Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide increasing? No, new detailed studies show!

The IPCC has attempted to deny the gravitas of climategate by claiming that it has no bearing on their conclusions about global warming, despite the fact that scientists at the University of East Anglia used intimidation and academic witch hunts to ensure that data they didn’t agree with politically was blocked from appearing in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007.

Participants who contributed to the first UNEP document included Janos Pasztor, currently head of the team pushing U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s unprecedented Seal the Deal lobbying campaign to pressure U.N. member governments into signing a new environmental agreement at Copenhagen, Dominic Waughray, currently head of environmental initiatives at the World Economic Forum; and Maria Ivanova, and Bulgarian academic Maria Ivanova, director of the Global Economic Governance Project at the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

The first document is very similar to a second UNEP paper entitled, “Proposed Medium Term Strategy 2010-2013.”

The documents outline a program of implementing a global system of governance based around environmental regulations and laws, stressing the agenda for the “evolutionary nature of strengthening international environmental governance.”

The aim of elevating UNEP’s influence to a position where it dictates rules to nation states, rather than nation states being the supervisors of UNEP as is currently the case, is advocated.

The documents discuss recruiting academia to further the power of UNEP, noteworthy in light of the recent climategate scandal where scientists at major universities were caught hiding evidence of global cooling.

“As the Swiss paper puts it, UNEP “should pioneer a new style of work. This requires going beyond a narrow interpretation of UNEP’s stakeholders as comprising its member states — or even the world’s governments — and recruiting a far wider community of support, in civil society, the academic world and the private sector.” At the same time the paper warns that these groups need to be “harnessed to the UNEP mission without appearing to make an end-run around the member governments,” summarizes Fox News’ George Russell.

This passage is fairly damning, as the UN is all but admitting that the program does represent an “end-run around member governments,” and that they have to do their best to hide the fact. That academics should be “harnessed to the UNEP mission” and not harnessed to producing unbiased scientific data about global warming also reveals how the climate change issue has been hijacked to serve the requirements of a global elite hell-bent on world government.

The first document also calls for an “Environmental Bretton Woods for the 21st Century,” where the environmental agenda is inextricably linked with the economy and the UN’s role is to have command over the economies of national governments.

The goals included in the four-year strategy paper include “efforts at local, national and global levels” to raise “sufficient finance to meet environmental challenges, including climate change,” which translates as using the problem of global warming to raise money for the operation of the global government structure which is being called for in the planning papers.

The goals enshrined in the documents, a counterpart to the globally binding agreement the UN is seeking to achieve in Copenhagen next month, are “certain to remain a UNEP rallying cry long after the Copenhagen meeting is over — and while the other brainstorming ideas that went into the new four-year strategy, not to mention the strategy itself, go into effect,” writes Russell.

This document represents yet another smoking gun proving that the climate cult movement is all about expanding the power of a dictatorial, unelected global government, diluting powers of nation states, seizing control of the global economy, eviscerating the middle class with a raft of new regulations and laws, and shutting dow

Scientist Points to U.N. ‘Fraud’ on Climate Change

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should be dismissed as an authority on global warming, according to a scientist associated with the IPCC.

In an article that appeared on South Africa’s BusinessDay Web site, Dr. Philip Lloyd, who has been a coordinating lead author for the IPCC, writes about the “flaws behind the whole process” of the IPCC.

The IPCC “claims that it has thousands of scientists and almost as many reviewers of the scientists’ work to produce their reports,” noted Lloyd, an honorary research fellow at the Energy Research Center at the University of Cape Town in South Africa.

However, Lloyd says the reviewers of IPCC reports have been neither independent nor anonymous, as they should be. In Lloyd’s experience there has been no review “in the accepted sense of the word — there was no independence of review, and the reviewers were anything but anonymous. The result is not scientific.”

Another problem cited by Lloyd is that the IPCC issues a Summary for Policy Makers four months or more before a scientific report is published.

Lloyd concludes: “It isn’t necessary to list all the changes I have identified between what the scientists actually said and what the policymakers who wrote the Summary for Policy Makers said they said. The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay.”

Lloyd’s article makes no mention of the so-called climategate scandal, which has called into question the validity of some of the IPCC’s science supporting man-made global warming.

In a related note, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, following the eruption of the climategate controversy, acknowledged that the science supporting man-made global warming may not be “as certain as its proponents allege.”

But The Telegraph in Britain reported that Blair believes the world should take action on climate change “even if the science is not correct.”

