This document discusses evidence that contradicts claims of human-caused global warming and instead suggests that the climate is cooling. It presents data showing that global temperatures have declined since 1998 despite rising CO2 levels. Several factors are proposed to have a greater influence on the climate than CO2, including solar activity and cosmic rays. Charts are presented comparing solar irradiance and temperature in various regions over 120 years, showing a close correlation. The document argues that recent cooling trends and forecasts of future cooling do not match the projections of global warming made by the IPCC.

1. 1
Global Cooling Reality vs.
Global Warming Politics 1
Bienvenido “Nonoy” Oplas, Jr. 2
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: http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/98429.html).
But this month is one of two hottest months of the year. We are supposed to have lots
of sunlight and cloudless sky. The average maximum temperature for April, (a) last 21
years was 33° C (Source:
http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=92489&refer=&units=metric),
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!
1
Presented at the joint meeting, Rotary Club of Makati McKinley and Rotary Club of Taguig-Fort
Bonifacio, RI District 3830. Duets Bistro, AIM Conference Center, Makati City, Philippines
2
President, Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc., and Past President, Rotary Club of Taguig-Fort
Bonifacio

2. 2
Having a cold front and cloudy skies in hot April is a climate anomaly that has not
been seen for many years now. A review of the weather in other capital cities of
south-east Asian countries that are near the equator also show similar pattern:
maximum noontime temperatures of only 34 to 35 Celsius (except Bangkok that has
been registering 37 to 38 Celsius lately).
Early this year, Europe experienced one of its coldest and nastiest winter in history. It
was “record low” in some parts of Germany and there were a number of deaths
reported in other European countries as the severe winter coincided with the Russia-
Ukraine conflict and natural gas from Russia were not delivered to mainland Europe.
In North America, many states in the US experienced some of their worst winter too.
What happened? Where is global warming? Are these recent climate trend consistent
with global warming scenarios that have been over-publicized for the past few years,
especially with the release of the UN’s Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) 4th
Assessment Report (AR4) in 2007? Are the various “fight global warming”
policies that have been enacted and implemented, and more policies to be enacted in
the coming months and years by many governments around the world, consistent with
emerging climate trends?
Disclosure
I am not a climate scientist and does not pretend to be one. I am an economist, head of
a private think tank, and a part-time farmer. I got involved with climate change issues
because of two things. First, our think tank, Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc., is
advocating less government intervention and opposing central planning, including
ecological central planning. Our think tank is also a member-institute of a big
international coalition, the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change (CSCCC,
www.csccc.info), composed of 50 private institutes from 38 countries, think tanks that
are independent of governments and any political party. MG Thinkers is the only
Philippine-based think tank that is a member of this coalition.
Second, MG Thinkers is one of the 60 international co-sponsors of the 2nd
International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC) held in New York City last
March 6-8, 2009. The event was mainly sponsored by the Heartland Institute
(www.heartland.org) and Heartland gave me a travel scholarship plus hotel
accommodation to attend that scientific conference. I was the only Filipino in the
conference hall attended by some 700 participants, mostly American and European
scientists.
Most of the powerpoint slides to be shown in this paper are lifted from the papers
presented by some scientists in the ICCC.

3. 3
1. The IPCC AR4 Climate Projection
The IPCC projects global temperature to rise as a result of anthropogenic (man-made)
global warming (AGW) between 1.4 to 5.8 °C (almost 10 °F) from 1990 to 2100.
The IPCC Report’s charts cannot be lifted or copy-pasted, in pdf format, so I am using
a reconstructed chart, by Dr. Easterbrook:
The IPCC Report added that ocean levels will rise by several feet as snow and ice in
Greenland, the north and south poles will be melting. And the world panicked!
2. Some Actions by the Philippine Government
The Philippine government has created new climate bureaucracies on top of existing
ones that are already involved on the subject, like the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) and Department of Energy (DOE). Among the new
national bureaucracies that were created recently are:
1. Presidential Task Force on Climate Change (PTFCC) – Administrative Order 171,
February 2007. DOE Sec. as Chairman, DENR Sec. as Vice-Chairman, Secretaries of
DOST, DA, DILG, DepEd and CHED, and 2 from private business and/or civil
society, as members. Early this year, the President assumed leadership of this body.
2. Presidential Adviser on Climate Change (PACC) – formed August 2008. Former
Sen. Heherson Alvarez as the Presidential Adviser, Cabinet rank.
3. Carbon Cutting Coalition (CCC) – formed April 17, 2009. Composed of various
government agencies (like the 2 bodies above), private business, NGOs and other
groups.

