198 Copenhagen: Carbon-use dividend cf Cap-and-trade hidden tax

(1) Copenhagen: Gorbachev & Monckton on the World Government agenda
(2) China blames "Danish text" which wanted to remove Developed/Developing dichotomy
(3) Tuvalu proposal that China, India limit CO2 leads to accusation of abandoning Kyoto
(4) Tuvalu's lead negotiator at Copenhagen was an Australian who lives near Canberra
(5) Carbon-use dividend cf Cap-and-trade hidden tax
(6) More evidence CO2 not culprit
(7) Wikipedia "Exposed as Part of Climategate Swindle"
(8) Wikipedia: How William Connolley Beat a Climate Change Enemy

(1) Copenhagen: Gorbachev & Monckton on the World Government agenda

From: Eric Walberg <efgh1951@yahoo.com>  Date: 31.12.2009 12:57 PM

Gorbachev lost all his credibility when he gave away the shop to Reagan and Yeltsin. His pie-in-the-sky utopian world govt will never be and his reputation as a windbag who no one takes seriously is confirmed with every pompous pronouncement he makes. He ranks well below windbag Gore in the scale of liberal 'heavyweights' and is the best false flag the conspirators have. The real NWO that is taking shape eats up the likes of Gorby like a tasty hors d'oeuvre.

Anthropogenic Global Warming cf Resource Depletion

From: Bruce Tanner <brtanner@brucetanner.info> Date: 30.12.2009 11:42 PM

China gutted Copenhagen. Its great political leap forward.

Do you believe in "Anthropogenic Global Warming" due to carbon dioxide production? Don't all these articles argue based on that belief? What are the consequences for humanity if denied use of technologies requiring carbon-containing fuels? Qui bono?

Reply (Peter M.):

The Sun is the main determinant of climate on Earth. Yet, given the vast amount of heat we create in power generation (coal, nuclear, oil, gas), it is likely that some of it heats our atmosphere (note that I'm not focusing on CO2, but on heat generation, some of which is trapped in the atmosphere). My argument applies to nuclear power as well - because it generates heat, even though it does not produce CO2.

Even so, the Greens are using this as an excuse to gain power - for themselves. They are behind many Big Brother laws, and even want to remove shark nets from beaches (sacrificing human lives) because marine animals sometimes get caught in them. Less than one millionth of the earth's coastline has shark nets anyway.

Nevertheless, we are using up the Earth's mineral resources at an alarming rate. The amount of coal shipped out of Queensland every year has to seen to be believed.

The focus should be on leaving a fair share for future generations, rather than on CO2.

The best remedy would be to abandon Free Trade and Open Borders, and to promote tubal ligation in countries with exploding populations.==

Photo of Ian Fry:: http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/content/author/Fry

(2) China blames "Danish text" which wanted to remove Developed/Developing dichotomy

http://china.globaltimes.cn/diplomacy/2010-01/495821.html

Denmark, not China should be blamed for failure of Copenhagen conference

Source: Xinhua

[10:34 January 02 2010]

It was Denmark, not China which "hijacked" the Copenhagen climate change conference last month and caused its failure, said a recent article from the Guardian website.

In an article entitled "Blame Denmark, not China, for Copenhagen failure" published on the Guardian website on Dec. 28, Martin Khor, executive director of the South Center, an inter-governmental organization of developing countries, said Britain and some other developed countries are using China as a scapegoat to cover the real reasons for the failure of the Copenhagen conference.

The article refuted UK Climate Secretary Ed Miliband's allegation that China was the villain that "hijacked" the conference. The main evidence Miliband gave was that China vetoed an "agreement" on a 50 percent reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and an 80 percent reduction by developed countries in an exclusive meeting of 26 leaders on Copenhagen's final day.

"There was indeed a 'hijack' in Copenhagen, but it was not by China," the article said: "The hijack was organized by the host government, Denmark, whose prime minister convened a meeting of 26 leaders in the last two days of the conference, in an attempt to override the painstaking negotiations taking place among 193 countries throughout the two weeks and in fact in the past two to four years."

