Marlo Lewis skriver i Global Warming.org om, hvad der er udråbt til klodens varmeste år i målingernes historie ifølge de data man har fra jordbaserede målestationer med traditionelle termometre. Men der er andre og bedre målemetoder

According to NOAA, the 2014 temperature in the troposphere was the third highest in the 1979-2014 record, as analyzed by the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) satellite program, and the sixth highest on record, as analyzed by the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite program.

So why don’t the agencies’ press releases proclaim 2014 the third or sixth warmest year? Or just say that it was one of the warmest in the instrumental record? Perhaps because “warmest on record” feeds the sense of crisis, which helps feed agency budgets. Notice the self-promotional aspect of NASA’s press release: “The observed long-term warming trend and the ranking of 2014 as the warmest year on record reinforces the importance for NASA to study Earth as a complete system, and particularly to understand the role and impacts of human activity.”

Even based on surface station records alone, 2014 may not be a record breaker. James Hansen of Columbia University and colleagues who analyzed the data estimate that 2014 is only 0.02ºC warmer than 2010 and 0.03ºC warmer than 2005, making all three years a “statistical tie.”

According to the Climatic Research Unit of the UK Met Office, the margin of error in estimating global surface temperature is 0.1ºC. That is five times larger than the increment by which 2014 supposedly surpassed 2010.

So how certain are NOAA and NASA that 2014 was in fact the warmest year? NOAA assigns a probability of 48%; NASA, a probability of 38%.

Og som en god perspektivering vedlægger han denne graf, hvor målinger foretaget henholdsvis med ballon og og satellit holdes op imod de modeller, som FNs Klimapanel bruger til at afspejle deres teorier

Der er nogle åbenbare problemer med traditionelle målestationer fordi de kun er nogle få tusinde punkter spredt over hele jordens landmasse (nogle skal måle områder på størrelse med Ungarn). Derudover kan der være omskiftelige lokalforhold, som bebyggelse, der ændrer præmisserne for målingerne. Til at kompensere bruger man store og avancerede statistiske forarbejdninger, der i sig selv også er følsomme. Men ikke nok med det, så frister de mange komplicerede dataset også svage sjæle til at hjælpe fortællingen eller advarslen om man vil mere på vej i de obskure dele af de indsamlede data. Christopher Booker skriver i Telegraph om endnu en lurende skandale i den langstrakte klimadebat om, hvorfor de faste målestationer er mere alarmerende end de bedre ballon målinger og overlegne satellit målinger

Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.

Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.

Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.

But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.

Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world’s scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.

How have we come to be told that global temperatures have suddenly taken a great leap upwards to their highest level in 1,000 years? In fact, it has been no greater than their upward leaps between 1860 and 1880, and 1910 and 1940, as part of that gradual natural warming since the world emerged from its centuries-long “Little Ice Age” around 200 years ago.

This belief has rested entirely on five official data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth’s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).

(…)

An early glaring instance of this was spotted by Steve McIntyre, the statistician who exposed the computer trickery behind that famous “hockey stick” graph, beloved by the IPCC, which purported to show that, contrary to previous evidence, 1998 had been the hottest year for 1,000 years. It was McIntyre who, in 2007, uncovered the wholesale retrospective adjustments made to US surface records between 1920 and 1999 compiled by Giss (then run by the outspoken climate activist James Hansen). These reversed an overall cooling trend into an 80-year upward trend. Even Hansen had previously accepted that the “dust bowl” 1930s was the hottest US decade of the entire 20th century.

Assiduous researchers have since unearthed countless similar examples across the world, from the US and Russia to Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, an 80-year cooling of 1 degree per century was turned into a warming trend of 2.3 degrees. In New Zealand, there was a major academic row when “unadjusted” data showing no trend between 1850 and 1998 was shown to have been “adjusted” to give a warming trend of 0.9 degrees per century. This falsified new version was naturally cited in an IPCC report (see “New Zealand NIWA temperature train wreck” on the Watts Up With That science blog, WUWT, which has played a leading role in exposing such fiddling of the figures).

(…)

One of the more provocative points arising from the debate over those claims that 2014 was “the hottest year evah” came from the Canadian academic Dr Timothy Ball when, in a recent post on WUWT, he used the evidence of ice-core data to argue that the Earth’s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of all those recorded since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago.

