'Significant change in US policy on climate crisis'

It is quite remarkable that Al Gore continues to be given publicity after been shown to be a complete fraud.
Given the fact that the East Anglia university e-mails have shown that Co2 has no relevance to climate change - one would have thought that Obama would have placed a question mark over Copenhagen.
But I suppose like most left wing politicians he is gleefully anticipating getting his hands on all the extra moolah from already over stressed tax payers.
Copenhagen will see 20 000 delegates on an extended freebie at taxpayers expense.
When you think about it - it's quite criminal!!

Aah Dennis, I was typing a comment asking how long it was going to take before you commented, and BAM, there you are. Finally you can mention Al Gore and actually be relevant to the article - cool!

"Given the fact that the East Anglia university e-mails have shown that Co2 has no relevance to climate change"

I actually thought about you when I heard about the CRU emails, but that statement is quite a leap of faith even for you. There is definitely some incriminating stuff in there, and the 2 or 3 scientists involved have a lot of explaining to do, but put it in perspective. There are 1000's of published papers written by 1000's of climatologists; there are tree ring records, ice core records, satellite records, ocean temperature records, meteorology readings, basic physical properties. Our understanding of the role CO2 plays in the climate has been assembled in the last 150 years using all these different sources through the work of thousands of independent scientists: a few emails changes this how?

I know you desperately want this all to be a conspiracy and a cover-up, but I think even you underestimate how impossibly difficult that would be to pull off. Maybe there's a conspiracy going on at the molecular level - maybe those darn pesky carbon and oxygen molecules are responsible. Or maybe the trees have all decided to change how their rings form too. That's the kind of level of conspiracy you'd need to show to be able to say that "CO2 has no relevance to climate change". Good luck with that...

Dennis and James - try this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac

Hi all,

Please read the following for a more balanced view: http://www.skepticalscience.com/CRU-emails-hacked.htm

Dennis, do you have children? Pull your head out of the sand and think about them. Please, for their sake and for the sake of other children...and their children...not to mention all the millions of other spp whp don't have voices.

We've been pumping BILLIONS and BILLIONS of TONNES of C02 (a proven greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere for over 100 years. Glaciers/ice caps have been rapidly melting (at a higher rate than the conservative scientific estimates); spp are shifting their ranges upward and poleward...there any numerous other examples. Why is this happening Dennis? Co-incidence? Sun-spot activity? No connection with the BILLIONS of TONNES of CO2 emitted annually? Really?! What is your IQ, Dennis?

For the rest of you, check out the following link which gives a simplistic indication of the rate of CO2 produced: http://www.breathingearth.net/

Dennis, you dishearten me. I can only wish that you will face up to the fact that the lives we lead in the west today are radically different from a carbon expense point of view to anything in history.

Dennis, there is NO climate change conspiracy. Please, wake up and take responsibility of your own emissions. Think ahead...try to reduce the amount of carbon you produce to 2 tonnes a year. Please Dennis, not for me, for YOUR children and their children.

Sure James - love to believe you but these guys have been seriously BUSTED.
I don't think these alarmists are smart enough to pull off a "conspiracy" - but we all know that when people lie - they have to tell another lie and pretty soon if there are numerous people telling porkies the lies reach gargantuan proportions - until the whole lot collapses like the Co2 theory of global warming!!
Still no connection - still no proof!!
In fact in the UK there has been a call for a public enquiry into their criminal behaviour. (And hopefully a jail sentence!!)
Interestingly there is not just 2 or 3 scientists - but e-mails from scientists all over the world expressing the same ideas of "adjusting the figures".
Also google East Anglia university and read about just how important Phil Jones is to the whole global warming scam.
You will find the 'Frank Lloyd Wright" style glass monstrosity building they are housed in hardly conducive to a "low carbon footprint"!!!
Then read about the SAME SCAM taking place in New Zealand which broke the news today.
A few e-mails??? And the complete silence from the IPCC and the UN is DEAFENING - like kids caught with their hands in the cookie jar!!
Fact is what has happened shows exactly what is wrong pseudo consensus science - there is a call for IPCC figures and all research data to be released - despite attempts from organisations like EAU to keep them secret - which I am sure will reveal more manipulation of data.
Coming after the recent arctic ice bumbled research, the fraudulent hockey stick the whole AGW theory and its dodgy computer models must be seriously questioned.
Hopefully the outcome will be a broader based scientific look at the whole question of global warming - particularly in the light of manipulated data - which will probably show that despite increased levels of Co2 there has been no significant rise in global temperatures.

Dennis, I agree that the hacked (or leaked) files do not prove that AGW theories are false. (Actually, my view is that those theories were noever "proven" in the first place, and hence did not need to be disproved.)

What the files show is that several key figures in global warming circles have acted in bad faith in several ways. From attampting to deny space to skeptic academics to publish research (all the while trumpeting the "peer-reviewed" science), to conspiring to evade freedom of information requests (and some might land up beong prosecuted for that) to artificially altering figures from various studies that were not suitable. Notably, tree-ring analysis after 1960 was deliberately fudged because the models were not working otu the way they were "supposed" to.

