Daily Archives: November 28, 2009

Pope remains silent on chilling abuse revelations

Irish Independent | Nov 28, 2009

By John Cooney

Pope Benedict XVI has stayed silent over the devastating Dublin diocese abuse report more than 24 hours after publication of its sordid revelations that have shocked Mass-going Catholics and couples with young families.

On Thursday, hours after the release of the chilling report, the Vatican chief spokesman, Fr Federico Lombardi, said issues such as abuse scandals were handled by the local Church rather than by the Holy See.

But last night the Pope’s representative in Ireland gave an assurance to the Irish public that Pope Benedict was committed to rooting paedophile priests from the ranks of the Irish clergy.

Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Giuseppe Leanza, told the Irish Independent that Pope Benedict had told all the Irish bishops during their meeting with him in Rome after the Ferns report of his abhorrence of child sexual abuse.


The Pope had instructed the Irish bishops, headed by Cardinal Sean Brady and Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, to make every effort to cleanse the Irish church of the scourge of priestly paedophilia.

The Dublin commission’s report revealed that two letters seeking information from the Nuncio had not been answered, and that a similar request to the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had told the Department of Foreign Affairs that the commission should use normal diplomatic channels.

But the commission’s chairperson, Judge Yvonne Murphy, said that the commission was independent of the Government, and that she did not avail of the diplomatic post between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Vatican.

Asked for a specific comment on this reference to the Nunciature and the congregation, a spokeswoman for Archbishop Leanza said: “It is not the practice of a Nuncio to comment in public on Church-State relations in the country in which he is working on behalf of the Holy Father.”

White House Science Czar Involved in Climategate

“We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world.”

– Professor Arnold Toynbee, in a June l931 speech before the Institute for the Study of International Affairs in Copenhagen.

. . .

Newsmax | Nov 27, 2009

By: L.D. Breen

You haven’t heard it from America’s mainstream media yet – even Fox News hasn’t covered it – but the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John P. Holdren, is a key player in the Climategate e-mails flap, which is shaping up as the biggest scandal in the history of modern science.

Holdren is an intractable global warming activist with no time for climate change skepticism. In a New York Times article, he contended that such questioning “has delayed – and continues to delay – the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge.”

He has also become something of a celebrity, rubbing shoulders with the Hollywood luminaries at President Obama’s state dinner Tuesday night honoring Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and repeatedly appearing as a guest on the David Letterman show.

Hide The Decline – Climategate

But the Canada Free Press this week revealed that the former Harvard professor and Al Gore global warming adviser features prominently in the thousands of e-mails and other files made public after the hacking last week of a computer server used by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.

The most embarrassing item for the Obama Administration may be a 2003 exchange between Holdren and TCSDaily.com editor-in-chief Nick Schulz. Schulz challenged Holdren on whether downplaying the significance of the Medieval Warm Period required “what lawyers call the burden of proof.”

Holdren’s retort contained a remarkable assertion coming from a scientist: “In practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing – it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.”

Canada Free Press columnist and Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball says of the correspondence with Schulz that Holdren’s “entire defense and position devolves to a political position.”

The CRU documents also find Holdren disparaging solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, contrarians regarding surface temperatures over the past millennium, who were colleagues of Holdren at Harvard, and Ball wonders if Holdren may have intimidated the two scientists before they “suddenly and politely withdrew from the fray,” as Ball describes it.

As Newsmax has previously reported, Dr. Holdren has a history of alarmingly extremist views. He co-authored a 1977 book, “Ecoscience: Population Resources, Environment,” advocating compulsory abortion for purposes of population control, mass sterilization, government-dictated family size like China’s one-child policy, and a “planetary regime” to be policed by the United Nations.

Not long before the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion-on-demand throughout America, Holdren co-authored “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” which seems to argue that even years after birth a baby is not yet a human being.