The report pointed out that the exclusive meeting was not mandated by the U.N. climate convention, nor with the knowledge of the convention's other members.

Developing countries have warned that the so-called "Danish text" and the secret elite group would violate the multilateral treaty-based democratic process of negotiation at the conference, and replace the documents carefully negotiated by all countries for so long. Despite the warnings, the Danish government did just that, producing a non-legally binding Copenhagen accord, which was criticized by the final plenary of members and was not adopted.

"The unwise attempt by the Danish presidency to impose a non-legitimate meeting to override the legitimate multilateral process was the reason why Copenhagen will be considered a disaster," the article said.

Instead, the Copenhagen conference should have been designed as a "stepping stone" to a future successful outcome accepted by all, the report suggested.

In fact, thousands of delegates had been working for two weeks on producing two reports representing the latest state of play, showing areas of agreement and the parts needed to be further discussed and compromised. These reports were finally adopted by the conference, they should have been announced as the real outcome of Copenhagen, together with a decision to resume and complete work next year, the article suggested.

"It would not have been a resounding success, but it would have been an honest ending that would not have been termed a failure," said the article.

Besides, the accord itself is weak because it does not contain any med-term emission cut commitments by the developed countries, probably because they only pledge to cut 11-19 percent of greenhouse gases by the year 2020 on the basis of 1990 levels, far less than the 40 percent cut demanded by developing nations, the article said.

"To deflect from this great failure on their part, the developed countries tried to inject long-term emission-reduction goals of 50 percent for the world and 80 percent for themselves, by 2050 compared to 1990," it said:" When this failed to get through the 26-country meeting, some countries, especially the UK, began to blame China for the failure of Copenhagen."

The targets are highly contentious during the two years of discussions for good reasons. They imply that developing countries would have to cut their emissions overall by about 20 percent in absolute terms and at least 60 percent in per capita terms, the article noted.

By 2050, developed countries with high per capita emissions, such as the United States, would be allowed to have two to five times higher per capita emission levels than developing countries.

The developing countries "would have to severely curb not only their emissions but also their economic growth, especially since there is, up to now, no credible plans let alone commitments for financial and technology transfers to help them shift to a low emissions development path," it said.

The developed countries have already completed their industrialization on the basis of cheap carbon-based energy and can afford to achieve the 80 percent reduction goal for 2050, especially with adequate technologies and capacities, the article said.

If approved, the two targets would also seal a most unfair sharing of the remaining global carbon budget, as they would allow the developed countries to get off free from their historical responsibility and carbon debt, it added.

The article suggested that a minimally equitable deal for the developed countries should be at least 200 to 400 percent emission reduction, or they should move into negative emission territory to re-absorb greenhouse gases to give developing countries more atmospheric space to develop.

The article urged the participating members to learn the Copenhagen lesson and return to multilateral negotiations in the climate convention's two working groups as soon as possible, by starting with the two reports passed at Copenhagen as reference points.

It called on negotiating members to agree simultaneously on what science says is necessary for the world to do, and a just and equitable plan for sharing the costs and burdens of the adjustment to be made.

"The bottom-up democratic process is slower but also steadier, compared to the top-down attempt to impose a solution by a few powers that will always lack legitimacy in decision-making and success or sustainability in implementation," the article concluded.

(3) Tuvalu proposal that China, India limit CO2 leads to accusation of abandoning Kyoto
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/09/copenhagen-tuvalu-protocol-split

Copenhagen talks break down as developing nations split over 'Tuvalu' protocol

Developing countries have split between those who favour a new protocol proposed by Tuvalu and others who want to continue with the Kyoto agreement

John Vidal in Copenhagen

Wednesday 9 December 2009

Negotiations at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen dramatically broke down today after developing countries split between those who favour a new protocol and others who want to continue with the legally binding Kyoto agreement.

The crisis, partly precipitated by revelations yesterday that the host country Denmark had proposed a text which could have seen the death of the Kyoto protocol, threatens to divide the powerful G77 plus China group of 130 developing countries.