4. 4
In Congress, House Bill 5982 creating a Climate Change Commission (CCC) has been
passed on 3rd
and final Reading in the House of Representatives (HB 5982) last week.
Some Provincial Governors and City or Municipal Mayors also created their own
provincial or city/municipal task forces on climate change. The alarmism at the
national level is replicated at the local level, creating a cascade of wastes down the
line, creating bureaucracies and hiring people to “fight” a non-existent enemy.
Here are also some news reports on the eve of the Earth Day. This will give readers a
glance of the kind of alarmism that governments in poorer countries exhibit.
(a) Palace orders stepped-up carbon emission-cutting efforts
BusinessWorld, April 21, 2009
PRESIDENT Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo wants all agencies to step up efforts in cutting
carbon emission, saying the threat of global warming is more alarming and critical
than the global economic crisis.
In a statement, she asked state departments to join the Carbon Cutting Coalition which
seeks to cut by half the fossil fuel use in two years…
http://bworldonline.com/BW042109/content.php?id=077
(b) Confront environmental crisis, says GMA
Philippine Star, April 21, 2009
MANILA, Philippines - President Arroyo called for a “committed individual
response” from Filipinos to help confront the “crisis in the environment.”
Mrs. Arroyo said climate change is “as critical, if not even more critical, as the need to
solve the global financial crisis.”…
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=459619&publicationSubCategoryId=63
3. Carbon Dioxide: Guilty or Innocent?
The IPCC has practically demonized carbon dioxide (CO2), particularly human-
produced CO2, as the main cause of global warming due to the huge increase in
GHGs that trap the sunlight in the Earth’s surface,
Unfortunate for the IPCC, this is not supported by recent data. While CO2 levels were
consistently rising, global temperatures were rising and falling, with a general
downward trend.

5. 5
(source: Bast)
Another chart, time line from 1998 to 2008, also shows the same pattern. The above
chart has 1995 to 2008 timeline.
(Source: Gould, Easterbrook, Soon, other papers)
CO2 is one of the several greenhouse gases (GHGs) pinned as the cause of global
warming due to the “greenhouse effect”. But CO2 comprises only around 1 percent of
total GHGs in the planet. The bulk, water vapor, comprises 95 percent of all GHGs.
The other GHGs are methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone and CFCs.
Carbon Dioxide Increasing BUT
World Temperature Falling!
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_Last_Decade.pdf

6. 6
Below is an illustration of where CO2, the 1 percent of total GHGs, come from. It
should be scandalous if not intellectually insulting for other people to realize that only
3 percent of all CO2 emissions in the planet were produced by the 6+ billion people,
including the carbon emission by their pets and farm animals that they eat. And yet
this 3 percent of 1 percent of GHGs is being blamed as the main cause of global
warming!
(Source: Goldberg)
Another implication being propagated by the IPCC Report and being echoed by many
people is that CO2 drives and precedes climate change. That a rise in global
temperature is preceded by a rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Several scientists
argued that this is wrong. It is the other way around, it is increase in global climate
that precedes increase in CO2 level in the air. There is a lag of dozens, if not hundreds,
of years, depending on the scientific model and other factors being considered.
One study says the lag is about 100 years, as shown in this chart below.

7. 7
(Source: Goldberg)
4. Here Comes the Sun
The Beatles sang this song several decades ago and they gained more popularity.
Some physicists and climate scientists explained that it’s the Sun, not CO2, that
primarily drives global climate, and they were demonized if not ostracized by the
politicians, UN officials, media, and sometimes by some of their colleagues in the
science community.
But many of these scientists pursue the science minus the politics. The Sun’s cosmic
radiation, CO2 and CH4, volcanoes and geologic degassing, are subjects in the natural
sciences, not in political science. So it is important to remove politics and political
pressure from their scientific work.
Chart below compares solar activity (number of solar sunspots) with global sea
surface temperature, from 1860 to 1980. There is a very close, near-perfect, fit
between the two in those 120 years. Which suggests that the Sun does drive climate
changes in our planet.

