Archive for the ‘bali’ Category

Liberals would set up billion-dollar fund to help manufacturing: Dion

January 18, 2008
Editor:
There will be a Federal Election in the not to distant future and there’s no one to vote for. Sad times ahead for Canada. The Liberals want to give up our sovereignty to the UN and the Conservatives want to give up our sovereignty through the Trilateral agreement-combining Canada,the USA and Mexico into one nation. The other parties are just variations of the two main parties. All seem hell bent for leather to destroy Canada.
Dion wants you to believe that investing your tax dollars in “Green Technologies” will resurrect the ailing manufacturing industry in Ontario. The exact opposite will be the result. In order for our manufacturing industry to survive and thrive, it must be competitive. We need cost effective energy sources, to hang on to the industry we have and encourage new industry to come to Ont.
Mr. Dion what do you have in mind for us.
Should we invest in bio fuels? Decision-makers in the climate change field have little faith in biofuels as a low-carbon technology, the World Conservation Union (IUCN)
How about wind-According to Premier, Dalton McGuinty
Ontario Hansard – 19-April2006
“Wind turbines: We are investing heavily in those, but again, those are an expensive form of electricity and they’re not reliable”
Solar-Premier, Dalton McGuinty says-When it comes to solar, those tend to be expensive as well.”
“Drive up the price of energy and drive industry from Ontario”.
Is that your election platform Mr. Dion?
I will always be an environmentalist but I will never be “Green”
You won’t be getting my vote Mr. Dion. I won’t vote for a carbon tax con man

Liberals would set up billion-dollar fund to help manufacturing: Dion

HAMILTON, Ont. – A Liberal government would establish a $1-billion fund to help manufacturers move into green technologies, Stephane Dion pledged Friday.

The Liberal leader said his proposed Advanced Manufacturing Prosperity Fund would help pay for research and development projects aimed at boosting the hard-pressed manufacturing sector.

He told a Hamilton Chamber of Commerce meeting he has met business and union leaders, premiers and environmentalists over the last year to discuss the troubled manufacturing sector.

“They all bring different viewpoints to the table, but there is consensus on one thing: they all want to see Canada’s manufacturing sector become a world leader in green technologies,” he said. “The . . . fund is designed to help accomplish precisely that”.

Thousands of factory jobs have disappeared in recent years and Dion says it’s time to go beyond simple tax corporate breaks.

“Tax cuts alone are not enough,” he said. “The federal government must partner with the manufacturing sector as it adjusts to recent economic shocks. That requires strategic investment”.

In addition to the prosperity fund, the Liberals would provide tax credits to support private research which doesn’t translate into immediate profits.

“Innovation is essential to the survival of our industries, but it can be an expensive undertaking,” he said. “We want every company that puts money into R and D to be rewarded for innovating.

“By offering incentives for companies to continue investing in R and D, the Liberal party will encourage all companies to innovate, even if that innovation does not lead to immediate profitability.”

He said this will encourage more private funding for research and development and help Canadian companies become leaders in green technologies.

Dion took a swipe at Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government, saying it’s not willing to build a greener economy.

“If he plans to watch the manufacturing sector crumble instead of helping it to evolve, then he will not live up to anybody’s conception of good leadership.”

CBC

National Round Table on the Environment

January 10, 2008

This week the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy basically recommended Canadian taxpayers should fall on their swords for the sake of winning a Pyrrhic victory over global warming.

The government advisory panel called for Ottawa to impose a carbon tax on Canadians and/or establish a “cap and trade” carbon emissions trading scheme for industry (which has been something of a fiasco in Europe) to achieve “deep” greenhouse gas (GHG) emission cuts.

In reality, the NRTEE is telling us to do two contradictory things: Act in concert with the rest of the world to combat global warming and, regardless of what the world does, act unilaterally now.

The NRTEE acknowledges that: “With respect to environmental risk, Canada’s share of global emissions and hence its contribution to the stock of atmospheric carbon is low, and if action is not taken globally, Canada’s efforts alone could do little to stabilize atmospheric concentrations.”

