Mythbusting - FLOP15 “Takes Note” of Copenhagen Accord

The cat's out of the bag now.
I should really start off by coming clean - I have an admission to make. I am a recent and very reluctant apostate to the faith of "Global Warmism", because I now know that what the Warmists say - that Global Warming is happening, and that it is anthropogenic (man-made) - is a lie.

The leaked Climategate emails and documents from those selfsame Warmists expose AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) as a lie.

At least one person that was included in some of the correspondence, Steve McIntyre of the website Climate Audit, verified the authenticity of at least some of the messages. McIntyre is reported to have said, “Every email that I’ve examined so far looks genuine. There are a few emails of mine that are 100% genuine. It is really quite breathtaking.”

How did I become an apostate?
Well, for some time now, I think I may have been finding it harder and harder to shut out the voice of reason on this subject, until, after doing some research for this post, I could shut it out no longer. Alas, reason has the propensity to shatter faith and belief and, if we use it, then we risk illuminating our world in ways that we might not wish - by the hard light of truth. We are irrational by nature and even adults seem to need fairy stories. As JK Galbraith put it "Given the choice between changing their mind or proving their point of view, most people get busy on the proof." - and that fitted me to a T.

The title of this post is the title of a post on one of the several blogs I subscribe to in my Google Reader - it's called g.blog ("a community of green voices").
In that post, the author - apparently unaware of the Climategate truth - says:

"If it was going to have any legitimacy, the COP would have to ‘adopt’ the Copenhagen Accord."

In the light of truth, I would suggest that this is probably not quite the correct way to put it and that it might be more correct to put it like this:

"If they were going to have any legitimacy, then the COP and the Copenhagen Accord would need to be based on sound scientific data and methodology in the UN IPCC policy approach. Since this is unequivocally and categorically NOT the case (see references below), then FLOP15 would be an appropriately correct and a not necessarily unkind name for something which lacked scientific legitimacy from any perspective. Thus, the outcome of 'taking note' of the Copenhagen accord is as good as could have reasonably been expected under such circumstances."

My apologies for suggesting here that science and reason should fly so harshly in the face of cherished beliefs and climate faith, but, as they say "Nullius in verbo" (motto of the Royal Society, London: "Take nobody's word for it; see for yourself"). So, to start with, check out these few references for yourself:
(Most people will be able to Google for many more and similarly relevant references.)

1. ClimateGate - Climate center's server hacked revealing documents and emails.
2. The Climategate file (documents and emails): The archive is available on FileDropper.com here .
   
3. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
4. ClimateGate: Hacked Emails Reveal Global Warming Deniers Are Crazed Conspiracy Theorists.
   
5. Lord Monckton on Climategate.
6. Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri.
7. Nobody listens to the real climate change experts.
8. Professor Richard S. Lindzen's 1992 paper: Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus.
9. Follow the money, IPCC/AGW edition.
10. How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.
11. Climategate – the reversing of the burden of proof.
12. A backup collection of most of the above video clips, presentation notes and the Climategate file.
    

I would make one final suggestion: If people really do want to see - as I do, and as g.blog puts it:

"Ecological wisdom, democracy and appropriate decision making"

- being brought to bear in helping to maintain a "greener" planet, then ignoring the above references in favor of wishful thinking and myths deliberately and scandalously promulgated by unprofessional and criminal parties with vested commercial interests would appear to be exactly the wrong way to achieve that.

As Professor Richard S. Lindzen put it in his 1992 paper (per link above):

"As with any large groups, self-perpetuation becomes a crucial concern. 'Global warming' has become one of the major battle cries in their fundraising efforts. At the same time, the media unquestioningly accept the pronouncements of those groups as objective truth."

Sort of "All your thinking are belong to us", rather than "Nullius in verbo".
I for one would rather take responsibility for my own thinking than abrogate that responsibility to those AGW high priests and their unqualified gainsayers and reporters who would now seem to be exposed as being unmitigated conmen and liars if not just plain ignorant and stupid.