One fix for all of the world's problems. CLEAN HOUSE IN WASHINGTON D.C. AND STOP THE BOGUS WARS.

From Rolling Stone, The Great American Bubble:
"Cap and trade, as envisioned by Goldman, is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax collection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it's even collected."

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA3.html
Again, this link points to data formed using the skewed data and not the adjusted data after ClimateGate. (Copyright 2003) As far as I'm concerned, anything prior to Copenhagen is junk science due to the fact that the e-mails reveal the numbers were altered. These scientists and the data have permanently lost any credibility in the science community. All data must be re-run.

Oh, I read that, and the rest of the article, once again paid for by the 'Dept. of Commerce' and then I sent it to Glenn for his take and well, the article, and that spot, are relying on the data prior to the corrections made after finding out IPCC 'scientists' altered the data and intimidated anyone trying to tell the general public about it. So says the climatologist. And, even in this article it comes out inconclusive and that's with skewed data. I still find it odd that you don't criticize Al's climate hypocrisy in the way he lives his life. Or, how about this, which has been dodged by all Climate Change believers I've met. Would our behavior have an effect if we continue with all of the wars? I have a research document link on that. The answer is no, so we must first work to stop the destruction of the planet through wars before our efforts will make a difference. Why don't I hear this from anyone on the Green front? Why don't we hear that from Al Gore, the IPCC, Copenhagen, the U.N. or anyone else that will profit from the Cap and Trade or carbon taxes? Because they don't believe any of the information they are feeding you. That's why. The wars make them money and the climate scare makes them money and gives them power. This is why your climate research was paid for by the DEPT. OF COMMERCE. It's ludicrous to argue for Climate Change regulation without also arguing for a stop to the, giggle, 'War on Terror', giggle again. You may have a science background, albeit, Geophysicist, but my friends are also experts and some on Climate. My expertise is based around philosophy, religion, government, and corruption, they go together more than you might expect. Knowing government well and knowing corruption even better, I can smell a rat anywhere on the planet and this thing smells like the biggest cheese eater I've ever seen. As myself and my brother have stated in the past, we're so green they had to invent a new name and add one to the Crayola box. That said, we both believe that humans are a virus to this planet. That said, we both believe everything possible should be done to eliminate pollution and quit poisoning our planet. That said, this Al Gore started Cap and Trade, carbon tax, fiasco is like Charlotte's friend getting fat at the fair. It all looks good and tasty but after the excitement, the truth kind of makes you sick.

Once again, Monkey, you cannot read science, even that intended for the general public. The NOAA article says that "There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component." That says that the forcing due to greenhouse gasses is much larger than that due to the sun. How clear can that be? And the increase in CO2 is not a cyclic phenomenon, it is a huge spike, larger than any increase seen in millions of years. This is a scientific fact: http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA3.html :

'Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases).There is no scientific debate on this point. '
That is actually what it says when not used like the Bible and taken out of context. But, nowhere in the rest of the article does it say that our increase is enough to be the cause of global warming. Actually, read correctly, the article agrees that it cannot be pinned on humans and that cycles exist including some related to the sun. You can provide me with all the links from all the shills you want but none, I repeat none, will link humans to Global Warming. I know this, my brother is a Monkey and he never stops reading. But I enjoy the debate and the attempts so please don't stop.

Oh, yes, the increase that happens in the cycle we are in just like it has time and time again throughout college level history. And again, a government paid for website, no independent scientific research, who's the shill? Anyone can listen to an essay only those with cognitive skill can understand how it works, but thanks for repeating the information you give to your pre-schoolers, I'll weigh that in with my grown up stuff. How cute.

Monkey, (perhaps you should try Hanuman) your ignorance or deceipt on this topic is totally stunning. The article you cite is about the fraction of the ADDITIONAL CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution that is not quickly absorbed by the oceans. It has been known since the 50s that the CO2 increase seen in the atmosphere is less than half the total fossil fuel emissions. The question addressed in the article is not whether humans are causing the huge increases in the TOTAL FRACTION of CO2 observed, it is about whether or not the percentage of that ADDITIONAL CO2 that remains in the atmosphere is increasing. I reiterate to you, no credible scientist denies that the observed increase in the CO2 total fraction over the last century is primarily due to fossil fuel burning. The rest of the increase is due to changes in land use, primarily deforestation. You need to go back to high school to study algebra and leave the people at Current, who are rightly and genuinely concerned about the real possibility of disasterous rapid climate change, alone.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0603-can_carbon_dioxide_be_a_good_thing....
CO2 absorbed by larger growth of plants.