Chief ClimateGate overseer failed to declare Eco-Directorship--UK Register

"Exclusive: The peer leading the second Climategate enquiry at the University of East Anglia serves as a director of one of the most powerful environmental networks in the world, according to Companies House documents - and has failed to declare it.

• Lord Oxburgh, a geologist by training and the former scientific advisor to the Ministry of Defence, was appointed to lead the enquiry into the scientific aspects of the Climategate scandal on Monday.
  
• But Oxburgh is also a director of GLOBE, the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment.

GLOBE may be too obscure to merit its own Wikipedia entry, but that belies its wealth and influence.

• It funds meetings for parliamentarians worldwide with an interest in climate change, and prior to the Copenhagen Summit GLOBE issued guidelines (pdf) for legislators. Little expense is spared: in one year alone, one peer - Lord Michael Jay of Ewelme - enjoyed seven club class flights and hotel accommodation, at GLOBE's expense. There's no greater love a Parliamentarian can give to the global warming cause. And in return, Globe lists Oxburgh as one of 23 key legislators.

In the House of Lords Register of Lords' Interests, Oxburgh lists under remunerated directorships his chairmanship of Falck Renewables, and chairmanship of Blue NG, a renewable power company. (Oxburgh holds no shares in Falck Renewables, and serves as a non-exec chairman.) He also declares that he is an advisor to Climate Change Capital, to the Low Carbon Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to Deutsche Bank. For a year he was non-exec chairman of Shell.

GLOBE is conspicuous by its absence, however. Oxburgh joined GLOBE in 2008. The

• University of East Anglia appointed Oxburgh after consulting the Royal Society.

"We are grateful to the Royal Society for helping us to identify such a strong panel and to the members for dedicating their time to this important matter," said the University in a press statement. It may not be the smartest advice the UEA has ever received -

• the Royal Society's partisanship is well known....

GLOBE's worldwide secretary Elliott Morley and its British branch secretary David Chaytor were two of three MPs to face criminal charges last week. Brent MP Barry Gardiner, co-chairman of the GLOBE Dialogue on Land Use Change & Ecosystems claimed for a second home eight miles from Westminster, and worked the system for £200,000.

In 2007 Oxburgh won a Lifetime Achievement Award from Platts. The judges said they were also impressed by “his very high ethical standards."" 3/24/10 A. Orlowski

Is it not criminal for Al Gore to be preaching false storm data proving need for carbon trading (and Goldman Sachs)?

The claim about increased storms by Gore and the UN was never published or reviewed, per the TimesOnline UK, 1/24/10. Anyone who read the report could have seen this in plain site, nothing esoteric. The public generally is unaware of this giant fraud because

• the US media refuses to report it.

• UK Times: "The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

• When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

• Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month.
  

It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts —

• but were ignored."...

• If this isn't criminal fraud that Gore is allowed to push, against the American people, what is? (ed).
  

"If there’s a drought – it’s global warming. When there’s a hurricane – it’s global warming. If there are heavy snows or even blizzards – it’s somehow global warming. And amazingly, the latest round of rainy and windy weather in the Northeast, well that’s consistent with this phenomenon as well, so says former Vice President Al Gore.

• Gore, the self-anointed climate change alarmist-in-chief, told supporters on a March 15 conference call that severe weather in certain regions of the country could be attributed
  
• to carbon in the atmosphere – including the recent rash of rainy weather.

“[T]he odds have shifted toward much larger downpours,” Gore said. “And we have seen that happen in the Northeast, we’ve seen it happen in the Northwest – in both of those regions are among those that scientists have predicted for a long time would begin to experience much larger downpours.”

• But Gore had a specific example in mind. He explained this recent soaking in the Northeastern United States was “consistent” with what global warming alarmists were projecting."...

More from TimesOnline UK, 1/24/10 about false storms claim used to get money from Americans and permanently enslave them:

• "The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become

embedded in political and public debate.

• It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation

• of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change minister, has suggested British and overseas floods — such as those in Bangladesh in 2007 — could be linked to global warming.

• Barack Obama, the US president, said last autumn: "More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent."...

Reference, "UN Wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters," by Jonathan Leake,
via Tom Nelson

Continuous media assumes US taxpayers are slaves of organized climate crime, done deal

Even if we were slaves, this long-planned global ponzi scheme misses other points.