8. 8
(Source: Goldberg)
Other scientists use temperature from other places and oceans. The next 2 slides are
from Dr. Willie Soon, an American-Malaysian Astrophysicist and geoscientist
working at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. I am lucky to befriend
this guy, he sends me some of his papers from time to time.
In the first slide, he compared Arctic temperature with (a) solar irradiance vs (b) CO2
levels. Data from 1880 to 2000 or 120 years. There is a very close fit between solar
activity and Arctic temperatures in all those 120 years, while there is little fit,
sometimes opposite trend, between the Arctic temperature and CO2 concentration.
SSuunnssppoott
nnuummbbeerrss
GGlloobbaall SSeeaa SSuurrffaaccee
TTeemmppeerraattuurree

9. 9
In the next chart below, Dr. Soon plotted solar activity with temperatures in (a) Arctic,
(b) Atlantic, (c) Pacific, and (d) Greenland/Iceland. The same period covered, 1880 to
2000. The same near-perfect fit was observed between solar irradiance and
temperatures in those 4 places.
Why or how is the sun affecting the climate in our planet and by extension, other
planets and lunar bodies in the solar system?
The Sun is more likely the dominant driver
of the recorded Arctic temperature variations

10. 10
Scientists explain that the sun controls the climate through its solar wind, which in
turn controls the amount of galactic cosmic radiation coming into Earth’s atmosphere.
An inactive sun results in more galactic cosmic radiation which creates more clouds,
which causes cooling. A 1 percent change of global cloud cover results in a 1º C
change in temperature.
(Source: Goldberg)
Below is a simplified explanation of the Sun-Climate relationship.

11. 11
And we humans should not feel too guilty of our carbon footprints that contribute to
GHGs in the atmosphere as these have very little impact, if any, to the global climate.
Another astrophysicist, Dr. Piers Corbyn, owner of Weather Action, made a
comparison among various factors aside from CO2 and solar magnetic activity, in
relation to global climate in the (a) last 25 years, (b) last 100 to 10,000 years, (c) last
25,000 years, and (d) 22-year signal in world temperature. The result of his
comparison is shown below.
There have been instances of inactive or zero solar activities. The period 1655 to 1705,
the flat area on the left side of global temperature change.
What Does & Doesn’t drive Climate
One X and you are out!
ALSO (SWT) has
predictive powers
12 months ahead
Solar Activity &
MAGNETIC
Link/modulation
Light variations in solar
cycle less important
than solar magnetic (but
UV is important)
X???Light
variations in
solar cycle
NB Total Energy flux
of solar particles ~300
times Cosmic rays.
X(Extra solar)
Cosmic Rays
(avoid confusion with
solar muons etc)
* This shows that on v
long time scales CO2 is
driven BY temps
XX*XCO2
= might explain
X = doesn't work
22 yr
signal in
world
temps
Temps
last
25k yrs
Temps
last 100
or1k or
10k yrs
Temps
1975 to
2000
(smoothed)
Evidence =>
Candidate

12. 12
1655-1705, No sunspots (flat area)
Global Cooling Now
Unfortunate for the IPCC, recent global temperatures did not go in the direction that it
predicted. Instead of global warming, there is cooling. 1998 was the peak in recent
global warming; after that, all succeeding temperatures were lower.
(Source: Easterbrook)
IIPPCCCC MMooddeell PPrreeddiiccttiioonnss vvss AAccttuuaall tteemmpp

13. 13
Expanding the time horizon back to the 80s, the smoothed trend was moderate
warming until 2005. There was the 1998 “outlier”, where world temperature shot up
by almost 1º C. The downward direction of world temperature in the latter part of this
decade is steep. IPCC temperature projections were terribly wrong.
(Source: Easterbrook)
And here’s another chart from another scientist using another set of temperature data,
quarterly data from 2002 to 2008.
(Source: Goldberg)
THE CLIMATE ISTHE CLIMATE IS COOLINGCOOLING, NOT WARMING, NOT WARMING