Tuvalu, a Pacific island state politically and financially close to Australia, proposed a new protocol which would have the advantage of potentially forcing deeper global emission cuts, but could lead to other developing countries - rather than rich nations - having to make those cuts.

Many developing nations cherish the legally binding commitments that Kyoto places on industrialised nations and fiercely oppose proposals that would change this.

Tuvalu was immediately supported by other small island states, including Grenada, Trinidad and Tobago and several African states. But it was opposed by 15 countries, including the powerful nations of China, Saudi Arabia and India. One of the two negotiating tracks was then suspended for several hours as no consensus could be reached.

Civil society groups including the TckTckTck campaign and 350.org demonstrated outside the meeting in favour of Tuvalu, chanting: "Tuvalu is the new deal."

Observers said a G77 plus China rift at this early stage in the conference was a serious setback for the big developing countries. Small island states, least developed countries and Africa have so far worked together in public with the G77. ==

COMMENT

DancingSlag
10 Dec 2009, 5:23AM

You want to have a real impact on global climate change? Force China to float its currency. Why? Well right now the Chinese artificially depress their currency for the purpose of trade advantage. It doesnt float as the USD or GBP or Yen does. If it did float, a nation such as China, with huge foreign reserves, a powerful 8+% GDP and strong internal markets would have a very expensive currency, reflecting its economy. However China keeps its currency low so it can make and sell cheap and relatively useless goods for the entire planet. Cheap goods require lots of energy to produce - hence China is the biggest emitter of CO2. However if China floated its currency, the cost advantage disappears, Walmart doesnt sell $1 Made in China rubbish anymore, energy isnt consumed at such a huge rate to produce said rubbish and in one swoop you cut off one of the big ugly heads of the CO2 hydra. Of course economic dislocation may ensue, but with its huge sovereign fund China could withstand it easily. We would also have inflation spikes in the West but they would be one off. It is pretty simple. But of course, Economics 101 goes out the window with these matters are discussed. Sigh.

(4) Tuvalu's lead negotiator at Copenhagen was an Australian who lives near Canberra

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/tuvalu-draws-tears-on-world-stage-at-copenhagen-climate-change-conference/story-e6frf7lf-1225811228481

Tuvalu draws tears on world stage at Copenhagen climate change conference

Samantha Maiden   The Australian   December 17, 2009 8:44AM  

IT was a tear-jerking performance that prompted wild applause among the crowded Copenhagen conference floor.

The lead negotiator for the small island nation of Tuvalu, the bow-tie wearing Ian Fry, broke down as he begged delegates to take tough action, The Australian reported.

"I woke up this morning crying, and that's not easy for a grown man to admit," Mr Fry said on Saturday, as his eyes welled with tears.

"The fate of my country rests in your hands," he concluded, as the audience exploded with wild applause.

But the part-time PhD scholar at the Australian National University actually resides in Queanbeyan, NSW, where he's not likely to be troubled by rising sea levels because the closest beach at Batemans Bay is a two-hour, 144km drive away. Asked whether he had ever lived in Tuvalu, his wife told The Australian last night she would "rather not comment".

A career environmentalist who once worked as a Greenpeace political liaison officer, Mr Fry has found his niche in global climate change talks over the past 10 years, representing small Pacific nations and running the climate negotiations for the Association of Small Island States.

At home, he practises what he preaches with a water tank, chooks and a vegie patch in the backyard, although there's a window-mounted air-conditioning unit down the side and a late model gas-guzzling Ford cab ute in the driveway.

Still, it's a long way from the endangered atolls of Tuvalu, with his neighbour Michelle Ormay confirming he's lived in Queanbeyan for more than a decade, while he has worked his way up to being "very high up in climate change".

"He's always saying we should do more, about, you know, how our ice caps are melting and our poor polar bears won't have anywhere to be," she said.

Already he has forced the suspension of the main meeting in Copenhagen. But he insists his globe-trotting to tackle climate change is "not an ego trip" .

