Global Warming Policy Foundation Special

David Henderson: Deutsche Bank’s Green Politics (PDF)
13 November 2010 19:26
In relation to climate change issues, two recent initiatives on the part of the Deutsche Bank Group give grounds for concern.

(1) In September, the Bank's 'Climate Change Advisors' issued a document entitled Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments: it was authored by three climate scientists at Columbia University. In an editorial introduction, the Bank's Global Head of Climate Change Investment Research describes it as “a balanced, detailed and expert assessment of the scientific case for climate change that will help investors navigate these extremely complex issues”.
The document's claims to accuracy as a navigational guide were promptly put in question by Ross McKitrick, one of  the 'skeptics' supposedly disposed of within it. McKitrick's paper, entitled Response to Misinformation from Deutsche Bank, is dated 12 September. It identifies and spells out an array of errors and misrepresentations.
In response, the authors of the document have now put out a new text which supersedes the original. In this new version they have added a three-page Response to McKitrick where they admit to a few 'mischaracterizations' and offer amended versions of three sentences that they acknowledge to have been misleading. However, the original wording of these faulty sentences remains unchanged and unfootnoted in an unaltered main text: McKitrick has described this behaviour as 'unsporting', while others might characterise it as unprofessional.
In a second piece, dated 8 November, McKitrick has responded to the revised report. In this paper he extends and reinforces his critique. Viewed together, his twin presentations appear as unanswerable. As a guide to investors, or indeed for any other purpose, the document is worthless.
It would be interesting to know whether the Deutsche Bank officials who sponsored and approved this deeply flawed initiative took the precaution of submitting a draft for expert review to persons not already firmly convinced that the 'skeptics' have been refuted.
Looking at the list, it would seem that no such person is to be found among the eminent individuals who make up the Deutsche Bank's Climate Advisory Board: all appear as people who are (to quote a nice phrase from Clive Crook) 'precommitted to the urgency of the climate cause'. A more representative Board, spanning a wider range of opinions. might have taken more trouble to ensure that any published work issued under its auspices would measure up to professional standards.

(2) In the recent Californian elections, voters were invited to accept or reject Proposition 23, which would have placed strict constraints on the state government's plans to introduce further curbs on CO2 emissions. A few days before the vote, a Financial Times report noted that:
'Sixty-eight big investors, managing $415bn in assets, have united to urge Californians to vote against efforts to roll back the state's carbon legislation ... Signatories include ... Deutsche Bank Climate Advisers ...'
If this report is correct, it would seem that its Climate Advisory Board took a strong position on the Bank's behalf on a controversial political matter.
As its website confirms, Deutsche Bank is fully is committed to Corporate Social Responsibility. How far its current handling of climate change issues can be judged to be responsible is open to debate.

Professor David Henderson is the Chairman of the GWPF's Academic Advisory Council. His latest publication on climate change issues has just appeared in the quarterly Newsletter of the Royal Economic Society. ***
________________________________________

Excerpt: Deutsche Bank, Al Gore And The $10 Billion Climate Fund
Interview by Christian Hiller Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
10 November 2010
The rising levels of global carbon dioxide emissions are increasingly an issue for financial markets. Kevin Parker is convinced of it. The American leads the Global Asset Management business of Deutsche Bank and operates a biodynamic vineyard.

Mr. Parker, you are personally strongly committed to protecting the global climate. Is this not unusual for the head of a global asset management business?
Not at all. Climate change is one of the great megatrends in the world. No investor will pass by this topic.
How can this be understood?
The world economy is largely based on fossil fuels, which we burn unchecked and then strain the atmosphere. The transition to an economy that uses less carbon dioxide has kept us very busy since 2005. Today we are one of the largest investors in the world that invests in climate change. We alone, Deutsche Bank’s Asset Management, have invested several billion Euros.
Why should climate change play a role in the financial markets?
It not only should - it has done so for a long time. Companies which do not start to reduce their CO2 emissions pose an increased risk for investors. Some companies will make the transition to a low-carbon economy successfully, others will fail.
Are you saying that the carbon dioxide emissions will decide how a share will perform on the stock market?
Yes, certainly. You can also see it as an opportunity: companies that tackle environmental challenges and contribute to solutions will be more successful than the others. A company’s carbon dioxide emissions have a direct impact on its cash flow. And this is not just my opinion. These are facts that no one can seriously deny.
How do you find these stocks?
This is part of our daily business, our analysis. If we, for example, have the choice between an energy supplier, which burns dirty coal and one that relies on renewable energy, then we can tell which company will be competitive in the long run and which not.
Do you use your power as an investor to influence corporate policy?
We do not behave in missionary way, waving with a CO2 stick. But it is part of our task as trustees of the investors to identify risks and to name them.
Has the focus on climate change changed the asset management of the Deutsche Bank? /continues
_______________________________________________________

My comment: What follows is an explanation of how the IPCC has used its political clout to achieve political objectives, i.e. taking money from the public by deception and transferring it to banks, the UN/EC (NWO) political fund and developing countries.
Common knowledge tells us that the IPCC is directed by the Club of Rome think tank's UNEP is a major contributor to CoR's NWO plot progression by political objectives that embrace a global currency, population reduction, destruction of the capitalist system and discrediting of democracy by any means, their preferences being biased towards false medical scares, false climate alarm, financial market destabilisation and currency debasement, wealth transfer to reduce the world to the lowest common denominator.
The Rothschild-Rockefeller bankster cartel and their insurance companies and business lobbies such as DuPont, Enron now GE, BP, etc., various medical orgs and activist charities in concert with aligned scientific orgs and journals, owned or co-opted politicians and controlled media gave the deception a facade. Around 2000 people are conning the world to profit and further an eco-fascist agenda whose direction is given at Bilderberg conferences. Bilderberger's latest meeting included how to maintain the NWO momentum in the now cooling planet.
It has never, ever been about fixing climate.

Excerpt: IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth” *****
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated.
(Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010 Transl. Philipp Mueller)

Interviewer: Bernard Potter
NZZ am Sonntag:
Mr. Eden, everybody concerned with climate protection demands emissions reductions. You now speak of "dangerous emissions reduction." What do you mean?

Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits.

But everybody should take part in climate protection, otherwise it does not work.