Plus: “We believe that the most critical assumption that the NRTEE has made in its work, particularly in our modelling, is that whatever policy framework Canada puts into place, it is comparable to its competitors and trade partners, predominantly the United States … If our major trading partners, particularly the United States, do not implement comparable policies within a reasonable time frame, the economic risk of the deep domestic reductions investigated in this report rises.”

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

Indeed, the NRTEE paper, Getting to 2050: Canada’s Transition to a Low-emission Future warns 10 times that its proposals won’t damage our economy only if the U.S. and our other major trading partners are simultaneously implementing similar measures. Its optimistic economic modelling is based on that.

And yet bizarrely, it also concludes, without qualification, that: “It is not the NRTEE’s view that any of this should be justification for not taking action now to either reduce emissions now, or put in place the most effective policy framework for deep, long-term reductions in the future.” Excuse us?

Canada, which like many countries will miss its Kyoto targets, accounts for 2.1% of global GHG emissions.

The U.S., our largest trading partner, responsible for 20.6% of emissions, has refused to ratify Kyoto since the Clinton administration. What would the NRTEE have us do? Arm-wrestle the U.S. into submission?

Speculation the next American president will ratify Kyoto is merely that, speculation.

In 1997, when GHG guru Al Gore was Bill Clinton’s vice-president, Democratic and Republican members of the Senate, which must ratify Kyoto, voted 95-0 against, arguing it was detrimental to American interests because developing nations weren’t required to cut emissions. Today the developing world, led by China, is balking at accepting cuts even after Kyoto expires in 2012.

As things now stand, the NRTEE is effectively recommending Canadians pay significantly more for carbon (meaning for virtually everything) for decades to come, at the risk of severely damaging our economy, especially in Alberta and Ontario, for what would be a futile gesture to combat global warming even if successful, and even if countries responsible for up to 10 times our emissions do nothing.

But if everyone else suddenly reverses course inspired by our example, we should be okay.

That’s not a policy. It’s insanity.

The Harper government requested this report. It should thank the NRTEE — and shelve it.


• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca

• Have a letter for the editor? E-mail it to torsun.editor@sunmedia.caTorontoSun.com – Lorrie Goldstein – Only one place for this report

Kyoto snow job by Lorrie Goldstein

January 7, 2008

Editor:
I would like to thank Mr. Goldstein for bringing this to the attention of his readers. Write or call him and encourage him to continue to enlighten his readership with news that matters.
Health care,Education,Energy and Agriculture, all vital to our economy and well being,  and all badly under reported.

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

more quotes
Lorrie Goldstein

Sun, January 6, 2008
 
Skip the Kyoto snow job

Canadians will back a realistic green plan — we just haven’t seen it yet

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN

Let’s examine what the Kyoto treaty on man-made or “anthropogenic” global warming (AGW) is and isn’t.

First, it’s an example of globalization, despite the fact many of its advocates claim to oppose globalization.

But it is not, primarily, an environmental treaty.

If it was, it would require the developing world to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as it does for a relative handful of industrialized nations, including Canada.

The lack of targets for the developing world reveals Kyoto as primarily a mechanism for redistributing wealth from the First World to the Third, unsurprising given its origins in the United Nations.

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

Then there’s Kyoto’s accounting tricks.

Russia is in compliance with Kyoto and has billions of dollars of “hot air” credits to sell to countries like Canada — not because of its environmental policies, but because the base year for Kyoto was deliberately set at 1990, just as the economy of the former Soviet Union was imploding, causing the shutdown of many GHG-producing industries. Similarly, Germany and the European Union benefit from the collapse of the East German economy.

Kyoto envisions the First World paying billions of dollars to the Third in the faint hope the latter will use that money to reduce its rapidly-growing GHG emissions.

Kyoto’s successor will be even more controversial.

To be environmentally credible, it must compel developing nations like China (the world’s largest or second largest GHG emitter in tandem with the U.S., depending on whose calculations you believe) to cut its emissions.

But forcing the Third World to do so will be an example of the First World imposing its priorities on the Third, the very thing critics argue is immoral about globalization.

Besides, does anyone seriously believe totalitarian countries like China, given their low public health, environmental and manufacturing standards, will comply with GHG cuts, even if they agree to them?

That said, we must ignore simplistic environmental rhetoric that portrays nations which meet (or try to meet) their Kyoto targets as “good” while those that don’t as “bad.” In reality, all countries act in their own perceived best interests.

China rejects GHG cuts (as has the U.S. through both the Clinton and Bush administrations) not because it favours global climate catastrophe several decades from now if Al Gore’s apocalyptic rhetoric is correct, which is unlikely.

It does so because it has more pressing problems, such as feeding its 1.3 billion people today.

It’s pointless to condemn China for acting in its own interests, just as it’s silly to portray Canada as an energy glutton, a favourite guilt-inducing tactic of environmentalists.

In fact, Canadians have shown a serious commitment to environmentalism, when they are provided with realistic ways to do so.

But we are also a big, cold, sparsely-populated, northern country, which has logically used our fossil fuel resources to improve our quality of life, exactly what China and the developing world aspire to today.

If we’re telling them, post-Kyoto, they cannot even attempt what we did through industrialization powered by fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas, we had best offer them better reasons than Gore’s doomsday hysteria.

Why do you think the Liberals, for all their pro-Kyoto rhetoric, let Canada’s GHG emissions skyrocket during their 12-year reign, despite promising in their 1993 Red Book to cut them well beyond what later became the Kyoto standard?

They (like the present Conservative government) knew accomplishing this would demand enormous sacrifices Canadians might well reject, if the choices were put to them clearly and honestly.

INCREASE POVERTY

For us to comply with Kyoto now would see huge spikes in the price of everything sensitive to the cost of fossil fuels, meaning gasoline, electricity, heat and water as well as transportation, most manufactured goods and food, all of which are directly or indirectly sensitive to the price of fossil fuels.

This would dramatically lower our standard of living and just as dramatically increase poverty.

Despite what Kyoto propagandists and opportunistic politicians pretend, this isn’t about making an easy choice between “good” and “bad.”

It’s about making intelligent choices from the options we have, all of which have positive and negative consequences.


• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca

Global Warming Exposing the Scam

January 5, 2008

Editor:
Will this fraud ever hit the “main stream media”? Gore and Suzuki are going to have to move to China with their mentor Maurice Strong. The worst part of this scam is the great harm it will inflict upon the citizens of Canada and the USA, and your govt is complicit in this scam.

Global Warming and Pagan Emptiness

Cardinal George Pell on the latest hysterical substitute for religion.

Interview by Michael Gilchrist | January 2008
In the debate over the theory of global warming, Cardinal George Pell of Sydney is a decided skeptic. His forthright reservations about the claim of catastrophic man-made climate change have made him a target for criticism in Australia. CWR talked to him about the controversy.

Your recent remarks questioning the claims about man-made climate change have drawn fierce criticism here in Australia. How do you account for that?

Cardinal Pell: Despite the fact that Australians like to see themselves as a ruggedly independent, rational, and democratic people, in some respects a herd-like mentality still prevails. Right now, the mass media, politicians, many church figures, and the public generally seem to have embraced even the wilder claims about man-made climate change as if they constituted a new religion.

These days, for any public figure to question the basis of what amounts to a green fundamentalist faith is tantamount to heresy. The angry editorials and letters to newspapers certainly suggest this.

You are one of very few public figures in this country to express open skepticism about man-made climate change and its alleged long-term effects. What is your reading of the scientific evidence for climate change? What is the basis of your skepticism?

Cardinal Pell: I am certainly skeptical about extravagant claims of impending man-made climatic catastrophes. Scientific debate is not decided by any changing consensus, even if it is endorsed by political parties and public opinion. Climate change both up and down has been occurring, probably since earth first had a climate.

Science is a process of experimentation, debate, and respect for evidence. Often it is dealing with uncertainties rather than certainties, and so its forecasts and predictions can be spectacularly wrong. We must not ignore evidence that doesn’t suit our cause. Long-term weather forecasting is a notoriously imprecise exercise.