James Delingpole skriver også om det i Spectator. Som en af tvivlens medløbere vil jeg præsentere en 5 år gammel film (som jeg ikke har kunnet finde gratis førend nu).

Not Evil Just Wrong is a 2009 documentary film by Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer that challenges Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth by suggesting that the evidence of global warming is inconclusive and that the impact global warming legislation will have on industry is much more harmful to humans than beneficial.

Fordi filmmagasinet Indiewire skriver at medierne selvfølgelig “contributes to the charade in its insistence that it is only “fair” to give equal weight to each “side.”” vil vi her reklamere lidt for klimafilmen om tvivlens købmænd. De, der fordrejer hovedet på almindelige mennesker ved at så tvivl om det, der for videnskaben er den indlysende sandhed. Og fordi folks fordrejedehoveder ikke anerkender den indlysende sandhed, kan politikerne ikke gribe ind og styre samfundet, ja Verdenssamfundet endda, væk fra den uundgåelige katastrofe. Alt sammen så nogle ansigtsløse firmaer kan tjene penge. De skiderikker.

“The Merchants of Doubt” takes aim at the spin masters who, following a playbook established by the big cigarette companies, use their corporate might to cast spurious doubt on the reality of climate change.  Masquerading as grass roots efforts, but in fact funded by the oil and gas industry, these duplicitous corporate campaigns have been   infuriatingly successful in forestalling any action on climate change.  More research needs to be done…we don’t really know if global warming is man made… there are two sides to every story… so the mantra of disinformation goes, when in fact  the scientific community is nearly unanimous on the subject.  The media, of course, contributes to the charade in its insistence that it is only “fair” to give equal weight to each “side.”  While a lot of this will be familiar to the documentary audience,  Kenner’s polished and deftly argued film finds compelling subjects on both sides of the fence, from the proudly sleazy Marc Morano, who boasts of his underhanded tactics to discredit the science, to the touching figure of South Carolina Republican Congressman Bob Inglis,  who, faced with the evidence,  reversed his position on global warming and fought for change – with devastating political repurcussions to his career.

Fra We Got This covered

Merchants of Doubt, the latest doc from Food, Inc. director Robert Kenner, is a sometimes fascinating but mostly shallow and repetitive glimpse at how a few powerful corporations and think tanks have manipulated the public through cunning PR. It is inspired by a 2010 non-fiction book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, which argues that a few people with special interests are altering public opinion around climate change, thus delaying how we solve this issue. That is an important topic for discussion; however, Merchants of Doubt is an incomplete doc.

Kenner compares the public ignorance surrounding the perils of climate change to the warnings over tobacco in the mid-20th century. The heads of tobacco companies knew that smoking caused cancer and heart disease, but hid these facts from the press and the public. In a similar way, the heads of companies that can be hurt by an environmentally conscious movement will try to move attention away from scientific data. Instead, these corporations send out “merchants of doubt” to convince people that the climate change is exaggerated or that there is “no consensus” within the scientific community.

At moments throughout Merchants of Doubt, Kenner sits down with some of these titular manipulators, but he never asks the tough questions. When the director should be leading the interview to uncover the root of deception of people like Marc Morano, he is swindled by the charm of charismatic talking heads. As he tries to side his audience against the skeptics, Kenner ends up using the same tactics that they do.

Fra Crave Online

Merchants of Doubt puts climate change denial in strong context, comparing its tactics to the tobacco industry. We all agree it was wrong to say cigarettes were healthy, let alone that they don’t cause cancer. Now that we’ve all learned they were selling something hazardous, we can objectively understand the tactics. Hint: If Morton Downey, Jr. claims he smokes four packs a day and he’s fine, don’t be like Morton Downey, Jr.

(…)

Fake experts earn a very good living as talking heads for cable news debate shows. Marc Morano seems to be the most aggressive, bullying the scientists he debates so that he “wins.” Hey, if a nerd in a suit can’t trade barbs, surely climate change isn’t real. And there is science’s weakness. Scientists, by their own admission in the film, are not media savvy. They may even be anti-social, but we can forgive people who can’t come out of their shell.

The premise is that Morano is the fun one, the party boy who gets all the good college kids to stop all their boring studying. I don’t think yelling is fun though. Morano is proud of himself for putting scientists’ personal e-mail addresses online so his followers can send them threatening, abusive messages. He even admits he’s only trying to make the pro-climate change side miserable. “We’re the negative force,” he says, “trying to stop stuff.” So there you have it: not contributing anything good, just trying to take away other people’s efforts. Now sure, some bad ideas have to be stopped, but Morano is less about ideology than just being a troublemaker.