“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth,” claims the book’s “Population Limitation” section, “and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”

Holdren’s “Human Ecology” warns of large-scale disaster that might require “involuntary fertility control” to stop population growth. “Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,” the Holdren book suggests.

As a member of President Bill Clinton’s Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology, Holdren chaired a study providing the groundwork for U.S.-Russian cooperation on securing nuclear materials in the aftermath of post-Cold War disarmament.


Gorbachev continues to shape history

Gorbachev’s latest venture combines all of these elements, bringing together his work on the environment with the Green Cross, with climate-change projects of the Club of Madrid, the Club of Rome and his fellow Nobel Peace Prize laureates to form the Climate Change Task Force, engaging world leaders and experts in an effort to push for real progress on climate change at the Copenhagen conference next month, and to engage civil society in the challenge to deal with the effects of climate change.

This past month, Gorbachev has been doing what he does best: working the world leaders’ circuit selling climate change — the UN in Geneva in early October, the Club of Rome in Amsterdam two weeks later, Nobel laureates in Berlin and the Club of Madrid last week — and then on to Copenhagen next month.

Heartbreaking Stories From People Who Have Had Their Lives Destroyed By H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine

70 Heartbreaking Stories From People Who Have Had Their Lives Destroyed By H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine Side Effects

organichealthadviser.com | Nov 27, 2009

While a few stories about adverse reactions to the H1N1 swine flu vaccine have gotten into the mainstream media, the reality is that most mainstream media outlets are extremely hesitant to publish such stories.  The general belief in the media seems to be that if they publish a story about a “rare” adverse reaction to the H1N1 vaccine, then the general public may be discouraged from taking the vaccine and more people will get sick.  However, this is a totally false assumption by the media.  The truth is that reports of serious adverse reactions to the H1N1 swine flu vaccine are constantly pouring in.  In addition, the pharmaceutical companies who produced these vaccines spend millions of dollars to advertise on mainstream media outlets.  Do you think that the owners of those mainstream media outlets are going to do anything that will jeopardize that source of income?  The truth is that the mainstream media is not going to tell you the stories of those people who have had their lives destroyed by H1N1 swine flu vaccine side effects.  Since the mainstream media will not give these victims a voice, we will.

These are stories that you will not hear in the mainstream media.  The reality is that a significant number of people are being hurt by the H1N1 swine flu vaccine and people need to know.

What follows are unedited stories from victims of the H1N1 swine flu vaccine in which they share what has happened to them in their own words…..

#1) Margaret Densmore:

I GOT THE SHOT AND ALMOST DIED! I went into anaphlylatic shock, almost died and then (after getting out of ICU) proceeded to have two more extreme reactions over the course of 1 week. I went hystonic the second time and had excessive vomitting for two days as a third reaction, requiring hospitalization. I AM NOT ALLERGIC TO EGGS AND HAVE NEVER REACTED TO A VACCINE BEFORE. There were several reactions in my area within one day(one lady seizing within 5 minutes of me, one while I was waiting in line, another call while I was in the ambulance, but apparently NONE according to Health Canada. PLEASE USE MY EXPERIENCE AS AN EXAMPLE. GlaxoKlineSmith has immunity against prosecution. WHAT THE HELL DO THEY CARE IF THE VACCINE IS DEADLY? It has been 8 days and I am still suffering.

#2) Maureen Burke:

My family has a long history of vaccine injuries that are not reported as vaccine injuries. The list includes three cases of GBS in same family. My mom got her H1N1 shot on Monday of last week. She is high risk health care worker..I begged her not to get shot. But she did anyway to protect her residents. She thought she may be getting a cold on Wed. She went into resp and cardiac arrest on Sat. They say double pnumonia. septic. She has been on life support for the last five days. She is not breathing on her own, she is in medically induced heavy sedation/coma. One has something to do with the other..what does it take to get medically advised not to take these damn shots???

