Others who had comment removed

There were some other comments from that Guardian article also removed. Some are more innocuous than mine.  They're civilised comments - just dissenting.  Why were these removed?:


Update: I had a look at the Guardian posting policy and it's ambiguous enough to edit whatever they want.  See here:

My post that was rejected on the Guardian

Post on Guardian newspaper article from The Observer, Sunday 27 December 2009: Copenhagen has given us the chance to face climate change with honesty  by James Hansen.

Googlegate

I load the front page of Googlenews many times a day every day. Even though the number of stories definitely warrants it climategate hasn't appeared on the front page once since the scandal broke. Is it being censored?

BBC: Anatomy of a Deception

Take a look at this prime example of a propaganda piece from BBC scaring people into believing anthropogenic global warming:

Climate change: Copenhagen in graphics 

24 November 2009, BBC

subtitle: "Where do greenhouse gas emissions come from?"

"Which countries are most responsible for causing human-induced climate change?" 

They say "most" but it excludes natural sources of CO2. It's trick that most people will be unaware of.  As I show in my summary page humans emit 26 billion tons of CO2 and nature 700 billion.

fig 1

The solution to climate change: voluntary reduction system.

There are still about a third of people who believe in AGW.  If all of them stop using electricity and eating most foods like meat, and stop showering etc (which shouldn't be too much of a concession for many of these sorts) it will reduce more greenhouse gas than a 20% reduction amongst everyone would.  (With the caveat that their reduction in carbon footprint might be mitigated by their BO.) 

The real AGW agenda revealed

Lord Monckton on the stop light of global warming: they call themselves green cause they're too yellow to admit they're red.  See them at this Copenhagen rally here.  

One of them is asked:  "What do you think is causing climate change?" His answer: "I really don't know actually I'm not a scientist." Hah, hah, of course he doesn't know; it's not about the science.  AGW is a political movement end of story.

Check out Lord Monckton

Check out Lord Monckton interviewing this Greenpeace activist who trusts Greenpeace as a matter of faith but would have to verify everything Lord Monckton just told her.

Her first statement is "We're here...for the people who negate climate change."  They really think that by paying their tax they can stop hurricanes, wind, storms, tidal waves and other things that they would, no doubt, classify as climate change. They literally think they can pay to stop bad weather.  It's a type of insanity isn't it?

My Summary disproving AGW

 1) Humans are not causing the CO2 increase

Humans are not the likely cause of the steady increase in CO2 reflected in the upward Keeling Curve (see figure below) of the Mauna Loa observations.  There is a dC13 carbon isotope ratio reduction often said by AGW believers to be a "fossil fuel signature".  It is not.  As you will see below fossil fuels aren't even from organic or "fossil" origins.  The slight reduction in the carbon 13 isotope with respect to the carbon 12 isotope can be produced by many means.  In fact, it has been statistically correlated to changes in the ocean produced by the El Nino effect: