Greenpeace Climbs Colosseum To Urge For Action in Copenhagen

Beyond the green demonstrations in Copenhagen and other cities. Let’s just take a few moments to consider what the real spending priorities of world leaders really are and see how the threat of global warming impacts upon scientific research.

First off what kinds of investments into research have the biggest developed nations put into technologies to tackle climate change? In 1988 the UN, at a cost to the world’s taxpayers of $50 billion set up the IPCC, an organisation whose task was to prove carbon dioxide warms the planet. Did this vast sum of money prove co2 increased temps? Answer: No. The best the IPCC can suggest is that they think it has an effect. How much of an effect? They say CO2 will, at most, raise the temp of the Earth by 1 degree C. Their computer models, however, predict scary ‘feedbacks’ by CO2 on clouds that might raise the temp of the globe by another 2 degrees C. Why the UN picked on CO2 presupposes they knew the cause of the ‘problem’ even before they spent $50 billion on trying to prove the link.

Meanwhile, the greatest real science developments have occurred in the US with ‘HAARP, a patented weather-modifying device that was tailored by the former Bush government as a 'Star Wars' defence mechanism. If global warming could truly turn out 'catastrophic' then this device would have been adapted towards 'saving the planet.' But it wasn't.

World governments have instead spent $9 billion on the Hadron Collider at CERN, the most expensive scientific experiment in human history. What does Hadron actually do? It simply measures particle impacts and it does this with the greatest computing power the planet can muster – that’s 15 petabytes per year. Or in simple terms, for comparison, every word spoken worldwide in one year, converted into text, would amount to 2–3 petabytes of data. That’s truly awesome PC power and not any of it went towards helping the UK University of East Anglia or NASA GISS ‘fudge’ their computations of global climate (Climategate).

The US government has three atmospheric weather changing facilities, two in Alaska (north of Gakona and northeast of Fairbanks) and one in Puerto Rico. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is in charge of weather control projects under authority of Public Law 205 of the 92nd Congress. This agency allegedly does not perform research into weather modification. Meanwhile, the 'Weather Modification Operations and Research Board' was a proposed agency of the United States government, intended to officially promote research into weather control. But a US Senate bill to create the board did not become law. So what does this tell us about US concerns over climate change?

Over in the UK, the nation pushing the climate issue more than any other,  what's the Brown Government's big investment project? Well, it’s the taxpayer-funded London Olympics of 2012 costing over $20 billion. Critically, downstream a short way from the Olympic construction site, is the Thames Barrier, the second largest flood defence system in the world and built in 1974 to protect low-lying London from floods, at a time when the world feared ‘global cooling.’ The Barrier cost $4 billion at today’s prices. Even back then everyone understood the threat to London of flooding because of the slow but continuous rise in high water level over the centuries (20 cm / 100 years) since the last Ice Age, 11,000 years ago.

Thus can we say Prime Minister Brown truly believes all the hype that sea levels will rise by 20 feet or more this century? Aren't his expert advisers now screaming at him to get his priorities right? Answer: unlikely.

Folks, it takes simple common sense to figure out the truth when you follow the money.