• First, the US is broke, we are owned by Communist China. We are not a 'rich' nation.
• Second, man made global warming does not exist.
• Third, US taxpayers do not owe "reparations" to anyone. If anything, all you people owe us.
• Fourth, we have given billions away to other countries and the United Nations and it's been put in the pockets of corrupt individuals. There is no oversight, no accountability.
• Fifth, all the money in the world is banking on global carbon trading and these forces control everything including the media.
• Sixth, we're not becoming your slaves, ever. This may come as a shock to you.
• Seventh, Nancy Birdsall and all her cohorts are insane to imagine any legal mechanism whereby they will destroy our country, our lives, and our families.
  

London, Reuters AlertNet - "The annual $100 billion rich countries have agreed to mobilise by 2020 to help developing nations address climate change is "a very modest sum", according to a top academic who is a member of a high-level panel that will work out how to raise the money.

• The pledge "is a small sum in relation to the type of challenges we are talking about," Nicholas Stern, a professor at the London School of Economics, told a conference of development experts in London this week....

The "High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing", which has been set up by the U.N. Secretary-General and is co-chaired by the British and Ethiopian prime ministers, has been charged with exploring ways of raising the money

• promised by rich countries.

Stern said it will look at innovative methods including

• carbon taxes,

• auctioning emissions permits, and

• levies on financial transactions,

• air travel and shipping.

The group plans to hold its first meeting in London in late March and will submit its final report before U.N. climate talks that kick off in Mexico at the end of November. How best to raise and distribute money to

• help poor countries tackle climate change is a
  
• hot topic which is a long way from being resolved.

Many development experts feel a fresh approach is needed from the usual aid mechanisms - not least

• because they see it as form of compensation
  
• rather than charity.

Nancy Birdsall, president of the Washington-based Center for Global Development, proposed a mechanism based on responsibility for carbon emissions and vulnerability to climate change in which

• rich polluting nations would have a
  
• legal duty to contribute and

poor countries would receive allocations according to their susceptibility to the impacts of global warming. "...

• via Tom Nelson

'Green' fades as cache of our betters--green blog chills out

"In mid-February, The Christian Science Monitor decided to cancel its Bright Green blog after twenty-two months in operation."...

• CSM editor John Yemma""Environmental coverage, however, has become much more mainstream in recent years.

We expect all of our reporters to be well versed in environmental issues and to pursue these as a matter of course.""...

• from CJR, 3/9/10, via Poynter.org/Romenesko

Global warming profiteers infect inurance business in US and abroad--governments roll over and give taxpayer dollars

"Over the past year, Australian insurance companies increased their rates to cover the damage costs from predicted "extreme weather events".

• Note that we're not talking about any extreme weather events in particular, or events predicted to occur at any precise time or location.
  
• Just, you know, extreme weather events. Due to, um, climate change.

Everyone's talking about it, so, like, it's bound to happen. Better jack up those rates. The climate change is upon us.

• Rate increases for household and car insurance were practically industry-wide.

As my Daily Telegraph colleague Andrew Carswell reported last week, some companies blew things out by as much as 10 per cent, driven by insurance industry claims that "severe weather events ... are

• now no longer unusual events, and the pricing models of the insurers must reflect this".

Insurance rates are usually based more on history

• than prediction.

If you've had your car broken into several times, your insurance costs will rise accordingly. But climate change is yet to damage a single house or car.

• No matter; you're going to pay for it anyway.

And Australians did. One company alone, Insurance Australia Group, the owners of NRMA, increased rates to cover an expected $166 million in payouts for "natural peril" claims. As Carswell reported, however, payouts fell $45 million short of that sum.

• Why? Because catastrophic climate change events didn't happen. Therefore, that $45 million became profit.

Insurers Suncorp-Metway, QBE and Allianz also enjoyed similarly massive payoffs thanks to climate change's no-show. You've got to hand it to them; in the middle of a global financial crisis, these businesses turned nothing into gold.

• Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is hot for regulating big-business profiteers.

This case is almost perfect for him. Check it out, Kev. You've got your fear mongering, your industry collusion, your poor blameless consumers being shaken down. What's holding you back?

• At a guess, one thing. Rudd and his Government have led the climate change panic that these insurers are cashing in on.

In January 2009, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong warned that "the number of heat-related deaths in our capital cities is projected to double to about 2300 a year" by 2020. As well, infectious diseases, bushfire-related injuries, food-safety related illness and dengue fever would all soar.