14. 14
And still another chart from the same scientist, showing a longer time horizon of more
than 1 century, from 1893 to 2023 and beyond.
(Source: Goldberg)
The projections in this chart is a bit troubling. The extent of global cooling in the next
few years is steep and harsh. If the early 1970s were among the coldest period in the
past 2 or 3 centuries, temperature in the next decade or two will be lower than the 70s.
There are discussions and projections that the Earth may be approaching the Dalton
Minimum attained in 1796 to 1820. That time, world temperature fell by 2º C, there
were massive crop failures and River Thames in London froze.

15. 15
Dr. Corbyn of Weather Action also made the same prediction.
Aside from the above charts and discussions, there are other reports showing that
global cooling this year is indeed continuing, and it’s a harsh type of cooling. A few of
those news reports are attached as “Annex 1”
Where will world temperatures go?
CO2 - No effect
Solar -Lunar magnetic modulation – Minimum around 2030-32 probably
similar to late 1970s levels.
Magnetic Hale cycle The 22yr peaks of world temps are at Odd max + 2 years (ie
around 2002/03). The Temp minima are at Even max plus 2 (for cycle 24, max =
2013+2=2015). At such times Geomagnetic activity & WORLD temperatures are
OPOSITELY correlated. So although there are some early forecasts of generally low
activity in Solar cycle 24 (eg SSN about 85) these will NOT have a significant reducing
effect on world temperatures. The important thing will be more detail especially of
linkage and weather EVENTS and the next Odd cycle.
‘Slow’ Sun-Earth changes such as a ‘Maunder’ type ‘little ice age ’
minimum. This is a serious possibility inferred by recent lack of solar activity but
yet neither ruled out nor in. For such the next ODD sunspot cycle (cycle 25,
commencing around 2019 peak 2024 end 2030) is critical.
CONCLUSION General cooling to 2030 (& poss beyond) reaching
1970 levels or below. The possibility of getting much colder by then or by
2040 – to below 1910 levels is not ruled out and can probably be estimated
with further theoretical research and one more year of solar observation.

16. 16
The Politics of Global Warming
(When climate science also becomes political science)
There is too much power and money involved in sustaining the global warming
hysteria. Billions of dollars of UN grants, rich governments’ climate research budget,
those governments’ subsidies to renewable energy research and production, their
grants to big environmental NGOs that help fan the scare, carbon taxes collected by
governments now and in the future, carbon emission permits being traded by banks
and financial traders, insurance companies insuring people and properties against
environmental catastrophes, etc. The list of people, companies, research institutes,
political parties and NGOs who have vested interests in the current hysteria are simply
too many.
Many politicians and international bureaucrats are aching for more reasons and alibis
to impose new regulations, to ration energy, to favor certain energy sources with huge
subsidies. Non-elected international bureaucrats decide on energy and emission caps
imposed on all participating countries.
When there is a huge “stake” for these people to continue benefiting from the current
hysteria and alarmism, then even if new scientific data will further prove that the
IPCC results and projections are wrong, said group of people will not hesitate to lying
and insist that climate science is also political science. Why? Because there is a huge
amount of power and money that will be removed from them.
Just Imagine the implication if more scientists and the public will realize that CO2 is
innocent for all the charges being charged against it as the main cause of climate
change. Then one big implication is that – the world does not need, did not need, the
Kyoto Protocol! And by extension, the world will not need a post-Kyoto agreement of
carbon cap-and-trade and all the various environmental and financial mechanisms that
have been invented, like emission trading system (ETS), clean development
mechanism (CDM), joint implementation (JI), certified emission reduction (CER), and
more.
Some news reports showing the extent of economic and financial resources involved
in the warming hysteria are contained in “Annex 2” below.

