda is being questioned. Leaked emails showing key scientists conspiring to fix data that undermined their case have boosted the sceptic lobby. Australia has voted down climate change laws. Last week's unusually strident attack by the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, on climate change "saboteurs" reflected real fear in government that momentum is slipping away from the cause.

In Copenhagen there was a humbler note among some delegates. "If we fail, one reason could be our overconfidence," said Simron Jit Singh, of the Institute of Social Ecology. "Because we are here, talking in a group of people who probably agree with each other, we can be blinded to the challenges of the other side. We feel that we are the good guys, the selfless saviours, and they are the bad guys."

As Mr Singh suggests, the interesting question is perhaps not whether the climate changers have got the science right – they probably have – but whether they have got the pitch right. Some campaigners' apocalyptic predictions and religious righteousness – funeral ceremonies for economic growth and the like – can be alienating, and may help explain why the wider public does not seem to share the urgency felt by those in Copenhagen this week.

In a rather perceptive recent comment, Mr Miliband said it was vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. "If Martin Luther King had come along and said 'I have a nightmare,' people would not have followed him," he said.

Over the next two weeks, that positive vision may come not from the overheated rhetoric in the conference centre, but from Copenhagen itself. Limos apart, it is a city filled entirely with bicycles, stuffed with retrofitted, energy-efficient old buildings, and seems to embody the civilised pleasures of low-carbon living without any of the puritanism so beloved of British greens.

And inside the hall, not everything is looking bad. Even the sudden rush for limos may be a good sign. It means that more top people are coming, which means they scent something could be going right here.

The US, which rejected Kyoto, is on board now, albeit too tentatively for most delegates. President Obama's decision to stay later in Copenhagen may signal some sort of agreement between America and China: a necessity for any real global action, and something that could be presented as a "victory" for the talks.

The hot air this week will be massive, the whole proceedings eminently mockable, but it would be far too early to write off this conference as a failure.

Author:  rutsuyasun [ Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Copenhagen climate summit

Webb warns Obama on taking action in Copenhagen

By Kerry Picket on Dec. 2, 2009 into Water Cooler

* Subscribe

**UPDATE December 7, 2009

When asked about the recent Environment Protection Agency's endangerment finding of CO2, Senator Webb told the Washington Times and others today on Capitol Hill, "I think we need to go back and look at the Supreme Court decision in which the EPA asserts that it has that authority, because it is a derived power based on legislation, and it is a limited power. I don't think the administration can agree to anything, for instance, in Copenhagen on an endagerment finding that was based on one piece legislation in a Supreme Court decision."


December 2, 2009

Looks like a fellow Democrat has concern with the president's handling of the the cap and trade issue upon Mr. Obama's trip to Copenhagen. Senator Jim Webb (D - Va.) wrote to the administration last week warning President Obama that the White House does not have unilateral power to commit the United States to any standards agreed upon at the upcoming climate change conference in Denmark.:

Dear Mr. President:

I would like to express my concern regarding reports that the Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon at the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The phrase “politically binding” has been used.

Although details have not been made available, recent statements by Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern indicate that negotiators may be intending to commit the United States to a nationwide emission reduction program. As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.

I would very much appreciate having this matter clarified in advance of the Copenhagen meetings.


Jim Webb
United States Senator

Senator Webb's office told the Washington Times Water Cooler the president has not replied back in writing, and the decision to write the president a letter on this issue comes from Mr. Webb's concern about issues of constitutional checks and balances. ... openhagen/

Author:  Mikulus [ Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Copenhagen climate summit

My local paper states that the EPA doesn't need congress approval to implement standards that will cost America's industry billions of dollars. Expect your electric bill to go up by $1,000 or higher at years (2010 or 2011) end if this cap and trade goes through. Also expect more industry to head to China, who will not agree to these standards, since electricity for production will be cheaper there. Also, these plans have been produced and laid out for years so "Climategate" will not stop them. "Climategate" will only show how steadfast these politicians are with securing more power and taxation without representation.

Author:  cartoonsyndicate [ Tue Dec 08, 2009 10:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Climate Gate

Expect your electric bill to go up by $1,000
Then I suggest you use $2000 less electricity and you'll be way ahead of the curve. Isn't that the point?

Author:  L2L [ Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Climate Gate

Author:  L2L [ Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Climate Gate

No big surprise that the US MSM are trying to debunk this story :headbang :flame :rant

Author:  rutsuyasun [ Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Climate Gate

EU nations commit $3.6 billion to climate fund

(AP) – 3 hours ago

BRUSSELS — EU leaders say they have agreed to commit euro2.4 billion ($3.6 billion) a year until 2012 to help poorer countries combat global warming.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy says the offer "puts Europe in a leadership role in Copenhagen."

All 27 members of the European Union agreed on the figure after two days of difficult talks at a summit in Brussels.

Sarkozy also said Friday the leaders agreed to reduce their emissions by 30 percent of 1990 levels by 2020. In the past EU leaders have pledged a 20 percent cut with an option to cut to 30 percent if other parts of the world will make the same kind of contribution.

The climate money is meant to go toward a global $10 billion annual fund for short-term help to poor countries.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

BRUSSELS (AP) — EU nations will commit more than euro2 billion ($3 billion) a year to help poorer countries combat global warming, the leaders of Britain and France said Friday as they sought to bolster climate talks in Copenhagen.

Britain's Gordon Brown and France's Nicolas Sarkozy said their two countries would contribute most of that sum and were trying to get smaller members of the 27-state European Union to pitch in more at an EU summit in Brussels ending Friday.

EU leaders failed Thursday to come up with a firm figure for the fund, an embarrassing setback for a bloc that was long at the forefront of the fight against global warming. Smaller eastern EU states are reluctant to donate as they struggle with government debt and rising unemployment in the wake of the financial crisis.

The climate money is meant to go toward a global $10 billion annual fund for short-term help to poor countries, particularly in Africa, adapt to the effects of global warming before a new climate treaty being negotiated in Copenhagen comes into force in 2012.

"There are few moments in history when nations are summoned to common decisions that will reshape the lives of men and women potentially for generations to come," Brown said.

He said the Copenhagen talks should pave the way to an ambitious and legally binding global treaty within six months.

The money would help poorer countries build coastal protection, modify or shift crops threatened by drought, build water supplies and irrigation systems, preserve forests, improve health care to deal with diseases spread by warming, and move from fossil fuel to low-carbon energy systems, such as solar and wind power.

Brown said Britain had increased earlier pledges to 1.2 billion pounds ($1.95 billion) over the next three years, but left the possibility open of increasing that to 1.5 billion pounds ($2.44 billion) if need be at the climate change talks next week. France will contribute euro1.26 billion ($1.85 billion) over the next three years but it was unclear whether it could go higher at Copenhagen.

Germany, the most powerful economy in the EU, has not given any specific figure but is expected to pay about 20 percent of the EU total.

The $10 billion-a-year in short-term funds pales in comparison to the huge stimulus packages and bank bailouts paid by many governments in the wake of the global financial meltdown. But those economic woes are a big reason why many in Europe are reluctant to pay in even to a small global climate fund.

Brown said Europe will also pay its "fair share" of the much heavier long-term costs, estimated up to $100 billion a year after 2020.

Brown and Sarkozy also said they were hoping to get all EU members to agree to reducing carbon emissions by 30 percent from 1990 levels by 2020.

Two years ago, the EU was ahead of the pack when it pledged to cut 20 percent of emissions from 1990 levels by 2020 and to increase that to 30 percent if other big polluters made similar promises. Japan and Russia have now outpaced Europe with 25 percent cuts. The U.S. is promising a 3 percent reduction from 1990 levels.

At Thursday's talks, 17 of the EU's 27 members came up with offers of money for the short-term fund but came up short of the targets leaders were seeking. Activists accused EU leaders of ceding their leadership role.

