In the week leading up to the Copenhagen climate change conference, skeptics and political opponents are seizing on the emails leaked from the Climate Research Unit in an attempt to short circuit global action on carbon emission reductions. Given that COP-15 is a conference that brings together lead CLIMATE NEGOTIATORS from around the world, it is unlikely that all this noise on the “climate change racket” will have a discernable impact on what kind of agreement emerges.
Alas, Copenhagen is destined for a spot near the top of the ever-lengthening 2009 squandered opportunities list, but it will not because of efforts by climate change deniers who have nary a seat at the negotiating table. Sure, opponents may be able to queer domestic adoption of any deal that comes out of Copenhagen, but that fact was never in doubt — even before Climategate.
So, why will a compromise deal inevitably emerge before the need to compromise is present? Why is it that even with the world’s most passionate climate change honks all together in one room, the world still will not agree on collective action that takes us much beyond Kyoto?
Answers are found in these three persistent, irresolvable conflicts among those parties that are at the table:
Green In-Fighting – Is clean coal legitimate or a lark? Should we subsidize solar? If we do, can Chinese-fabricated PV claim the cash? Questions like these continue to dog greens in US legislation.
When the House passes a climate bill that is opposed by Greenpeace, that is all the evidence one needs to illustrate the fissures that have deepened in the clean energy and conservation communities. With no consensus, the US never got the comprehensive climate change bill that everyone insisted was a necessary prerequisite to Copenhagen – IF President Obama wanted to claim a credible mantle of leadership.
Those divisions only broaden on the global scale. There remains very public disagreement on the growth and sharing of civil nuclear technology. Other differences informed by national interest will mark the discussions and hamstring any chance of adopting hard targets that are actually backed by unified global strategies on renewable generation.
Developed versus Developing – China and India have mouths to feed – more every day. And, increasingly, those traditionally agrarian, subsistence economies are not only becoming energy-intensive manufacturing and service economies, but their citizens are expecting a higher quality of life. To deny these growing economies the chance to blossom is both hypocritical of the West and unrealistic, since reducing emissions in Asia would stagnate Western economies that rely on consumption of goods produced there.
China, India and others also argue that the West owes a “debt of pollution” that should be paid not only by reducing their own emissions, but also by directing resources to fund developing world emission reduction efforts. Proposals call for aid to come in the form of cash and transfer of emergent technologies. An extension of either is really politically palatable on a large scale for the US.
At What Cost? - One of the more compelling storiesthat will inevitably emerge in the mainstream media from the Copenhagen conference is that of Maldives. The tiny nation – an archipelago barely above sea level – not only faces cataclysmic consequences if global warming persists, it faces the possibility of total annihalation in the next century. While nations have been conquered and carved up throughout history, changing names and changing shapes frequently even in the years since World War II, humankind has never had a sovereign nation wiped off of the map. For Maldives, the question of Copenhagen is: “at what cost do we delay bold action on climate change?”
Maldives may have a compelling story, but it will not have much influence in Copenhagen. Ultimately, whatever agreement emerges will be the work of large countries that are only beginning to feel the hurt of climate change. Rich Western nations, emerging industrial countries in the former Eastern Bloc and Africa, and booming economies throughout Asia. If one of these countries were looking at climate change impacts manifest so vividly, there might be movement; but, for now, they are left to ponder ”at what cost to growth and consumer prices can we justify bold action on climate change?”
Not Enough ‘Energy’ in the ‘Environment’
“Climategate” will fade from the front pages — the emails won’t mean much once COP-15 gets underway. And, knowing that they are going home to face certain opposition from some factions anyway, you might think that delegates would show up in Copenhagen prepared to do something splashy. Especially given that much of the action needed will be undertaken at the national level, the more progressive states should be pushing for an agreement that will give them good aspirational benchmarking for domestic legislation, even if they know it cannot get ratified back home by some other attendees.
But, neither Western European noblesse oblige nor US self-interest (take your pick: green jobs, national security, environment) will be enough to overcome the competing interests that will confound consensus even among the climate change evangelists assembled in Copenhagen. And, from uncertainty follows inertia. It is not a hopeful holiday sentiment, but it is a realistic one. And, without some action soon, Christmas may not come to Maldives at all.