17. 17
Conclusions
Originally termed “global warming”, it slowly morphed and was renamed to “climate
change” because the propagators of the hysteria realized there was something wrong
with their models and predictions. Carbon dioxide and other GHGs were indeed
increasing but global temperatures did not! When it is called “climate change”, then
severe winters, super-strong typhoons, frequent rains and prolonged cold front, can
still be considered as part of “climate change due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”
Very clever!
In the first place, CO2 is not a pollutant; it is the gas that comes out of our mouth and
nose when we exhale, the gas that comes out when our pets and farm animals exhale,
the gas that our vegetables, flowers and trees use when they produce food in the
process of photosynthesis. That is why CO2 is sometimes called the “gas of life”
(GOL). But the IPCC and climate alarmists have demonized CO2, short of calling it
an “evil gas”.
If global cooling will turn out to be nasty and more severe than anticipated, then
perhaps the world will need more GHGs! There will be lots of clouds, rains, snow,
and few sunny days. Then what, the world will need more CO2 emissions?
People who say that “Debate is over, there is world consensus, this is an
anthropogenic (man-made) global warming” are liars. There is a big debate that has
been going on for many years now.
Global warming politics is the next communism of the current era. We no longer
worry about economic central planning, but ecological central planning. National and
international bureaucrats that we never elected or chosen will tell us what energy
sources we can use or not, how much carbon taxes to pay and how much grants and
subsidies to be given to renewable energies and environmental groups, how many tons
of carbon can each country emit without penalty, how much is the penalty, what new
emission reduction mechanisms to be created and allowed, what new bureaucracies to
be created and sustained, and so on.
It never fails. When big government enters the economy and science, shit happens.
Lots of it.

18. 18
References
1. Scientists who presented during the 2nd
ICCC in NY, March 6-8, 2009:
Joseph Bast, President and CEO, Heartland Institute
Piers Corbyn, PhD, Owner, Weather Action. “What does and does not cause climate
change, World temperature forecasts to 2030 and beyond”
Don Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington
University. “Global warming is over. Geologic, Oceanographic and Solar Evidence
for Global Cooling in the Coming Decades”
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Associate Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,
Sweden. “Do the Planets and the Sun Control our Climate and the CO2 in the
Atmosphere?”
Lawrence Gould, PhD, Professor of Physics, University of Hartford. “Global warming
alarmism: Checking the claims, exposing the methods”
Willie Soon, PhD, “Disconnects in Sun-climate Studies: Removing Politics from the
Science”
2. Additional materials can be viewed at the CSCCC, www.csccc.info.

19. 19
Annex 1. Some news/reports on global cooling
(1) RECORD GROWTH IN SEA ICE - AT SAME LEVEL AS 1979
Daily Tech, 1 January 2009
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen
29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in
the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate
of change on record, either upwards or downwards.
The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research
Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern
hemisphere polar regions…
(2) THOUSANDS SHIVER IN EUROPE'S BIG CHILL
Reuters, 7 January 2009
http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKL72936
Temperatures plunged to record lows in Germany and heavy snow forced normally
sunny Marseille to close its international airport as freezing winter weather gripped
much of Europe on Wednesday.
Port authorities in the Dutch city of Rotterdam deployed an icebreaking ship for the
first time 12 years, while in Britain forecasters issued a new severe weather warning.
A weather station in the eastern state of Saxony, Germany, said the coldest spot was -
27.7 degrees Celsius. In France, temperatures dropped as low as -16 degrees Celsius
on Wednesday in the north of country, while 40 cm of snow fell in the Marseille
region in just a few hours…
(3) SEA LEVEL RISE SLOWS BY 20%
Climate Policy, 7 January 2009
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/sea-level-rise-slows-by-20-4845
… A recent paper suggests that the rate of sea level rise from 2003-2008 (2.5 mm/year)
is 20% lower than that presented by the IPCC for 1993-2003 (3.1 mm/year). Whether
this is "consistent with" longer-term predictions is different that whether it is
"consistent with" a political strategy based on scaring people….