That is so easy to say. But particularly the industrialized countries have a system that relies almost exclusively on fossil fuels. There is no historical precedent and no region in the world that has decoupled its economic growth from emissions. Thus, you cannot expect that India or China will regard CO2 emissions reduction as a great idea. And it gets worse: We are in the midst of a renaissance of coal, because oil and gas (sic) have become more expensive, but coal has not. The emerging markets are building their cities and power plants for the next 70 years, as if there would be permanently no high CO 2 price.

The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy. /continues
****
Also see "Constructal GDP"
Lack of energy doesn’t merely hinder or slow or delay development of poor countries as I had thought.
It puts an absolute ceiling on development.
_______________________

Excerpt: David Henderson: Climate Change Issues - New Developments In A 20-Year Context
15 November 2010 Royal Economic Society (PDF)

Regular readers will know that the Royal Economic Society Newsletter has published a number of articles in recent years looking at aspects of the climate change debate. In this one, David Henderson (1) reviews the debate and puts new developments in perspective.
This note presents a personal sketch of the current debate on climate change issues, with special reference to the debate among economists. The opening sections, which give a 20-year perspective, draw in part on a paper of mine published earlier this year in the journal Energy and Environment. In the final section I comment on recent unexpected developments and their possible significance.

Received opinion and its basis
In relation to climate change issues, there exists a well-established body of received opinion shared by the great majority of governments and by many of their citizens.
The key elements of received opinion, briefly summarised, are as follows:

• Warming caused by human activities (AGW), through rising emissions, and hence rising atmospheric concentrations, of (so-called) ‘greenhouse gases’, has already become the main influence on global average surface temperatures.
• AGW can be expected to proceed further, as emissions continue to rise as a consequence of growing world output, unless effective preventive measures are put in place.
• Such a general unconstrained rise in global temperatures would increasingly carry with it a range of serious risks, with the possibility in the longer term of developments that could be classed as catastrophic.
• Hence further prompt, sustained and world-wide governmental action is called for in order to limit the extent of warming and deal with its possible consequences. The action should chiefly take the form of ‘mitigation’ — that is, of measures designed to curb emissions of ‘greenhouse gases’ in general and CO2 in particular.

It will be seen that all these four propositions relate to, or depend on, the properties of the climate system. All the first three, and in part the last, are statements about the physical world.
Received opinion is reflected in an official policy consensus. With few exceptions, governments across the world are firmly committed to the view that AGW constitutes a serious problem which requires prompt and continuing official action at both national and international level.
Throughout the years since its adoption, this policy consensus has gone without serious political challenge. In the OECD member countries in particular, climate change issues have been the subject of close and continuing cross-party agreement.
Received opinion has now been in place for over two decades, during which time it has spread and gained further ground. Throughout, it has gone unquestioned within what may be termed the environmental policy milieu. The policy consensus, which itself goes back to the end of the 1980s, has likewise remained a fixture on the world scene and a continuing basis for widespread governmental action at local, national and international level. Both have acquired an aura of permanence.
How is the emergence and continued hold of received opinion to be explained? I think the answer is straightforward. From the start the main influence was, as it still is, the scientific advice provided through what I call the official expert advisory process.
That advice can and does come from many sources; but the main single channel for it, indeed the only channel of advice for governments collectively, has been the series of massive and wide-ranging Assessment Reports produced by the Intergovernmental  Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The most recent of these, referred to for short as AR4, was completed and published in 2007. Work on its successor is now under way.
Throughout the series of Assessment Reports, from 1990 onwards, what has chiefly carried weight has been the presentation of climate science in the reports from the Panel’s Working Group I. In this connection, continuing unqualified praise for the Panel’s work and role has come, not only from its member governments, but also from many scientists outside the field of climate science and from leading scientific academies across the world.
It is often claimed that there now exists a world-wide scientific consensus on climate change issues, sometimes described as ‘overwhelming’. I believe that such language is inappropriate; but I think it is correct to say that alongside the official policy consensus (which is a reality), and providing both rationale and support for it, there exists an established body of what I call prevailing scientific opinion.

Continues with "A spectrum of opinions"
__________________________________

News articles relevant to current events as advised via CCNet newsletter edited by Dr Peiser of the GWPF:
*****IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth” - Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

 Jairam Ramesh: 'Dependence On British Climate Science Has Cost Us' - The Hindu, 17 November 2010

Green Pork Fight: US Administration Begs China To Subsidise US Industry - Voice of America, 17 November 2010

Richard Lambert, Nigel Lawson & David King At The CBI Climate Summit - BBC News, 17 November 2010

Britain's Climate Policy In Disarray - The Daily Telegraph, 18 November 2010

Without Government Intervention, Natural Gas Would Be Too Cheap, Huhne Says - Bloomberg, 17 November 2010

The €1trn Euro Decade: Costs Up, Risks Up, But Governments Are Still In Denial - Citi Investment Research & Analysis, GWPF October/November 2010

Poland: A European Kuwait? - Deutsche Welle, 17 November 2010

 Not Only Climate Science Needs Good Auditors - Accountancy Age, 18 November 2010
____________________________

Tributes to Brian G. Marsden, Eminent Astronomer, who died after a prolonged illness.
This might be off-topic on some of the lists to which I am a member of . . . but it is a very sad piece of news that everyone in the astronomical community should be made aware of. Brian was a good friend . . . a brilliant man . . . and one of the nicest people in the astronomical community. As those of the Jewish faith would say, a real mensch. -- Joe Rao
You're doing a great job and have been extraordinarily patient in ensuring that all reasonable sides of an issue are covered on CCNet. --Brian Marsden (1937-2010)

Sky & Telescope, 18 November 2010 Kelly Beatty

CFA Press Release: Brian Marsden, Eminent Astronomer and Comet/Asteroid Tracker, Dies
Dr. Marsden's full biography is available online.