It is understandable that many people have latched on to the emails, but in their defense the people at CRU indicate that the emails are ‘without context’ or somehow ‘normal banter’ in a scientific institution.
The program code however is different.
It is the actual program code, the modeling code that contains the most damaging evidence. I am not talking about the 'comments' in the code but rather the actual computer program source code itself.
Unlike comments and emails the computer code can only be interpreted in one way. Unlike the comments and the emails the computer code is whole unto it self and requires no external context.
So now everyone has the code.
However now CRU have somehow ‘lost’ the world’s raw climate data that they used in their modeling.
It may have been necessary for them to have lost the raw temperature data. If the raw temperature data was available then they might be asked to reproduce Exactly The Same Results, in front of skeptical witnesses, as they had used in their peer-reviewed publications that were distributed to the world. This might have been impossible without using some infected modeling code, which an investigating scientist might discover.
If the results can not be reproduced the paper that used the results should be withdrawn. Then every paper that cited that paper, and so on until the whole web of pseudo-science that can be traced back to the original fabrication has been purged from the libraries
It is not scientific unless an independent body can reproduce the results.
For information on the possible code infection see:
Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert.
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s...
"In the IPCC scenarios, the Maldives were condemned
to disappear in the sea in the near future (e.g. Hoffman et al., 1983; IPCC, 2001). Our documentation of actual field evidence contradicts this hypothesis."
"In the region of the Maldives, a general fall of sea
level occurred some 30 years ago. The origin of this
sea level fall is likely to be an increased evaporation over the central Indian Ocean linked to an intensification of the NE-monsoon."
N.-A. Morner et al. "New perspectives for the future of the Maldives" Global and Planetary Change 40 (2004) 177–182
Furthermore, there seems no longer to be any reasons to condemn the Maldives to become flooded in the near future.
Besides, at about 1000–800 BP, the people of the Maldives survived a higher sea level by about
50–60 cm."
I'll say this, some of you who have bought into AGW have done a very good job of minimizing the biggest swindle in recent history. It's a big deal that the data you guys use to justify your entire belief in AGW is flawed and yet you persist in the belief. This is every bit as bad as the religious zealotry that your ilk tends to look down your noses at. Enjoy your hypocrisy and failure to divine truth.
I previously posted this comment but hit "submit" before I was finished. Would you be so kind as to post this comment instead? Many thanks.
I don't know whether Copenhagen will sink for any of the reasons you cite or not.
But even if it does sink, the evidence shows that the Maldives will not sink with it:
N.-A. Morner et al. “New perspectives for the future of the Maldives” Global and Planetary Change 40 (2004) 177–182
“In the IPCC scenarios, the Maldives were condemned to disappear in the sea in the near future (e.g. Hoffman et al., 1983; IPCC, 2001). Our documentation of actual field evidence contradicts this hypothesis.”
“In the region of the Maldives, a general fall of sea level occurred some 30 years ago. The origin of this sea level fall is likely to be an increased evaporation over the central Indian Ocean linked to an intensification of the NE-monsoon.”
Furthermore, there seems no longer to be any reasons to condemn the Maldives to become flooded in the near future.
Besides, at about 1000–800 BP, the people of the Maldives survived a higher sea level by about 50–60 cm.”
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications...
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The falsification of data and the conspiracy to commit same etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. Further, the granting of public funds for research warrants a federal investigation. I’m hoping the perpetrators, including possibly Professor Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows. — Michael Santomauro
Mr Walsh, my guess is you haven't thought critically about anything in decades. You thump your chest in defense of the poor Maldives and then ignore the freedoms of your own nation.
By the way, PROVE TO ME the Maldives are in danger. Oh that's right, it can't be proven. The original data has been destroyed and the conclusions are suspect. So, I guess it's trust us…
I, however, would prefer some repeatable scientific evidence prior to enacting measures with potentially massive economic and political ramifications.
No matter how the warmers spin this there will be hell to pay for the falsifiers of data. They will see the inside of a court room and a jail before this is over. We are angry and we want justice!
Origin of the term Climategate:
See post from Bulldust (15:52:36) :
Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-ne...