On Friday, the leaders will also discuss the West's nuclear standoff with Iran and Tehran's violent suppression of pro-democracy protests, and pledge support for President Barack Obama's plans to send more troops to Afghanistan. ... wD9CH31SG0

Author:  rutsuyasun [ Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Climate Gate

Hundreds detained at mass climate rally in Copenhagen
Protesters demand global pact but national interests trump everything
Associated Press
Page 3
2009-12-14 12:00 AM

Tens of thousands of protesters marched through the chilly Danish capital and 600 were detained Saturday, in a mass rally to demand an ambitious global climate pact just as talks hit a snag over rich nations' demands on China and other emerging economies.

The mostly peaceful demonstrations in Copenhagen provided the centerpiece of a day of global climate activism stretching from Europe to Asia. Police assigned extra officers to watch protesters marching toward the suburban conference center to demand that leaders act now to fight climate change.

Police estimated their numbers at 40,000, while organizers said as many as 100,000 had joined the march from downtown Copenhagen. It ended with protesters holding aloft candles and torches as they swarmed by night outside the Bella Center where the 192-nation U.N. climate conference is being held.

Police said they rounded up between 600 and 700 people in a preventive action against a group of youth activists at the tail end of the demonstration. Officers in riot gear moved in when some of the activists, masking their faces, threw cobblestones through the windows of the former stock exchange and Foreign Ministry buildings.

A police officer received minor injuries when he was hit by a rock thrown from the group and one protester was injured by fireworks, police spokesman Flemming Steen Munch said.

Earlier, police said they had detained 19 people, mainly for breaking Denmark's strict laws against carrying pocket knives or wearing masks during demonstrations.

Inside the Bella Center, the European Union, Japan and Australia joined the U.S. in criticizing a draft global warming pact that says major developing nations must rein in greenhouse gases, but only if they have outside financing. Rich nations want to require developing nations to limit emissions, with or without financial help.

Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren, representing the 27-nation EU, told reporter that "there has been a growing understanding that there must be commitments to actions by emerging economies as well."

He said those commitments "must be binding, in the sense that states are standing behind their commitments."

Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said his country - the world's No. 5 greenhouse gas polluter - will not offer more than its current pledge to slow its growth rate of emissions. It has offered to cut greenhouse gases measured against production by 20 to 25 percent by 2020.

"National interest trumps everything else," Ramesh told reporter. "Whatever I have to do, I've said in my Parliament. We'll engage them (the U.S. and China). I'm not here to make new offers." ... ws_Society

Author:  rutsuyasun [ Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Climate Gate

December 14, 2009
Copenhagen stalls decision on catastrophic climate change for six years

The key decision on preventing catastrophic climate change will be delayed for up to six years if the Copenhagen summit delivers a compromise deal which ignores advice from the UN’s science body.

World leaders will not agree on the emissions cuts recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and are likely instead to commit to reviewing them in 2015 or 2016.

The delay will anger developing countries who, scientists say, will face the worst effects of climate change despite having contributed relatively little of the man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

A draft text published by the UN says that there should be a review in 2016, which could result in an “update of the long-term global goal for emissions reductions as well as of the adequacy of commitments and actions”.

The Times has learnt that negotiators from developed countries are planning to use the idea of a review to justify failing to agree the 25-40 per cent cut in the 1990 level of emissions by 2020, recommended by the IPCC.

Even the most ambitious provisional offers made by all the countries amount to a reduction of only 18 per cent.

Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, said leaders would be unable to deliver a deal in line with what the IPCC had recommended.

In an interview yesterday with The Times in Copenhagen, he said: “It would be a big mistake if we failed to get an agreement because we didn’t meet the highest expectations people have.

“Get the agreement, get it under way, and then understand you will inevitably have to change and adjust as you proceed.

“If you actually manage to cut emissions by 18 per cent by 2020, you would have made a very, very big change in the way economies work,” he said, before adding: “Don’t let the best be the enemy of the good.”

