A climate catastrophe or a carbon agenda?

Just what Hamilton is implying with his statement?

Given what has been disclosed over recent months by Climategate and the errors, inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims made in the 4th IPCC Report, associated synthesis reports, and the Summary for Policymakers (Glaciergate; Amazongate; Disastergate; incorrect Dutch sea level rises; a downplaying of the urban heat-island effect; altered and manipulated temperature data bases; an incomplete and disorganised CRU climate database (see the complete version of the Harry Readme file) upon which climate alarmism is based; unverified climate modelling; lack of supporting peer-reviewed evidence; unreliable proxy tree ring data; overstating the greenhouse impact of livestock industries; quoting from non-peer-reviewed papers written by advocacy groups and think-tanks; statements based on unpublished student dissertations, and so on) is the alarmist message implied by Hamilton still relevant today?

It would seem that the data and modelling upon which the notion of runaway climate change is, at best, unreliable or, at worst, deliberately manipulated to further a policy agenda, ostensibly about climate change but perhaps rather more about implementing another agenda.

In 2007, Mike Hulme was quoted in The Guardian newspaper as saying that, “… ‘self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking … scientists - and politicians - must trade truth for influence”.

So is climate change less about catastrophism and rather more about, say, establishing a global carbon market?

Paul Kelly, editor-at-large of The Australian wrote, on March 21, 2007, about David Miliband, Britain’s then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: “Last week Miliband announced that Britain will become the world’s first nation to legislate a climate change bill setting legally binding timetables for a low-carbon economy. It will put into law the target of 60 per cent emission cuts by 2050, the same target pledged by Rudd’s Labor Party [prior to Rudd winning office]. This decision will affect every British industry, business and household.”

Kelly suggests Miliband is “recasting social democratic philosophy and practice for the coming century”, after which he adds, “The purpose is to impose this [carbon-trading] system on the world. Britain and Europe are setting benchmarks for a new global order.”

Kelly’s article then goes on to quote then British Chancellor Gordon Brown: “My ambition is to build a global carbon market founded on the EU emissions trading scheme and centred in London” to which Kelly adds, “The bill will create statutory carbon budgets that will be managed ‘with the same prudence and discipline’ as financial budgets. For Brown, the carbon will be counted like the pound sterling.”

Well, there is an agenda!

Kelly summarises this position as the “debate is no longer just about the environment. It is about economics, culture, ideology and foreign policy. The old debate about climate change believers and sceptics is dead (being kept alive only for political gain). The new debate is about policy solutions.”

Little wonder then that Australia’s Climate Change and Water Minister, Penny Wong, included in her CPRS 2009 Exposure Bill the following clauses that cut into the heart of many centuries of law and jurisprudence: for anyone suspected of emitting too much carbon their right to silence is abolished (clause 311-3), their right not to incriminate themselves is abolished (clause 300-1) and the onus of proof is reversed so that a citizen suspected of this crime will also need to prove they are innocent instead of the government proving they are guilty (clause 336-3).

These sections of the CPRS bill follow a precedent set by the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority Bill, which removes the right to privacy and that the government may pass on private information about Australian citizens to practically anyone it wants, including foreign governments (clause 48-1(r)), and the United Nations (clause 48-1(s)).