CLIMATEGATE will not go away
Without credible proxy data indicating historic warming during solar activity was not more than post industrial warming, there is no tie at all between CO and warming. Warming may or may not occur (it hasn't the last ten years while the sun has been quieter) however, the 'debt' disappears entirely.
Climategate will not fade and any legitimate scientist will want to get to the bottom of how much of the circular case for man made global warming has been undermined by the lack of credibility exposed by Climategate.
There's rumblings of mass defections and walk-outs destined for Copenhagen. And look at what's happening in Australia. I suspect many Warmers are going to be totally blind-sided. This is fun.
JTD and Mr. Walsh,
Can I ask you both a simple favor?
If the Climategate scandal has taught us anything, it is that ad hominen attacks are not only unfair, they are counterproductive even to the side that slings them.
Can we just drop the charges against each other ("denier", "my guess is you haven’t thought critically about anything in decades") and stick to the science?
If we do that, we might be able to make some progress that we can both believe in.
For example, Mr. Walsh has claimed that if we do not limit CO2 output, the Maldives will be wiped out by rising ocean levels. I posted a (peer-reviewed) study which says that the actual data proves otherwise. How about a discussion on the data?
The physics of light tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide cannot trap heat, and cannot influence climate. That is all ye know, and all ye need to know: http://nov55.com/ntyg.html
SeanNY,
I humbly apologize for the personal nature of my comments. And I agree that we should stick to the science. Unfortunately, the science is unclear and has been possibly corrupted by ideology. Yet here we are, still rushing headlong, chased by the shrill cries of modern day Cassandras, towards what we don't know.
I think it's terrific that you posted a peer reviewed paper, proving that the Maldives will not cease to exist. I'm sure they'll be relieved. But please tell me. What effect will that have on the current political and ideological histrionics, which, in a matter of weeks, may result in far reaching, lasting and binding, social and economic impacts? Where is your vote? Where is the consent of the governed?
I vote for full disclosure. If the theory of AGW can withstand ALL attacks to it's credibility, then it's a reasonable theory. If it falls to even one, it must be modified or discarded. I believe in science. However, I think that the Age of Enlightenment may be coming to an end, and I for one, will not give it up to the politics of fear.
Now, on to the data….
An army of climate change deniers has launched an attack on this site. It's regrettable that they assume, rather than prove a global scientific conspiracy to conceal the truth. The climate change hypothesis continues to be tested and holds up well. That's not to say there is no countervailing data, but it is unpersuasive at this point. Why are so many of the Head-in-the-Sand-Gate deniers so opposed to energy efficiency and renewables, which will lessen our dependence on oil sheiks?
Its wonderfull to see articles ,precisely like this one, arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic of their own making,so nicely.Fortunately, the same problem persists….Not enough life boats. have a nice swim
No hope climategate will go away, this is the nail in the coffin for AGW. All the last 20 years of climate research in the bogus peer-reviewed journals are now suspect, nothing can be trusted, not even the raw data that is lost.
What will happen here is that the public will learn what the crooks were up to and trust in alarmists AGW claims will drop dramatically. Latest numbers in FoxNews poll show that only 2% of the respondents still believe in the AGW claims!
We are now at 12.5million google hits, still climbing, this thing has taken on a life of its own.
And to top it up, we have new documents revealing UNEP's plan for world government!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577827,00.htm...
@ Dave Dempsey – I don't think that anyone is opposed to energy efficiency and renewable energy per se. If they make economic sense without ongoing government subsidies that is.
To claim that "deniers" believe in a global conspiracy is to miss the point. The climategate emails and code demonstrate the falsification of data and the avoidance of scrutiny. Phil Jones is the 4th most cited "climate scientist" in the last decade. His "findings" have had a tremendous influence on the IPCC and the direction of "climate science".
Science should be transparent, results should be replicatable, data and methods should be available.
The fact that the unadjusted data is no longer available means that the adjusted data is next to useless. From the emails it is more than apparent that trust should not be extended to the HADCRUT data. Any research relying upon it is now discredited.
The Maldives if memory serves, is surrounded by coral reefs which protected it form the sea but fishermen have been using dynamite to fish and consequently destroying their islands protective reefs.
And they want to cash in now!
Have you read all the emails?