In the 1970s some scientists were predicting a new ice age because of global cooling. Today other scientists are predicting an apocalypse because of global warming. It is no disrespect to science or scientists to take these latest claims with a grain of salt. Commitment to the scientific method actually requires it.

Uncertainties on climate change abound. Temperatures in Greenland were higher in the 1940s than they are today, and the Kangerlussuaq glacier there is not shrinking but growing in size. While the ice may be melting in the Arctic, apparently it is increasing in extent in the Antarctic. Overall world temperatures have not increased since 1998 according to the statistics—whatever the case might be in particular locations.

Do you accept that human activities may have contributed to at least some of the global warming?

Cardinal Pell: Significant evidence suggests that average temperatures rose by 0.6 degrees centigrade during the last century, and there is no doubt that large-scale industrial activities can have an adverse impact in particular locations, as in the larger Chinese cities. But when averaged out across the globe, it is difficult to see this being the main culprit for any overall global warming, let alone bringing us to the verge of catastrophe. Again, we are dealing with a very imprecise science here, whatever the computer models might suggest. There are so many other variables.

The journal American Scientist recently published a study on the melting glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro. The study confirms that air temperature around the glacier continues to be below freezing, so it is not melting because of global warming. Instead, the melt pattern of the glacier is consistent with the effect of direct radiant heat from the sun. Human activity can’t be blamed for that.
Michael Gilchrist is editor of the Australian religious monthlyAD2000<

A cold spell soon to replace global warming

MOSCOW. (Oleg Sorokhtin for RIA Novosti) – Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world.

Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.

The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.

Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.

It determines decisions and instruments of major international organizations—in particular, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Signed by 150 countries, it exemplifies the impact of scientific delusion on big politics and economics. The authors and enthusiasts of the Kyoto Protocol based their assumptions on an erroneous idea. As a result, developed countries waste huge amounts of money to fight industrial pollution of the atmosphere. What if it is a Don Quixote’s duel with the windmill?

Hothouse gases may not be to blame for global warming. At any rate, there is no scientific evidence to their guilt. The classic hothouse effect scenario is too simple to be true. As things really are, much more sophisticated processes are on in the atmosphere, especially in its dense layer. For instance, heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents—an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming.

The temperature of the troposphere, the lowest and densest portion of the atmosphere, does not depend on the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions—a point proved theoretically and empirically. True, probes of Antarctic ice shield, taken with bore specimens in the vicinity of the Russian research station Vostok, show that there are close links between atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and temperature changes. Here, however, we cannot be quite sure which is the cause and which the effect.
Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute.

 

Gaia is Pagan – Global Warming is a Scam

January 5, 2008

Editor:
Is Dion a pagan? Does he know global warming is phony? I’m thinking, build a big prison on an iceberg and all these lunatics can spend the rest of their lives measuring the depth of the ice. Time to clean up govt. Your Country depends on it.

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.
Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

Letter
By Christine Stewart

Dear Editor I am writing with reference to an article that appeared on the Gazette’s website entitled ‘Devil worship fears as goat is found in ditch’. The first line of the narrative on the website suggested that this was a ‘pagan-style’ ritual. As a Pagan myself, I was appalled that this dreadful attack might be associated with members of the Pagan community. There are many misconceptions as to what pagans are about and I would like through the medium of your newspaper to enlighten your readers and allay any fears they may have about what paganism is about.

In the simplest terms, Paganism is a religion of place, or a native religion, for example the Native American’s religion is Pagan, Hinduism is a form of Paganism. All Pagan religions are characterised by a connection and reverence for nature, and are usually polytheistic i.e. have many gods and/or goddesses. Paganism in the west takes a number of forms including Wicca, Druidism, and Shamanism.

