Answer these questions; why were the Vikings farming on land now covered by ice in

Greenland?, why were the Romans making wine in the shadow of Hadrians Wall, why is
the new ice in Greenland more than a compensation for the melting polar flows?

Why is man being blamed for the CO2, when one good cough from an Icelandic volcano
equates to all the CO2 emitted by man since the beginning of the industrial revolution?,
why, if its true, do you have to lie to make the data fit the theory?

No more left wing doublespeak, give us the truth or shut up, go away, and let us keep
our taxes

CLIMATE CHANGE LIES ARE EXPOSED

A damming report has highlighted questions over the credibility of a leading climate
change body
Tuesday August 31,2010
By Donna Bowater
THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a
damning report into its research practices.

A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little
evidence” for its claims about global warming.
It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made
“substantive findings” based on little proof.

The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC’s hugely
embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false
claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
The panel was forced to admit its key claim in support of global warming was lifted from a
1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian
scientist who has since said his views were “speculation” and not backed by research.
Independent climate scientist Peter Taylor said last night: “The IPCC’s credibility has been
deeply dented and something has to be done. It can’t just be a matter of adjusting the
practices. They have got to look at what are the consequences of having got it wrong in terms
of what the public think is going on. Admitting that it needs to reform means something has
gone wrong and they really do need to look at the science.”
Climate change sceptic David Holland, who challenged leading climate change scientists at
the University of East Anglia to disclose their research, said: “The panel is definitely not fit for
purpose. What the IAC has said is substantial changes need to be made.”
The IAC, which comprises the world’s top science academies including the UK’s Royal
Society, made recommendations to the IPCC to “enhance its credibility and independence”
after the Himalayan glaciers report, which severely damaged the reputation of climate science.
It condemned the panel – set up by the UN to ensure world leaders had the best scientific
advice on climate change – for its “slow and inadequate response” after the damaging errors
emerged.
Among the blunders in the 2007 report were claims that 55 per cent of the Netherlands was
below sea level when the figure is 26 per cent.
It also claimed that water supplies for between 75 million and 250 million people in Africa will
be at risk by 2020 due to climate change, but the real range is between 90 and 220 million.
The claim that glaciers would melt by 2035 was also rejected.
Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft
thick so to melt one at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is faster than anything we are
seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistic.”
In yesterday’s report, the IAC said: “The IPCC needs to reform its management structure and
strengthen its procedures to handle ever larger and increasingly complex climate assessments
as well as the more intense public scrutiny coming from a world grappling with how to respond
to climate change.”
The review also cast doubt on the future of IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri.
Earlier this year, the Daily Express reported how he had no climate science qualifications but
held a PhD in economics and was a former railway engineer.
Dr Pachauri has been accused of a conflict of interest, which he denies, after it emerged that
he has business interests attracting millions of pounds in funding. One, the Energy Research
Institute, is set to receive up to £10million in grants from taxpayers over the next five years.
Speaking after the review was released yesterday, Dr Pachauri said: “We have the highest
confidence in the science behind our assessments.
“The scientific community agrees that climate change is real. Greenhouse gases have
increased as a result of human activities and now far exceed pre-industrial values.”

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642

WE ALL KNOW THAT IT IS LIES ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE !

31.08.10, 2:12pm
This climate change is some sort of Governments con to drag taxes out of people to top up
their ailing tax pots ! There is no MAN MADE climate change , there is natural climate change
that has been going on for billions of years and it's cycle goes on !
CLIMATE CHANGE LIES
31.08.10, 1:32pm
The simple truth that exposes the co2 GW scam is the shear unprofessionalism of the
perpetrators. If it was true, then any Body seriously concerned would be so ashamed of the
mess they've made that they would start again - after all, there is time. One can be sure it's a
con when the same old perpetrators won't let go of the reins. It's simply about POWER - the
other 'P' word, People, are just grist to the mill.
DAVEYATES
31.08.10, 12:42pm
Please explain to us sceptics,deniers,and heritics how the Romans used to harvest grapes and
peaches etc 2000 years ago in northern england.
WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM THE UN?
31.08.10, 8:03pm
Folks, the IPCC is a United Nations organization. Of course it is corrupt. I agree with Angry Old
Git that the real agenda is to impose restrictions and steal tax money from the citizens of
productive countries to be frittered away on dubious Third World projects. The criticisms
leveled at the IPCC would be appropriate for just about any UN-led organization.

USEFUL IDIOTS
31.08.10, 7:36pm
CURRENT PROGRESSIVE HOAX: Manmade Global Warming

PROGRESSIVE AGENDA: Gaining more power to take over more and more of citizens' lives
and increase taxes. Tightening the noose on freedom.