Brian Marsden's Comments and Essays on CCNet
New Type Of Transneptunian Object Recognized
One-Mile-Wide Asteroid To Pass Closer Than The Moon In 2028
No Asteroid Impact In 2028
IAUC 6879 And An Explanation
The Value Of The 1997 XF11 Precovery
CCNet Essay: Thoughts At The Start Of The False Millennium
What Are The Lessons From 1997 XF11 And 1999 AN10?
It Pays To Save Old Photographs

Fraud 7. The IPCC - Its Reason For Being

In my opinion. 
The simple fact is that it has never been about climate. Had it been, CO2 emission levels across the world would not have been allowed to continue to increase. Year in year out. E.g. China is building a coal fired energy plant a week until 2030 without CO2 capture. The EU cannot reduce its emission increases except by printing carbon credits.


Each of the italicized statements is an outrageous lie.

The IPCC, (charged with proving human produced CO2 is dangerous) is a politically motivated advocacy that has used propaganda and deceit to persuade world governments that CO2 emitted by humans is harmful, that the science is settled and that action needs to be taken to curtail CO2 emissions.

The IPCC with help has taken an unproven broken fingernail and convinced the political world and the public via the compliant media that amputation is the only way to fix it. A confidence trick combining brilliance, duplicity and stupidity.

IPCC reports have been found biased to show almost exclusively papers that have been fund-directed to support IPCC claims. Some were peer reviewed. Most rely on the assumption that CO2 drives warming (and CRU or GISS data), none proved it. The journals from which the IPCC drew their "evidence" have been strongly influenced by threats from central scientists and by dogmatically biased editors evidenced by "climategate" and that one editor was excluded from the Oxburgh review for just that reason.

The proof that the IPCC is controlled by incompetents, self-serving liars and propagandists is shown not just by the disconnect of the summaries for policy makers but in the full report AR4 that took a disgusted public to find the truth.

All 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
5,587 are not peer-reviewed
IPCC chairman's claim that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed sources is not supported
Each chapter was audited three times; the result most favorable to the IPCC was used
21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F
43 citizen auditors in 12 countries participated in this project
Full report card here
Detailed results here

The IPCC is guilty of lying by omission. The overwhelming benefits of warming (longer growing seasons, more rain, lower energy use etc.) and the benefits of rising CO2 levels (free fertiliser, increased crop yields needing less water etc.) have been ignored in their entirety.

Pachauri, IPCC leader is a proven liar, a seeming compulsion and qualification for the role very likely the same for panel members. So called scientists seem oblivious to reality or the need for competence. Two famous examples of wrongness are the Briffa et al hockey stick and the Mann et al hockey stick that the IPCC used as a motto for years after it was proven false.

After decades of research and worldwide more than £50 billion spent, the best evidence the IPCC can produce is a selection of computer scenarios that are produced based on assumptions, that still fail to deliver. Hence the argument  that models could become right in decades hence and just in case they are, civilization should be impoverished and governance centralised.

Change the data to suit the purpose is the IPCC motto.
The IPCC used only one Solar Physicist. Her name is Judith Lean. On the basis of this "consensus of one" solar physicist, the IPCC proclaimed solar influences upon the climate to be minimal.
Judith Lean, along with Claus Frohlich, are responsible for the scandalous rewriting of graphs of solar activity. Satellites showed that the TSI (measured in watts) between 1986 and 96 increased by about one third. Judith Lean and Claus Frohlich (authors of the single study noted above) "manipulated" the data.

Another lie, a consensus for AGW of thousands of scientists turned out to be a few dozen.

Whole organisations central to the IPCC (not just individual players) are being shown either deceptive or wholly incompetent. Hadley CRU data has been shown to be manipulated and rather than accept the charge, the CRU claimed lost raw data and skulked off to Turkey to begin to redo the whole series claiming it would take 3 years. (Does it work the same for government accountants and bankers?)

One wonders how heavily the data needs to be massaged to eliminate the siting and other problems with over 80% of the gold standard US temperature measuring stations? Obviously if the US is the best, then there are going to be many times worse problems with none US stations.

One has to question whether the 3 years claim is a hibernation tactic hoping the storm will blow past by then. If heads don't roll, it won't. If the lies about CO2 continue, it won't. If the abuse of science for political and profit purposes continues, it won't. If ideologues and profiteers continue their whitewashes of what is criminal misuse of public funds, I assure you, it won't.

GISS has stated that their data products are not as good as CRU's.

NOAA has several times been found publicising data favouring warming and omitting moderating data.

GHCN, the originator of data on which products from the above organisations are based has been found to be biased.

Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception? A documenting of the deceit.

We now have satellites that produce far more accurate data. CRU, GISS, NOAA, GHCN, with regard to surface temperature measurement are untrustworthy dinosaurs and more, unnecessary dinosaurs.

There is no credible evidence that natural and human CO2 additions since WWII have influenced the climate significantly or adversely influenced weather. (No evidence of CO2 influence in deserts here.)

Every event blamed on CO2 emissions has been due to warming, not CO2.
Ice cores show CO2 increases and decreases after temperature increases and decreases - by 600 to over a thousand years. Sediment cores confirm the ice cores represent naturally smoothed but reasonably accurate past variation, albeit the volume appears to be below reality. CO2 cannot be a driver of climate temperature without time travel.

Men claiming to be scientists relate modern CO2 increases to modern temperature when the underlying driver of CO2 levels is the Medieval Warm Period. The oceans carry CO2 down and around the thermohaline circulation that can take approx a thousand years to do a full circuit before the absorbed CO2 is available to be released.

Modern CO2 levels follow temperature. It can't time travel. The reason for the lag is that the air temperature responds to ocean temperature variation faster than the ocean can release CO2. The Sun drives ocean temperature. Ozone, clouds and aerosols regulate the solar radiation reaching the surface.

The human contribution to natural emissions is ~4% max. (UNIPCC AR4 natural emissions 98ppm human emissions 4ppm). 4% of the 1.9 parts per million per year that gets added to the atmosphere cannot in any way drive temperature.

IN FACT 1.9ppm (0.00019% of the atmosphere) cannot drive climate temperature.

Water vapour can and does regulate the air temperature. The upper troposphere is drying. That means less delay in infrared radiation escaping the atmosphere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suspect the Club of Rome, whose stated OWG agenda includes using climate scares is the principal driver behind the scam with the Fabian Society that has similar objectives to the CoR in alignment.