#3) Ebonee Jones:

I was released from the hospital this morning after delivering my stillborn 26 week old son last night. I am a firm believer that the swine flu vaccine I received a few weeks ago contributed to my son’s demise. My baby was very active and then I received the vaccine. After that, I noticed a change in his activity and then I noticed no movement over the weekend. When I went into the doctor’s office yesterday, there was no heartbeat and I was induced. I would not wish this pain on my worse enemy. To carry a child for 6 1/2 months and then lose him is worse than anything imaginable.

#4) Maja:

hi everyone, im 21 years old and I got the H1N1 shot on friday morning. Ive been on the fence about this shot for a few weeks but finally decided that I did not want to be a carrier and just to go for it.

About 5-10 minutes after the shot I fainted, but they let me go half an hour later when my blood pressure was back to normal. immediately i started to worry i was having severe allergic reactions or signs of GBS. About 2 hours later at work I started to get tingling sensations in my right leg (I got the shot in my left arm), and I started to worry. It is now about 30 hours post shot and i just came home from work because i had a panick attack that i was getting GBS. My right arm started to tingle a while ago, and i have what seems like a big lump in my throat (ive been crying so maybe its from crying). Currently my legs are tingling and i am a giant stressball.

#5) Katharine Theodosiou Loucaidou:

I got vaccinated 17 days ago. At first, had the sore arm and swollen lymph nodes which went away after 3 days… then day 4 woke up with weak legs… weakness progressed making it difficult to stand for more than 10 min. at a time. Was able to walk but felt very shaky. Day 11 woke up with arm in the same weakened state… as my legs. Weakness progressed to the point that I had to go to emerge on Day 14…did a battery of tests, which show nothing….. now Day 17 weakness in arm gone, but still in the legs…. has anyone had anything like this? I haven’t come across anyone with a similar reaction….I’m really concerned about when it’s going to go… GBS has been 100% ruled out…

#6) sm:

I live in Toronto, Canada and got the h1n1 non-adjuvanted vaccine for pregnant women on Tues Nov 10th. I was 4 1/2 wks along. I started spotting next day but tried not to worry because i thought it may have been implantation spotting, next day I started bleeding heavily. I have miscarried the baby. Like you i will never know if it was the vaccine or not however it is heartwrenching to go through something like this. I have had 2 healthy full term pregnancies, no history of miscarriages, am healthy so I know in my heart the vaccine had to do with my loss.

#7) Noell A.Teasley:

I had the H1N1 vaccination about 6 weeks ago and the needle became jammed (the medicine had to be transferred to a second needle) and hurt immensely; the second shot felt normal. The nurses at the health department said that they had had alot of trouble with the needles that the state had provided (they were bigger, lo…nger and less likely to work as well as the normal needles they use do). The injection was in my left arm and I still can not move it without severe pain. I have notified my doctor and the health department and they are quite concerned, but have no idea of what is the matter or what to do. I am posting this information in the hopes that it will be helpful in the research/tracking of the vaccine and would love to hear from anyone who has had similar reaction of suggestions for relief and/or a remedy!

#8) Ann:

My friend was diagnosed w/GBS today. She had the H1N1 vaccine on Tuesday. She woke up friday morn. with one side of her face paralized, now almost her whole face is paralized. She is starting blood and plasma transfusions tonight. She will be transferred to Barnes hospital soon for more extensive testing. To those who laugh at the severity of this strange, unknown sickness and vaccine I hope you stay informed and not ignorant.

