Tuesday, November 24, 2009



Depoliticizing the Weather Forecasters
Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism
By Dr. Tim Ball
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.—Mary McCarthy
Exploitation by governments of global warming as a vehicle to take control requires drastic reaction. As climate became a political issue, bureaucrats in all countries expanded their role, became political and excluded independent experts.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up for the political purpose of proving human CO2 emanating from developed nations was causing global warming. It continued as a political process as one of the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) from Mike Hulme to Phil Jones on April 22, 2002 notes, “All these decisions about IPCC chairs and co-chairs are deeply political (witness DEFRA’s support of Martin Parry for getting the WGII nomination).” We must eliminate the IPCC as the most corrupt, and then urge all countries to reduce weather agencies to data collection only. Any weather or climate related government agency must be reduced to a single function, the accurate collection, storage, and accessibility of data for citizens. Weather forecasting is so unreliable and inadequate nobody would suffer from its loss. If forecasting is essential companies can do it themselves or see a business opportunity. Piers Corbyn, a British climatologist consistently produces accurate weather forecasts months in advance for all regions of the world.
There are three main components to the CO2 deceptions
People are beginning to understand the level of the corruption; most of it related to CO2. There are three main components to the CO2 deceptions. First, the pre-industrial level, which they manipulated to show was lower than today.
Second the false assumption that CO2 increase preceded temperature increase. Third, the claim that increases in atmospheric CO2 was due to humans. Mann outlined the objectives when he joined CRU with an email on June 17, 1998,“I remain committed to doing this with you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic data sets with manufactured biases/etc remains high priority.” We now know how far they went.
They Only Learn To Protect Themselves Better
The IPCC made changes as people found flaws, but only to cover up, not improve. The most recent example is in the 2007 IPCC Report where they changed the definition of climate change. Here is the complete quote; “Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” This acknowledges criticism that you can’t determine human causes of change if you don’t know how much it changes naturally. However, it is another deception.
The Report then ignores major natural causes of temperature change and continues to focus on greenhouse gases specifically CO2. “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica).” They don’t mean greenhouse gases? They effectively ignore water vapor and claim, “Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. This is an unsubstantiated and inaccurate comment especially when you don’t know how much natural inputs and outputs change. We know they manipulated pre-industrial CO2 levels, but they ignore the fact methane levels have leveled and declined for 14 years. Atmospheric water vapor levels are difficult to measure with accuracies no better than 20%. In a January 2009 report, Professor Zondio concluded, “Surprisingly little is known about water vapor because it has been really hard to measure in the upper atmosphere. The new data suggests that these plumes are happening at a scale we had not imagined.” He’s talking about water rising in great updrafts in the atmosphere.
The IPCC use water vapor only to cover a problem and bolster another false claim
The IPCC use water vapor only to cover a problem and bolster another false claim. Even if CO2 doubles or triples temperature can only increase a small amount. The amount currently in the atmosphere, 385 ppm is almost 100% effective in delaying heat escaping to space. Imagine the atmosphere is like a window and you use one coat of black paint to block light by about 97%. A second coat reduces light but now by less than 3%. The IPCC got around this problem by using a positive feedback. They claimed increasing human CO2 caused a temperature increase, which increased evaporation. More water vapor acting as a greenhouse gas led to higher temperatures. They built this positive feedback into their models. The trouble is it does not occur in reality.
The claim human CO2 is responsible for global warming of the last 50 years is a based on two assumptions now falsified. First, was the claim CO2 stayed in the atmosphere (residency time) for at least 100 years. We now know it is about 5 years. Second, they said the level of human sourced CO2 would accumulate in the atmosphere. This is wrong as Professor Knorr showed in his November 7, 2009 article titled “Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?” His finding, “…the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.”
All data manipulation is not covered by the leaked emails. They claim CO2 from human sources rose from 6.5 gigatons of carbon (GtC) in their 2001 Report to 7.5 GtC in the 2007 Report. Trouble is the IPCC are the source of these numbers. In a segment titled, “Source of National Inventories” they write, “Utilizing IPCC procedures, nominated experts from around the world draft the reports that are then extensively reviewed twice before approval by the IPCC.”
In 2008 I wrote, “They define the rules, determine who the “nominated experts “ are, and have the final say in the numbers used. This is in keeping with their process of control and determination to prove their dictated goal of finding a human source of global warming.” Now the public knows the extent of the deceptions. We are dangerously close to what happened in the Soviet Union in the 1950s when, “Under Lysenko’s guidance, science was guided not by the most likely theories, backed by appropriately controlled experiments, but by the desired ideology. Science was practiced in the service of the State, or more precisely, in the service of ideology.” We can shut down national and international government run weather and climate bureaucracies except as data collection agencies.
Climategate: Failure of a Blind and Biased Mainstream Media
Climategate: The Stink is Unavoidable
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, January 4, 2010
It’s beyond belief that the mainstream media can’t see the devastating importance of the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) known as Climategate. The blindness cancels the claim they’re society’s watchdog. Left wing journalist Amy Goodman said when writing about the Bush administration , ”You know governments are going to lie, but not the media.” Now, with a new administration she is silent, proving there are lies of commission and omission.
Most haven’t read the emails or summarily dismiss them because of political bias. Journalist Clive Crook illustrated an open mind, albeit on second look. “In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back. The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.”
The mainstream media willfully ignore the massive deception just as they have the political exploitation of climate science. In fact, most led or joined attacks on scientists who dared to point out the problems. They’re still doing it directly or by their silence. There’s no excuse for missing the biggest story in history. It proves the adage that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
To See Ourselves As Others See Us
Michael Mann, the most aggressive, bullying and deceptive member of the CRU gang, claims without embarrassment there’s nothing significant in the emails. As Keith Briffa wrote, It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.” He even scared his fellow CRU conspirators as one noted on October 26 2003, “Anyway, there’s going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann’s very thin skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from the past….” A psychologist can probably identify these behavior characteristics.
In a Washington Post article Mann said the content “doesn’t alter evidence for climate change.” It’s the confidence trick they’ve always used exploiting the fact most people don’t know how much climate changes naturally. As a result they can report natural change as unnatural and by implication caused by humans. The real issue is the cause of climate change . Now we know how the CRU gang used deception to falsely prove it was human produced CO2. But the mainstream media brush it off, ignore it, or deliberately play along with the CRU gang denials. A good example of the latter was the action of the Associated Press (AP) identified by a Washington Times editorial titled, “Biased Reporting on Climategate - Associated Press coverage raises eyebrows.” They wrote, “There’s a big difference between saying that there is insufficient evidence to determine if falsification occurred—and that there should be an investigation—and saying, as AP did, “Science not faked.” The Times is wrong because it’s incorrect to say there is insufficient evidence, but it is a measure of poor journalism.
The Stink is Unavoidable
Evidence of wrongdoing in the emails doesn’t require understanding of the science. Any objective reading quickly dispels the claim they are normal banter between colleagues.
On 22 November 1996 from Geoff Jenkins (UK Met Office) to Phil Jones, “Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.”“We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls (IPCC lead author and Australian Met Bureau employee.)??” They’re talking about releasing an annual global temperature a month before the year is over. Hardly scientific or responsible bureaucratic behavior, but they think deceiving the public is “fun”.
On March 11, 2003 Mann acknowledges they silenced skeptics by criticizing them for not having peer-reviewed publications. They could do this because they believed they controlled peer review of climate change papers. Mann writes, “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”
On May 29, 2008 Jones directs Mann to delete emails about requests for Freedom of Information.
On 24 April 2003 Wigley upset about Hans von Storch’s editorial role proposes to mislead the publishers, “One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about—it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.”Is this normal discourse between academics?
On 21 Jan 2005 Jones writes to Wigley about requests under the Freedom of Information Act, “Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.“Why would he need to hide?
On 8 July 2004 Jones to Mann, I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! Even if the malfeasance wasn’t obvious a check of the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to review all literature would disclose it.
On 2 February 2005 from Jones to Mann “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” “They”are McIntyre and McKitrick (MM) names already familiar in the mainstream media.
On 29 April 2007 Briffa to Mann; a red flag is waved by the comment, “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.” The only need for science is accuracy and openness, which means the IPCC is not about science. That alone should trigger further investigative journalism.
Unbelievable Ignorance
Those involved in the original deception now present ludicrous arguments. The journal “Nature"used in the corruption of the peer-review process and biased throughout says, “If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.”
Absolute rubbish! They should read their guidelines, which say in part, An inherent principle of publication is that others should be able to replicate and build upon the authors’ published claims. Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols promptly available to readers without preconditions. (Their emphasis).