Maurice Strong, (2nd link) an alleged fraudster, former UN star, Kyoto architect, instrumental in forming UNEP and the IPCC with superstitious crank Sir J Houghton, advisor to Blair. Known earth worshipper with strange ideas on how the world should be. Club of Rome member.

George Soros, (remember Black Wednesday?) regularly associated with financial misdealing, recently in court for his dishonesty. Friend and associate of Strong and Obama (Chicago Climate Exchange -  Soros). Club of Rome member.

Al Gore, friend and associate of Strong and Soros, with past and present business dealings with both. Known liar. Club of Rome member.
-----
Politicians and their advisors are the duplicitous participants and or stupid means used to implement the scam on an unaware public.

The UN is a fraudulent instrument strongly influenced and possibly controlled by CoR. Funding should stop immediately. The UK has £1 billion earmarked to gift it.
The EU's EC is a fraudulent instrument strongly influenced by the Fabian Society and CoR (both have similar objectives), with members of both societies in influential positions. Participant in the scam.

It seems A. Blair, Club of Rome member, set the UK up to be fleeced and G. Brown delivered the goods.

Banks.

Image Source A Tougher Cap on Size

Rockefeller is a Rothschild. He was instrumental in founding CoR and UNEP and establishing the agenda of the Club of Rome that looks to have been written by the Rothschild family.

Rothschild advises the UK government and controls the major banks. The Rothschild family and close associates control almost all the central banks in the world. They want bankers to be the world government.

George Osbourne and Dave Cameron are friends and associates of Rothschild.

The Royal Society and the Grantham Institute were instrumental in convincing the public of the need for action where it was obvious to a child that it could neither be achieved nor was it needed. One can only wonder why.

Lord Oxburgh, RS, is impartial.

Fraud 1. Maldives, Tuvalu, sea levels
Fraud 2. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Fraud 3. Carbon credits
Fraud 4. The Wind Energy Boondoggle
Supplement to Fraud 4. Wind Energy
Fraud 5. Biofuel Boondoggle
Fraud 6. AGW by CO2 is settled science (by consensus)
Fraud 7. The IPCC - Its Reason For Being
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wannabe Napoleons posture while a serious change in climate is being precipitated. Dust clouds have triggered (or been the signal for) rapid climate change to cooling every time it happened during the last 80,000 years that can be observed so far, possibly every one that has happened ever was triggered by them. East Africa has seen drought for 15 years, that means 15 years of major dust storms. Cooling commenced in 2003. It will accelerate. It is probably too late to stop, meanwhile throwing public money at private ne'er do wells and pretending CO2 is a problem is an act of utter, utter stupidity or self serving duplicity.

The Environmentals' Progress

This is a list of the excellent articles and reviews in the 'Environmentalism is Facism' series.

Articles

The American Oligarchy's Economic Warfare Campaign on British Columbians
(2000)
UPDATE SEE BELOW

The Great Global Warming Hoax
(2000)

The English Environmental Elite, Global Warming, and The Anglican Church
(2000)

The Groundbreaking Career of Doctor Science
(2000)

The Gore Presidential Bid
(2001)

Who is Affraid of The Big Green Wolf
(2002)

BROTHER CAN YOU SPARE A HECTARE
(2003)

If Only This Were About Oil
(2003)

The American Eco-Oligarchy update
(2004)

The Continental Counter-Enlightenment
(2008)

Environmentalism's Environment
(2008)

Environmentalism's Appropriation of Christianity
(2008)

Early 19th Century British "Environmentalism"
(2009)

Waldheim's Monster: United Nations' Ecofascist Programme
(2009)

Spirit of NAWAPA
(2009)

Environmentalism 400 BC
(2009)

Reviews

Precedents for the "Global Warming" campaign: A review of Richard Grove's Green Imperialism
(2003)

Review of Pennington's Liberating the Land
(2003)

Review of Bradley's Climate Alarmism Reconsidered
(2003)

Review of Janet Beihl's Finding Our Way
(2004)

Review of Paul Driessen's Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death
(2004)

Review of Michael Crichton's State of Fear
(2005)

Review of Joel Bakan's The Corporation
(2005)

Review of Brian Masters' The Dukes
(2007)

Review of Nichols Fox's Against the Machine
(2007)

Review of Degregori's Agriculture and Modern Technology
(2007)

Bramwell's trilogy on The Hidden History of Environmentalism
(2008)

Review of The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements
(2008)

Review of Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature
(2008)

Review of Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship
(2008)

"The Deniers" Condensed (Global Warming Hoax Part II)
(2008)

Gibson's Environmentalism
(2009)

US "Environmentalism" in the 1930s (Review of Phillips' "This Land, This Nation")
(2009)

The Nazi-Enviro Connection: Uekoetter's "Green and Brown"
(2009)

Climategate & That Was The Month That Was & Vindication & A Book & News

Confirmation Of The Dependence Of The ERA-40 Reanalysis Data On The Warm Bias In The CRU Data
UPDATE: I was asked to clarify the importance of this post.
The reason that it is important to document the link of ERA-40 to the warm bias in CRU (and thus NCDC and GISS data sets) is that the ERA-40 paper is used to make claims about global and regional warming (with the inference that this is an independent assessment from the surface temperature data trends).
However, the e-mails from Phil Jones show that the surface and ERA-40 analyses are intimately linked. An example of a paper that uses the ERA-40, with its warm surface temperature bias, is Schar et al,2004,
The role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heatwaves. Received 15 September; Letter to Nature; accepted 17 December 2003; doi:10.1038/nature02300. Published online 11 January 2004.
The climate science community needs to recognize that the assessment of global warming using the magnitude of the long term trends in surface air temperatures from the CRU, NCDC and GISS analyses, and from ERA-40, overstate the magnitude of this warming.