#9) H. Gordon:

I am a 39 year old healthy female with no underlying health conditions and was feeling fine. I received the adjuvanted H1N1 shot on the afternoon of October 25/09 in Ottawa. I have had a reaction to the regular flu shot in the past so I do not get them; so I expected a reaction to this one as well. The reaction was much worse than I expected. By 9pm that evening I could barely move my arm it was so sore; I also felt a bit anxious and shaky. By 12:30 at night, I was sweaty and shaky and had a fever of 38.8 and lay awake unable to sleep till about 3:30 am. By the morning, I couldn’t lift my arm and my hand/wrist was swollen and I still had a fever…I took Tylenol and spent the day at home resting. I had wicked chills and my skin was crawling and I still had a fever. By the next morning, my fever had dropped to 37.5 and I started to feel better. It took a week to feel mostly back to normal. I then developed a really bad cold and sinus infection with a cough too so went to the doctor. Asked about the reaction to the shot and was told that likely I am allergic to one of the preservatives in the shot. Not a happy camper at all as I sat on the fence for awhile and tried to educate myself as best as I could before getting the shot.

#10) Felicia Kuo Wong:

I broke out in severe hives within 24 hours after the shot. Despite taking benadryl 50mg every 4 hours x 4 cycles, the hives just kept on getting worse to the point I was red like a lobster from my neck to my knees and it was spreading out more and more. I started Prednisone this afternoon and finally starting to get better!

Full Story

Medical Mafia Marches in the New World Order

NaturalNews | Nov 27, 2009

by Paul Fassa

A Benedictine Nun from inside a monastery in Barcelona exposed this premise. Sister Teresa Forcades, a former MD, gave a detailed analysis of the flawed pandemic reportage while warning of the dangers from a highly questionable vaccination for a relatively harmless flu.

In her video presentation, the brilliant nun also outlined the steps that were taken by the WHO (World Health Organization) for medical domination over the world. Investigative journalist Jon Rappoport also explained how the WHO is now set up to dominate the world as an agency of control.

The Step Approach for Control

Two steps forward and one step back has been a surreptitious method of gaining control for decades. For every advance a setback is assumed with multiple alternative plans ready to implement. “They” are in it for the long haul.


70 Heartbreaking Stories From People Who Have Had Their Lives Destroyed By H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine Side Effects

According to Rappoport, the WHO is an arm of the CFR (Counsel of Foreign Affairs), established by the Rockefeller family 90 years ago to create a one world order agenda. This agenda is falsely promoted as a benefit for mankind. John D. Rockefeller also established the AMA then. He who owns the gold makes the rules!

With pandemic alarms ringing, the medical monarchy comes to the rescue. But it’s actually a setup for world domination by a few.

Sister Forcades points out that the WHO changed its criteria for calling a pandemic from widespread morbidity (death rates) to only widespread infections in early 2009! The swine flu has lower morbidity than even the seasonal flu. What a coincidence! The savvy nun pointed out that this enabled the WHO to declare a level six pandemic with low morbidity.

Through a series of prior international agreements, this put the WHO in position to mandate vaccinations for 195 UN member nations. Sister Forcades pointed out that normally the WHO makes recommendations. But recommendations become legal mandates during a stage six pandemic.

Yet the swine flu is not even as widespread as reported. The WHO stopped counting infections in mid-summer of 2009! So current WHO/CDC statistics are highly inflated, as discovered recently by a CBS news program called Washington Unplugged.

After the CDC (Center for Disease Control) stonewalled CBS journalists’ request for an accurate count of swine flu cases, CBS surveyed all 50 state labs for confirmed swine flu cases. It turns out that most states reported less than five percent of suspected episodes as confirmed swine flu, and in most states over half those cases were not any flu at all!

But the WHO is big brother, and in the USA the CDC is calling some back door shots for the WHO.

Forced Vaccinations for Forced Health Insurance?

Resistance to overtly mandated vaccinations has risen. But a new angle has been approached in the USA. According to a health insurance industry website, the CDC has inserted a provision in the “health care” bill to withhold health care if vaccinations are not up to date.

What’s wrong with the WHO and the CDC having all this control? The medical establishment’s actual record speaks for itself. This medical monopoly has caused more death and bad health than any flu over the past 90 years. Here’s what is not publicly disclosed:

The annual death toll from AMA medical practices in the USA is 225,000. Of this, 106,000 deaths are from correctly prescribed FDA approved drugs. Disabilities or bad health consequences are not included.