"I am just merely a humble and insignificant employee of the environment department of the government of Tuvalu," he told delegates at Copenhagen.

Director of the ANU Fenner School for Environment Stephen Dovers, who is supervising Mr Fry's PhD, said he thought it was "childish" if people thought it was novel or wrong for someone to work for Tuvalu in such a capacity, when they didn't raise an eyebrow at Australians working for the US, China or big corporations. "That's what he does for a living. So his employer is the government of Tuvalu," he said.

"He does other work where he trains negotiators from less developed nations. He has a long history with engagement in international treaty work."

(5) Carbon-use dividend cf Cap-and-trade hidden tax
Copenhagen has given us the chance to face climate change with honesty

A carbon-use dividend for everybody must replace the old, ineffectual 'cap-and-trade' scheme

James Hansen

The Observer, Sunday 27 December 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/27/james-hansen-copenhagen-agreement-opportunities

Last weekend's minimalist Copenhagen global climate accord provides a great opportunity. The old deceitful, ineffectual approach is severely wounded and must die. Now there is a chance for the world to get on to an honest, effective path to an agreement.

The centrepiece of the old approach was a "cap-and-trade" scheme, festooned with offsets and bribes – bribes that purportedly, but hardly, reduced carbon emissions. It was analogous to the indulgences scheme of the Middle Ages, whereby sinners paid the Church for forgiveness.

In today's indulgences the sinners, developed countries, buy off developing countries by paying for "offsets" to their own emissions and providing reparation money for adaptation to climate change. But such hush money won't work. Yes, some developing country leaders salivated over the proffered $100 billion per year. But by buying in, they would cheat their children and ours. Besides, even the $100 billion hush money is fugacious. The US, based on its proportion of the fossil fuel carbon in the air today, would owe $27 billion per year. Chance of Congress providing that: dead zero. Maybe the UK will cough up its $6 billion per year and Germany its $7 billion per year. But who will collect Russia's $7 billion per year?

Most purchased "offsets" to fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions are hokey. But there is no need to flagellate the details of this modern indulgences scheme. Science provides an unambiguous fact that our leaders continue to ignore: carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning remains in the climate system for millennia. The only solution is to move promptly to a clean energy future.

The difficulty is that fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, if the price does not include the damage they do to human health, the planet, and the future of our children. "Goals" for future emission reductions, whether "legally binding" or not, are utter nonsense as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy. The Kyoto Protocol illustrates the deceit of our governments, which have not screwed up their courage to face down the fossil fuel industry. As the graph here shows, global fossil fuel emissions were increasing 1.5% per year prior to the 1997 Kyoto accord. After "Kyoto" emission growth accelerated to 3% per year. A few developed countries reduced their fossil fuel use. The only important effect of that was to slightly reduce demand for fuel, helping to keep its price down. The fuel was burned in other places, and products made were shipped back to developed countries.

As far as the planet is concerned, agreements to "cap" emissions, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the imagined Copenhagen Protocol, are worthless scraps of paper. As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, they will be burned somewhere. This fact helps define a solution to the climate problem. Yes, people must make changes in the way they live. Countries must cooperate. Matters as intractable as population must be included. Technology improvements are required. Changes must be economically efficient. The climate solution necessarily will increase the price of fossil fuel energy. We must admit that. But in the end, energy efficiency and carbon-free energy can be made less expensive than fossil fuels, if fossil fuels' cost to society is included. The solution must have honesty, backbone and a fair international framework. We need a rising price on carbon applied at the source (the mine, wellhead, or port of entry). The fee will affect all activities that use fossil fuels, directly or indirectly. The entire fee collected from fossil fuel companies should be distributed to the public. In this fee-and-dividend approach people maintaining a carbon footprint smaller than average will receive more in the dividend than they pay via increased energy costs. The monthly dividend, deposited electronically in their bank account or on their debit card, will stimulate the economy and provide people with the means to increase their carbon efficiency. All that governments need do is divide the collected revenue by the number of shares, with half-shares for children, up to two children per family.