ORIGINAL POST
There is a remarkable admission in the leaked e-mails from Phil Jones of the dependence of the long term surface temperatures trends in the ERA-40 reanalysis on the surface temperature data from CRU. /more

Also
A Guest Weblog By Will Alexander "Climategate Chaos"
Do The CRU E-Mails Provide Further Documentation Of A Conflict Of Interest In The Preparation Of A CCSP Climate Assessment Report?
_________________________
That Mann was on the IPCC panel as well as being part of the CRU climateers' inner sanctum means the IPCC cannot deny knowledge of the dubious nature of the data. Sir J Houghton (Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.)should be under investigation too, as the first co-chair of the IPCC and as co- responsible for the Hadley - CRU setup, he must have had intimate knowledge of the data distortions.
Sir Crispin Tickell – former British Permanent Rep. to the UN and Permanent Rep. on the Security Council, Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, Chairman of the Board of the Climate Institute, leading British climate change campaigner should also be in the frame.
_________________________

From the Climate Sceptics' web site:
Global Cooling Reality vs. Global Warming Politics
Bienvenido “Nonoy” Oplas, Jr. April 22, 2009

Introduction
It is Earth Day today, a day where people around the world are reminded once more that the Earth is “in danger” – from climate change, from global warming, from too much carbon dioxide (CO2) and greenhouse gases (GHGs), from rising seawater, and so on. Today, the climate change hysteria is further fanned.
On the other hand, this week, if not this whole month, a climate anomaly is showing – cloudy almost everyday, rain showers at least twice a week, tail-end of a cold front until middle of the month, then occurrence of low pressure area along intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) in many parts of the country with threats of flash floods in some provinces. This week for instance, April 20 to 26, 2009, Manila (Airport) temperature range on average (including forecast) is 25° C to 30° C maximum (Source: www.wunderground.com/global/stations/984...).
But this month is one of two hottest months of the year. We are supposed to have lotsof sunlight and cloudless sky. The average maximum temperature for April,
(a) last 21 years was 33° C (Source: www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3...), and
(b) last 11 years, 1998-2008, was 34.8° C (Source: PAGASA/CAB/CADS; thermometer station at Quezon City).
This means that the Philippines, or Metro Manila at least, is experiencing around 3° C cooling in April this year compared to average April temperature over the past 2 decades! / lots more (PDF)
_________________________

THE VINDICATION OF CARBON MEANS THE VINDICATION OF HUMAN FREEDOM
Robert D. Brinsmead

The evidence is piling up every day that the world is now getting cooler instead of warmer, the oceans are now cooling instead of warming, the ice is returning to the Arctic rather than receding, the sea ice in the Antarctic is at record levels, and that rising sea levels have moderated. The sun has recently gone into a less active phase of fewer sun-spots, and the ocean decadal currents have changed from a warming to a cooling phase.

Before too long the global warming scare will be as dead as the scares about the Y2 bug or acid rain. Already some of the global warming alarmists, anticipating this may soon happen, are reinventing their alarmism into the scare about the oceans becoming acidified by our CO2 emissions – even though the oceans already contains 90 times more CO2 than the atmosphere (Chilingar, et.al.) Beyond all these things, however, we need to get to what this debate and this climate change alarmism is really all about.

Beyond all this alarmism about global warming or ocean acidification, we need to see that on a deeper level it is a debate about carbon, and when we dig into that level of the debate we will finally see that behind the demonization of carbon and CO2, it is all about an attack on humanity itself.

Global warming alarmism is not a science, but a religio/political movement. This paper will show why it a dangerous totalitarian ideology and a more serious threat to human freedom than Communism or Nazism. It is also like a bad joke, because carbon just happens to be the most wonderful of all the elements in the periodic table because of its ability to make so many organic compounds that are fundamental to the formation of life. Yet here is a movement that is all about demonizing carbon.

The Wonders of Carbon

Nearly every new product that human ingenuity has devised on the road of human progress is a carbon-based product. Steel, for instance, is made by blending carbon with iron. There would be no construction industry without carbon.

Nearly every product in a modern house, including most of the surfaces, with the exception of the glass and the bricks, is a carbon-based product.

If our clothes are not made of natural fibres such as wool, cotton or silk (all of which are carbon-based), then they will be made from synthetic fibres, all of which are carbon based too. All plastics and polyethylene products are carbon-based materials. All the foods we produce and eat are carbon products - and that not only includes our carbo(n)hydrates, but all the fats and proteins in our food are made of carbon compounds too.

Not just the petrol and oil that run our autos, but the cars themselves, right down to their brake linings, are made of substances that would not exist without carbon. There could be no aviation or space industries apart from a whole plethora of carbon-based products. There are ten million naturally occurring carbon compounds (more than all the other elements of the periodic table combined), and beyond these, man is finding that there are almost limitless opportunities to come up with new products using carbon -from fantastic nanotubes composed of the toughest stuff known to making better tennis racquets. This never-ending variety of new products is all due to the amazing and unique features of the carbon molecule that is so adaptable and so flexible that there is no end to what new products might be made with it - from the hardest to the softest substances known. Carbon is not just the fourth most common element in the universe, but through its millions of compounds it is as ubiquitous and as necessary to life as oxygen and water.

Carbon is the Basis of Life

This brings me to my main point. Human ingenuity, as I have pointed out, can make an astounding array of new products that are carbon based, including products that play a vital role in taking man into space. But, for all that, we cannot make living things with carbon because we can't solve the mystery of replicating life. But when the time came for the good Lord (or Gaia or Lady Luck if you insist) to make a world of living things, whether amazing plants that live and reproduce, or animals that can live and reproduce, or the human brain that can actually think creatively, what do you suppose this life-generating power used? Carbon, of course! Any good biology text book will tell you that life is carbon-based. All living things, starting at the cellular level which is common to all life, is based on carbon compounds, including the DNA that carry the gene sequences of the genetic codes. Of the trillions of cells in the human body, there is not a one of them that is not made of carbon.

Think of giant Cedars, Californian Redwoods and Tasmanian Mountain Ash - they are all made of carbon. Every blade of grass, every delicate orchid, every kind of fruit (there are ten thousand known varieties) is made of carbon. Think of all those tantalizing flavours in fantastic variety - juicy mangoes, buttery avocados and versatile limes, all filled with fruit sugars so varied and in such abundance - they are all made of a carbon/hydrogen combinations. Ordinary pure sugar is made up of ten atoms of carbon compounded with sixteen atoms of hydrogen. There are eight kinds of sugars essential to the human body and vital in cell to cell communication. Glucose, fructose, lactose and mannose are the more common ones. Sugar is fundamental to brain function. Every diabetic knows that.