The ability to reproduce results is fundamental to science.
Jim Hoggan, Chairman of the Board of the Suzuki Foundation and founder of the sleazy, squalid, web site Desmogblog, says the real issue is the agenda of the people who stole the files. It’s an agenda Hoggan, a professional spinner, and the biased mainstream media would not recognize or understand; a desire for openness and the truth.
Climategate Whistleblower
Why an insider
By Dr. Tim Ball Wednesday, December 23, 2009
It was probably a whistleblower that released files from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA)? If so then the information is admissible in court and we will get greater detail on the greatest deception in history.
Phil Jones, former Director of the CRU knew the potential damage and legal implications of the file’s content. Jones told the police the files were from CRU, and claimed a crime was committed. Ludicrously, he said the information had no value because it was criminally obtained.
Why an Insider?
Major clues suggest the leaks were from an insider. A few emails were sent to a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reporter Paul Hudson on October 12, weeks before full release. This indicates someone trying to draw attention, but Hudson did nothing. He knew of the wrath and reach of Michael Mann. As a CRU member noted on October 26 2003, Anyway, there’s going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann’s very thin skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from the past….” He didn’t as his later reactions showed.
An October 11 2009 email from Narasimha Rao to Stephen Schneider says, ”You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC’s reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that there’s been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20-30 years.” Mann became aware, and on the 12th wrote, “extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. Its (sic) particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). From what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?” This is Mann at his nasty bullying best.
When Hudson did nothing the person(s) released the entire file to the world. Hudson’s failure was disappointing because he had credibility as a BBC weather presenter and former Met Office employee. The Copenhagen conference was probably the concern because the files showed the scientific basis for climate policies was falsified.
Knowledge and Access to the University Computer System
Whoever released the files knew which were significant and had access to the UEA computer system.
Canadian network engineer Lance Levsen after detailed analysis showed convincingly the source was someone within the university. He concluded, “For the hacker to have collected all of this information s/he would have required extraordinary capabilities…to crack an Administrative file server to get to the emails and crack numerous workstations, desktops, and servers to get the documents.”
Strong Candidate
There are several internal candidates including Keith Briffa. Emails show his conflicts within the group. On October 5th 2009 Wigley wrote to Jones, It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in emails, Yamal is insignificant…....I presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely—but I am not sure Keith is able to do this as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of (sic). I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this. I’d be willing to check over anything he puts together. Jones forwarded the email to Briffa.
Briffa’s dislike of Mann goes back a long way. On 17th June 2002 Briffa wrote to Dr Edward Cook about a letter involving Esper and Michael Mann, “I have just read this lettter - and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other “target” series, such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage (sic) he has produced over the last few years, and ... (better say no more)”Cook responds; “We both know the probable flaws in Mike’s recon (reconstruction), particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff…. It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.”
On 22nd September 1999 Briffa again confronted Mann in a long email that included the comment, “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.” Treasonous words for Mann’s hockey stick paper that claimed no medieval warm period existed. Mann appeared to back off. He wrote, “Walked into this hornet’s nest this morning! Keith and Phil have both raised some very good points.” In reality he puts Briffa down again. “SO(sic) I think we’re in the position to say/resolve somewhat more than, frankly, than Keith does, about the temperature history of the past millennium. And the issues I’ve spelled out all have to be dealt with in the chapter.” One cynical comment from Mann says, “And I certainly don’t want to abuse my lead authorship by advocating my own work.” It’s a classic example of Mann’s dishonesty, because he abused it in the IPCC 2001 Science Report and Summary for Policy Makers.
Wigley didn’t help. Here is the first part of a belittling email from Wigley to Briffa on 10 January 2006. Thanx for this. Interesting. However, I do not think your response is very good. Further, there are grammatical and text errors, and (shocking!!) you have spelled McKitrick wrong. This is a sure way to piss them off. Typical of Wigley’s patronizing way of talking to wayward CRU members.
Conflict continued as Briffa expressed his concern. Mann made some overtures, but on April 29th 2007 Briffa responded, “I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done—often wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these kind words. I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.” What damning commentary about what the CRU and the IPCC were doing?
Briffa may have worked with the Information Officer at the University who was under pressure for Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. In September we learned Briffa was ill. Did this give him time to think about what was happening? Maybe, but his treatment by Mann and the sinking ship was an impetus. Whatever the answer any reading of the emails show they were anything but normal correspondence between colleagues.
Even the Criminals of Climategate Avoid Gore
No wonder the CRU gang ignored Gore. He took their false work and falsified it some more.
By Dr. Tim Ball Wednesday, December 16, 2009
“It is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not deserve them.”—Mark Twain.
Twain’s observation is precisely the issue with the Nobel Peace Prizes given to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC are now completely discredited because the ‘scientists’ at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia controlled the data, the computer models and the press releases officially known as the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).
Their prizes were obtained for work deliberately falsified then used for policies that creates unnecessary hardship rather than peace. Equally disgraceful is how one prizewinner, Al Gore, distorted and falsified the distortions and falsifications of the other prizewinner, the IPCC.
Gore was already discredited, especially when his carbon footprint was found too big for his mouth. Other discredits include; the millions he made from his misdirection on carbon; failure to answer questions or participate in debate; character assassination of scientists who raised legitimate questions; the false claim that “the science is settled”, and failure to correct the major errors in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth”. Gore must have created a major dilemma for the IPCC and CRU.
A minor dilemma was the contradiction over projected sea level rise. The IPCC 2001 Report said, “Global mean sea level is projected to rise by 0.09 to 0.88 m between the years 1990 and 2100,”. The 2007 Report raised the lower projection to 0.18 m but significantly lowered the upper limit to 0.59 m. In his ridiculous movie, Gore predicted a 20 ft (6m) rise but gave no time frame. Recently he made the false statement that the Arctic ice cap is the size of the continental US. Wrong! That is the amount that melts and refreezes every year. Then he said it would be all gone in 5 to 10 years, but ice this year has already recovered what it lost in the last few years.
Now, in a more bizarre twist, we learn Gore’s claim about the Arctic ice came from another scientist, Dr. Wieslav Maslowski. The professor then claimed Gore misquoted him, but his prediction was published in a Danish journal.
The problem is they’re both wrong, but that is the pattern of the climate issue. Lies on lies on lies create the tangled web Sir Walter Scott predicted when you practice deception.
But Gore doesn’t stop. There are academics and scientists lining up to provide him with more false information. He incorrectly claims Antarctica and Greenland are melting. Maybe he got the Antarctic idea from the false research produced by some at CRU that Antarctica is warming.
And he is still at it with incredibly stupid comments. On the Conan O’Brien show of 11/12/09, he said the temperature in the mantle, the deep layer immediately below the crust, is several million degrees just two kilometers down. This is many times hotter than the Sun. It is truly frightening to think this man was one step away from the Presidency, no wonder Clinton didn’t support his presidential run.
The CRU gang had to know what Gore was presenting in his movie and speeches, yet I am unable to find any direct reference to him in their emails. When they occur it is in outsider emails. I am unaware of any public comments by CRU people about Gore’s work; it appears they studiously avoided him. You must be bad when the criminals avoid you.
Gore says the emails “don’t change established conclusions.” “These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.”
Well he got that completely wrong too but it’s not surprising because he misinterpreted their original work. Maybe he is relying on another academic source. Trevor Davis, Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Research at the University of East Anglia says, “There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity.”
What planet is this Davis on? Besides the clear evidence of criminality there is also the deliberate falsification of the science and perversion of the scientific publication and peer review process. His statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the email content and climate science. Like Watergate the problems of Climategate are compounded by the cover-up and nobody does it better than universities. Davis began with his condemnation of the leaks when first disclosed, but he had no problem with leaked emails he obtained about funding and provided to the CRU gang.
Of course, they were bringing in massive amounts of funding and that apparently bought Davis’s support. I watched funding create disturbing behavior and biases throughout academia.
No wonder the CRU gang ignored Gore. He took their false work and falsified it some more. Of course, they couldn’t denounce him because they might expose their own corruption. Together they achieved only one success by disproving the adage that there is honor among thieves.
The New Big Lie: Climategate Emails Are Not Significant
The criminals at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in England brazenly defend the indefensible
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, December 14, 2009
Brazen Arrogance
Charles Dickens wrote, “I have known a vast quantity of nonsense talked about bad men not looking you in the face. Don’t trust that conventional idea. Dishonesty will stare honesty out of countenance, any day in the week, if there is anything to be got by it.”