World wide total (not annual) statistics from 15 years of flu scares? SARS – 774 deaths, West Nile Virus – 1088 deaths, Bird Flu – 262 deaths, Swine Flu – ?

Full Story

Vaccines and Pregnancy Do Not Mix

NaturalNews | Nov 17, 2009

by Paul Fassa

From an internet forum: “I got both vaccines [seasonal and swine flu] on Thursday. I was 9 weeks pregnant. I miscarried on Sunday. I was told by several doctors to get these vaccines. Now I wish I followed my gut feeling and not get them at ALL!” This is not an isolated case.

Here’s another report: “I feel like I had a healthy baby and I caused this by getting the H1N1 vaccine. My doctors pushed it. I researched online and there have been many miscarriages after the H1N1 vaccine but they haven’t been reported since it is hard to say what caused the miscarriages.”

She researched online, the only source reporting vaccination tragedies throughout the world.

Lies Under the Light of Truth

First of all, the Swine Flu is less harmful than a normal seasonal flu. Research with ferrets, real statistics released by independent researchers, as well as reports from uncorrupted medical authorities have confirmed this. The CDC and mainstream media bury that information. Instead, they circulate alarming false swine flu statistics.


Shocking H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine Miscarriage Stories From Pregnant Women

But one mainstream media outlet, CBS Washington Unplugged, did inadvertently reveal true swine flu statistics. They had tried to get information from the CDC about swine flu episodes actually confirmed. The CDC skirted the issue and stonewalled them.

So they surveyed all 50 USA state medical laboratories themselves. The results were that most states had confirmed five percent or less of reported cases as swine flu. Most labs reported half or more cases were not any kind of flu! So much for hysteria.

Dr. Michael Bronze of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, stated on WebMD that the actual risk of pregnant women getting hospitalized for swine flu infections is one in 300 thousand.

The Australian/New Zealand’s flu season was surveyed by American epidemiological statisticians. The data from around the middle of that flu season indicated that pregnant women are 99.97 percent sure of avoiding hospital care for any flu.

Of those few admitted and held in ICU 7.7 percent died. Not a high figure. And even those few had other health complications prior to being infected with the swine flu.
Vaccinations Are The Real Danger.

According to Dr. Russel Blaylock, retired neurosurgeon and author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, various studies have proven that artificially stimulating the immune system causes a cytokine immune reaction that damages the forming brain of a fetus.

Throw in thimerosal mercury additives as well as formaldehyde and other toxic materials delivered in the vaccines. These circulate through the fetus if a pregnant woman is vaccinated. The child can become prone to seizures, autism, schizophrenia, and a host of other neurological problems.

There is the case of Desiree Jennings, the young Washington Redskins cheerleader who was diagnosed with dystonia by doctors at John Hopkins and Fairfax Inova. They determined her dystonia, which caused chronic severe spasms and partial paralysis, was a reaction to her seasonal flu shot.

Right, she wasn’t pregnant. She was also active and healthy. But her story links the miscarriage stories to Dr. Blaylock’s conclusion, “The bottom line is vaccinating a pregnant women is vary hazardous to the mother’s health as well as the baby.”

Full Story

The rise of the Carbon Fat Cats

Al Gore, the fattest among carbon fat cats

The ‘carbon market’ – trading in an invisible gas which cannot be used – has involved the redistribution of resources to unproductive green pursuits and the creation of a vast bureacracy. Let’s bring it down before it gets any bigger.

Spiked | Nov 27, 2009

by Josie Appleton

Adam Smith and Karl Marx disagreed about many things, but they would surely have concurred that the very idea of a ‘carbon market’ is bonkers. Carbon dioxide is an invisible gas and a naturally occurring substance. When it is produced as a waste product from another process, like burning fossil fuel, it cannot be used for anything else. How on earth could carbon dioxide, as waste product, have a value and be subject to exchange? How could it become the gaseous analogue to money or gold, an atmospheric ‘universal equivalent’ into which other gases can be converted?