When we turn to the animal kingdom, including mankind itself, we find too that leaping deer, frolicking seals, lumbering rhinos or thinking humans are all forms of animated carbon. In the human species we have thinking carbon through which the universe actually becomes conscious of itself. The human brain is the most complex and intricate piece of equipment in the universe. This is the organ of the human mind through which carbon not only becomes thinking carbon, but reaches the sublime heights of becoming caring, sharing, loving carbon.

So who is going to tell me that carbon is just some black old ugly stuff that deserves to be demonized as the world’s great pollutant?

Stand back, and let your mind take into this whole wondrous biosphere - the living earth - and what you are surveying is the awesome wonder that carbon has come alive in the great dance of life.

What is made of carbon must be fuelled by carbon

Now consider too that this great dance of living things is not just made of carbon, but it has to be fuelled by carbon. It needs to feed on carbon to grow and reproduce. Yet we have people who call themselves scientists or leaders of society who are so deluded with a disease called carbophobia (an irrational fear of carbon), that they label carbon a dangerous pollutant which has to be regulated and sequestered to the nether regions of the earth. For pity's sake, how can their carbon-thinking brains reach such anti-carbon conclusions? This is not just madness; it is madness gone mad. Mad science. Mad politicians. Mad anti-carbon activists on a mankind-hating, life-hating crusade of self destruction. In the entire history of civilization, no mass hysteria has ever come close to being such a monstrous threat to civilization at this!

Where do animals, including mankind, get their carbon-based fuel? All animal food has to originate from plants, of course. Plants start this food chain by making carbo(n)hydrates for the animal kingdom. No plants = no food chain = no animals = no mankind. So where do the plants source their carbon so that they can make all this carbon based food to sustain all creatures great and small?

The only gateway through which carbon can enter the food chain to enable the biosphere to exist is through the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There is no other way. It all starts with CO2 in the atmosphere. The entire chain of life starts with plants absorbing this entirely natural, colourless, odourless, absolutely non-toxic aerial gas called CO2.

They used to teach these simple facts to primary school kids, but nowadays teachers who are way off with the environmental fairies are scaring the daylights out of our children with hobgoblin stories about the evils of CO2.

This insanity must stop. It's time to teach the kids again and to remind the adults of this world that CO2 is the primary plant food that ends up feeding them too. They need to be told again the simple fact that the leaves on a plants have stomata through which they absorb or breathe in C02, and by a process of photosynthesis, the plants turn this CO2 into carbo(n)hydrate food for animals and man. They need reminding that more than 90% of the dry matter of plants is simply processed C02. Whether it is a cow eating the grass or humans eating the cow, all are eating -and being fuelled - by processed CO2.

CO2 is as natural and as necessary to life as water and oxygen. It is not a poison. It is not a pollutant. It feeds the whole world, Stupid!

Unless the soil gave off carbon emissions into the atmosphere, unless the sea (which contains 90 times the amount of CO2 than the atmosphere) gave off carbon emissions, unless the micro-organisms which comprise more than two-thirds of the world's biomass gave off their carbon emissions, unless the termites gave off their carbon emissions, unless cattle gave off their carbon emissions (their belching and flatulence actually give off more carbon emissions than the entire human transport system), and unless we as part of this tapestry of life gave off carbon emissions, then life could not go on for the simple reason that the plants would have no food by which to grow, and then no creature on earth would have anything to eat. For life to go on, the carbon used to make all living things and to feed all living things, must be circulated back from whence it came to start the life-cycle all over again. Every form of life simply borrows the carbon by which it lives only to give it back again. We give some of it back when we breathe, we give some of it back in our bodily wastes and we give the last bit of it back when the shovel thumps the ground on top of us.

Demonizing Carbon is a Dangerous Nonsense

In the light of all this, it is a sheer nonsense of the highest and most dangerous order to put forward the notion that carbon or carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It is double nonsense to say that the carbon emissions of either humans or cattle is a threat to the earth anymore than the much more abundant carbon emissions of the soil micro organisms or the carbon emissions of the oceans that outdo our human carbon emissions in an order of magnitude many times to one are a threat to the earth.

Be warned: this dangerous eco-Taliban wants to subject us to a carbon taxing, carbon regulating police state. It surely has to stand to reason that you can't regulate human carbon emissions without regulating every aspect of human existence - and that would be more totalitarian than anything the world has ever known. This is a religio/political ideology masquerading as science. Their plans to decarbonize our footprint and to decarbonize our economy will reduce our civilization to a weakened and impoverished state of carbo-anorexia. Does that sound like a lot of fun?

People need to be told the plain truth that much higher carbon emissions and much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than we see at present would mean more plant food, more plant growth and more food for man and animals to eat. Carbon is the greenest stuff on the planet.

I speak now as a horticulturist. Plant nursery operators know that CO2 enrichment of the air in the nursery house means that the plants grow quicker, have bigger roots and get by on less water. Certainly every indoor tomato grower in New Zealand, Australia, Holland or anywhere for that matter knows that he can increase the yield of tomatoes 40% simply by increasing the CO2 content of the air by about 300%. What's good for plants is good for animals because animals and plants evolved together and share a common basis in life based on cells. A great leap forward in world agricultural productivity took place in the 1920's when they learned to take nitrogen out of the air and put it into the soil where it could stimulate plant growth. Our highly populated world could not feed itself today without recourse to synthetic nitrogen. The second leap forward is staring us in the face. It is to take the carbon out of the earth and put it into the air where it can benefit plant life and so enhance food productivity. The technology has already been proven and demonstrated thousands of times. It is estimated that the agricultural industry today enjoys a 15% increase of food productivity due to the modest rise of atmospheric CO2 levels of the last 100 years from 280 ppm to 385 ppm.

More and more evidence accumulates that in an ideal world we would have 1000 to 1500 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere instead of a mere 385 ppm as we have now, or a 280 ppm that the carbophobics would take us back to if they have their way. That level of CO2 happens to be only a tad higher than the point at which plants suffocate for lack of CO2. (See the Wikipedia article on CO2) 300% to 400% higher levels of CO2 will have no adverse impact on humans or animals. In evolutionary history, the explosion of life-forms took place during the Cambrian Age when there were many times more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have today. Besides, humans work in indoor tomato-growing facilities and indoor offices where the CO2 levels are around 1,000 ppm.