"Alas, Copenhagen is destined for a spot near the top of the ever-lengthening 2009 squandered opportunities list, but it will not because of efforts by climate change deniers who have nary a seat at the negotiating table."
Alas, none of the left's insane machinations of World dominations justified by climate hysteria will ever come to fruition because they keep pretending that legitimate arguments against their AGW religion don't exist by labeling legitimate skeptics "deniers" and then actively denying them a seat at any table. It is absolutely disgusting what the left has done to Western civilization on multiple avenues, and their denial over the consequences of their behavior won't make those consequences go away. The circular argument of claiming that the science is settled because the peer review process says so won't wash anymore because the CRU scandal demonstrates clearly that there is no real peer review in "climate science" and hasn't been for a long time.
Every legitimate scientists involved in climate research is secretly asking themselves now, "Do I want to be an actual scientist or do I want to be a religious zealot?"
Climategate Crooks Help UN – Jones Steps Down
This document represents yet another smoking gun proving that the climate cult movement is all about expanding the power of a dictatorial, unelected global government, diluting powers of nation states, seizing control of the global economy, eviscerating the middle class with a raft of new regulations and laws, and shutting down industry with impossible CO2 reduction mandates, while erecting environmentalism, which is really a thin veil for global fascism, as the new universal religion.
This has nothing to do with saving the earth and, as the climategate scandal has illustrated, nothing to do with the real science – but everything to do with a relatively small clique of globalists running roughshod over humanity itself in pursuit of their malthusian control freak agenda. Full article: http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-un-documents-ou...
Protest for an investigation to measure how accurate the Climate Change Measurements are or whether or not they are all fraud: http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html
Email Prime Minister Stephen Harper and request he not sign the Copenhagen Treaty, so you and your family don’t lose your Canadian Sovereignty and become a subject under the Dictate of the United Nations. Email: pm@pm.gc.ca
Oh dear. If the best you can do to undermine the impact of climategate is to point to the Maldives – and the now-disproven claims of catastrophically rising sea levels – you are exhibiting a childish but well tested reponse.
See sand. Bury head.
It is so gratifying to see all the comments here. Of course Mr. Walsh, a true believer, likes to think that Climategate will just fade away. He is wrong. EVERYTHING stems from the CRU. Scientists around the world have been using their data to draw conclusions.
According to Wikipedia: Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence gathered with the aid of information obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence (the "tree") is tainted, then anything gained from it (the "fruit") is as well.
I think the exposed emails very clearly portray that the "evidence" which worldwide scientists were using to come to their "consensus" was tainted. Anything concluded from it is as well.
Dave D,
[Head-in-the-Sand-Gate deniers so opposed to energy efficiency and renewables, which will lessen our dependence on oil sheiks]
Really? Conservation and efficiency is certainly not the issue here. I'm sure you would find "consensus" on that. It's about liberty.
I'm sure glad you know the truth, when most are requesting further study.
Joe:
I happened to click on this article because it came up by a Google search for Climategate. To my unpleasant surprise, I find it's written by a warmist; i.e., you. Then I checked out your creds, and come to find that you're one of the renewable energy elites out there who stand to profit big time (and probably already has) by a pro-AGW stance and the legislation that could (but at this point most likely won't) follow. Time to find a new career, eh?
Rich Western Countries? Can you name these please? The US is over $12 trillion in debt. We need to use fossil fuels to pay our debts.
If you watch "COPS" you see people being pulled over, asked if they have controlled substances (which they say they don't) they get searched and the substances are found (they say "how did that get there?") and arrested (to which they proclaim their innocence as they are being carted away).
How is this different? The CRU pretends there was never anything wrong, then when confronted by a large enough mob they pretend they did nothing wrong and when that fails they claim they don't know anything about it and "oh, by the way" they deleted the raw data (not that anyone could reconstruct the spaghetti code and myriad data sources, all of which are massaged with the special CRU "hocus-pocus" which tells them the temperatures long ago based on tree rings of a tree in siberia. (This is why "climate science" is so darned difficult that physicists, geologists and engineers are just not schooled enough to understand – "don't try this at home, we are trained professionals" INDEED!
This author does nothing new but repeat the same age old tactic of "attack the attacker". A small helpless people will be exterminated if global warming isn't stopped. So this means a denier is a reprehensible monster and wishes people to die.
