dallashistory

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

[laughter]

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

FOXNews.com - November 05, 2009

Republicans had boycotted the committee's work on the bill, insisting on a cost analysis of the proposal by the EPA.

In a rare move, Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Thursday approved a sweeping climate change bill without any Republicans present.

Republicans had boycotted the committee's work on the bill, insisting on a cost analysis of the proposal by the EPA.

The bill would require cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent over the next decade from 2005 levels. But Republicans warned the bill would leave consumers with higher energy bills.

"This would be the largest tax increase in the history of America," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the seven committee Republicans, told Fox News. "I can only conclude that they don't want the public to know how much money this thing is going to cost."

Inhofe, who said the committee typically needs two minority members present to advance a bill to the floor, called the vote Thursday "unprecedented."

One Democrat, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., voted against the bill. Ten Democrats voted for it.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the committee, applauded the vote in a written statement Thursday.

"We are pleased that despite the Republican boycott, we have been able to move the bill," she said.

She defended the decision not to seek an EPA analysis, calling such a study "duplicative and a waste of taxpayer dollars."

But it still appears unlikely that the Senate will approve the legislation this year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would have to meld five different committees' versions of the bill, at the same time he's trying to hammer out a consensus on health care reform.

Inhofe said the legislation is "dead."

A bipartisan group of senators is trying to craft a compromise bill in hopes of attracting broader support.

To move the bill out of committee without Republicans present Thursday meant the Democrats could not amend the legislation, and many Democrats on the panel expressed disappointment that they did not have a chance to improve the bill.

"The failure of the Republicans to participate means we cannot offer amendments. This is a very good start, but as the chair has acknowledged it is a start and only a start," said Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa. "It is regrettable that we could not move forward in a more constructive way."

Specter said that the vote would send a signal to other countries in advance of a climate change conference next month to hammer out a new international treaty.

"It is not the best signal, but it is a signal that the Senate is ready to move forward," he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

FOXNews.com - November 09, 2009

In Washington, progress on climate change legislation is slow-moving. But even wider differences between the developed and developing world kept climate change negotiators from reaching an agreement Friday, in the last meeting before the December summit in Copenhagen.

With a global conference on climate change fast approaching, deep divisions remain over how to tackle the problem, both on Capitol Hill and on the world stage.

In Washington, progress on climate change legislation is slow-moving. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are still at odds over the energy bill the House narrowly passed in June.

"This is not an energy bill. This is a cap-and-trade bill. This is a huge tax increase," said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.

But even wider differences between the developed and developing world kept climate change negotiators from reaching an agreement Friday, in the last meeting before the December summit in Copenhagen.

"It is obvious that we can't achieve the final result in Copenhagen in terms of a new legally binding treaty which goes into all details," Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said.

Poor countries say the 17-20 percent greenhouse gas reduction the U.S. House and Senate bills envision is not deep enough. While U.S. officials note that China and India will account for 80 percent of the growth in greenhouse gases over the next 20 years, developing countries say the West grew rich on cheap energy that polluted the atmosphere.

The developing world now wants aid for cleaner energy production, but the question is how much?

"The developing world especially wants hundreds of billions of dollars per year. The developed world is offering up tens of billions. So there's a big gap that hasn't been narrowed there in terms of being able to come up with an agreement in Copenhagen," said Ben Lieberman, senior policy analyst for energy and environment at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

There's also no agreement on where the aid money would come from. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested a tax on international finance transactions. U.S. officials quickly shot that down.

After the energy bill and health reform debates, the last thing President Obama wants is to be accused of supporting another tax.

Lieberman said both the U.S. House and Senate energy bills under consideration would already be "very costly," despite the calls from other countries for even tougher standards.

Meanwhile, two days after receiving an EPA report on how it would regulate greenhouse gases, White House officials say they'd rather Congress deal with the issue of climate change.

"There's a Supreme Court order that this is an issue that has to be dealt with. The president has said, throughout this process, that the way to deal with this is through legislation," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said.

The EPA report remains private, but it's a reminder that Obama's representative won't lack the authority to negotiate when he attends next month's climate change conference in Copenhagen.

Fox News' Wendell Goler contributed to this report.

The world is considering a new financial market larger than any commodity, it’s “based on science”, but if you ask for evidence, you’re called names—“Denier”, and by our Prime Minister, no less. This is supposed to pass for reasoned debate?