20. 20
Cazenave, A., et al., Sea level budget over 2003-2008: A reevaluation from GRACE
space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo, Glob. Planet. Change (2008),
doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.10.004 (PDF)
(4) WIND ENERGY SUPPLY DIPS DURING COLD SNAP
The Daily Telegraph, 10 January 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/4208940/Wind-energy-supply-
dips-during-cold-snap.html
…Since Boxing Day much of the country has suffered sub-zero conditions with frozen
rivers and lakes and even the sea in the south of England, at Sandbanks in Dorset. In
the last few days temperatures in southern England plunged as low as 17.6F (-8C).
However the weather is expected to warm up over the weekend, with wind speeds also
picking up.
But sources in the energy industry say that the lack of wind has caused the country's
wind farms to grind to a halt when more electricity than ever is needed for heating,
forcing the grid to rely on back up from fossil fuels or other renewable energy sources.
(5) AMERICANS SUFFER RECORD COLD AS TEMPERATURES PLUNGE TO -
40C
Daily Mail, 16 January 2009
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1118244/Americans-suffer-
record-cold-temperatures-plunge-40C.html
This winter has been one of the toughest in decades with temperatures today reaching
as low as -38C in large areas of the Midwest and -40C in the coldest place.
But even on the east coast – where conditions are typically milder than the fridgid
hinterlands – the icy blast was being felt.
New York endured a -14C chill today and further south Washington – which hosts Mr
Obama’s inauguration on Tuesday – plunged to 11 degrees below zero. Some places
have recorded record lows – with the temperature in Flint, Michigan dipping to an
incredible -28C…
(6) FORMER NASA BOSS DECLARES HIMSELF A SCEPTIC AND SLAMS
CLIMATE MODELS
Jennifer Marohasy, 28 January 2009
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/high-profile-meteorologist-declares-
himself-a-sceptic-and-slams-climate-models/
Marc Morano, the communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, has made collecting and collating the

21. 21
names of dissenting scientists something of an obsession. Last December he launched
an updated report in Washington claiming, “Over 650 dissenting scientists from
around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice
President Al Gore.”
Yesterday Mr Morano added a particularly high profile scientist to this growing list,
Dr John S. Theon. [1]
Dr Theon is the former Chief of the Climate Processing Research Program at NASA
Headquaters, and a former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics and Radiation Branch,
and a former boss of Al Gore’s chief scientific advisor James Hansen.
Dr Theon has been very public and upfront in “his coming” out declaring that “climate
models are useless” and more:
“My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not
realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-
grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit …
Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their
model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the
observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work
transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly
contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for
using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”
(7) ANTARCTIC ICE GROWING, NOT MELTING AWAY
The Australian, 18 April 2009
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html
The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale
melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on
the continent's western coast…
East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling.
The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's
meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown
"significant cooling in recent decades"…
Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the
Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year,
the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average
thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

22. 22
Annex 2. Some news/reports on the money involved in carbon
taxation, emission trading, as a result of warming hysteria
(1) OIL STATES PLAN TO CASH IN ON EU EMISSIONS TRADING
Business, 24-7 News, 13 January 2009
http://www.business24-
7.ae/articles/2009/1/pages/01132009_413f8b9481fc4f40990046fd146f8fb0.aspx
The global carbon market is currently growing rapidly. Trading volume in the first
half of 2008 at $59 billion (Dh217bn) reached the levels for all of 2007 at $63bn.
This growth is predominantly attributable to the European Union Emissions Trading
Scheme (EUETS) and to increasing interest in global Kyoto credits from the Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI).
According to Armen Vartanian, Director at EcoVentures, the Middle East and North
African (Mena), the region has a potential to generate $5bn a year from the carbon
trading market….
(2) EMISSIONS TRADING SCAM: INDUSTRIES CASH IN ON CARBON
PERMITS
Reuters, 22 January 2009
http://planetark.org/wen/51319
LONDON - European factories are cashing in on an unexpected benefit from wilting
output, selling surplus carbon emissions permits worth about 1 billion euros ($1.29
billion) to raise funds on the carbon market.
A recession in Europe will dent industrial output this year and this will sap energy
demand and carbon emissions, leading to a surplus of permits among big polluters
including steel and cement makers.
Companies from some of the European Union's most polluting industries are now
raising funds on the carbon market to help them weather the credit crisis….
(3) EU PROPOSES $200 BILLION CLIMATE TAX ON RICH NATIONS
Reuters, 22 January 2009
http://www.forexpros.com/news/commodities-&-futures-news/eu-to-propose-$200-
bln-climate-tax-on-rich-nations-22709
BRUSSELS/LONDON, Jan 22 (Reuters) - Rich nations could raise $200 billion in
climate funds through a levy on their greenhouse gases from 2013-2020 to help poor
countries prepare for global warming, the European Union will say next week…