As for world temperatures, more and more evidence piles up every day, especially over the last five years, that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 have no catastrophic effect on climate.

In the theory of the global warming alarmists, CO2 has heat-trapping properties, meaning that the more CO2 builds up in the atmosphere, the warmer the world will become.

There are some inconvenient facts, however, that destroy this theory:

(1) CO2 is only a small player when it comes to greenhouse gas, more than 90% of which is water vapour – and who gets paranoid about water vapour?
(2) The earth and her systems – including the very complex climate system – are robust, resilient and self-regulating. Apparently, they easily adjust to a bit more CO2 just as easily as all the plants and animals do.
(3) The proof of any scientific theory is in observing and measuring what takes place in the real world irrespective of what computer modelling might indicate. Whilst CO2 levels have continued to rise over the last decade, world temperatures have begun a downward trend. If the current behaviour of the sun with its diminished sun-spots and magnetic strength is any guide, and if the recent changes of the Atlantic and Pacific Decadal Currents are any guide, then this cooling trend will continue for a least another 20-30 years – all proving that C02 never was and never can be a primary driver of climate.

Carbophobia - the irrational fear of carbon - has become the disease of our age, the religious myth of our time and the apocalyptic delusion of this moment of history. It can be cured, however, with a good dose of common sense.
Why then worry about the size our carbon footprint - the bigger the better if the aim is to green the earth and to feed the world. As for pollutants, let's direct our attention to the real pollutants in our environment like the sulphurs, the nitric oxides and real chemical pollutants. CO2 is not one of them. Before we get too morbidly obsessed about the size of our carbon footprint, it might help to remind ourselves that the termites and the micro-organisms have a very much larger carbon footprint than we do. As for the oceans, their carbon emissions are so massive that they make human carbon emissions appear about as significant as some flatulence in a hurricane.
Carbon is good for you, good for every living thing, and good for the earth. So relax and enjoy your good portion of carbon under the sun, especially if it happens to be a carbonated cold one.
The fear of carbon is the fear of life. The love of carbon is the love of life. Humans are animated carbon. Everything we consume and emit is carbon-based. Everything we make or purchase causes carbon emissions. It is not possible to control and regulate carbon without controlling and regulating every aspect of human existence. To be anti-carbon is to be anti-human freedom.
The war on carbon is an ill-disguised war on humanity, a war on human freedom. Carbon and carbon emissions are simply a proxy for human activity. This whole movement to demonize carbon is driven by a world-denying, man-hating worldview. It is time to rip away the mask and expose the movement whose real aim is to put the human race in chains to a system that controls every aspect of human existence. It is time to stand up and say, “You take your jackboots off my carbon and off my life.”
It is heartening to see that more and more scientists are waking up to the junk science of man-made global warming alarmism and that they are now coming out of the woodwork to say so. The movement to shut down our energy sources by a beat-up against CO2, if successful, would turn off the lights of civilization. It is fitting that the symbolism of the recent Earth Hour was darkness rather than light.
There has never been more than a small coterie of pseudo-science activists and social engineers driving this global warming alarmism cart. They have been remarkably successful in closing down the debate and silencing opposition by their big lie about their enjoying an overwhelming scientific consensus. They have intimidated a lot of scientists with the fear of losing academic funding if they should open their mouths with a contrary opinion.
As for the Media that refused to obey their own credo of rigorous investigative journalism, that ducked from asking the hard questions, that forgot they were supposed to be independent journalists instead of advocates for the popular hysteria, its integrity and credibility has been trashed by its own hand. Long live the free spirits of the Internet, the indefatigable bloggers who would not be silenced.
*Robert D. Brinsmead is a Horticulturist and a free-lance Writer.
[Text anglicised. Original can be read here. Further reading in the same vein, bobbrinsmead.com/e_An_Irrational_Fear_of_Carbon.html]
_________________________

Relevant essays -
AGW by CO2 Floored
The Green Agenda
Did you expect any other outcome?
_________________________
Pajamas TV headlines
UN: Human Life Threatens Climate!
Thursday, December 17th, 2009 - by John Rosenthal
A new UN report reveals the fundamentally misanthropic worldview underlying climate alarmism.
EverGreens: After Failure, Warmists Will Change Hats And Move On
Thursday, December 17th, 2009 - by William M. Briggs
You simply cannot have so many celebrities and political will in one place, and expect them to concede defeat: It is just not in their nature.
Climategate: European Carbon Credit Trading System Plagued by Fraud Thursday, December 17th, 2009 - by Soeren Kern
A main aim of the Copenhagen climate conference is to expand the EU’s fraud- and corruption-plagued carbon trading scheme into a global system for trading carbon.
Cope Notes #1: The Snows of Kilimancrazy
Wednesday, December 16th, 2009 - by Roger L Simon
Leftover, re-upped hippies doing what they do — demonstrating and carrying-on. (Watch Roger's report: The Real Copenhagen: Hippies, Goofballs and Climate, Inc. Also read Claudia Rosett: 10,000 Organic Chickens Bite the Dust for Copenhagen.)
Climategate: Something’s Rotten in Denmark … and East Anglia, Asheville, and New York City (PJM Exclusive)
Tuesday, December 15th, 2009 - by Joseph D'Aleo
The focus belongs not just on CRU, but on all of the organizations which gather temperature data. All now show evidence of fraud.

The politics of climate change
Author: Anthony Giddens

In The Politics of Climate Change, Giddens, the Labour peer and former director of the LSE, controversially argues that we do not have a systematic politics of climate change. While the consequences of climate change are potentially catastrophic, the book argues that for most policymakers and citizens it remains only a latent concern. A “politics-as-usual” approach is, therefore, insufficient to tackle this problem. Yet Giddens also argues that the green movement is too flawed to make a real impact on how we overcome the economic and political challenges in mainstream thinking.
By examining the crucial connections between climate change and energy security, Giddens introduces a range of new concepts and policy proposals to fill this gap, such as “foregrounding”, which refers to the use of the various political devices that can be deployed to keep global warming at the core of the political agenda, or “economic convergence”, which refers to the overlap between low-carbon technologies, forms of business practice and lifestyles with economic competitiveness.