A joint report by Mr Blair’s office and the Climate Group, an environmental body backed by some of the world’s biggest companies, including BP, HSBC and Google, said that, even if all the provisional offers were delivered, emissions of CO2 in 2020 would still be 5 billion tonnes higher than the atmosphere could safely accommodate.

This would mean that global temperature would rise more than 2C above pre-industrial levels, with the result that large parts of the world would become uninhabitable.

The joint report, published yesterday, proposed a review of targets in 2015 to allow “scaling up of ambition”.

Countries are unlikely to improve on their provisional offers over the next five days, because the US has made clear it will not be raising its own relatively weak provisional target for cutting emissions.

President Obama has offered to cut US emissions by 4 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, subject to approval by the US Congress. The EU has committed to a 20 per cent cut over the same time scale, but said it would raise this to 30 per cent if other countries made comparable efforts.

Mr Blair discussed Mr Obama’s offer last week with Todd Stern, the US chief climate negotiator, and agreed that the focus should be on accelerating US emissions cuts in the decade after 2020 rather than before.

Mr Blair said that, while the scientific evidence of man-made global warming was very strong, it was much less clear how quickly temperatures would rise.

“When you come to very precise dates, percentages and so on [. . .] then the figures are somewhat more fudgeable.

“The important thing is to give a clear direction out of this conference. Don’t fixate on the precise percentage,” he said.

A source close to Britain’s negotiating team said Britain would continue to press publicly for a deal in line with the IPCC’s recommendation, but acknowledged that the targets emerging from the summit would need to be reconsidered at a later date.

Bernarditas Muller, lead negotiator for the G77 and China group of developing countries, said putting off the most difficult decisions on emissions cuts would be a betrayal of commitments made by rich countries under the UN Climate Convention.

“Developing countries have the most to lose if we do not agree a just and ambitious outcome in Copenhagen. We are simply asking developed countries, ‘Don’t shirk your responsibilities. Just do what you have already agreed to do under the Climate Convention’.”

Smaller developing countries were excluded yesterday from a meeting in Copenhagen of environment ministers from about 40 countries.

Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said after the meeting: “We’re now getting close to midnight in this negotiation and we need to act like it.

“That means more urgency to solve problems, not just identify them, more willingness to shift from entrenched positions and more ambitious commitments.”

The Prince of Wales will address the summit tomorrow and Gordon Brown will meet other leaders in Copenhagen on Wednesday.

About 120 Prime Ministers and Presidents will attend the final day of the summit on Friday. ... 955237.ece

Author:  rutsuyasun [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Climate Gate

Copenhagen: China Says Population Control Key To Global-Warming Deal

December 12, 2009 at 6:19 pm (Uncategorized)

According to the free speech bastion “China Daily – China’s Global Newspaper” worldwide population control is the key to striking a deal on a global-warming treaty.

Ah…Copenhagen. I’m sure the Danes are proud of their global-warming summit, but the rhetoric is getting pretty scary.

Zhao Baige is a member of the chinese delegation in Denmark, and she’s proud of her nation’s population control laws. “Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction,” she says, “but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture.”

As I pointed out a couple days ago, every living human is a veritable CO2 factory. Folks like China’s dictators, and Obama’s science advisor John Holdren, see that as a problem we can fix with forced sterilization, forced abortion, and governments who confiscate children.

The United Nations is in agreement. According to a 2009 report from the UN Population Fund, “Calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 percent of emissions growth.” The report goes on to claim that if we could just halt population growth, “it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions.”

For years, China has had stringent laws in place aimed at reducing the population growth by limiting the number or children a family can have, and aborting pregnancies that would result in the birth of more girls.

Zhao Baige defends her government’s practices. “I’m not saying that what we have done is 100 percent right, but I’m sure we are going in the right direction,” she said, “now 1.3 billion people have benefited.”