Some economists prefer a payroll tax deduction over a dividend, because taxes depress the economy. The problem is that about half of the public are not on payrolls, because of retirement or involuntary unemployment. I suggest that at most 50% of the collected carbon fee should be used for payroll tax deduction.

Cap-and-trade is the antithesis of this simple system. Cap-and-trade is a hidden tax, increasing energy costs, but with no public dividend. Its infrastructure costs the public, who also fund the profits of the resulting big banks and speculators. Cap-and-trade is advantageous only to energy companies with strong lobbyists and government officials who dole out proceeds from pollution certificates to favoured industries.

Fee-and-dividend, in contrast, is a non-tax – on average it is revenue-neutral. The public will probably accept a rise in the carbon fee rate, because their monthly dividend will increase correspondingly. As fee-and-dividend causes fossil fuel energy prices to rise, a series of points will be reached at which various carbon-free energies and carbon-saving technologies are cheaper than fossil fuels plus the fee. The market place will choose the best technology. As time goes on, fossil fuel use will collapse, coal will be left in the ground, and we will have arrived at a clean energy future. A rising carbon fee is essential for a climate solution. But how to achieve a fair international framework?

The critical requirement is that the United States and China agree to apply across-the-board carbon fees, at a relative rate to be negotiated. Why would China agree to a carbon fee? China does not want to be saddled with the problems that attend fossil fuel addiction such as those that plague the United States. Besides, China would be hit extraordinarily hard by climate change. A uniform rising carbon fee is the most economically efficient way for China to limit its fossil fuel dependence.

Copenhagen discussions showed that China and the United States can work together. Europe, Japan, and most developed countries would very probably agree to a similar status to that of the United States. Countries refusing to levy an across-the-board carbon fee can be dealt with via an import duty collected on products from that nation in accord with the amount of fossil fuel that goes into producing the product. The World Trade Organisation already has rules permitting such duties.

The international framework must define how proceeds from import duties are used to assure fairness. Duties on products from developing countries will probably dwarf present foreign aid to those countries. These funds should be returned to developing countries, but distributed so as to encourage best practices, for example, improved women's rights and education that helps control population growth. Fairness also requires that distribution of the funds takes account of the ongoing impacts of climate change. Successful efforts in limiting deforestation and other best practices could also be rewarded.

James Hansen was the first scientist to warn the US Congress of the dangers of climate change. The ideas discussed in this article are expanded on in his new book "Storms of My Grandchildren"

(6) More evidence CO2 not culprit

Michael Asten

The Australian    December 29, 2009  12:00AM

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/more-evidence-co2-not-culprit/story-e6frg6zo-1225814230258

THE Copenhagen climate change summit closed two weeks ago in confusion, disagreement and, for some, disillusionment. When the political process shows such a lack of unanimity, it is pertinent to ask whether the science behind the politics is as settled as some participants maintain.

Earlier this month (The Australian, December 9) I commented on recently published results showing huge swings in atmospheric carbon dioxide, both up and down, at a time of global cooling 33.6 million years ago.

Paul Pearson and co-authors in a letter (The Weekend Australian, December 11) took exception to my use of their data and claimed I misrepresented their research, a claim I reject since I quoted their data (the veracity of which they do not contest) but offered an alternative hypothesis, namely that the present global warming theory (which was not the subject of their study) is inconsistent with the CO2-temperature variations of a past age.

Some senior scientists, who are adherents of orthodox global warming theory, do not like authors publishing data that can be used to argue against orthodoxy, a point made by unrelated authors with startling clarity in the Climategate leaked emails from the University of East Anglia.

In the scientific method, however, re-examination of data and formulation of alternative hypotheses is the essence of scientific debate. In any case, the debate on the link between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature will continue since it is not dependent on a single result.