The criminals at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in England brazenly defend the indefensible. It is stunning to watch Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, who even look alike, staring directly at the camera and denying the significance of their emails.
It works because they used it to deceive the world. They know most won’t understand the emails. The Associate Press (AP) has already confirmed this.
As with Revkin at the New York Times the journalist Seth Borenstein of AP has no journalistic integrity. Here is his email to the gang. On July 23, 2009 he wrote, “Kevin, Gavin, Mike, It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Watchya think?” “Again” means there is previous communication. A journalist talking to scientists is legitimate, but like the email’s tone and subjective comments are telling.
Out of Context
They claim they’re taken out of context. In context the fullness of their criminality is exposed. I already described the nature of the Climatic Research Unit and the rogue scientists therein.
Then there are the ones those who did the dirty work.
They claim there’s nothing of consequence in the emails, but they’re a litany of manipulation of, the data, the process, publications, peer review, and personal attacks. Understanding requires knowledge of the science and the history of events.
Data Manipulation
The primary issue is the data. Science requires data and inadequacy of the climate record was always a problem. Climatology recognizes three distinct periods: The very recent instrumental period; the historical period to 3000 years, and the geologic/ biologic for the rest. They manipulated data in all three but the first is critical because it is the source of material for the computer models, the vehicle of their deception.
There are few long continuous reliable stations (Figure 1a). Most are on land and there are fewer now than in 1960 (Figure 1b). Figure 2 shows there are virtually no records for the oceans and much of the land. The density looks solid but the large dots are on a very small world map. It is a very sparse inadequate network especially as the basis for construction of the computer models.
Figure 1: Station information determined by NASA GISS.
Figure 2 Weather stations distribution with vast gaps.
Source: GHCN
The data is questionable because the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) manipulates the data prior to its use by others; they call it homogenizing. The public rarely sees the raw data and CRU ‘lost’ theirs. Users like CRU, who produce global annual average temperatures, select stations that create the results they want, then ‘adjust’ the data again for their purposes. As Warwick Hughes notes, “As an oddity, Phil Jones claimed to have taken out San Juan (PR), that it somehow failed their 1986 tests. Well it sure is in their list of stations USED in gridding. It is a classic story, the inclusion of UHI (Urban Heat Island) warming biased trends which dominate the rural data where the more accurate regional trends are recorded - albeit in more gappy data.”
Translation: a false warming record exists because of the growth of urban areas. Jones chose them over rural stations that don’t show “warming”.
Lack Of Data Means Computer Models Can’t Work
Figure 3 is a schematic of a climate model.
CRU described them as follows; “GCM’s are complex, three-dimensional computer-based models of the atmospheric circulation. Uncertainties in our understanding of climate processes, the natural variability of the climate, and limitations of the GCMs mean that their results are not definite predictions of future climate.”
Figure 3: Schematic of the structure of a global climate model.
Source: Briggs Smithson and Ball, Fundamentals of Physical Geography
Superimpose the surface of the grid in Figure 3 on the map in Figure 2 and you have a majority of squares with no data. It’s worse above the surface. CRU emails talk of attempts to hide, ignore, or avoid the problem. Jones used the record for ‘gridding’, which is the basic method used to produce the computer models. When you have a grid with no data you have to ‘infill’ with estimates using the nearest data. But in most cases the nearest data is inadequate or in a different setting.
On the 28 October 2002 email Phil Jones explains to Tom Wigley, “We’ve had to ‘move’ some stations to be on model land to get better comparisons. Islands that are not in the model have poor comparisons.” “Model land” means the problem of a square that is half on land and half on water and designated ‘land’. As recently as November 6, 2009 Wigley wrote to Jones about the larger problem. “We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming—and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.” You’re darn right it’s important because you’ve chosen mostly urban records. They knew, as this email indicates. “CRU temperature data - not the latest version, but the one you used in MBH98 !!(The hockey stick) We added lots of data in for the region this person says has Urban Warming! So easy review to do.” “Latest version” is telling – they adjusted, as errors were noticed, not to improve the accuracy but to counteract criticism. The last sentence means “easy” for the questions they choose to rebuff. They ignored tough ones .
Then there’s the problem of squares with no data. Jones to Wigley 13 December 2005 notes, “There isn’t any data at the N. Pole.” It is an understatement as this map (Figure 4) from the Arctic Impact Assessment report used by the IPCC shows.
Figure 4: Lack of data area covers most of Arctic basin.
Source: CRU East Anglia.
It is not much better at the other Pole. Tim Osborne’s email to the group says, “Even if you do something to sort out the problem at the S. Pole, how about the isolated boxes around the coast of Antarctica, which will be given much less weight than an isolated box in the tropics which might also have only 1 station in.” The problem is South Pole temperatures declined over the period of record. They produced another shameless “peer reviewed” paper to falsely show Antarctica was warming; another example of statistical manipulation.
Hiding Data
Manipulations mean GISS have different results for global average annual temperatures than CRU. It invited this probing email from Yousif Kharaka of the US Geological Survey via Judith Lean to Mann. “I have been puzzled as to why global temperature data from the British Hadley Centre are different from those reported by NASA GISS, especially in the last 10 years.”
Mann replies on 15 October 2008; “My understanding is that the differences arise largely from how missing data are dealt with”. Jones adds, “The GISS group average surface T data into 80 equal area boxes across the world. The UK group (CRU/MOHC) grid the data into 5 by 5 degree lat/long boxes, as does NCDC.” So the data in each box is different but always less than adequate. No wonder models fail all validation tests that measure their ability to recreate past conditions. Another problem arose as this email indicates. “Also it would seem odd to validate any model in a region where there is no data in a region that had to be infilled.” You can’t validate what doesn’t exist.
Denying access or manipulating the data to falsify the models pervades the emails. Jones wrote to Mann on Feb 26 2004. “Most of the data series in most of the plots have just appeared on the CRU web site. Go to data then to paleoclimate. Did this to stop getting hassled by the skeptics for the data series. Mike Mann refuses to talk to these people and I can understand why. They are just trying to find if we’ve done anything wrong.” Jones to Mann, Bradley and Hughes on Feb 21 2005. “I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”
These are not innocent comments. What was there to hide? Answer how they falsified the data as the emails expose when you put them in context.
Brownshirt Youth Corps Invade Monckton Speech
“Hitler Youth” attempt to crush freedom of speech while chanting cult-like environmental mantras
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Groups of agitant green youth corps invaded the stage during Lord Monckton’s speech at an Americans for Prosperity event in Copenhagen yesterday, attempting to sabotage the private meeting while chanting cult-like environmental mantras in a shocking example of how the environmentalist elite have activated cadres of young brownshirts to crush the free speech of anyone who dares dissent against the global warming authodoxy.
A Huffington Post write-up of the incident attempts to characterize Monckton as the villain of the story because he called the teenage brownshirts out for what they were, “crazed Hitler youth.”
“The young activists, representing a number of youth action groups including SustainUS, the Sierra Student Coalition, the Cascade Climate Network, and other American youth NGOs, kicked off the protest by holding banners in front of the cameras reading “Climate Disaster Ahead” and “Clean Energy Now.”
The “activists,” who are invited delegates to the UN’s Copenhagen summit, betrayed the dictatorial agenda of the United Nations and the climate change movement as a whole by having zero tolerance for any dissenting opinion – crashing and shouting down a small conference of people who had merely gathered to present the other side of the debate.
They then proceeded to wave plastic American flags made in China before chanting environmental mantras that have no basis whatsoever in reality.
“We’re representing the majority of Americans on this, particularly young Americans,” commented one of the brownshirts.
In reality, as the most recent polls show, “Americans who think global warming is caused by human activity, including vehicle and industrial emissions, are now a minority.”
“You are listening now to the shouts in the background of the Hitler youth,” said Monckton, as the green thugs interrupted his speech. Monckon mentioned the fact that these same youth corps had green spray-painted Copenhagen with Orwellian messages in a frightening throwback to the red, white and black swastikas that littered the city during the time when it was occupied by the Nazis.
Another disruptor, Laura Comer, claimed, “We’re representing the majority of Americans on this, particularly young Americans. The real America wants clean energy – not more fossil fuel-funded lies about the science.”In actual fact, the Climategate emails clearly illustrated how the vast majority of big oil money is behind the climate change alarmists, not the skeptics. Indeed, the entire Copenhagen event is sponsored by a consortium of giant corporations that includes British Petroleum and Shell Oil.
Contrast what happens to people who protest demagogues of the environmental movement with what happens to those who protest anyone who dares speak out against green fascism.