Og nu man har tvivlens købmænds velvillige indrømmelser så er deres terrorvælde vel slut?

For en del år tilbage efterhånden blev fremtidige engelske vintre aflyst og ville være at minde man fortalte sine forundrede børn. Det var den logiske konklusion på den globale opvarmning. Derpå væltede sneen ned de følgende år. Det var ligeledes den kontraintuitive følge af global opvarmning. For at tage endnu et spring i logikken, så blev det arabiske forår også til af den globale opvarmning. Og da den globale opvarmning insisterede slog det arabiske forår direkte over i det arabiske efterår uden nogen sommer. Nu ser det ud som om den globale opvarmning er løbet helt løbsk og skabt den arabiske vinter fortæller Huffington Post

As the Obama administration undertakes a highly public, multilateral campaign to degrade and destroy the militant jihadists known as ISIS, ISIL and the Islamic State, many in the West remain unaware that climate played a significant role in the rise of Syria’s extremists. A historic drought afflicted the country from 2006 through 2010, setting off a dire humanitarian crisis for millions of Syrians. Yet the four-year drought evoked little response from Bashar al-Assad’s government. Rage at the regime’s callousness boiled over in 2011, helping to fuel the popular uprising. In the ensuing chaos, ISIS stole onto the scene, proclaimed a caliphate in late June and accelerated its rampage of atrocities including the recent beheadings of three Western civilians.

While ISIS threatens brutal violence against all who dissent from its harsh ideology, climate change menaces communities (less maliciously) with increasingly extreme weather. Most of us perceive these threats as unrelated. We recycle water bottles and buy local produce to keep the earth livable for our children — not to ward off terrorists. Yet environmental stressors and political violence are connected in surprising ways, sparking questions about collective behavior. If more Americans knew how glacial melt contributes to catastrophic weather in Afghanistan — potentially strengthening the Taliban and imperiling Afghan girls who want to attend school — would we drive more hybrids and use millions fewer plastic bags? How would elections and legislation be influenced?

The drought that preceded the current conflict in Syria fits into a pattern of increased dryness in the Mediterranean and Middle East, for which scientists hold climate change partly responsible.

Daniel Greenfield forklarer glimrende venstrefløjens tilsyneladende autistiske logik i Frontpage Magazine

It’s all a matter of how you connect the dots.

Democrats think that Global Warming is a bigger threat to America than Al Qaeda. That’s the profitable notion that Al Gore has been selling for some time. When ISIS began making headlines, lefty publications scurried to explain how ISIS had been caused by Global Warming. If you can’t get rid of ISIS, you can always promise to make it go away with another few billion for Bay Area Green Tech liberal donors.

That’s why Homeland Security is focusing on Global Warming. Why bother with Islam when the root cause of Islamic terrorism turns out to be neither Islam nor terrorism, but your failure to buy recycled toilet paper and pay much higher prices for energy. Instead of droning ISIS, we will drone on about sustainable sustainability and how eagles would rather be killed by wind turbines than by oil spills.

Ideas are roads to conclusion and conclusions lead to policies. If you want to control the policy, you have to control where the roads go. The media narratives are roads. If you take them, you can never reach the right conclusions because they just don’t go there. The media’s map of America has highways going from climate change to marriage equality to death panels. The policies we end up with are based on that map and the policies determine where all the money and the power end up.

If Islamic terrorism is a major threat then the money will go to defense contractors and security consultants, to building more drones and bombs. That means guys named Earl and Amos who wear sunglasses and have a background in the Agency and the Mossad are suddenly in demand. Transguys named Meaghan and Tad who wear retro eyeglasses ironically and did their thesis on using non-linear histrionic narratives to educate inner city children about climate change suddenly have to get real jobs.

But if Global Warming is a major threat, then money goes to environmental consultancies and non-profits, to propaganda for education and the arts, to Green Tech companies and Wall Street. And the consultants, bureaucrats and regulators gain a vast suite of expanded domestic and international powers. Meaghan and Tad are back and running every aspect of your life through their gigs at some non-profit you never heard of funded by a family foundation with Ford or Rockefeller in its name.

