Why did President Obama change his mind about attending the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen? For several weeks he and his spokespeople have been saying that there was little benefit to be had for him to attend. In fact it was widely acknowledged that very few if any of the World leaders would attend because there was little likelihood of achieving anything substantial. Further it was expected that the meeting would be postponed until sometime in the spring of 2010.
Well your guess is probably as good as mine but it looks like Climategate may be the reason. One would think that in view of the serious questions about the validity of man-made global warming based upon reading the email hacked from Climate Research Unit (CRU) files, a prudent person would not attend. Rather, the leader would wont a through review of the man-made global warming theory before committing their country to huge taxes and vast new levels of regulation of fossil fuels.
Ah, but there’s the rub. These leaders love the man-made global warming theory. It is the road to more tax revenue and more regulation. It has nothing to do with science. What Obama will attempt is a cover up; to see that the only story is about the 17% cut in US emissions that he plans commit and take Climategate off the radar screen.
We know the mainstream media will be happy to support Obama’s plan. But let’s hope you don’t let Climategate be forgotten. Call your Congresspersons. Tell them about Climategate. Write letters to the editor. Be proactive.
Cbdakota
Climate Change Sanity 
Monckton Says Secretive Copenhagen Treaty Creates Global Government Tax
“We’re looking at a grab for absolute power and absolute financial control worldwide by the UN and its associated bureaucracies and 700 new bureaucratic bodies,” said Monckton.
Speaking about how such draconian measures were being forced through despite the recent scandal surrounding how key IPCC-affiliated scientists conspired to “hide the decline in global warming, Monckton emphasized how the climate change establishment were still ludicrously attempting to downplay the significance of the climategate emails by merely repeating their already discredited propaganda about global warming.
“What has happened is that the mainstream media has done themselves terrible damage by signing up to this climate nonsense and then by servilely refusing to admit that climategate was happening, admit how serious it was and simply inform their readers of what was actually in these emails,” said Monckton, “Admissions that while they’re telling us, as the Met Office did just today, that today is the warmest decade since records began 150 years ago, privately what they’re saying in the climategate emails is ‘hey look we’ve got a temperature which has been falling and we can’t explain why and it’s a travesty that we can’t explain why’ – so they’re saying one thing to us publicly to maintain the scare that’s making them rich, and that’s what’s called fraud, it’s criminal fraud, and on the other hand they’re saying privately ‘oh dear oh dear we can’t account for the fact that there’s been no warming for the last 15 years’”.Monckton said that the Copenhagen treaty meant America was in “immediate peril” of losing its freedom to a “sinister dictatorship” being formed under the contrived pretext of global warming. infowars.com
NEW! NEW! NEW!
Check out the Copenhagen Document Leaks : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W7vrgW8GTQ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94KH-WMZuw0 – Tells how they will get rid of UN and use IMF to tax you!
Protest the False Climate Measurments being used in the Copenhagen Treaty: http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html
“Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.
It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.
A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.
Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.
But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.
The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.
All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.
It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.
Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.
Harleigh Kyson Jr.