Members of Press For Truth who merely handed out flyers in opposition to Al Gore in Toronto outside the event he was speaking at were harassed by security guards, assaulted, had their camera equipment attacked, and were almost shoved into the road by thought police thugs hell-bent on making them leave areas that were not even privately owned.
In contrast, the brownshirt youth corps who hijacked the Monckton event and took over the stage were completely left alone to go about their business.
Similarly, We Are Change groups who attempt to ask Al Gore questions about Climategate at book signings have routinely been forcibly ejected and harassed merely for expressing respectful dissent.
This is why Monckton labeled the brownshirts in the video “Hitler youth,” because their sabotage is fully supported by the same climate establishment whose policies are currently killing millions of people in the third world, something these useful idiot kids obviously know nothing about.
Whenever climate skeptics protest global warming gurus, there’s always a plentiful supply of goons on hand to crush their free speech and kick them out, but when greenies physically shut down private events, they are given free reign and later celebrated by the media.
Despite the fact that skeptics attending Copenhagen this week are certainly a minority, these youth corps thugs still couldn’t stand the fact that the skeptics had the temerity to organize a private meeting at which the religion of global warming was questioned.
Lord Monckton and other climate change skeptics have also been targeted with death threats and intimidation by green thugs who will go to any lengths to shut down freedom of speech.
Expect waves of these cadres of green youth corps to continue to accompany the green fascism now being finalized by the UN in Copenhagen.
In future, little Nazis like these will have no reservations in banging down your door if you don’t have the right light bulbs installed, smashing up your SUV, or enforcing whatever hellish system of control and regulation that will arrive by order of the global warming dictatorship they are a tool for.

Copenhagen and Global Warming: Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change
by Prof. Robert M. Carter
Global Research, December 9, 2009
James Cook University, Queensland, Australia
Ten facts about climate change
1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a "stable" climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.
2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.
3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.
4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.
5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).
6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.
Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that "the IPCC review process is fatally flawed" and that "the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz".
7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).
The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism "one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism". If Kyoto was a "first step" then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmap”.
8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.
9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.
10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.
The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.
Laying Ten Global Warming Myths
Myth 1 Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.
Fact 1 Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.
Myth 2 During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.
Facts 2 The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20 C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past.
Myth 3 AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes "hockey stick" curve and its computer extrapolation).
Facts 3 The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.
Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.
Facts 4 Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.
Myth 5 Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.
Facts 5 A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.
Myth 6 Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.
Facts 6 No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10 C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration.
Myth 7 Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.
Facts 7 The sun's output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth's climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change.
Myth 8 Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.
Facts 8 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.
Myth 9 Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.
Facts 9 SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase.
Myth 10 The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.
Facts 10 Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.
The Lies and Deceptions Continue at Copenhagen and Beyond
They lied, bullied, falsified documents, rewrote history, destroyed careers, impugned character, used people and placed the entire world economies in jeopardy
By Dr. Tim Ball Wednesday, December 9, 2009
The PR surrounding ‘official’ climate science at Copenhagen is disgusting, but then the science on which it is based is dishonest and inaccurate. How convenient for the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to announce that 2000 - 2009 is ‘very likely’ the warmest decade on record to coincide with the Copenhagen fiasco. The decade is not over hence the “very likely”, but there are many issues to understand about what they are saying. You also need to know how they have been manipulating the record to make the current decade appear warmer. It is a shameful distraction as contrived as the video and abuse of children used to open the conference.
The Pattern of a Warm Decade is Normal But They’ve Falsified the Trend
Of course the warmest years have occurred in recent decades because the world has generally warmed since the nadir of the Little Ice Age (LIA) in 1680 AD. Nobody has denied that. The problem is it has nothing to do with CO2, which is the supposed purpose of the Copenhagen meeting. What they ignore is that although it may be a peak it is a flat peak because global temperatures have leveled and declined since 2002 and that is not supposed to happen because they claim CO2 levels continue to rise. I wrote about this before the leaks occurred.
If I said they manipulated the record even 6 weeks ago most would have stopped reading and determined I was a crank or worse a conspiracy theory crank. Now the emails exposed from the ‘scientists’ at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) reveal how they were manipulating and controlling the global climate data sets and the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That falsified work is the total scientific underpinning for Copenhagen they use and manipulate it for their political goals.
There are three sources of global climate data, as Willis Eschenbach summarizes. “There are three main global temperature datasets. One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, where we’ve been trying to get access to the raw numbers. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
The NOAA/GHCN data is generally the source for the other two data sets, but the data is manipulated by GHCN before it is released. In a study of Australian weather data from GHCN Eschenbach concludes that there is, “indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.” (His underline).
We’ve known for some time James Hansen at NASA has been ‘adjusting’ his data to make the modern few decades warmer than the past. All of his adjustments are in that direction. We also know he was caught fudging US data. For example he said, and Al Gore used the claim that 1998 was the warmest year in the record for the US and that the 1990s had 9 of the 10 warmest years in the record. It was wrong. Four of the 10 warmest years were in the 1930s and 1934 was warmer than 1998.
GISS records are consistently higher than those from CRU and NOAA and all three records produce different numbers. How can that happen? Well, they use data already adjusted and provided by the GHCN, but each group uses different stations and then make their own adjustments. We also know the CRU data set is adjusted but because Phil Jones the disgraced Director of CRU refuses to release the data we don’t know how much. It was enough for him to make the claim that the increase in temperature since the end of the 19th century was beyond a natural increase, a false statement.
One major problem is the tendency to choose urban stations and then not adjust fully for the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE). I was involved with such studies in Winnipeg in the 1970s where we found the effect was significant and growing as the urban area grew. A major event was the publication of two graphs by Warwick Hughes comparing urban (Figure 1) and rural (Figure 2) Australian weather station data. The UHIE is obvious and likely more dramatic because the very slight increase in the rural stations in Figure 2 is because even the smallest of communities has an effect.
Figure 1: Note the significant postwar increase, originally attributed to global warming

Figure 2: Proof that the warming in Figure 1is due to the Urban Heat Island Effect.
Over the last several years adjustments to the historic surface temperature records have continued. The most recent example revealed was for temperatures in New Zealand. As Bob Dedekind notes, “Every long-term station in NZ has had its past made colder.” Here is a plot of Auckland Airport from Bob Dedekind
Figure 1: The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) Raw data and adjusted data.
Notice the adjustments essentially end in 1970. This is because the satellite data became available and now another group were looking over their shoulder.
To cap the lies and deception Al Gore, who has yet to correct the 35 scientific errors in his book, held a conference and answered questions that were clearly pre-arranged. This to counter the charge he won’t answer questions or his handlers cut off the microphone. In a Q and A with Slate he says, “I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old.“
That is a lie because he if he had read the emails he’d know they are almost up to the day they were released. For example, there’s an email from Michael Mann, the phony hockey stick creator, to Andrew Revkin, the compromised science writer for the New York Times dated 29 September 2009. In it he tells Revkin about Steve McIntyre, who broke the hockey stick, that, “ A necessary though not in general sufficient condition for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate scientific peer review process. Those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted.” This is the peer review argument but we know from the rest of the emails how these people corrupted the peer review process. We also know in a study for the US Senate the Wegman Committee found McIntyre’s science was correct and Mann’s incorrect. Gore then compounds his ignorance of the science and the emails by saying, “What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.” The changes are normal Al; you just don’t know what normal means in climate.
Please stop these deceptions. There’s no justification for what these people did. They lied, bullied, falsified documents, rewrote history, destroyed careers, impugned character, used people and placed the entire world economies in jeopardy with completely unnecessary energy policies. Their actions diverted money from real issues and caused extensive hardships for people across the globe. Consider the impact of soaring food prices and reported starvation because of the biofuel travesty. They triggered and supported the completely unnecessary spending of billions as they and their followers flew around the world at the people’s expense. They put the credibility of science in jeopardy and gave ammunition to those who don’t think the environment is an issue. They provided the ‘science’ that allowed a fanatical fringe to sit in moral judgment of people just trying to survive. I wrote an article in 1992, “An Iconoclast’s View of Climatic Change” for Canadian Water Resources Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2. 1992. The editor published on condition he provide the title. Ironically, it was more appropriate than he thought because I dared to challenge the blind religion for which we now know Gore and the CRU gang are the false prophets.
The Climate Change Propaganda Machine
It is clear the science behind climate change is biased and disputed, leaving the propaganda machine as the only fact that remains.
By Paul Murdock, Psy.D Wednesday, December 9, 2009
In the last several weeks we have learned several new facts about climate change research. First, climate scientists’ motives are biased. Second, scientists actively discussed how to achieve political ends through their research. Third, and more disturbingly, the public has learned of discarded data, attempts to keep opposing views silent, and total political adherence to an ideology.