• With Australia becoming a toxic, burning fever-swamp littered with boiling corpses, it's only reasonable to expect some slight increases in property damage along the way.

Someone driving to the dengue clinic could catch fire and crash into a house, if it hasn't already been burned to the ground by Peter Garrett's roving incineration installers.

• That's a bunch of payouts right there. Insurance companies have got to be alert to these issues. They're also awfully worried about how much they'll be charging people to insure beachside properties. Lots, probably, on account of the sea-level rises that will wipe out coastal Australia. The Government is fond of talking about this, too.

Strange thing, though. While insurance rates increase, so do beachside property values. If these places are such death traps, why are they so expensive?

• If the government-insurance complex is convinced that coastal Australia is just a holding pen for the doomed, how come there isn't a rush for the inland?

It's not as though high property prices in, say, Orange are holding anyone back. There's a nice little three-bedroom place available right now in North St for just $140,000, which is just slightly less than you'll pay in Sydney for a mailbox. And, by virtue of its inland location, it's completely safe from climate change. Sadly, however, even Orange isn't safe from universal climate change-related insurance increases.

• And if you think insurance is where is ends, consider where your taxes are going.

In Britain, a report recently found that the Government's taxpayer-financed Climate Challenge Fund had spent nearly $A16 million on idiotic stunts intended to alert citizens about global warming and the like.

• Not only were these stunts stupid, they didn't work. Public opinion in the UK, as everywhere else, is trending against climate change alarmism.

The same capers are under way here, beginning with the Department of Climate Change. Your money is being stolen by artists of the con variety. And unless an elderly German fag-bandit is somehow responsible for all of this, you're never getting any of it back."

• 3/1/10, "Merciless pirates of disaster run amok" The Daily Telegraph, AU, Tim Blair via Tom Nelson
  

SEC forces climate regulation on business, ignores that UN disaster data admitted fake

• It is unlikely businesses even know the disaster/hurricane projection data was fake, as the main media refuses to report it. It was only the claim used to demand billions in 'climate reparations' from US citizens.The average business person in the US spends most of his time working. He is therefore unaware that many others spend all their time trying to break him.
• This is easily done by endless legal measures.
  

The UN Climate report used unverified data about climate disasters which was promoted repeatedly by the media and is being used by the SEC to regulate businesses. Since the report now has no merit, why is the SEC continuing to force businesses to elaborately address a crisis that doesn't exist?

• This error was in plain view, a matter of form, so anyone could have found it were they looking, and was acknowledged and reported on 1/24/10 by TimesOnlineUK by Jonathan Leake.
  

"The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC's 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had "suffered

• rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s".

It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming

• and cited the unpublished report, saying:

"One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend."

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim

• had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

• Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month.

It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.

• The claim will now be re-examined and could be withdrawn."...

from TimesOnlineUK, "UN Wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters," by Jonathan Leake, 1/24/10

• For those interested, report from the UK Register, "Now IPCC Hurricane data is questioned,"
• by Andrew Orlowski, 2/15/10

Efforts to shakedown US business by using the SEC

Our priority is billions in carbon trading, not the environment. Gordon Brown, UK

"No less chagrined must be Gordon Brown, who sees the carbon market as key to the global response to climate change, and to the economic fortunes of the City of London. As Brown told WWF in 2007, the government wanted binding limits on developed country emissions in a post-2012 climate agreement, because London was the world's carbon trading capital, and "only hard caps can create the framework necessary for a global carbon market to flourish".

• Thus he made it clear that the health of the carbon market took a rather higher priority than the health of the climate system."...

"The great achievement of the (Kyoto) protocol was not to reduce carbon emissions –

• they actually rose at an increasing rate under its watch,
  
• three times faster in the early 2000s than during the 1990s –

but to create a market in emissions rights and notional emissions reductions worth tens of billions of dollars a year.".. (paragraph 3 in article)

• Guardian UK, "Don't let the carbon market die," 1/25/10, by Oliver Tickell.

This from 'climate central,' the UK. The useful idiots drawn into the global warming scam are salesmen of hate for billionaires peddling the biggest crime in history. The NY Times and Washington Post refuse to report this scandal, much less make it front page news. Too much money involved. Anyone who cares to look will find carbon trading's roots had nothing to do with saving the environment. You remember of course, Enron? ed.