And if anyone believes that the use of the word "trick" wascorrectly explained, some of the files show computer programming code with multiple comments from programmers about the substitution of data after 1960. These same comments also show that data prior to 1400 was ignored (this would have related to the Medieval Warm Period, where Vikings colonised Greenland).

What the documents show is that some of the central pillars for the warming argument are a lot more shaky than Mr Gore and the IPCC would like to acknowledge.

Funnily enough Dennis, the leak doesn't appear to have changed any of the readings I have taken over the last few years. Let me check with my colleagues... um.. no. All the figures look the same to me.
So do the conclusions.

THEIR science might be shoddy, and their dealings might be dodgy (we don't even have details yet about what figures were shifted and how and why), but they are a FEW scientists. They are quite literally a drop in the ocean as far as climate science goes.

I've seen far worse figure fiddling from scientists whose research is funded by oil companies and the like. And on a larger scale.

And before you start AGAIN exclaiming that Al Gore is a TOTAL fraud, go have a look at the details of the case against him. It might surprise you. As you continue to state that he has been completely discredited, I would assume that you are not aware of the details.

Dennis et al., the stolen emails only prove one thing: the denial camp has no science on their side, only vicious personal attack.

3 or 4 conversations out of more than 1000 emails contain things open to a negative interpretation. Give me a break. If there was a serious conspiracy, this would have blown it wide open. Let's look at some of the claims. A discussion of events at a journal that's been interpreted by denialists as climate scientists interfering in the editorial process. In fact what happened is they discovered that a rogue editor had let a junk paper through by steering it to sympathetic reviewers. 3 of the editors of that journal, including one who was about to be elevated to editor in chief, resigned in disgust when the publisher refused to publish an apology. The conversation about the apparent lack of warming being a "travesty": a follow-up email explained why this was wrong.

Dennis, emails are like private conversations. People talking to friends and colleagues do not watch every word. They say or email things they know to be wrong to challenge others, or for the rather simple reason that you can hit send so easily before you've finished composing an email. If you are going to take as "proof" that a scientific theory is flawed the contents of of a tiny fraction of a large trove of stolen emails, you are on shaky ground indeed. Why not prove the theory wrong by demonstrating another theory fits the facts better? Answer: there is no other better theory. But fossil fuel shills have to do something to earn a living, and personal attack is so much easier than doing the hard daily grind of science.

More here: http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-of-fraud-part-3.html

Wishfull thinking from Al Gore.
President Softee can say what he wants but the adults in the Senate will never allow a cent to be spent in pepetuating this fraud.

It is very encouraging to see the political heavy weights getting behind the climate change drive. We can have all the science telling us about the peril our planet is in. But ultimately we need the political will to make the difference. We probably still have some way to go before everybody is on the same page to achieve a common agenda in reducing green house gas emissions.

Well done to Al Gore for his sterling work in highlighting the environmental problems confronting us. It takes a prominent person to get everybody to take notice.

Agreed Les, but the problem is Obama is only willing to cut 17% on 2005 levels! We need a 25-40% cut in 1990 (yes that's right: 1990!) levels! Check out the following link for a good article of the status quo going into Copenhagen...it's written by Harald Winkler of the Energy Research Centre at the University of Cape Town: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/going-for-broke-in-copenhagen-2009-11-20

@free speech. Yes 17% is too little. But it is a start. As the science reveals more on the seriousness of the environmental problems then cut backs can be increased over time.

Unfortunately the science and political fraternities do not operate in synch. Whilst the science might reveal certain facts the politicians may have to lobby the masses of people and industries that have little or no understanding nor the will regarding the bigger issues at stake.

There are over 6.5billion humans currently harvesting the finite fossil energy resources available without much constraint or consideration for the consequences of these actions. Whether or not science is either proving or disproving the connection between GHG’s and global warming does not detract from the fact that it is logical that the impact of compliance with an ever increasing need for energy is, and will have a negative effect on the global environment.
It is also logical that anthropogenic influences on the global biodiversity cannot be maintained at the current birthrate levels without cracks appearing that have an adverse effect on the planet in the near future. It is estimated that by 2030 there will be 9billion of us parading around. The resources are just not going to be enough without alternative energy sources.
Having said that and also agreeing that carbon emissions have become of big business, I fear that the environmental factors will once again play second fiddle due to the obsessive greed and self-interest that is currently prevailing in the arenas of industrialists and poor political leadership.

I am sure we can all agree (even the denialists) that if there were enough Co2 in the atmosphere, then the consequences for the global climate will be extremely negative. The question then changes from whether climate change is fact or even whether there is an anthropogenic component to the observable climate change to a simple one: Just how much Co2 are we prepared to tempt fate with. The global climate system must have its limits regarding Co2 so surely at some time we will have reduce Co2 emissions, if not now then in years to come. Quibbling about the specifics of research and allowing interest group agendas to dominate is just confusing the issue and wasting time.