Yet, without thinking twice, the main stream media and President Obama have shrugged off the controversy and continued boldly with their partisan agenda. It is clear the science behind climate change is biased and disputed, leaving the propaganda machine as the only fact that remains.
Research by the conservative Media Research Group has stated that since the Climategate scandal broke out, ABC, CBS, and NBC have not mentioned the story in any of their news casts including their morning shows. Even when the outlets discussed Obama’s upcoming trip to Copenhagen, the controversy was never mentioned. There has been no mention of recently published research questioning climate change or that thousands of scholars disagree. Recently, the Wall Street Journal has raised questions of silencing dissenting opinions at the EPA, and there are now questions about NASA’s data. Even with a wide variety of dispute, the networks continue to use the language of propaganda including “undisputed, unequivocal, settled, and consensus.”
Despite the media’s refusal to discuss dissenting opinions, the media continues to universally promote climate change policies. Just as the climate conference begins, the EPA announced that greenhouse gases are toxic, the UN stated this decade may turn out to be the hottest on record, and 56 newspapers around the world ran a common front page editorial supporting drastic climate change action. Here is an excerpt from the editorial:
Social justice demands that the industrialized world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions…. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.
The authors also continue on to invoke the words of Lincoln to inspire us to change and then finish by calling those who do not, “stupid.” Again, it is clear only calculated propaganda remains!
Most people believe propaganda is just “lies” or “tall stories” that influence the weak and feeble minded. However, modern propaganda is a sophisticated and calculating machine that invades every aspect of our lives. The formidable author Jacques Ellul in his expansive work on the subject describes this process as designed to create proselytes and militants rather than wise or reasonable men. In support of Ellul, a judge in Britain recently ruled that Tim Nicholson’s climate views “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations.” Now environment organizations and fanatics such as Greenpeace can literally join the religiously deluded.
Despite the role of the media, our most pernicious enemy is found in the classroom. The first goal of modern propaganda is to develop conditioned reflexes through education and social dialogue. Jacques Ellul describes the role of education as “pre-propaganda.” Thus, it is no accident that climate change, social justice, and sex education are taught to young students, while there is no religious acceptance or comprehensive discussion of the principles of liberty and freedom.
Let’s review a few recent headlines. Yesterday in Columbia, Missouri notebooks were being given to students with Obama’s slogan and campaign picture on the front. Children have been videotaped literally signing President Obama’s praises and the University of Minnesota is discussing how to best reindoctrinate “biased” individuals. Today, there is news about Obama’s education czar’s educating children with “black books” which included discussions of grotesque sexual acts.
Around the world, educational systems, beginning in elementary school, are organized to promote social change. In some instances, children can now attend public schools such as The Little Village Lawndale High School in Chicago and focus exclusively on social justice classes. To highlight the calculated attempt to indoctrinate our youth, in March 2009 the United States Congress passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (GIVE). Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” the legislation states “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”
In addition to education, modern propaganda must build on societies need for safety, security, and community. It must exploit human weaknesses in a comprehensive, total, and unyielding manner through all available channels. This is accomplished by inundating individuals with constant propaganda such as the news, youtube, magazines, and teachers.ons. As previously mentioned, the large media outlets refuse to provide dissenting opinion. The UN now has its own youtube channel called “Raise your voice and change climate change.” The cover of the Economist on newsstands today reads “Stopping Climate Change,” and every news article I read uses the word “consensus.”
The end effect of this organized media blitz is to focus the public on one event, climate change, to the exclusion of all the rest. The ability to set the public agenda and determine social perceptions is a powerful tool in social psychology. For it is clear that when individuals are faced with large social opposition or view themselves as out of the norm, individuals typically move towards the mean. The mean in this case is fascism and socialism.
Copenhagen's Hidden Agenda: The Multibillion Trade in Carbon Derivatives
Architect of Credit Default Swaps behind the Development of "Carbon Derivatives"
By Washington's Blog
Global Research, December 8, 2009
Washington's Blog
As I have previously shown, speculative derivatives (especially credit default swaps) are a primary cause of the economic crisis.
And I have pointed out that (1) the giant banks will make a killing on carbon trading, (2) while the leading scientist crusading against global warming says it won't work, and (3) there is a very high probability of massive fraud and insider trading in the carbon trading markets.
Now, Bloomberg notes that the carbon trading scheme will be centered around derivatives:
The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they've done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They're also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors.
[Blythe] Masters says banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the mix, she says. Derivatives are securities whose value is derived from the value of an underlying commodity -- in this case, CO2 and other greenhouse gases...
Who is Blythe Masters?
She is the JP Morgan employee who invented credit default swaps, and is now heading JPM's carbon trading efforts. As Bloomberg notes (this and all remaining quotes are from the above-linked Bloomberg article):
Masters, 40, oversees the New York bank's environmental businesses as the firm's global head of commodities...
As a young London banker in the early 1990s, Masters was part of JPMorgan's team developing ideas for transferring risk to third parties. She went on to manage credit risk for JPMorgan's investment bank.
Among the credit derivatives that grew from the bank's early efforts was the credit-default swap.
Some in congress are fighting against carbon derivatives:
“People are going to be cutting up carbon futures, and we'll be in trouble,” says Maria Cantwell, a Democratic senator from Washington state. “You can't stay ahead of the next tool they're going to create.”
Cantwell, 51, proposed in November that U.S. state governments be given the right to ban unregulated financial products. “The derivatives market has done so much damage to our economy and is nothing more than a very-high-stakes casino -- except that casinos have to abide by regulations,” she wrote in a press release...
However, Congress may cave in to industry pressure to let carbon derivatives trade over-the-counter:
The House cap-and-trade bill bans OTC derivatives, requiring that all carbon trading be done on exchanges...The bankers say such a ban would be a mistake...The banks and companies may get their way on carbon derivatives in separate legislation now being worked out in Congress...
Financial experts are also opposed to cap and trade:
Even George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund operator, says money managers would find ways to manipulate cap-and-trade markets. “The system can be gamed,” Soros, 79, remarked at a London School of Economics seminar in July. “That's why financial types like me like it -- because there are financial opportunities”...
Hedge fund manager Michael Masters, founder of Masters Capital Management LLC, based in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands [and unrelated to Blythe Masters] says speculators will end up controlling U.S. carbon prices, and their participation could trigger the same type of boom-and-bust cycles that have buffeted other commodities...
The hedge fund manager says that banks will attempt to inflate the carbon market by recruiting investors from hedge funds and pension funds.
“Wall Street is going to sell it as an investment product to people that have nothing to do with carbon,” he says. “Then suddenly investment managers are dominating the asset class, and nothing is related to actual supply and demand. We have seen this movie before.”
Indeed, as I have previously pointed out, many environmentalists are opposed to cap and trade as well. For example:
Michelle Chan, a senior policy analyst in San Francisco for Friends of the Earth, isn't convinced.
“Should we really create a new $2 trillion market when we haven't yet finished the job of revamping and testing new financial regulation?” she asks. Chan says that, given their recent history, the banks' ability to turn climate change into a new commodities market should be curbed...
“What we have just been woken up to in the credit crisis -- to a jarring and shocking degree -- is what happens in the real world,” she says...
Friends of the Earth's Chan is working hard to prevent the banks from adding carbon to their repertoire. She titled a March FOE report “Subprime Carbon?” In testimony on Capitol Hill, she warned, “Wall Street won't just be brokering in plain carbon derivatives -- they'll get creative.”
Yes, they'll get "creative", and we have seen this movie before ...an inadequately-regulated carbon derivatives boom will destabilize the economy and lead to another crash.
The Carbon Trading Fraud
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
by Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) I was recently purchasing an airline ticket (there goes my carbon quota for the year, huh?) when I noticed that for an extra $12, I could buy an "offset" to the carbon emissions incurred for my flight.
Really? For twelve bucks I can buy off my own guilt? Wow, sweet deal!
The problem with this scheme is that even if I pay the $12, the plane on which I'm flying still produces carbon dioxide as part of its jet fuel combustion process. My paying of the fee, in other words, doesn't actually reduce any carbon being dumped into the atmosphere.
In fact, I have no idea where the fee goes. And probably no one else does either. Reportedly, this money goes to various non-profits that plant trees to offset the carbon. At perhaps a dollar a tree, you're buying the planting of 12 trees which, over a lifetime, might theoretically offset the amount of carbon from your plane ride. But are these trees really getting planted? If so, where? And how do I know they wouldn't be planted anyway? How do I know they'll live out their full tree lives and actually offset all the carbon that was claimed?