The carbon market in 2007 was worth $64billion: how could this be? A market is supposed to be the exchange of products that are the result of somebody’s work, for the satisfaction of somebody else’s needs. Smith stated that the value of the product is proportional to the amount of work expended in it: ‘The real price of everything’, he wrote in the Wealth of Nations, ‘is the toil and trouble of acquiring it’ (1). This goes for markets in bread or tables, iTunes or diamonds, no matter what nature the ‘work’ or how frivolous the ‘need’. But a market in carbon: quoi?


Al Gore, world’s first ‘carbon billionaire’, raking in profits from climate change

Quietly and without fuss, all the rules of classical economics are being torn up – in a way that could be very foolish indeed. As we approach the deal-making at the UN conference on climate change at Copenhagen, it is worth thinking about exactly what we are doing here.

What is a carbon market?

At present, there are several fragmentary carbon markets. The biggest by far is the European Emissions Trading Scheme, tied to EU-wide carbon targets (worth $50 billion in 2007) (2); then the much smaller Australian New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, and voluntary Chicago Climate Exchange. What these markets trade is not carbon dioxide itself, but carbon dioxide emissions reductions – either unused carbon credits, or certified ways in which carbon dioxide production has been reduced.

In addition to these, there are project-based carbon markets – under the headings of ‘Joint Implementation’ (JI) or ‘Clean Development Mechanism’ (CDM). These were created under the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, and essentially allow industrialised countries to invest in a carbon-reducing project elsewhere, in order to meet their carbon targets (JI is investment within Kyoto countries; CDM invests in developing countries).

This is nothing compared to the plans of green economists – the most megalomaniac of whom must be Britain’s Lord Nicholas Stern of Brentford, currently issuing thoughts for the day on everything ranging from world diet (everyone should go vegetarian) to the desired world total carbon emissions two generations’ hence (20 gigatonnes by 2050) (3). Stern envisages a global carbon market – which encompasses world economic production and consumption, as well as the ‘work’ of trees in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere – and hopes that Copenhagen will take us a step in that direction.

(Valuing trees’ photosynthetic processes might sound a bit mad, but Australia has shown that this can be done with its set-up of ‘carbon rights’, which allow the owner of a plot of land to have ‘rights’ over carbon-removing and producing capacity (4). So if you plant more trees, your investment goes up – if you chop down trees or they burn down in a bush fire, the carbon rights investment goes up in flames, too.)

Stern, of course, was the guru who gave the economic justification for carbon emissions reductions, spelling out in his 700-page UK government report in October 2006 that it would be well worth it to sacrifice one per cent of world GDP to reduce carbon emissions, because the risk of non-reduction would be consumption plummeting by up to 20 per cent (5). Every subsequent alteration in Stern’s calculations has been announced with grave fanfare, as if expecting economics ministers of the world to hurriedly adjust their budgets in line with his latest thinking. In June 2008, for example, he revised his estimate to two per cent of world GDP that should be sacrificed in carbon mitigation (apparently this is still a bargain).

Now Stern has condensed and revised his thoughts in the book, Blueprint for a Safer Planet. Of all economists, Stern has done the most to theorise the idea of carbon value, and his theories are already being put into practice in the UK government’s carbon budgets, under the 2008 Climate Change Bill. The headaches for UK civil servants trying to put Stern’s kooky theories into practice should act as a warning against any further expansion of these ideas.

The fantasy of carbon value

Stern defines carbon value (or the cost of carbon) as ‘embodying in the price of a good not only the cost of the raw materials, labour, capital and so on used in its production, but also the cost of the damages from the emissions produced in the consumption or production of that good’ (6). At base, carbon value is a negative value, which expresses the damage done by industrial activity.