Pagans revere nature. Often you will find Pagans at the forefront of environmental concerns, such is our love of Mother Earth. Paganism is not just a nature religion but a natural religion, which is as old as mankind and its traditions are still being rediscovered. Pagans see the divine as immanent in the whole of life and the universe in every tree, plant, animal and object, man and woman and in the dark side of life as much as in the light. Pagans live their lives attuned to the cycles of nature, the seasons, life and death. Pagans regard the divine as female as well as male and therefore there is a Goddess as well as a God. The Goddess represents all that is female and the God represents all that is male. But because nature is seen as female, the Goddess has a wider meaning. Often called Mother Earth, or Gaia, she is seen as the ‘Creatrix’ and sustainer of life, the mother of us all, which makes all the creatures on the planet our siblings. The taking of a creature and its subsequent torture and killing is therefore totally abhorrent to us.

advertisement

Historically, many pagan cultures did kill animals as offerings to their gods, as many cultures still do, but the meat from the animal would be used in a celebratory meal rather than left to rot and wasted. Modern pagans are likely to seek out organic meat for their own celebratory meals, or will often be vegetarian. They are extremely unlikely to be involved in a hack and slash killing of an animal.

Western Pagans have no fixed temples in which to worship (apart from Hindus), but instead we (usually) make a circle around themselves (or form ourselves into a circle) in a room, or in a clearing, or on a beach, or find a naturally occurring circle, such as a grove, or use one of the ancient stone circles. Pagans have no hierarchy like the established religions, so Pagans are free to follow whatever spiritual path they choose. We have our own values and ethics and believe we are responsible for our own actions. There is no absolution as such, what we do to others will come back on us and we are therefore ever mindful of the effect our actions have on others, including animals The Pagan view of the universe is one of complementary opposites – light/dark, yin/yang, earth/sky, male/female; the concept of Lucifer, the fallen angel, (The Devil), was adopted by the church in 447. Consequently it is impossible for Pagans to adopt the concept of the Devil, which is a Judeo-Christian concept. Hence the reason so called ‘Devil Worship’ could never be a part of our beliefs.

Pagans come from all walks of life. We count among our number manual workers, teachers, nurses, civil servants, journalists, solicitors, secretaries, web designers, mothers, fathers and grandparents too. In short, we are just people just like you.

Christine Stewart

Press Release – Science & Environmental Policy Project

December 19, 2007

Press Release from
Science & Environmental Policy Project
10 December 2007
Contact: Dr S Fred Singer, President, SEPP singer@SEPP.org 703-920-2744

Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651].

The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming.

The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface.

Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.

The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface—and thus the climate.”

Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.

Science & Environmental Policy Project

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax

December 15, 2007

Editor: How long can the media ignore the truth about the Global Warming Scam? The entire scam is about One World Order and the carbon tax is the vehicle to accomplish the task. The entire renewable energy business is about creating carbon credits for the large multi-national corporations. They win you lose. Not hard to understand if you open your eyes. What is to become of Al Gore, former Vice President and David Suzuki, recipient of the Order of Canada? Will the media continue to hide the truth until North America is a wind farm ghetto. Interesting times indeed.

A salute to the scientists who continue to work under difficult conditions to bring the truth forward.

 

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax

By Tom Harris: John McLean Friday, December 14, 2007

Al Gore, Climate ChangeIt’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over – ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’.

But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.

Like the three IPCC ‘assessment reports’ before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups. Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future ‘projections’. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”. The reports from working groups II and II are titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively, and since these are based on the results of WG I, it is crucially important that the WG I report stands up to close scrutiny.

There is, of course serious debate among scientists about the actual technical content of the roughly 1,000-page WG I report, especially its politically motivated Summary for Policymakers which is often the only part read by politicians and non-scientists. The technical content can be difficult for non-scientists to follow and so most people simply assume that if that large numbers of scientists agree, they must be right.

Consensus never proves the truth of a scientific claim, but is somehow widely believed to do so for the IPCC reports, so we need to ask how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change–in other words the key parts of WG I?

The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little over 600 in total. The other 1,900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration.” And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?

Wrong.

For the first time ever, the UN has released on the Web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editors’ responses. This release was almost certainly a result of intense pressure applied by “hockey-stick” co-debunker Steve McIntyre of Toronto and his allies. Unlike the other IPCC working groups, WG I is based in the U.S. and McIntyre had used the robust Freedom of Information legislation to request certain details when the full comments were released.