Recently at my farm in Ecuador, we planted over 500 trees as part of a hillside reclamation effort. Does that then mean I have earned enough "carbon Karma" to take 45 plane trips, knowing that I've already offset all those jet fumes with the hillside trees now growing on my farm? Can I sprout a few dozen acorns, stick them in the dirt, and use that as permission to jet set around the world?
Carbon trading is a slippery issue. It's hard to know whether the money actually makes any real difference in reducing carbon emissions. That's why carbon trading for the business sector is also a complex issue. The intention seems good: Allow free-market principles to arrive at a price on carbon emissions, then require companies to engage in the trading of credits so that a fixed upper limit of emissions is not exceeded.
But underneath the whole trading scheme, are carbon emissions really being reduced in any sort of meaningful way? To me, it all seems that carbon trading is just a clever way for polluters to buy their way out of environmental responsibility. With enough cash, they can legally keep on polluting the skies and driving us ever closer to CO2 tipping points.
The real issue with cap-and-trade solutions is that someone in Indonesia, for example, could theoretically plant a hundred thousand trees and use that act as carbon credit currency to sell into the system that allows U.S. polluters to simply buy more pollution credits. So the pollution continues under the illusion of environmental responsibility. But underneath it all, it's really just a shell game. A climate con, if you will.
More than 50 papers join in front-page leader article on climate change
Opinion piece to be published in 56 papers across 45 countries – including the Guardian, Le Monde and two Chinese papers
Chris Tryhorn guardian.co.uk, Sunday 6 December 2009
The Guardian has teamed up with more than 50 papers worldwide to run the same front-page leader article calling for action at the climate summit in Copenhagen, which begins tomorrow.
This unprecedented project is the result of weeks of negotiations between the papers to agree on a final text, in a process that mirrors the diplomatic wrangling likely to dominate the next 14 days in Copenhagen.
Fifty-six papers in 45 countries published in 20 different languages have joined the initiative, and will feature the leader in some form on their front pages.
Among the titles taking part are two Chinese papers – the Economic Observer and the Southern Metropolitan – and India's second largest English-language paper, The Hindu.
Some of the world's best known papers, such as Le Monde, El Pais, Russia's Novaya Gazeta and the Toronto Star, are also on board.
The leader was the work of team of Guardian writers and editors and went through three drafts to arrive at a text that satisfied all the editors involved.
Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of the Guardian, said: "Newspapers have never done anything like this before but they have never had to cover a story like this before. No individual newspaper editorial could hope to influence the outcome of Copenhagen but I hope the combined voice of 56 major papers speaking in 20 languages will remind the politicians and negotiators gathering there what is at stake – and persuade them to rise above the rivalries and inflexibility that have stood in the way of a deal."
The Guardian deputy editor Ian Katz, who co-ordinated the project, said: "The fact that papers from Moscow to Miami, with such different national and political perspectives, could agree on an editorial should offer some hope that our leaders might be able to do the same. We are bombarded with so much news and comment about climate change that many people are understandably tempted to go back to bed and pull the duvet over their heads – hopefully this improbable alliance will capture people's attention, and perhaps their imagination too."
The leader says that overcoming climate change "will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called 'the better angels of our nature'".
"It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can, too."
Dubai's Gulf News, the Arabic language paper An Nahar of Lebanon and the Israeli paper Maariv are among the 16 Asian papers involved.
There are also 11 African papers participating, and nine from north, south and central America combined.
The sole English-language US paper represented is the Miami Herald. "This initiative offered the Miami Herald's editorial board a terrific opportunity to join other papers across the globe on an issue that is of paramount importance to Florida and to our nation," said the Herald's editorial page editor, Myriam Marquez.
The 20 European papers taking part include the Irish Times, Liberation, Suddeutsche Zeitung, La Repubblica and Turkish title Hurriyet.
And delegates in Copenhagen will find that two Danish papers, Dagbladet Information and Danish Politiken, are featuring the leader too.
Some papers, such as Japan's Asahi Shimbun, were not able to carry a shared leader as that would breach their editorial protocols but are carrying a news report about the initiative.
Two Australian papers, the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, pulled out at a late stage after the election of climate change sceptic Tony Abbott as leader of the opposition Liberal party recast the country's debate on green issues.
Peter Cole, head of the journalism department at the University of Sheffield, praised the unprecedented collaboration between newspapers.
"This is a tremendous initiative and a good counter to the idea that nobody notices that the world is falling apart," he said. "If editors from nearly 50 countries all over the world, including all the major countries that contribute so much to global warming, can all agree, then surely the politicians in Copenhagen would be foolish to ignore it."
"Only one year ago, during the COP 14 summit in Poznan, governments promised us that they would deliver a breakthrough," said Konrad Niklewicz of Poland's Gazeta Wyborcza.
"Yet as the Copenhagen summit approached, their courage and leadership started to disappear. Politicians started to behave as we had plenty of time and no disaster looming. Yet the opposite is the case.
"Science tells us we have no more time, it is now or never. We can't let governments get away with yet another fudge and unfulfilled promises. Speaking with one voice, we will be heard."
N Ram, editor-in-chief and publisher of India's Hindu, added: "This is a splendid initiative, and with some luck and a lot of hard work it should turn out to be a significant media intervention, an example of how we can perform our social responsibility function. The Hindu feels happy and privileged to be part of this initiative and prospective intervention, and we are of course front-paging the global editorial with the impressive logo (the American absences notwithstanding)."
Climate Change Hoax Ignored by Obama, Gore & the Elite Media
By NWV News writer Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
December 6, 2009
© 2009 NewsWithViews.com
President Barack Obama and other world leaders are preparing for their international climate change summit in Copenhagen this month and their supporters are ignoring the evidence of fraud and corruption exposed in emails exchanged by leading "climate experts."
On Friday, Congressman Chaka Fattah (D-PA), a member of the House Appropriations Committee and its subcommittees that oversee funding for federal science, commerce, energy and water development agencies, issued a statement regarding President Obama's global warming diplomacy and upcoming appearance on December 9 at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen
In his statement, Rep. Fattah said, "Give President Obama credit for changing the game on climate change. His environmental diplomacy will finally place the United States at the forefront of efforts to save our planet."
"President Obama's pledge to reduce United States greenhouse gas emissions is in line with targets in House legislation that I supported upon passage in June. Those targets lay down a marker for the Senate. We in Congress owe it to the American people and in fact the world community to send the President a comprehensive, action-oriented bill- a necessary complement to his global leadership in climate change," said the congressman.
Opponent's of so-called Cap-and-Trade environmental legislation are quick to remind Obama's political allies that besides being destructive to the US economy, such legislation is based -- wholly or partially -- on faulty or manipulated science.
"These liberal-left politicians and activists see an opportunity to use so-called global warming as a means to push forward their Marxist philosophy. Part of the agenda is to take away wealth from the American people and give it to Third-World countries," said political strategist Mike Baker.
The evidence provided by the intercepted emails of renowned climatologists has created one of the biggest scandals in the last decade -- if not the century, according to Baker.
Thousands of emails and documents allegedly "stolen" from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years.
These leaked emails provide compelling evidence that much of what is being touted as scientific fact is in reality erroneous, fraudulent, and perhaps criminal if participating scientists used their phony research to acquire government grants.
Several emails contained discussions about how to best portray data sets, among other topics. Scientists maintain their comments have been taken out of context, but those who fiercely oppose the climate change thesis argue the emails invalidate all the research.
Even the leftist newspaper Telegraph described its newsroom's shock over discovering that the documents revealed scientists were "cooking the books," in order to prove the earth is warming at an alarming rate.
What is even more shocking is that the authors of the emails are not just any old bunch of academics. "Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," stated Baker.
Baker points to the senders and recipients of the leaked emails saying that they are a "who's who" of science. Their ranks include Doctors Michael Mann, Ben Santer, Kevin Trenbeth, and even Al Gore's climate guru, Dr. James Hansen. Gore used Hansen's studies in his Oscar-winning motion picture An Inconvenient Truth.
Even after being caught with the "smoking gun," they and their defenders have offered every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based. Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offense.
According to the emails, scientists involved secretly discussed ways they could manipulate the scientific peer review process so that skeptic could not get their articles and papers published in scientific journals. skeptical papers had no access to publication.
For example, when Dr. Thomas Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research complained that paleo-climatologist Hans von Storch was responsible for “the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’” and that they “must get rid of von Storch” as an editor of the journal Climate Research.