What does this emotional argument have to do with science? Nothing. It is just a stick to quiet any legitimate questioning of a very suspect global powergrab.
If I told you that I had pychic visions that aliens would attack earth and enslave every woman and child in every 3rd world country in 10 years and only if you were to divert all the money of the major nations to my personal research into defeating the aliens, thereby making me the wealthiest person in the history of human history, would you go along? If you don't then you obviously hate poor minority women and children. You must want to see the aliens kill everyone. And how dare you question the psychic vision I had, are you calling me a liar?
I didn’t take the time to search ALL of the posts to see if this is already here…. please forgive me-
Here is Monckton’s article “Caught Green Handed”
Good read, if you have the time- (I did….now I’m behind)
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf
comedy time of the day:
maybe it was Hitler behind global warming? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGdbHW9Nlds
I think it is blatantly obvious that Politics has been fuelling the Carbon-Gravy-Train, and the fuel definitely isn't Science.
I have been studying the science of climate and its link to solar activity for years now and I am afraid that all of this Fascist name calling 'CLIMATE DENYER' will do more harm than good.
FACT] The 11 year small sun cycle has been broken and the sunspot activity has not returned.
FACT] This means it is being influenced by a larger cycle which is now taking precedence.
FACT] As of today there is still NO SUN SPOT ACTIVITY.
FACT] There has been 20 Glaciations in 2 million years that pre-date Automobiles and Industrialisation.
FACT] The Ordovician Period was actually an Ice Age period and the CO2 levels were 15 times greater than present. So no matter where the CO2 came from either Volcanic or Cars it is not related to average world temperature in any way shape or form that could be considered the main driver or a cause for panic.
What this means is that whilst we should be preparing for failed crops to protect the most vulnerable people on Earth from starving to death, we have a bunch of WARMISTS brain-washed by propaganda about to hand a bunch of thieves an open ended Cabon Tax that will not even reduce carbon. What a world!
Climate-Gate will not dissappear because the Independent Media will keep exposing what amounts to the largest attempted FRAUD in human history. It is not ignorance or fumbling, it can only be the result of deliberate falsification of evidence in order to defraud every person on this Earth. Who to thank? A:Our now quite exposed 'loving' World Government which is waiting in the wings for international funding to consecrate it as a Fascist Un-Elected world power to run a feudal type system. No conspiracy, all of your world leaders are anouncing a New World Order…YES, THEY are actually saying this. Is it a conspiracy to listen to what they are saying? And I must say it is very timely for this to all coincide with the global financial crash.
Journalists beware….You are fighting against a tide of people waking up to the deceptions of the 20th century and unless you start talking sense you are in danger of being washed away with the World Government…..of which Climate-Gate seems to be a well needed abortion for Fascism.
The Upside of Climate Change http://www.vjmovement.com/truth/238 sometimes images speak more than words
Thanks to all for reading and commenting. In advance of the conference opening tomorrow, I though I might post a brief response that reflects my thoughts on the comments in aggregate — sorry, just can’t get to all individually.
I think the criticisms took the following themes: 1) I am a “renewable energy elite,” carrying the water for the climate change movement; 2) the Maldives story is fiction and I fell for it; 3) I gave the significance of ClimateGate short shrift.
1 — Real or Hyped?
Obviously, this is a question that could be open to much debate: is global climate changing? is it changing in a way that is inconsistent with Earth’s history? are human beings primarily responsible? are GHG emissions the problem? This piece could not and did not plumb those depths.
I think all of those debates are worth having, but for this piece I was focusing on the facts: this conference is happening and the goal is to institute global regimes to counteract manmade climate change drivers.
I was surprised to be accused of being involved in some sort of global conspiracy to perpetuate the climate change agenda. Some critics pointed to use of the phrase “climate change deniers” as a pejorative or as passing normative judgment. It is no more intended to be so than was the phrase “climate change honks.”
Also, the premise of the piece was that climate change negotiations would fail. No pep rally. No press release. Sorry, folks, I think I played this one pretty much down the middle.