In 6000 words Rudd uses ad hominem attacks, baseless allegations, argument from authority, mindless inflammatory rhetoric and quotes not a single piece of evidence that carbon drives our climate. He repeats quote after quote of sensible, ordinary points from his opponents as if it shows they are confused. Yet he can’t point out how any of them are wrong. It shows the depth of his own delusions—that he thinks merely questioning “the UN committee” is a flaw in itself.

It’s as if being a sceptic is a bad thing, yet the opposite of sceptical is gullible.

Rudd throws baseless innuendo when he claims vested interests are at work. The truth is the exact opposite. Exxon spent $23 million on sceptics, but the US government spent $79 billion on the climate industry. Big Government outspent big-oil 3000 to 1. Worse, carbon trading last year was $126 billion dollars. That’s for just one year. The real vested interests stand in the open like signposted black holes hidden in plain view by a legal disclaimer. The singularities at the centre of the climate change galaxy have names like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, ABN Amro, Deutsche Bank, and HSBC.

The banks… want us to trade carbon.

And the career scientists like their “rock-star” status. “Call us heroes”. “Thanks for the institute. Ta.”

The UN bureaucrats soak in their fame and their junkets. Why wouldn’t they? Two weeks and ten thousand people in an exotic locale every year. Nobel prizes for just doing their jobs, and the promise that they might be at the centre of new world financial market: dinner with Obama and tea with Gordon Brown. Status knocks, and everyone is home.

This global gravy train got rolling in 1988 and when the evidence turned “180”, the train ran off the tracks. Now it levitates above the real world on a cushion of snarling spite and intimidation. It’s as if calling someone a “denier” replaces 100,000 radiosonde readings, 6,000 boreholes, 30 years of satellite results and ice cores that go back to a time before homo sapiens was sapien. These things are evidence, but a manufactured “consensus” from a self serving committee is not. “Denier” is an insult, a cheap attempt to bully dissent into submission.

Rudd offers up our nation to global bullies and giant bankers because he’s swallowed a UN committee report. The IPCC were set up and funded to find a link, any link between carbon and the climate: they are not audited, elected or accountable to the Australian people. Team IPCC-how-big-is-my-junket would never issue a press release that said, essentially: greenhouse gases are minor forces. “Thanks for the funding. We’ll all get new jobs”. They are not an unbiased source. Yet the Australian government seems to think they help Australian citizens by slavishly repeating UN committee decrees.

Rudd claims sceptics “play with our children’s future”, but if a nations leader just obediently accepts a foreign decree without checking it, isn’t he the one who lets our children down? He’s the one who isn’t arranging an independent audit of the claims made by a committee in Geneva before we sign away the hard work of Australian adults and children for decades to come.

Ratings agencies repacked junk securities into “AAA rated” investments and triggered the credit crunch. The IPCC has repackaged “junk science” and created an “expert triple A rated”, full gloss quasi prospectus called a “Synthesis Report”. The Australian government is buying their unaudited package hook, line and stinker.

It’s sobering to think this man is in our highest office.

Rudd will come to regret his Lowy Institute speech. It’s a sad indictment of what intelligent discourse in Australia has been reduced to. The nation that invented the bionic ear considers trashing its economy because someone thinks “denier” is a scientific term? There is no human subclass called “denier”, there are only concerned citizens, retired scientists, unpaid bloggers, and “working families”. All of whom will ship truckloads of money to foreign financial houses in the event we are forced to buy meaningless permits at the point of a gun.

Kevin Rudd gambles with our economy. He wants sweeping changes based on the science, but he hasn’t spent ten minutes checking the evidence. He claims sceptics can’t name any evidence but that’s only because he never reads a word sceptics write. He can’t name a single peer reviewed paper yet we can name hundreds. But we only need one, and Lindzen 2009 will do. (Thank you, since you asked.)

Rudd could start with The Non Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) – an enormous non-profit production of around 800 pages of dense scientific text and references. That it exists at all is remarkable. Why do so many eminent scientists around the world feel compelled to donate time to write long detailed reports?

But talking “papers” is a waste of time, Rudd thinks evidence comes from government, and he’s waiting for the IPCC to debunk itself. He actually says: “Sceptics offer no alternative official body of evidence from any credible government in the world.”

That misunderstanding about the nature of evidence automatically rules out all independent research until such time as some bureaucratic committee agrees. Einstein pointed out that it only takes one experiment to prove him wrong. Obviously, in Rudd’s world, if a government department hadn’t legislated the sun to rise tomorrow, it wouldn’t come up. In the real world, evidence doesn’t come from governments it comes from thermometers.