Armed with allegedly phony proof against Storch, they succeeded in getting von Storch to resign.
The scandal is also raising questions about members of the news media being complicit in covering up ClimateGate. For example, a BBC meteorologist and climate change expert, Paul Hudson, admits he was sent the leaked emails a month prior to their discovery by bloggers, radio and television talk hosts and other interested parties.
Meanwhile in the US, major media outlets continue to ignore the story, according to the media watchdog group, Accuracy in Media.
Since the emails where first discovered, ABC had only mentioned the story once, on Sunday’s This Week with George Stephanopolous, and CBS and NBC still has never reported the leaked emails on the morning or evening news, according to AIM.
"Rather than focus on this huge scientific scandal, the timing of which is critical considering the cap and trade legislation stalled in the Senate and the upcoming Copenhagen meeting supposedly intended to combat global warming—the mainstream media have done their best to ignore it.
"The scandal involves the destruction of data, the manipulation and cover-up of data, and a plan to punish scientific journals that might dare to publish the views of skeptics of the man made global warming theory. They realize that a full airing of the facts would likely undermine an important part of President Obama’s agenda, and expose the corruption of a significant part of the scientific establishment," writes AIM's contributing editor Allie Duzett.
Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in an interview with the Washington Post from that Obama's decision to go to Copenhagen suggests that "he'll be here at the end to help seal the deal."
"The Washington Post is one of the culprits in this enormous cover up," accuses Mike Baker. "And why aren't reporters flocking to Al Gore for his reaction to this proof that climate change is a farce?"
For years, Al Gore has played the role of a modern day Paul Revere, sounding the alarm regarding potential consequences of global warming in order to gain public attention. Whenever there is a story related to environmental issues, reporters quote Gore. In fact, Fox News Channel on Saturday morning reported that conservatives in Hollywood are demanding that Gore be stripped of his Oscar for his documentary that served as a vehicle to ratchet up global warming fears.
"But putting aside the fact that Gore has honed his public speaking skills, the fly in the ointment is that he’s a fraud. Like the very global warming movement to which he has attached himself, he’s a snake oil salesman whose sales pitch is laced with scare tactics designed to push the public into embracing a radical, carbon-free agenda that rests on a combination of half-truths and outright fabrications," alleges AWR Hawkins, a conservative writer who holds a Ph.D. in military history from Texas Tech University and writes for Pajamas Media.
"And Gore’s fraudulence is not only seen in the fact that he pawns a lie, but also in the fact that he refuses to abide by the very lie he pawns," quipped Dr. Hawkins.
UN to probe stolen climate data emails
All the guilty parties are rushing to investigate themselves to upstage any real independent investigation. This is like Göring and Himmler investigating Hitler.
The Associated Press
Friday, December 4, 2009
Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, talks to the media Thursday during a press conference at the European Parliament in Brussels.
 (Thierry Charlier/Assoicated Press)
The United Nations will conduct its own investigation into emails leaked from a leading British climate science centre in addition to the probe by the University of East Anglia, a senior UN climate official said Friday.
Emails stolen from the climate unit at the University of East Anglia appeared to show some of world's leading scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others' work.
Those who deny the influence of man-made climate change have seized on the correspondence to argue that scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence about global warming.
In an interview with BBC Radio, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, said the issue raised by the emails was serious and said "we will look into it in detail."
"We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it," he said. "We certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet."
Science defended
The University of East Anglia has defended the integrity of the science published by the climate unit and its researchers, but on Thursday said it would investigate whether some of the data had been fudged. Phil Jones, the director of the unit, stepped down earlier in the week pending the result of the investigation.
East Anglia said its review will examine the emails and other information "to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice."
The theft of the emails and their publication online — only weeks before the UN summit on global warming — has been politically explosive, even if researchers say their content has no bearing on the principles of climate change itself.
Britain's Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, acknowledged the revelations may have an impact on the Copenhagen talks on a new global emissions reduction pact, but dismissed as "flat Earth-ers" critics who claim the emails are proof the case for man-made climate change is exaggerated.
"We need maximum transparency, including about all the data, but it's also very, very important to say one chain of emails, potentially misrepresented, does not undo the global science," Miliband said Friday. "I think we want to send a very clear message to people about that."
"There will be people that want to use this to try and undermine the science and we're not going to let them," he said.
Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have grilled government scientists on the leaked emails in a hearing Wednesday in Washington, but the scientists countered that the emails don't change the fact that the Earth is warming.
"The emails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus … that tells us the Earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
She said the emails don't address data from her agency or the U.S. space agency NASA, which both keep independent climate records that show dramatic global warming.
Scandals in Scandinavia: Time to Cancel IPCC and Withdraw Nobel Prizes From Them and Gore
Nothing Nobel: Time To Terminate The IPCC
By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, December 3, 2009
Al Gore is the only Nobel Prize winner, whose work was ruled politically biased and containing nine major scientific errors by a court (UK) a week before it was awarded. The Nobel Committee should have known. They could argue they’d already made their decision. Problem is there was considerable evidence about the errors easily available long before. Clearly they didn’t do their homework, so their decision was purely political. The Prize should be revoked.
Gore shared his prize with the members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He used their research, but went further. He misused it to achieve the falsehoods that permeate his movie An Inconvenient Truth. Now we know through the files obtained from the Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia (Climategate), that all the information put in the global arena was falsified, manipulated and deliberately made wrong. Silence of those involved in climategate about Gore’s misuse of their false data tells several stories. They couldn’t point out the error and risk exposure. Like everything they did the end justified the means. Gore was useful. He distracted the mainstream media and kept the global warming pot boiling while they had access to power behind the scenes through the IPCC. He was the buffoon who distracted the audience from the real villains. Again the Nobel committee didn’t do their homework and made a political decision. This Prize should also be revoked.
Nothing Nobel: Time To Terminate The IPCC.
The IPCC Nobel Prize was questionable in the first place. There are serious questions about giving a Nobel Prize to government employees. Why didn’t the prize money go back to the taxpayer who funded the work? How did they divide the money? Did the CRU gang receive more because they controlled most of the process? Regardless, all the money should come back, just like Olympic Gold medals are withdrawn from members of a team if one member has cheated. IPCC members were eager to be on board the ship and should have known about the corruption. Several prominent members with integrity resigned including Richard Lindzen and Chris Landsea; they should receive the Prize taken from those who participated. If outsiders like myself could see the problems then there is no excuse for those inside.
The IPCC has completely lost all credibility and should be terminated immediately. The current Chairman R.K.Pachauri received the Nobel Prize on behalf of the IPCC. As Chair he is also a recipient. As a railway engineer he went off the tracks in his apparent craving for power. He is also cc’d on many of the emails obtained by climategate so he clearly knew what was going on. That is completely unacceptable.
Politics Makes a Mockery of Reward
The Nobel Committee have made a mockery of what constitutes Peace and the entire concept of the Peace Prize. That award, though noble, should also be terminated because it will always be political and politics ultimately taints everything it touches. We need to blow it up with some of that material used to provide the funding in the first place because at least Alfred Nobel had a conscience about his actions.
As Lord Acton said power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Those in power will now use it to whitewash and absolve those responsible. We know this already because the University of East Anglia spokesperson Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement has already made a biased comment. He said, “It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.” This incorrect comment shows how little he knows about climate science and the degree of corruption. It’s a comment apparently provided by the CRU gang. These people who have perpetrated the greatest scandal in history, because it is global in its impact, will silently glide away under the cloak of political power.
NB: This quote from one of the emails shows that the vice chancellor (VC) seems to have been totally compromised. The email, addressed to Wigley and Santer and copied to the rest of the gang shows that he and the entire university were conned:
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions - one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA (Climateaudit is McIntyre’s site) was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school - the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian - who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on - at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn’t know the number we’re dealing with. We are in double figures.
The Climate Scandal Has Diverted Attention From the Climate Scandal
It’s NOT The CO2 Stupid!
By Dr. Tim Ball Tuesday, December 1, 2009
There is another bizarre twist in the release of damming files from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia known as ‘climategate’. It is the biggest deception in history but the story and arguments of how the material was obtained, its credibility and significance have diverted attention from the real scientific issue.
Several scientists have known for years the science was wrong and the CRU with a few others were doing things beyond normal scientific techniques to mislead the public. We couldn’t compete with the deliberate media misinformation, personal attacks and frightening orchestration disclosed in the hacked emails. Now we have the weapon but it is an atomic bomb ignored by the mainstream media and the politicians.