Unfortunately, the “benefits” provided by the draconian measures seem to be minimal at best, since despite them, China is still the world’s number one polluter.

So, just to sum up, the world’s most polluting nation wants to limit the number of kids youhave, Obama’s science advisor has a plan to help with that, and if you want twins, you’d better hurry the hell up. The world has no intention of indulging your selfish, planet-destroying, multi-child wishes.

Author:  L2L [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Climate Gate

rutsuyasun wrote:
For years, China has had stringent laws in place aimed at reducing the population growth by limiting the number or children a family can have, and aborting pregnancies that would result in the birth of more girls.
Zhao Baige defends her government’s practices. “I’m not saying that what we have done is 100 percent right, but I’m sure we are going in the right direction,” she said, “now 1.3 billion people have benefited.”

Don't ya just love the Chinese Propoganda machine :crazy

Of course they do not mention the thousands of families who lost their only child in the last big quake and now cannot have another kid becasue of these retarded laws :shakehead

Author:  Bluebonnet [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Climate Gate

Second dumb question of the day - why are China and India still considered "developing countries?" Ya kidding me?

China, India bring climate talks to halt
Bloc of developing countries demands greater cuts by industrialized nations
The Associated Press
updated 8:07 a.m. CT, Mon., Dec . 14, 2009

COPENHAGEN - China, India and other developing nations blocked U.N. climate talks on Monday, bringing negotiations to a halt with their demand that rich countries discuss much deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.

Representatives from developing countries — a bloc of 135 nations — said they refused to participate in any working groups at the 192-nation summit until the issue was resolved.

The move was a setback for the Copenhagen talks, which were already faltering over long-running disputes between rich and poor nations over emissions cuts and financing for developing countries to deal with climate change.

The dispute came as the conference entered its second week, and only days before over 100 world leaders, including President Barack Obama, were scheduled to arrive in Copenhagen.

"Nothing is happening at this moment," Zia Hoque Mukta, a delegate from Bangladesh, told The Associated Press. He said developing countries have demanded that conference president Connie Hedegaard bring the industrial nations' emissions targets to the top of the agenda before talks can resume.

'We have lost faith'
Poor countries, supported by China, say Hedegaard had raised suspicion that the conference was likely to kill the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which limited carbon emissions by wealthy countries and imposed penalties for failing to meet those targets.

Poor countries want to extend that treaty because it commits rich nations to emissions cuts but doesn't make any legally binding requirements on developing countries. The United States would never support that, since it balked at signing Kyoto in the first place over concerns that China, India and other major greenhouse gas emitters were not required to take action.

"Trust is a major issue. We have lost faith," in Hedegaard, Mukta said.

An African delegate said developing countries decided to block the negotiations at a meeting hours before the conference was to resume. He was speaking on condition of anonymity because the meeting was held behind closed doors. He said applause broke out every time China, India or another country supported the proposal to stall the talks.

U.N. climate chief Yvo De Boer said Hedegaard was holding informal consultations with delegates "to get things going."

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office said he would arrive in Copenhagen on Tuesday — two days earlier than previously planned — in an attempt to inject momentum into the climate talks.

"His view is that these negotiations can't wait until the last minute. He believes that we have learnt the lessons from the G-20, that it takes leadership to get involved and try to pull together what is required as soon as possible," Brown's spokesman Simon Lewis told reporters in London.

Lewis denied that Brown — facing a national election by June — was seeking personal credit if a deal is struck. "He is not seeking to push himself forward, but he has taken a personal view that it is important that, if world leaders can, they should get there early," the spokesman said.

Earlier Monday, British Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said it's up to him and his counterparts in Copenhagen to help bridge that gap between rich and poor countries and "not to leave everything" to the 100 world leaders who start arriving Wednesday.

"There are still difficult issues of process and substance that we have to overcome in the coming days," Miliband said. "Can we get the emission cuts we need? We need higher ambition from others and we will be pushing for that."