23. 23
The EU paper said that if the main developed countries paid 1 euro per tonne of
greenhouse gases in 2013 rising to 3 euros in 2020, that would raise 164 billion euros
($213 billion) over the period.
It called for a gradual phasing out of carbon offsetting, which allows rich nations to
lay off their greenhouse gas emissions by paying for cuts in developing countries.
(4) RUSSIA HORDING CARBON CREDITS, WAITING FOR OBAMA'S
CARBON MARKET
Energy Stocks, 10 February 2009
http://www.energystocksblog.com/2009/02/09/russia-to-sit-on-56-billion-of-co2-
credits-awaiting-kyoto-successor-before-cashing-in-2/
Russia reportedly plans to sit on $56 billion worth of carbon credits until after 2012
rather than sell them in the trading market created by the Kyoto global-warming treaty.
The implications of this are significant. It means there is less chance the market price
of a carbon credit will implode during the global recession. In turn, this makes it more
likely that carbon trading, although highly controversial, will be seen in 2009 as a
financial success worthy of being extended beyond 2012 under a new international
treaty still to be negotiated.
The more successful carbon trading appears to have been in Europe, the more likely
Wall Street will push for a national trading system in the U.S. Should Wall Street get
its carbon trading market, profits of those investment firms that have survived the
credit crisis could swell on trading and project origination fees.
(5) KYOTO CARBON OFFSET PROFIT MARGINS EVAPORATE
Reuters, 13 February 2009
http://uk.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUKLD4111852009
0213?sp=true
LONDON, Feb 13 (Reuters) - Profit margins for sellers of carbon offsets under the
Kyoto Protocol have collapsed to zero as emissions prices tumble, analysts
IDEAcarbon said, adding that new pricing trends may worsen things. In its weekly
price survey dated Thursday, IDEAcarbon said average prices for U.N.-approved
Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) quoted by clean energy project owners have
fallen below the market price at which project developers can sell them.
"This puts project developers in jeopardy because buyers can now purchase cheaper,
risk-free CERs directly from the market," said IDEAcarbon's Tenke Zoltani, adding
that the average cost of CERs to developers has risen above their market value.

24. 24
Under Kyoto's $32 billion Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) scheme, firms such
as EcoSecurities (ECO.L) can fund emissions cuts in countries like China, and receive
primary CERs (pCERs) which can be sold for profit in the secondary market…
EU carbon permits for delivery in 2009 CFI2Z9, which heavily influence CER prices,
hit an all-time low of 8.05 euros ($10.40) on Thursday, down nearly 50 percent so far
this year.
(6) GUESS WHAT? CAP-AND-TRADE WILL MAKE AMERICANS POORER
The Wall Street Journal, 26 February 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123566843777484625.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The cost of energy for consumers would be driven higher in President Barack
Obama's proposed budget by a carbon cap-and-trade system that is projected to raise
about $80 billion a year starting in 2012.
The budget assumes the U.S. adopts the cap-and-trade system that would set limits on
the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that industries can emit, and
allow companies to buy and sell rights to emit those gases. The budget assumes a
starting price of $20 per ton for carbon emissions, an amount that Mr. Obama's aides
says is conservative and would likely rise.
The budget projects raising $645 billion from the auction of emissions credits between
2012, when the system kicks in, and 2019. Mr. Obama would use some of that money
to pay for about $120 billion of spending on various low-carbon technologies over
that time. The rest of the money -- about $525 billion -- would be retuned "to the
people, especially vulnerable families, communities and businesses to help the
transition to a clean energy economy," according to Mr. Obama's proposal.