An examination of reviewers’ comments on the last draft of the WG I report before final report assembly (i.e. the ‘Second Order Revision’ or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. Here’s the reality.

A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented more than one chapter. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but it’s a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything.

Compounding this is the fact that IPCC editors could, and often did, ignore reviewers’ comments. Some editor responses were banal and others showed inconsistencies with other comments. Reviewers had to justify their requested changes but the responding editors appear to have been under no such obligation. Reviewers were sometimes flatly told they were wrong but no reasons or reliable references were provided. In other cases reviewers tried to dilute the certainty being expressed and they often provided supporting evidence, but their comments were often flatly rejected. Some comments were rejected on the basis of a lack of space – an incredible assertion in such an important document. The attitude of the editors seemed to be that simple corrections were accepted, requests for improved clarity tolerated but the assertions and interpretations that appear in the text were to be defended against any challenge.

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article – Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”

Dr. Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model.”

Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.

“The IPCC owe it to the world to explain who among their expert reviewers actually agree with their conclusions and who don’t,” says Natural Resources Stewardship Project Chair climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball. “Otherwise, their credibility, and the public’s trust of science in general, will be even further eroded.”

That the IPCC have let this deception continue for so long is a disgrace. Secretary General Ban Kai-Moon must instruct the UN climate body to either completely revise their operating procedures, welcoming dissenting input from scientist reviewers and indicating if reviewers have vested interests, or close the agency down completely. Until then, their conclusions, and any reached at the Bali conference based on IPCC conclusions, should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest.

John McLean is climate data analyst based in Melbourne, Australia. Tom Harris is the Ottawa-based Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (nrsp.com).

Visit Canada Free Press

Over 100 Prominent Scientists Challenge UN Move For Global Carbon Tax

December 14, 2007

Editor:
This is what I and many others fighting wind farms have been trying to tell others for a very long time. Please read the entire article and make sure your local council reads it. One of two things should happen when they read this report. 1) They should be appalled and make a public call for the immediate end to wind farms. 2) They are in on it, at which point you must expose them,for who they are. Traitors against your country.
Maurice Strong, the architect of Global Warming, says
“In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?” This is and always was about global control by a small group of very greedy people.

The reason Bush and Harper are against signing the pact is that it will mess up their agreement to join Mexico the USA and Canada.

Experts dismiss agenda as “futile,” bureaucratic scheme that will increase human suffering

‘Over 100 Prominent Scientists Challenge UN Move For Global Carbon Tax’; ‘The UN has officially announced what the fearmongering about man-made global warming has been designed to justify all along – a global carbon tax which will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions but everything to feed the trough of world government. Over one hundred prominent scientists signed a letter dismissing the move as a futile beauracratic scheme which will diminish prosperity and increase human suffering.’;

Following a discussion entitled “A Global CO2 Tax,” a UN panel yesterday urged the adoption of “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations,” to impose a tax on plant food (CO2).

Othmar Schwank, one of the participants, said that the U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund.” He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

The bounty from this $40 billion dollars a year windfall will go straight into the coffers of a UN controlled “Multilateral Adaptation Fund”.

In the letter addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, the scientists state, “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.”

“It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.”

What we see unfolding in Bali is one of the major final stepping stones on the road to a complete globalist stranglehold on reducing the living standards of everyone in the industrialized world, and a scheme to prevent the third world from ever lifting itself out of poverty.

Seven years ago former French President Jacques Chirac said the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented “the first component of an authentic global governance.” The imminent agreement arising out of the Bali summit will be one of the final nails in the coffin aimed at decimating the middle class and the right of free people to strive for prosperity and happiness without laboring under suffocating serfdom imposed by unelected elitists.

As MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned earlier this year, “Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.”

Lindzen is one of over 100 prominent scientists who have signed a letter slamming the UN move as a futile bureaucratic scheme, pointing out the results of a recent study in the International Journal of Climatology which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is largely a result of solar activity and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.