This is also called the ‘marginal social cost’ (MSC), or the ‘shadow price of carbon’. Stern claims that carbon value captures the ‘true costs’ of productive activity:

‘At the heart of economic policy must be the recognition that the emission of greenhouse gases is a market failure. When we emit greenhouse gases we damage the prospects for others and, unless appropriate policy is in place, we do not bear the costs of the damage. Markets then fail in the sense that their main coordinating mechanism – prices – gives the wrong signals. That is, prices… do not reflect the true cost to society of producing and using those goods.’ (7)

These costs of CO2 production, apparently, include ‘severe dislocation, with rising sea levels, a greater frequency of intense storms and hurricanes…’, which inflict damage on the earth’s climate, on people, and on future generations (8).

In an ideal economy, according to Stern, the value of carbon is equal to the marginal social cost (MSC), which is also equal to what is termed the ‘marginal abatement cost’ (MAC: the cost of reducing carbon emissions, by shifting to low-carbon energy or carbon capture/storage). That is, in a rational economy, people would pay the same for the right to produce carbon – and continue using fossil fuels – as it would cost them to switch to another technology; which is also equivalent to the damage inflicted by their carbon production. Industry will exploit all possible low-carbon technologies up until the point where their costs are balanced out by the price of carbon. Stern represents this reasoning in the following equation:

MSC=MAC=CO2 price

So the whole thing hangs on the marginal social cost (MSC), the damage done by carbon production. Yet there is a problem: it turns out that MSC is a phantasm. Stern basically admits that MSC, the supposed crux of and basis for all carbon value, cannot be calculated. He says there is a ‘very large possible range for the MSC’ (9), and that because of the ‘huge range of estimates for the SCC [the social cost of carbon]’ this ‘means that the SCC is a very weak and unreliable peg for policy.’

Indeed, in Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Mike Hulme notes the wild variation in estimates for the social cost of carbon, ranging from $0 to $2,000 per tonne. Hulme observes that the mainstream debate in UK circles focuses on whether it is $14 or $140 per tonne (which is vast – imagine if people couldn’t agree the price of gold within a factor of 10) (10).

So having admitted that MSC and MAC are so vague as to be unworkable, in the book Stern uses an ‘alternative route’, which ‘considers the appropriate targets from the perspective of risk and costs, and seeks out the cheapest method, generally using a price mechanism, of reaching the targets’ (11).

UK civil servants, after banging their heads against the wall trying to implement Stern’s damage-based carbon value, have now also taken this route. In July 2009, the UK government produced a new report saying that it would abandon valuation of carbon damage as a basis for carbon value – which, following Stern’s advice, it had been unsuccessfully trying to implement – and shift instead to the ‘cost of mitigation’ (12)

That is, the value of carbon is that which persuades industry to meet the carbon target. Carbon price is the price that would persuade people to switch to low-carbon technology by the degree necessary to meet the target.

It is the bureaucratic target – and the target alone – that is actually the rationale and logic for the whole enterprise of establishing carbon value. For the UK government, its target is to reduce carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, with five-year intermediary ‘carbon budgets’, and it is these bureaucratically invented targets that determine the price of carbon.

Full Story

Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research

“We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period!” – Jonathan Overpeck

IPCC fostered “authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production”


NY Times | Nov 27, 2009

Some prominent climate scientists are calling for changes in the way research on global warming is conducted after a British university said thousands of private e-mail messages and documents had been stolen from its climate center.

The scientists say that the e-mail messages, which have circulated on the Internet and which disclose the inner workings of a small network of climatologists who chart the planet’s temperature, have damaged the public’s trust in the evidence that humans are dangerously warming the planet, just as many countries are poised to start reining in greenhouse gas emissions.

“This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside with these e-mails,” said Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology.

She and other scientists are seeking more transparency in the way climate data is handled and in the methods used to analyze it. And they argue that scientists should re-evaluate the selection procedures used by some scientific journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the panel that in 2007 concluded that humans were the dominant force driving warming and whose findings underpin international discussions over a new climate treaty.


