Our favorite contrarian, the potty peer Christopher Monckton has been indulging in a little aristocratic artifice again. Not one to be constrained by mere facts or observable reality, he has launched a sally against Andy Revkin for reporting the shocking news that past industry disinformation campaigns were not sincere explorations of the true uncertainties in climate science.

To see the extent of this chicanery, one needs only plot the actual IPCC projections against the observations. This can be done a number of ways, firstly, plotting the observational data and the models used by IPCC with a common baseline of 1980-1999 temperatures (as done in the 2007 report) (Note that the model output is for the annual mean, monthly variance would be larger):
.

Christopher Monckton — a British hereditary peer and high-profile skeptic of both global warming and international agreements — caused a stir on Oct. 14, 2009, with a forceful denunciation of the upcoming international talks on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark, scheduled for Dec. 7-18, 2009.

In a speech in St. Paul, Minn., Monckton called the pending agreement a "dreadful treaty" and said, among other things, that the parties "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. He'll sign anything."....



Even so, we find Monckton's claims to not only be unsupported but preposterous. First, it's impossible to know what agreement will come out of Copenhagen, and when. Second, the U.S. procedure for ratifying treaties requires consent by a supermajority of the Senate — a steep hurdle. Third, it's hard to envision anything coming out of Copenhagen that would change the United States' bedrock principles of freedom and democracy. And fourth, contrary to what Monckton says, the United States can leave an international agreement. So while it pays to be vigilant about threats to U.S. sovereignty, this one is not the threat that Monckton's rhetoric suggests. So Lord Monckton earns a special ruling — Britches on Fire!

Much, much more:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...e-manipulation/


From Politifact: Liar, Liar Pants on Fire!



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...gen-treaty-thr/

Well, with your great precognitive powers you have ascertained that Obama will sign the treaty. Can you also tell us what is in the treaty that hasn't been written yet?

When I no longer see chemtrails across the sky, I'll consider the weather a natural event again. Till then, I'll see the whole global warming as a sloppy cover story.

I was driving from the city to Centerville on Tuesday evening around 6:15pm. I was coming into the clearing where the Subs and Six Packs place is - - there aren't many trees around there, and I noticed immediately a grid of what looks like jet streams up in the sky, so I took pictures on my cell phone. One of my girlfriends consistently captures photos of the sky when the grids are up, and I usually just shrug it off, but I thought of her immediately and wanted to make sure I shared it with her. It was a perfect grid. I wonder if there is barium in the water? That's what people in California tested for: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...videoid=1922304

I wonder if there is barium in the water? That's what people in California tested for: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...videoid=1922304

Adverse effects of selenium on fish and waterfowl in habitats receiving agricultural drainage was first noticed in the San Joaquin Valley of California in the early 1980s. Scientists in the USGS, including several from Menlo Park, California, have contributed considerable data and analysis on the scope of selenium contamination associated with salinized farmlands and on the hydrological and biogeochemical processes resulting in selenium bioaccumulation. These data have been important in helping to resolve selenium toxicity problems associated with irrigated agriculture in the arid West.

Don't know about barium but this has been out there for years.
http://menlocampus.wr.usgs.gov/50years/acc...griculture.html

The Imperial Valley is irrigated with water from the Colorado river, you know the the state with all the mines. All those metals and salts are leeched out and accumulate in the water that is then used to irrigate farm land.
Not as exciting as a government conspiracy though, is it?

The contrails are not chemical trails, they are condensation trails.
If theye is more CO2 in the air, it's because of all the elimination of farms & trees for building & parking lots.

Farm animals breath out CO2 as do all animals.

I took the liberty of copying this from another post "Time to make climate change hot topic here" Post #20

Perhaps a primer on the carbon cycle will help.

http://library.thinkquest.org/11226/why.htm



And posts 21, 22, and 23 debunk your post 20 on the "hot topic" (Opinion) thread.

Oh yes I forgot that anyone who disagrees with the administration (or the left) is a partisan, a crack pot or some deranged psychopath. That helps.

Oh yes I forgot that anyone who disagrees with the administration (or the left) is a partisan, a crack pot or some deranged psychopath. That helps.

Check out this article by the associated press:

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer – Mon Oct 26, 5:12 pm ETWASHINGTON – Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book. Only one problem: It's not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

http://www.ap.org

Not in every case, but in yours, absolutely.

Sanity is highly over rated.