Ideas have consequences. These environmental radicals who for decades have pushed these
baseless agendas using scare tactics have the blood of millions, including children, on their
hands. People continue to die in tropical climates of malaria because the environmental
wackos used their typical junk science to abolish the use of DDT to kill carrier mosquitoes. (See
http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidinthenews/articles/SA_Readers_Digest_1200.html
IDIOCY LIKE THIS NEVER CEASES TO AMAZE ME.
31.08.10, 6:39pm
John V. Karavitis Absolutely correct, this "anthropogenic" basis of global warming is complete
malarkey, it's bogus, and it's been known for some time now that the United nation's IPCC
reports are not just biased but complete fabrications. For those interested in the real research
behind the earth's climate, may I recommend Fred Singer's "Unstoppable Global Warming -
Every 1,500 Years". The Sun drives the earth's climate, not Man. It's also true that more elderly
die of the cold than from heat. In the past, a warmer earth was directly correlated with more
plant growth in formerly cold areas, greater food production, and also greater cultural
achievements by Man. Look at all the cathedrals built during the Medieval Warm Period.
Finally, as an FYI, Dr. Mann's infamous "hockey stick" chart would have resulted in the "hickey
stick" regardless of the data put into it. I don't know what gets into peoples' heads, it almost as
if the vast majority of people need some kind of crisis or "impending doom" to be "just around
the corner". John V. Karavitis

AMERICA HAS SPENT $30BILLION AND FAILED TO PRODUCE A SINGLE PIECE

OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE GRRENHOUSE GAS THEORY.
31.08.10, 6:13pm
It was during the UN's African Review that they decided to impose a tax on CO2 emmissions,
rather than the proposed tax on trade, the Tobin Tax.
The tax would be levied as a means of universal wealth redistribution to favour poorer nations,
mainly Africa.
The claim tha man's contributtion of 0.004% C02 emissions, had caused a sudden upsurge in
global temperatures, could only be backed up by rigged science.

Firstly, the IPPC had to remove the Medieval Warm Period, to enable them to creat the
infamous Hockey Stick Graph, then they only entered data that supported global warming, and
disregarded that which showed the opposite was true.

Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth was a masterpiece of lies and gross exageration, ad
demonstrated in the British High Court.

The science is faked but now the bankers and specualtors who are making billions of dollars
trading in fresh air (Carbon Trading Credits) have no intention of allowing mere politicians to
end the Climate Change Con.

When President Obama declared, C02 a hazard to human existence, probably the most stupid
and most easily disproved statement ever made, he was protecting the interests of speculators,
such as George Soros, who financed Obama's election campaign.

Here in Britain, our lunatics talk of green energy, in the hope that we are green enough to
accept our energy costs soaring, along with our taxes.

Green taxes are theft, and they know it.

AS USUAL
31.08.10, 5:52pm
Every time Climate Change is mentioned, as demonstrated again here, a lot of people have a
great deal to say, largely negatively, about the authenticity of the whole debate.
It has been 5 years now since Kyoto, when the subject became a mainstream topic, no longer
the domain of the recycled denim skirt brigade, and yet, still, despite so much effort to "prove"
it, it remains a theory, and indeed as time goes by, the doubts increase, why?, because the
scientists who have enjoyed such prevelence and unchallenged publicity, (even the Great
Brain, his own definition), Stephen Fry has swallowed the argument hook, line and sinker) have
been exposed as, well, it has to be said, charlatans.
It really is time to hiss or get off the pot, as it is costing billions to fund the research. Answer
these questions; why were the vikings farming on land now covered by ice in
Greenland?, why were the Romans making wine in the shadow of Hadrians Wall, why is
the new ice in Greenland more than a compensation for the melting polar flows?, why is
man being blamed for the CO2, when one good cough from an Icelandic volcano
equates to all the CO2 emitted by man since the beginning of the industrial revolution?,
why, if its true, do you have to lie to make the data fit the theory?
No more left wing doublespeak, give us the truth or shut up, go away, and let us keep
our taxes

LIES
31.08.10, 5:41pm
Global warming and climate change are all code words for man-made disaster. Is something
happening? Apparently, yes. Is it man-made? NO!! But all these lying scientists are doing their
utmost to lie about it. They have no proof whatsoever of any causality, merely correlation. But
climate research is a golden goose for them, and they aren't going to kill it.
WHAT IS A CLIMATE SCIENTIST?
31.08.10, 4:43pm
Most so called "climate scientists" are ecologists with no training in atmospheric science,
numerical modeling or forecasting. Since the early 1990's they have cataloged in detail regional
climate changes and the observed effects on flora & fauna. However, the justification for the
global climate change policy is derived from computer simulations, but the predictions from
these models do not generate probabilities associated with their predictions. When a
statistically based global temperature forecast is conducted the best forecast is that global
temperature will remain constant. That is, the behavior of global temperature is similar to that of
stock prices and follows a "random walk". I think of climate change alarmists as espousing the
equivalent to the get-rich-quick schemes touted by dubious stock market "experts."

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/comments/viewall/196642