The book grew out of a broader cross-party, interdisciplinary project, organised by Policy Network in association with the LSE’s Centre for the Study of Global Governance, that aims to challenge conventional policy thinking on climate change. Although an international agreement is an essential aspect of an effective global response to climate change, the project’s focus is on the need for more urgent national action and the complex political challenges western democracies will encounter in dramatically reducing their greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades, if they are going to lead to the rest of the world on this issue.

A copy of the book can be ordered here.
From Wiley
paperback £12.99 / €15.00
hardback £55.00 / €63.30

Brown Rot, Gorebull, Gang Green

A nation deceived. No wonder Brown chews his digits. Deception is a big cause of stress.

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor's Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.). (Source)
Gore is a club of rome member and friend of Maurice Strong.

Strong was co author of Kyoto. Strong was obliged to leave the UN when he was found to be involved in the oil for food Iraq scam.

What is happening in the world today, constant weakening of the stock market, currencies destabilized, the gang green plot, commodity destabilization, disease panics all hyped out of proportion to reality are exactly in line with the club of rome manifesto.

The EU/EC in collusion with the UN and various other NGOs (under club of rome guidance I believe) has expressed a strong desire to rule the world. Joining the EU, no-one voted for world government. Brown's moves, selling the gold, devaluing the pound, running up UK debt and making sure the public is in no position to do anything about it all point to putting the UK in a position where we are dependent on the EU. The green dream to control climate and stop warming has never been more than a fantasy but very, very useful in bringing governments together to discuss steps towards world governance as a fait accompli and how to get there. Having a secret agenda that is detrimental to UK is treason or something very close. The only way I will be reassured is when there is a categorical statement by the EU that distances it from Maurice Strong/club of rome's UN and stops funding it.

The only way I will ever trust Brown is when hell freezes over. If giving Britain away by the euro is treasonable, could EU/EC puppet Mandy and Mandy puppet Brown have their strings cut?

The question has to be asked, Cameron must know, why hasn't he come clean? Oh, that is right. He's in on it.

We need out of the EU fast.

eulab and eucon can no longer be trusted.

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

Club of rome manifesto Link

Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one INVENTED for the purpose…

HOW ABOUT THE EU AS THE COMMON ENEMY?

Democracy will be made to seem responsible for the lagging economy, the scarcity and uncertainties. The very concept of democracy could then be brought into question and allow for the seizure of power.

Some Current Members of the Club of Rome triad:

Al Gore – former VP of the USA, leading climate change campaigner, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Academy Award winner, Emmy winner, lead the US delegations to the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Climate Change conference, largest shareholder in the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Javier Solana – Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, High Representative for EU Foreign Policy.

Maurice Strong – former Head of the UN Environment Programme, Chief Policy Advisor to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author (with Gorbachev) of the Earth Charter, co-author of the Kyoto Protocol, founder of the Earth Council, devout Baha’i.

Mikhail Gorbachev – CoR executive member, former President of the Soviet Union, founder of Green Cross International and the Gorbachev Foundation, Nobel Peace Prize winner, co-founder (with Hidalgo) of the Club of Madrid, co-author (with Strong) of the Earth Charter.

Diego Hidalgo – CoR executive member, co-founder (with Gorbachev) of the Club of Madrid, founder and President of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

Ervin Laszlo – founding member of the CoR, founder and President of the Club of Budapest, founder and Chairman of the World Wisdom Council.

Hassan bin Talal – President of the CoR, President of the Arab Thought Forum, founder of the World Future Council, recently named as the United Nations ‘Champion of the Earth’.

Sir Crispin Tickell – former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Permanent Representative on the Security Council, Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, Chairman of the Board of the Climate Institute, leading British climate change campaigner.

Kofi Annan – former Secretary General of the United Nations. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Javier Perez de Cuellar – former Secretary General of the United Nations. .

Robert Muller – former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, founder and Chancellor of the UN University of Peace.

David Rockefeller – CoR executive member, former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum, donated land on which the United Nations stands.

Stephen Schneider – Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports.

Bill Clinton – former President of the United States, founder of the Clinton Global Iniative.

Jimmy Carter – former President of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Bill Gates – founder of Microsoft, philanthropist

Other current influential members:

(these can be found on the Club of Rome, Club of Budapest, Club of Madrid and/or CoR National Association membership pages)

Ted Turner – American media mogul, philanthropist, founder of CNN

George Soros – multibillionare, major donor to the UN

Tony Blair – former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Deepak Chopra – New Age Guru

Desmond Tutu – South African Bishop and activist, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Timothy Wirth – President of the United Nations Foundation

Henry Kissinger – former US Secretary of State

Barbara Marx Hubbard – President of the Foundation for Conscious Evolution

Betty Williams – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

Marianne Williamson – New Age ‘Spiritual Activist’

Robert Thurman – assistant to the Dalai Lama

Jane Goodall – Primatologist and Evolutionary Biologist

Juan Carlos I – King of Spain

Prince Philippe of Belgium

Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands

Dona Sophia – Queen of Spain

Karan Singh – Chairman of the Temple of Understanding

Daisaku Ikeda – founder of the Soka Gakkai cult

Eduard Shevardnadze – former Soviet foreign minister and President of Georgia

Richard von Weizsacker – former President of Germany

Martin Lees – CoR Secretary General, Rector of the UN University of Peace

Ernesto Zedillo – Director of The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization

Frithjof Finkbeiner – Coordinator of the Global Marshall Plan

Vaclav Havel – former President of the Czech Republic

Hans Kung – Founder of the Global Ethic Foundation

Ruud Lubbers – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Mary Robinson – United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Jerome Binde – Director of Foresight, UNESCO

Federico Mayor – Director General of UNESCO

Tapio Kanninen – Director of Policy and Planning, United Nations

Konrad Osterwalder – Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations

Peter Johnston – Director General of European Commission

Thomas Homer-Dixon – Director of Peace and Conflict
Studies, University of Toronto

Emeka Anyaoku – former Commonwealth Secretary General, current President of the WWF

Wangari Maathai – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, founder of the Green Belt Movement
******************************
Dejan Lucic Link

The dolts in charge of the EU/EC in charge of the world? What a nightmare. No wonder Obama doesn't like Brown. Bush must have been in on it of course.