35 Inconvenient Truths

UEA Climate Scientist: “possible that…I.P.C.C. has run its course”

A fierce debate over the significance of the hacked material erupted as soon as the e-mail messages and other documents surfaced on Web sites just over a week ago. Some see in the e-mail correspondence — which includes heated discussions about warming trends, advice on deleting potentially controversial e-mail messages and derisive comments about climate skeptics — evidence of a conspiracy to stifle dissenting views and withhold data from public scrutiny, or, as some have put it, “Climategate.”

To others, the e-mail messages are merely evidence that climate scientists can be as competitive, proprietary, defensive and caustic as people engaged in any other high-level enterprise. They cast as villains those who disclosed the e-mail correspondence and who now, they say, are distorting the contents

Gavin A. Schmidt, a NASA climatologist involved in many of the e-mail exchanges, said that voluntarily disclosing more data would never satisfy the “very hard-bitten, distraught core” of climate skeptics. “The number of attacks on our integrity will actually increase since there will be more ways to twist what it is we do to support some conspiracy theory or other,” he said.

Officials at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain say the disclosed material was copied from computers there in a “criminal breach.” (Some e-mail exchanges involved or described this reporter and other journalists).

On Friday, scientists at the university said the school was preparing to announce an inquiry, led by an independent panel, into the theft and related issues.

The most serious criticisms leveled at the authors of the e-mail messages revolve around three issues.

One is whether the correspondence reveals efforts by scientists to shield raw data, gleaned from tree rings and other indirect indicators of climate conditions, preventing it from being examined by independent researchers. Among those who say it does is Stephen McIntyre, a retired Canadian mining consultant who has a popular skeptics’ blog, climateaudit.org. A second issue is whether disclosed documents, said to be from the stolen cache, prove that the data underlying climate scientists’ conclusions about warming are murkier than the scientists have said. The documents include files of raw computer code and a computer programmer’s years-long log documenting his frustrations over data gathered from countries in the Northern Hemisphere.

Finally, questions have been raised about whether the e-mail messages indicated that climate scientists tried to prevent the publication of papers written by climate skeptics, which were described by the scientists in the e-mail messages as “garbage” and “fraud.”

Officials with Britain’s national climate office have defended the integrity of the climate unit’s work, noting that the warming trend it has measured is largely replicated by separate groups at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “This is a shallow and transparent attempt to discredit the robust science undertaken by some of the world’s most respected scientists,” said Vicky Pope, the office’s senior spokeswoman, in an e-mail message.

Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman of the intergovernmental climate panel, issued a statement rebutting claims that the e-mail messages, which involved some members of the panel, indicated that the panel’s reports were biased. In posts on the blog Realclimate.org, some of the scientists who participated in the correspondence have also said that, although inappropriate language was used at times, their critical comments about people or research papers were based on the quality of the arguments.

The public disclosure of the e-mail messages has already led to calls from conservative British and American legislators for investigations.

The lead Saudi Arabian climate negotiator, Mohammad al-Sabban, said that the affair could affect negotiations over a new global climate treaty. “This is very serious and can put the whole climate debate, including any future agreement in Copenhagen and beyond, in big question,” Mr. al-Sabban said in an e-mail message. And even some environmental campaigners believe that the disclosures have damaged calls for climate action. George Monbiot, a British environmentalist and author, excoriated some of the climate unit’s scientists and many of his fellow activists on Wednesday in a column in The Guardian.

“No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science,” he wrote. “We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last.”

Mike Hulme, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia and author of “Why We Disagree About Climate Change,” said the disclosures could offer a chance to finally bring the practices of climate researchers and the intergovernmental panel into the modern era, where transparency — enforced legally or illegally — is inevitable and appropriate.

“The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production,” he said in an e-mail message, “just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.”


Hide the Decline (song)