2 — Mixed-up in Maldives
A lot of comments attacked the Maldives story as fiction or based on junk science. Fair enough, what my piece intended to point out was that at least Maldives is bringing a vivid manifestation of climate change to the world. “My country is going to disappear” is a much more compelling story than “well, according to tree ring data…”
Evidence of the rhetorical boost that the climate change movement could use was provided by back-to-back pieces on NPR’s Weekend Edition Saturday on December 5 when a spokesmen for the Center for Climate Change Communication gave a very humdrum heard-it-all-before preview of Copenhagen and a UCS rep was battered by Superfreakonomics author Steven Leavitt.
The critics of my piece may be right about the fate of Maldives — maybe it is all fiction. I don’t know – I have not read ALL of the science to answer one question specifically – and my piece does not pass judgment on that. What it does, in the context of “environmental politics,” is to assert that if the United States were going to Copenhagen and planning to announce that within a hundred years it would be wiped from the map, there would be much more pressure and urgency around this issue. That is UNDENIABLE in my opinion and I stand by the assertion.
3 — Underselling Climategate
Many people made simple comments: “Climategate will not go away,” and others had very complex arguments as to why this is a repudiation of the whole of climate change science. This piece did not engage that question — in the least. In fact, the premise – which I stand by – was that at the negotiating table next week, the issues revealed or called into question by the emails will have no effect whatsoever. They may provide CONVENIENT COVER for reluctant participants, but they will not fundamentally change anyone’s substantive position.
To the question itself, I actually agree that Climategate “will not go away.” I have not “read all the emails,” as asked in one comment, but I have read a lot of them and they are certainly damaging.
I don’t think anyone should be surprised to find that professionals, academics and researchers in an industry are heavily personally invested in their chosen field and its perpetuation. Ranchers extol the merits of beef, dairy farmers will tell you all the ways in which milk is great, and environmental researchers are interested in grants and other resources continuing to be made available and so they will tell you – although I am sure most believe it to their bones as well – how significant an issue climate change has become.
I actually think that in spite of the “hit” that individuals have taken and will take from this, and the blow to the climate change cause that this is likely to land, it may be a good thing in the long run. If I am a scientist, I want skeptics casting a wary eye at my work. I want them lifting up every rock. I want everyone to understand every quantum of data, every method employed and every assumption made. Because, if they do, and I have done my work, they are relegated to rhetoric to refute my conclusions.
http://www.infowars.com/globalist-hypocrites-arrive-in-copenhagen-for-summit/
While readying speeches about how the middle class will be forced to lower their living standards, pay higher taxes on all forms of travel, and make personal sacrifices in order to save the planet from the alleged menace of CO2 Copenhagen globalists will be relaxing on the 140 extra private jets that are being forced to drop off attendees in Copenhagen and then fly back to other airports and even other countries just to park due to the lack of spaces.
Elitists will scoff scallops foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges while lecturing the general public about how eating meat is harming the earth.
And while the climate crooks wag their finger at you for having the audacity to own an SUV, they will be running up a bill of over $200 million dollars, and guess who is going to be picking up the tab?
“According to an analysis by the Taxpayer’s Alliance a conservative cost of Copenhagen is £130million.
It includes £6.3million on flights, £20million on hotels and £3.3million on food,reports the Daily Mail.
“The figure also includes the salaries for delegates and the contribution from the Danish government of £37 million. Most of the money will come from taxpayers.” Summits of this size are routinely accompanied by a huge spike in the sex trade in whatever city they happen to be taking place. While servants of the global elite and their masters lecture us about our moral imperatives half of them are out committing adultery on a nightly basis during the same global conferences at which they habitually pose with righteous indignation. Make sure you have plenty of vomit bags on standby the thugs couldn’t care less about the environment they want to tax you out of existence for breathing! http://www.infowars.com/globalist-hypocrites-arrive-in-copenhagen-for-summit/
Check out what Government is doing behind your back at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
Email Prime Minister Harper of Canada and request he not sign the Copenhagen Treaty causing Canadians to lose our Sovereignty at: pm@pm.gc.ca
Protest he inaccurate Climate Change measurements that are being used to Proclaim the Copenhagen
Treaty: http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html
Hey,
I want to direct eevryones attentions to this website I stumbled across a few weeks ago http://www.chinadialogue.net/copenhagen . It has good coverage of the COP 15 proceedings and very informative articles on China's environmental situation.
Best,
Matt