The War on Terror expanded the powers of domestic law enforcement, but it’s nothing compared to what the War for the Environment has done to the power of every bureaucrat large and small to raise your heating bill, outlaw your washing machine, eliminate your water supply and root through your trash. If you thought the TSA was bad, the carbon regime puts a carbon footprint value on everything you do from driving to the grocery store to buying a beer to viewing this website.

And then it decides which of your behaviors have to be changed and how.

Global Warming and the War on Terror empower different parts of the government and the assorted consultants and contractors who plug into them. Those people not only have political differences, but also major cultural differences. It’s no wonder that the media, whose writers, producers and talent are culturally a lot closer to Meaghan and Tad than to Earl and Amos, favors their narrative.

The Warmist side of government is also the more liberal side. The side that bombs ISIS doesn’t even understand why anyone would stand on line for two hours to buy fair trade artisanal pancakes.

A shift to the terror side of the dial means restrictions on immigration, more strong male role models and more domestic oil drilling. Tilt to the Warmist side and the emphasis is on letting Meaghan and Tad decide what you can buy, where you can live and whether you can live.

However only one of these crises is real and it isn’t the one that involves the planet burning up, the polar bears riding surfboards to San Francisco and Al Gore revealing that he was sent as a messenger from a distant alien civilization to convince us to change our ways. But that has never mattered before.

The left has a long history of diverting attention from real problems by inventing urgent crises.

I 1933 var den også gal, som Climate Depot minder os om

Frederikshavn byråd har givet tilladelse til prøveboringer af skiffergas. Og det er man ikke glade for på venstrefløjen, hvor Modkraft argumenterede således

Et af hovedproblemerne ved udvindingen af skifergas er, at der i udvindingsprocessen er et udslip af metan til atmosfæren på mellem 3-7 %.

Metan er 20-30 gange mere potent end CO2 i forhold til den globale opvarmning.

Den nyeste rapport fra IPCC, FN’s klimapanel, har netop slået fast, at metangasser er endnu værre end først antaget.

Derudover viser erfaringerne fra andre lande, at udvindingen af skifergas kan føre til forurening af grundvand, ødelæggelse af miljø og lokalsamfund, og at udvinding af skifergas desuden fjerner fokus fra den nødvendige omstilling fra fossiler til vedvarende energiformer.

Udvinding af skifergas kræver ekstreme mængder af ferskvand, kemikalier, og vil desuden generere en massiv lastbilstrafik.

Ved kommerciel udvinding af skifergas vil der være brug for højt specialiseret arbejdskraft, der sandsynligvis vil komme fra Frankrig, derudover skal der bruges et antal lastbilchauffører.

Om den arbejdskraft vil blive hentet lokalt, er et åbent spørgsmål.

Da den globale temperatur ikke er steget de seneste 17 år kan man glemme hele klimaargumentet og i stedet bekymre sig om nærmiljøet. Faktisk er skiffergas bedre for CO2 regnskabet end de grønne løsninger argumenterer Lomborg i Forbes

Compare this to the fact that all the wind turbines and solar panels in the world reduce CO? emissions, at a maximum, by 275 Mt. In other words, the US shale gas revolution has by itself reduced global emissions more than all the well-intentioned solar and wind in the world.

Men der er også gode grunde til at udvinde skiffergas - også selv om det vil betyde fracking

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), Europe gets just 1.3 percent of its energy from renewables like solar and wind, whereas it gets about 75 percent from fossil fuels and most of the remainder from nuclear. Even an extremely optimistic scenario from the IEA suggests that by 2035, Europe will only be able to generate 8 percent of its energy from these renewables. Focusing on them is simply populism without realism.

Moreover, subsidizing ever more green energy is becoming unaffordable. Spain is already paying more in subsidies to wind and solar than they spend on their higher education, making a dramatic increase exceedingly unlikely. But perhaps the best illustration comes from Germany, the EU’s largest economy with the biggest focus on renewables.

Last year alone, German consumers subsidized renewable energies to the tune of $27 billion, contributing to an inflation-adjusted 80 percent rise in household electricity prices since 2000. Yet the intermittency of renewables has increased the country’s reliance on fossil fuels since the nuclear phase-out of 2011. As Spiegel pointed out: “Consumer advocates and aid organizations say the breaking point has already been reached. Today, more than 300,000 households a year are seeing their power shut off because of unpaid bills.” Economic models for Europe show that the current climate policies will cost an excruciating $280 billion annually.