Another example is a study by Richard Zeebe and colleagues, published in Nature Geoscience, of a release of CO2 and an increase in temperature 55 million years ago. At this time there was an increase in global temperature of between 5C and 9C, from a temperature regime slightly warmer than today's (that I will call moderate Earth) to greenhouse temperatures. It can be argued this example may have a message for humanity because the rate of release of CO2 into the atmosphere at the time of this warming was of a similar order to the rate of anthropogenic release today. However, the analogy turns out to be incomplete when the data is compared with present estimates of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2, and Zeebe and his colleagues conclude that the large temperature increase cannot be explained by our existing understanding of CO2 temperature linkage. Indeed, they write, "our results imply a fundamental gap in our understanding of the amplitude of global warming associated with large and abrupt climate perturbations. This gap needs to be filled to confidently predict future climate change."

I argue there are at least two possible hypotheses to explain the data in this study: either the link between atmospheric CO2 content and global temperature increase is significantly greater (that is, more dangerous) than the existing models show or some mechanism other than atmospheric CO2 is a significant or the main factor influencing global temperature.

The first hypothesis is consistent with climate change orthodoxy. Recent writings on climate sensitivity by James Hansen are consistent with it, as was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its pre-Copenhagen update, The Copenhagen Diagnosis.

Indeed, the 26 authors of the IPCC update went a step further, and encouraged the 46,000 Copenhagen participants with the warning: "A rapid carbon release, not unlike what humans are causing today, has also occurred at least once in climate history, as sediment data from 55 million years ago show. This `Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum' brought a major global warming of 5C, a detrimental ocean acidification and a mass extinction event. It serves as a stark warning to us today."

We have to treat such a warning cautiously because, as Pearson and his colleagues pointed out in their letter two weeks ago, "We caution against any attempt to derive a simple narrative linking CO2 and climate on these large time scales. This is because many other factors come into play, including other greenhouse gases, moving continents, shifting ocean currents, dramatic changes in ocean chemistry, vegetation, ice cover, sea level and variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun."

Sound science also requires us to consider the second of the above two hypotheses. Otherwise, if we attempt to reconcile Zeebe's observation by inferring climate sensitivity to CO2 is greater than that used for current models, how do we explain Pearson's observation of huge swings in atmospheric CO2, both up and down, which appear poorly correlated with temperatures cooling from greenhouse Earth to moderate Earth?

The two geological results discussed both show some discrepancies between observation and model predictions. Such discrepancies do not in any sense reduce the merit of the respective authors' work; rather they illustrate a healthy and continuing process of scientific discovery.

In addition, unrelated satellite data analyses published in the past two years by physicist David Douglass and distinguished atmospheric scientist John Christy in two journals, International Journal of Climatology and Earth and Environment, provide observational evidence that climate sensitivity associated with CO2 is less than that used in present climate modelling, by a factor of about three.

Thus we have two geological examples and two satellite data studies pointing towards a lesser role of CO2 in global warming. This argument does not discount the reality of global warming during the past century or the potential consequences should it continue at the same rate, but it does suggest we need a broader framework in considering our response. The Copenhagen summit exposed intense political differences in proposals to manage global warming. Scientists are also not unanimous in claiming to understand the complex processes driving climate change and, more important, scientific studies do not unambiguously point to a single solution. Copenhagen will indeed prove to be a historic meeting if it ushers in more open-minded debate.

Michael Asten is a professorial fellow in the school of geosciences at Monash University, Melbourne

(7) Wikipedia "Exposed as Part of Climategate Swindle"

From: orm <ormg1@bigpond.com>  Date: 24.12.2009 06:59 AM

Wikipedia Exposed as Part of Climategate Swindle

Dec. 22 (LPAC)--Wikipedia, the notorious online encyclopedia, which features the likes of Chip Berlet among its "editors," has been caught in the center of the climategate swindle. According to a report by Lawrence Solomon published Dec. 18, 2009 in the National Post of Canada, a Wikipedia editor, UK Green Party activist and so-called scientist named William Connolley, doctored literally thousands of entries, to conceal the fact that, during the Medieval period, there was a global warming spell, following the Little Ice Age. The fact of this Medieval Warm Period exposes the lie about man-caused global warming, the chief argument for radical population reduction and deindustrialization.