In comparison, half that number – just 52 scientists – participated in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007.

 

“The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.”

The letter goes into detail about several conclusions of the IPCC report that are completely contradicted by recent major scientific studies.

Read the full letter here.

Listed below are the names and credentials of the 100 scientists who signed the letter, again dispelling the myth that the man-made explanation behind global warming is an overwhelming”consensus” view.

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,’ Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai’i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman – Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling – virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology

Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen’s University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA’s Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief – Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager – Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

Visit Prison Planet

Gore quotes NHL icon in apparent dig at Canada's climate stance

December 13, 2007

Editor:
Gore looks like a lunatic. Here is a guy who uses more energy than any one man should be allowed to use, telling people how to live. Gore and Suzuki are fanatics and they are both dangerous. Suzuki gets the NHL to endorse the carbon credit scheme and then Gore uses references to the NHL to call down Canada. The tag team of Gore and Suzuki, with the sheep cheering in the background, take on the world. Al and David seem to take great pleasure in scaring children, telling them the world is going to end. The worst part of this whole thing is the way the media panders to them. Maybe the time has come to order a mental assessment of these two fanatics. If I had young children I would be spitting sparks. If you don’t speak up your children will be paying carbon tax on everything the rest of their lives. Gore has already made fifty million off this scam. It’s not about global warming. It’s about the money. Gore needs all the countries to join to make his carbon credit scam really take off. Who the hell do Gore and Suzuki think they are, demanding that you, I or Canada do as they say. These guys are certifiable.

Gore and Suzuki should be branded as child abusers

Gore quotes NHL icon in apparent dig at Canada’s climate stance

In language suited to the ears of Canadians, former U.S. vice-president Al Gore quoted the wisdom of a hockey legend on Thursday at a summit in Bali, apparently criticizing Canada’s stance on climate change during UN talks on the issue.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore addresses the UN climate change conference Thursday in Bali, Indonesia.Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore addresses the UN climate change conference Thursday in Bali, Indonesia.
(Dita Alangkara/Associated Press)

Although he never named Canada directly, Gore’s hockey-referencing address to the 190-nation summit hinted that he was pointing a finger at Canada for blocking a climate-change framework that includes hard targets. That document would set binding targets of a 25 to 40 per cent reduction for industrialized nations by 2020.

Aside from Canada, the U.S., Japan, New Zealand and Russia also oppose such language for the emissions limits.

CBC

Pope Benedict criticizes climate change prophets of doom

December 12, 2007

The Prophets of Doom Al Gore and David Suzuki have done it. They have pissed off the Pope.

By SIMON CALDWELL

Pope Benedict XVIPope Benedict criticized climate-change prophets of doom

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.

The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.

polar bearsAdrift: Polar bears on melting iceberg

“Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow,” he said in the message entitled “The Human Family, A Community of Peace”.

“It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.

“If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations.

“Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken.”

Efforts to protect the environment should seek “agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances”, the Pope said.

He added that to further the cause of world peace it was sensible for nations to “choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions” in how to cooperate responsibly on conserving the planet.

The Pope’s message is traditionally sent to heads of government and international organisations.

His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges that problems may be associated with unbridled development and climate change, he believes the case against global warming to be over-hyped.

A broad consensus is developing among the world’s scientific community over the evils of climate change.

But there is also an intransigent body of scientific opinion which continues to insist that industrial emissions are not to blame for the phenomenon.

Such scientists point out that fluctuations in the earth’s temperature are normal and can often be caused by waves of heat generated by the sun. Other critics of environmentalism have compared the movement to a burgeoning industry in its own right.

In the spring, the Vatican hosted a conference on climate change that was welcomed by environmentalists.

But senior cardinals close to the Vatican have since expressed doubts about a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion.

In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, caused an outcry when he noted that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had risen by 0.5 degrees celsius.

“The industrial-military complex up on Mars can’t be blamed for that,” he said in a criticism of Australian scientists who had claimed that carbon emissions would force temperatures on earth to rise by almost five degrees by 2070 unless drastic solutions were enforced.

dailymail for full story