The IPCC even admits carbon will only warm us by 1 degree. Did you know? Don’t wait for the IPCC press release in plain English. The rest of the projected catastrophe is due to feedback from clouds, rain and humidity. But it isn’t there. Outgoing radiation does the opposite of what the models project. Humidity levels aren’t rising in the upper troposphere, the greenhouse hot-spot is totally missing, high cirrus clouds shrink as the world warms, which cools us. Low clouds correlate with high energy cosmic rays. Weather balloons showed the models were wrong years ago, beyond all reasonable doubt. For the last few years, sea levels have plateaued, and temperatures have cooled. Nothing bar anything is going the right way for the carbonistas. The ice cores show that temperature controls carbon and not the other way around. One hockey stick graph was based on one freak tree in northern Russia, the other used statistical tricks that create hockey sticks from random noise. The East Anglia CRU has lost the entire raw data set of global temperatures. The whole set?! The carbon crisis charade has become a farce.

The only thing confirmed about the theory of man-made global catastrophe is just how audacious and brazen it is, and how many people have been fooled into thinking they help the planet by insulting scientists. Really.

History books will be written about the global warming exaggerations, and people will marvel at how close the world came to feeding a new layer of financial parasites so soon after the economy collapsed due to the last speculative frenzy. Sub prime carbon was on its way.

Rudd scores an own-goal by saying we are deniers “who do not accept the scientific consensus”. Hell no we don’t. We stand by Galileo, Aristotle and Einstein. We demand evidence, and not just opinions. This calling to “consensus” is the stuff of tribal witchdoctors. Chief Kevin and the council of crows say storms are coming, the Gods are angry. We must pay them in barnacles to ward off the wind! For a hundred thousand years people have invented crises in order to scare their followers into submission. Rudd drags us back to the stone age.

The meaningless consensus is fake in any case. Thirty thousand scientists have signed their names against the theory of man-made catastrophe, that includes a Nobel prize winner, 9,000 PhD’s, and countless professors of physics, chemistry and meteorology.

The carbon scare is a shell game to distract the masses while bankers take Australia’s economic sovereignty and lock in a profitable carbon trading scheme for themselves. (Thanks for the tithe: here’s your meaningless paper permits to air that might-have-had-more-carbon-in-it.)

Rudd is so behind the times, he makes the mistake of thinking that we “deniers” think the evidence is “inconclusive”. Not any more we don’t. In any other branch of science this theory would be dead and buried. There are so many flaws, and so many knock-out blows, it’s not possible to seriously look at the evidence and think the carbon-crisis theory has any legs left. Sure, new evidence could change that, but it would have to be one mother of an experiment to turn around the results from oceans, sediments, satellites, stalagmites, weather balloons and ice cores.

One of the most surprising things is just how clumsy Rudd’s long speech was. Not only was 6,000 words indulgent, but the reasoning was extraordinary. Somehow he thinks people will be convinced that Liberals* are crazy if he quotes them saying tritely obvious things like this line from Liberal Senate leader Nick Minchin:
“CO2 is not by any stretch of the imagination a pollutant… This whole extraordinary scheme is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming.”

Which was the perfect point for Rudd to name the evidence and show how Minchin was wrong, but Rudd didn’t even notice the gaping hole in his own reply. It’s as if he thinks just making any point against the hallowed theory is a flaw in itself.

Ironically Rudd manages to find the one line, the only sensible comment Malcolm Turnbull has made on the topic all year, and quotes that as if it counts against Turnbull: “I think most people have at least some doubts about the science.”

This is not exactly diabolical stuff, it’s not like Turnbull is paying tribute to the Ku Klux Klan, or accidentally said “hot air sinks”. Instead this is Turnbull showing he’s is not an automaton robot arm of the IPCC. Apparently Rudd is.

Was there an awkward silence in the room as Rudd read sensible line after sensible line from his opponents? Did anyone in the audience notice that Rudd was acting like a cult believer with a quiet chant: The IPCC are right. The IPCC are right. Don’t question the committee. There is a consensus. The UN has never got it wrong. I can’t name a paper, I can’t name a scientist, but there is a consensus…only an ignorant tobacco funded fool conspiracy theorist who hates their own children would question it…

Rudd is clearly very frustrated that the election wedge he thought he had a handle on is bolting out from under him. And it’s not a moment too soon.

But this time he has gone too far. He needs to apologize unreservedly for baseless attacks on all the scientists who have been trying to warn him and help him understand our climate. Most of us work unpaid to help the country.

Bullying is not science. There is never an excuse.

* For non Australians: “Liberals” here are the conservative opposition. Yes, they are more liberal than the Nationals, but the most liberal are the Labor Party.