Beginning in Feb. 2003, Connolley began rewriting or editing posted entries refuting the global warming lies. According to Solomon, "All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, nowever, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it--more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred--over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.

The Medieval Warm Period ran from 1000-1400 AD, and the warming resulted in a flourishing of agriculture, increased life expectancy and other benefits, according to the historical record cited by Solomon. Many of the email messages that surfaced from East Anglia University discussed the "problem" with the Medieval Warm Period, which "diluted the message" of the climate change fanatics. The IPCC report codified the banning of any mention of the Medieval Warm Period, by producing the so-called "hockey stick" graph, which blacked out the 400-year period of global warming, claiming a constant temperature for 1,000 years, leading into the industrial age when things heated up due to evil industrialization and other ills of modern society. According to Solomon's account, a rapid-reaction team was established to kill off all criticism of the global warming hoax, centered around a website called RealClimate.org. Connolley was one of the nine members of this group, and he used Wikipedia as a major base for their Big Lie campaign. [js_]

(8) Wikipedia: How William Connolley Beat a Climate Change Enemy

Written by Chuck Justice, Habledash  |  December 23 2009

http://habledash.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=414:wikipedia-how-william-connolley-beat-a-climate-change-enemy&catid=46:political-insight-no-bull-no-bs-not-the-mainstream-liberal-media&Itemid=61

http://climatechangefraud.com/politics-propaganda/5950-wikipedia-how-william-connolley-beat-a-climate-change-enemy

Everyone can take a deep breath - the Copenhagen Climate Summit is finally over.  11 days of global warming propaganda and climate change alarmists have nothing to show for it, other than they're a bunch of polluting hypocrites.  As the summit winded down, the opposition movement heated up, unlike our planet.  What started as climategate, the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at England's East Anglia University, has now exposed how far and extreme liberals are willing to go to hide the decline.

Looking back a few centuries ago, the earth was in the Medieval Warming Period - a time that lasted for about 400 years and improved agriculture, increased lifespan and bettered the overall human condition.  The problem with the Medieval Warming Period is that it's an obstacle for current climate change alarmists.  You see, if temperatures were warmer 1000 years ago than they are today, the message that we're living in the warmest of all possible times right now would be exposed as its true self; a lie.

The climategate emals just scratch the surface of how phony and politically motivated the climate change movement and their band of brothers are.  Pre-climategate emails recognized the problem posed by the Medieval Warming Period - "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period," one email read.  This data needed to be erased from history, so the alarmists could make their case and get the power and control they fathom.

After manipulating the data and hiding the decline, as exposed in the climategate emails, and with the help of the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the highest climate change authority, the pinnacle and crux of their case was released - the hockey stick graph.  Noticeably absent from the graph was the Medieval Warming Period because it was counter to their cause.  How convenient.

But the Medieval Warming Period can't be erased from history that easily.  There are countless textbooks and other sources that reference it.  Enter U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley - a dirty hippy that is part of the nine-member RealClimate.org team and is a global warming alarmist.  He had one target to focus on - the most referenced information source in the world - Wikipedia.

Anything climate related on Wikipedia had a bullseye on its back and Connolley was destined to change that.  Overall, Connolley created or rewrote 5428 unique Wikipedia articles on global warming, the greenhouse effect, the urban heat island, climate models, global cooling and the instrumental temperature record.  Worst of all, he didn't even have the audacity to alter anything Unicorn related!

Connolley also became an administrator at Wikipedia, which allowed him to remove content authored by others that he didn't like or were counter to his agenda.  About 500 articles disappeared during his tenure.  He also banned article contributors who disagreed with him, while rewarding others that agreed with him.  This essentially turned Wikipedia into the electronic Brown Shirts for climate change.

So, this is what it comes to - lies and deception, something all too familiar to liberals.  And for what?  Power, control and money.  Apparently, these climatologists are also magicians because they can make bad things for their cause disappear.  I just hope they didn't go to the same Magic Camp as me.