Og det gider ingen i længden påstår finansmanden Per Wimmer i Information. Han advarer om at statsstøtte til den grønne energisektor har skabt en boble der vil briste når de politiske vinde skifter

»Jeg tror ikke på, at den politiske eller folkelige opbakning er der for evigt. Jeg tror stadig, at folk gerne vil have grøn energi, det vil jeg også gerne, men der er en meget bedre måde at gøre det på, hvor vi får mere smæk for skillingen.«

Når opbakningen forsvinder, så vil boblen briste. For hvis støtten fjernes fra en række af de vedvarende energiformer, for eksempel vindenergi i Danmark, så vil projekterne ikke længere være rentable.

Og så står man med en masse projekter, der økonomisk er kollapstruede. Og er projekterne ikke rentable, men må lukkes ned, så står man også uden grønne energikilder, fordi man ikke satsede på de kommercielt rentable projekter.

– Forudsætningen for, at boblen brister, er, at der kommer et oprør mod støtten. Hvordan kan du vide, at det kommer?

»På et eller andet tidspunkt er der en, der siger, at nu gider jeg ikke tage hånden i lommen mere,« siger Per Wimmer.

Men der er et andet og endnu vigtigere argument for skiffergas og andre realistiske energiformer, nemlig forsyningssikkerhed. Den grønne bølge er både urentabel og utilstrækkelig og vi har i Vesten for længe forladt os på ondsindede og fjendtlige magter til at forsyne os med energi, noget som de til stadighed bruger til afpresning. For at fastholde Vesten som marked og indflydelsesfære har Rusland og Opec landene en interesse i at støtte de organisationer, der vil bremse fremskridtet

Så vi kan lade den tidligere KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov forklare hvorledes man benytter sig af frie samfunds nyttige idioter og forrædere

‘Det religiøse højre’ i USA, er en fast forklaringsmodel for hvorfor amerikanerne ikke kan komme til fornuft og indrette deres samfund efter europæisk forbillede. ‘Det religiøse højre’ udgør ofte en moralsk forkastelig vælgerbase for de mest upopulære republikanske præsidenter og den står i naturligt ledtod med ‘den jødiske/israelske lobby’, der gør mod Mellemøsten og verdensfreden, hvad ‘det religiøse højre’ gør mod USA. Men populære abstraktioner er intet at regne for den rene levendegørelse og tele-evangelister er selve billedet på amerikansk åndelig afstumpethed (selv om det er svært at stå for Jimmie Swaggert).

Men der religiøse er ikke isoleret til højre i USA. Det er lige så rigt repræsenteret til venstre og i Europa dominerer det religiøse netop til venstre. Men det religiøse venstre er en uerkendt religiøsitet thi de tror sig vaccineret i dyrkelse af gudløsheden. For det religiøse handler ikke om hvilken tro på det der ligger ud over det menneskeligt erkendtlige, men om man sorterer og manipulerer virkeligheden efter hvor godt den passer ind i den fortælling man antager som faktuel såvel som moralsk sandhed. Med Reagans ord handler det om man er bange for at se det man ser. Konklusionerne kan vi altid siden skændes om.

I forrige uge henviste jeg til Ezra Lavant, der gjorde sig kostelig på en af venstrefløjens store miljø-evangelister, canadiske David Suzuki og hans manglende viden om klimaet, som det blev eksponeret i et australsk debatprogram. Lavant forsøger i dette opfølgende show at gå en undvigende Suzuki på klingen, som han også opruller det ernorme økonomiske og moralske hykleri, der følger af den ukritiske tilbedelse af et selvbekræftende evangelium

Vandmeloner er grønne udenpå og røde indeni. Connie Hedegaard er sådan en vandmelon, der bruger bekymring for miljøet som en løftestang for at føre socialistisk politik. Presset af virkeligheden, som klimaindustien mærker med især Daily Mail’s stort opsatte artikler om den manglende varme, har klimapanelet nedsat forventningerne til Jordens undergang og indrømmer nu manglende ufejlbarlighed. Daily Mail skriver

A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.

The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.

They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.

Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment,  published in 2007.

Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.

But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.

Ifølge Telegraph fortryder Connie Hedegaard intet i lyset af at hun muligvis har taget helt fejl. For intentionen har altid været en anden

Hedegaard er langt fra den eneste vandmelon, som Forbes giver nogle eksempler på

A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

Ak ja, det totalitære og det religiøse er et iboende træk i mennesket.