Smashed windows, vandalism
Meanwhile, police were on the lookout for new protests in the city center, where more than 1,200 people were detained this weekend. Almost all of them were released after questioning. About a dozen were arraigned on preliminary charges of assaulting police officers or carrying box-cutters or other sharp objects. There were sporadic reports of vandalism across the city overnight Monday.

Police spokesman Henrik Moeller Jakobsen said 12 cars had been set on fire including three vehicles belonging to Danish power company Dong Energy. Vandals also smashed windows and threw red paint at the headquarters of the Danish Immigration Service. It was not immediately clear whether those attacks were related to the climate conference.

On Sunday, closed-door consultations focused on about a half-dozen plans on financing for poor countries to deal with climate change. One joint proposal by Mexico and Norway calls for a "Green Fund" for climate financing, starting with $10 billion a year in 2013, and increasing to $30 billion to $40 billion a year by 2020

Separately, a proposal aimed at saving the world's tropical forests suffered a setback Sunday, when negotiators ditched plans for faster action on the problem because of concerns that rich countries aren't willing to finance the plan. A deal on deforestation — a sizable global warming factor — is considered a key component of the larger pact.

Author:  L2L [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Climate Gate

Thats a very good question Blue..

I received an email from a mutual friend of mine & the GT Admin's I see its not posted in the View From the West area so I might as well post it here as it fits right in.


Pure rage

I'm no longer offended,my reaction has turn to pure RAGE as I watch the environment ministers for Quebec and Ontario seek to further divide this country at Copenhagen. It's bad enough that Miller shoots off his mouth in his criticisms of Canada and its environmental record but to have the other two fools drive a wedge into confederation is virtually treasonous.
Quebec,with its wealth of hydro electric power can take the high road and call for further cuts to emissions. Alas they have no more places to cut. They don't have much industry.
Ontario is a different kettle of fish. Go ahead you fools make some more cuts. Destroy the industry that's left!
Of course all their vitriol is directed at the tar sands. The tar sands that contribute .5% of the worlds carbon emissions. The tar sands which have kept the moribund economies of the Maritimes from completely tanking through dollars sent home by Marimers working there. The tar sands that have keep Quebec's gold plated social programs alive and well through transfer payments.
If one reads the blogs on this topic,Westerners are enraged by this cabal of fools and of course the familiar cry of "let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark" once again resounds west of the Manitoba border. Who can blame them?
You can bet that when the next set of transfer payments are negotiated,the West will be far less generous,if the country even survives. What the fools in Ontario and Quebec don't realize is that they DON'T need us as as much as we need them. Trade in Saskatchewan and Alberta flows north south,not east west. Oil and raw materials flow south to the USA and west to China, while manufactured stuff comes north from the same USA and east from China. So you tell me what anyone in Calgary or Regina gets from TRANA except a lot of talk about moral superiority and blow back.
Of course McGinty is too stupid to see that he may need some of this Westerner cash as the province teeters towards bankruptcy and Charest may live to see some of his social engineering bite the dust and the aggrieved frogs rise in anger. Then we'll see who has the last laugh.


He followed that up with this email


Listen Up

Ok listen up you holier than thou types. Here's some stats for ya. In terms of carbon emissions our fair land is ranked 8th and we produce 1.9% of total world's carbon emissions. The only country you can compare us to is Russia in terms of land mass and far flung urban centres. They produce 5.5% of world emissions. So perhaps you'd like to ask the people in Regina and Winnipeg to turn down their thermostats when its minus 35 out there. Or stop importing produce from California and Chile-sure we can lower that some more!
Something else that might just interst you, is our ecological foot print. The worst ecological footprint is from the United Arab Emirates. Amazingly the greener than thou Danes came in fourth and Canada was 9th. Now that's nothing to boast about but I sure didn't see any Greenpeace types or Al Gore types protesting about the Emirates. So you guys at Copenhagen keep beating that "dollars for dictators drum" and make all Gore a billionaire after all he did win the Nobel Prize.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group