The key was CO2 and why it received so much attention? It’s less than 4 percent of the greenhouse gases and a miniscule part of the total complexity that creates weather. Yet it’s the sole focus of all climate and energy policy when it doesn’t cause global warming or climate change. In fact, in every record of any duration for any period in the earth’s history temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. This is the complete opposite of the fundamental assumption made in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. The only place where CO2 causes temperature increase is in the doctored computer models of the CRU and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). People involved in climategate also controlled key chapters of the IPCC Reports including those on atmospheric composition; paleoclimates (reconstruction of past climate); computer models and the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Manipulation of data, falsification of temperature graphs, control of publishing and peer review, selective inclusion of variables and mechanisms in computer models were all designed to make it appear CO2 was the sole driving mechanism of temperature. The 2007 IPCC Report concluded that CO2 accounted for 90% of warming in the last 30 years. It’s equivalent to saying the small left toenail controls 90% of your body.
They’ve moved the goalposts again as they did when global warming became climate change and carbon credits became cap and trade. The focus is Climategate when it should be how even excluding rigged data the science is wrong. Scientists involved in the ‘climategate’ scandal have successfully diverted attention from the real issue with their denials. The mainstream media whose silence is either deafening or defensive have enabled them.
What’s The Motive?
Disclosure of the extent and degree of the scandal leads to the obvious question. “What’s the motive?” There are two streams, the political and the scientific, which appear separate but are closely conjoined. The political stream was the pursuit of Maurice Strong and all those descendants of the Club of Rome including President Obama who want one world government with total control over everybody. That goal has not changed. The 1974 report of the Club of Rome titled, Mankind at the Turning Point says, “It would seem that humans need a common motivation…either a real one or else one invented for the purpose...In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” (my emphasis). H. L. Mencken’s comment that, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule” is validated.
The scientific stream was the role of the Climategate scientists who were either sympathetic or blinded by the funding and career opportunities, or both. They provided the ‘science’ needed through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to achieve Strong’s political goal. I wrote about this sequence in a series of eleven articles.
Politicians With Blinkers On See Tax Potential
Now the scientists are exposed they’re expendable except to claim the leaks don’t change the data or its relevance. That’s false because they made everything point at CO2 when the evidence clearly shows it wasn’t a factor at all. Other issues such as ice melting, sea level rising are all normal events they’ve presented as abnormal because they know the public and most of the media don’t understand. There was an orchestrated increase in such stories leading up to Copenhagen. Predictions of disaster are in the Report of Working Group II of the IPCC are based solely on the false science prepared by Working Group I controlled by the CRU gang. This provides the emotional leverage to support Strong’s objective of shutting down industry, establishing equalization of wealth and one world government. Politicians saw an opportunity to grab massive amounts of tax wearing the cloak of green. (How bad is Obama’s deficit if he doesn’t have the revenue from Cap and Trade?) Most of the mainstream media and especially people like Revkin and Krugman at the New York Times or Monbiot at the Guardian (UK) continue their role of facilitating the new denial. Obama and other world leaders including Canadian PM Stephen Harper head off to Copenhagen with no mention of Climategate. They’re using the climate gun to control everybody while they rob them blind.
Copenhagen Summit
To Ruin Humanity’s Future
By Barry Napier Monday, November 30, 2009
As New Scientist says, “It’s being billed as the meeting that will determine the future of humanity”. Frighteningly, this is true. The journal asks “Can it really save us from climate catastrophe?” Yes, it can. If it is like any other early Japanese sci-fi movie where hundreds of people are seen running away from a model made out to be a real monster! Only in this case the model is on a computer, and our ‘fate’ can be changed with the click of a mouse as it enters new figures.
In 20 years, says the journal, we will have hit the ceiling – with an extra 250,000 megatonnes of CO2. That, say climate hoaxers, is the maximum extra CO2 we can put into the atmosphere. Would it harm the supposed consensus to ask “Who says so?” How do scientists know how much CO2 the atmosphere can take? And why don’t they ever mention the fact that the half-life of CO2 is very short – about ten years? The reason is that the same Hollywood-style scientists who wrote the script for ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ also write the script for all other fake scientific theories. Like the scammers they are, they won’t talk about actual science and the actual criminal fraud that underpins their fakery. They would rather legally bind us at Copenhagen.
The idea behind Copenhagen is to make sure we never, ever exceed the very dangerous, very noxious, very fictional amount of CO2 determined by a computer. That means the world can expect increasingly drastic laws and controls and ever increasing taxation, used to fight this sci-fi beast. The date to finalise the meeting was given in Bali, so everyone MUST comply, even in the wake of the CRU East Anglia University revelations.
Now, who on earth will persist with such wicked compliance when the basis for their claims is destroyed by a hacker? Only those with a hidden agenda! And that agenda has already been identified as Marxism and Fascism, coupled to heavy taxation and UN dictatorship. It is why the socialist BBC kept news of the hacking under wraps for six weeks, so that it would not hamper Copenhagen – otherwise something sensible might have happened, such as the Summit being cancelled until the revelations had been examined. This proves the Summit is fake.
The 2% Guess
Climate changers, even when their fakery has been established, continue to claim that any temperature change over 2% will have irreversible effects on the planet. That such temperature change would not be everywhere, and, anyway, would give enormous benefit to all plant and animal life, as well as to humans, is best left unsaid! That a change of 2% can be witnessed on any day, especially in summer, is also unsaid. That 2% is insignificant is unsaid.
And how do scientists know what the atmosphere can take anyway? They are crossing bridges of their own making, to come to a conclusion they especially want to be put before the public, so as to maintain their fakery and to give governments reasons to control us. That, friends, is what it is all about. Forget science – it is all about politics, money and power.
The ‘significance’ of a 2% increase in temperature is all in the minds of greenies, not in genuine science. If all their computers broke down today, they would not even notice a 2% change, so would not predict doom and gloom. They are like small children who are given paints and colouring books… they just scribble and put blobs on paper for the sake of it, the mess getting everywhere! They have no idea what they are doing, but they enjoy the process.
To base all our futures on a computer model is insane. It is thanks to these models (which are just electronic guesses) that we are told an increase of 2% would cause “an additional one billion people to suffer water shortages and most of the world’s corals will be bleached.” There is no proof whatever for this claim… just someone’s computer pushing out figures already put into it by the user!
Because of this absurdity, some island states are pressing for a reduction of 1.5 degrees. This is linked to supposed sea-level rises of huge proportion, as per Al Gore. But, Al Gore’s predictions (which are just those of someone’s computer) are fake! The UK court had a scientist to admit it was “impossible”. And islands who supposedly fled to New Zealand actually did not – it was all invented by Al Gore! If you want to believe that garbage about sea-levels rising fast and furiously, well, that’s up to you – but don’t tax and control everybody on the strength of fake figures!
No Doubt?
New Scientist (always highly biased anyway) goes on to say “There are no two ways about it: to have any chance of avoiding the disastrous consequences of exceeding our carbon budget, we must usher in a new era of low-carbon societies.”
Now, that is a claim that should be based on real science, but it isn’t. It is based on computers, not actuality. And it is based on the mad Marxism of a few. Ask all those genuine scientists who oppose it! But, of course, you can’t, because the media and greenies refuse to let them have their say. Copenhagen will not have speakers who oppose their socialist ideals, even if they tell the truth!
No two ways about it? Come off it! There are many ways, and one of them is to completely ditch the climate and CO2 models to begin with. These are the brainchild of greenies, not of science. So, why have them to begin with? Get rid of their ridiculous computer models and no-one will notice any difference in how the world works. That’s a fact!
Copenhagen will also determine how the fake science will force us all to change our ways. Leaders backed by their fakery will start to organise us into ever-increasing debt, as we build green technology that will be either useless or totally inadequate to replace fossil fuels. And overall, the sneaky UN will add its own massive tax and take control of food and distribution.
The Cost to Others Paid for By Us
It will cost each poor nation “hundreds of billions of dollars a year” to cut their CO2 emissions. At Copenhagen, leaders will agree on how much each richer nation will have to pay to finance this annual bill. And guess who pays it? No, not the politicians, who get their expenses paid by taxpayers, but by the ordinary folks like you and me. That is, by increasing taxation year by year.
The money goes to nebulous and useless CO2 schemes that make not a scrap of difference to anyone, but leave people in the West stony-broke… and this will please Obama, Brown and all socialists who want to see Marxism a reality worldwide. They remain rich whilst everyone else gets poorer by the day. Including the once-richer nations.
There is already talk of putting extra taxation on airline tickets and on ‘emissions permits’. The UK already taxes gas at the pumps and has a number of other secretive taxes in place, unknown to taxpayers, and some travel companies have the audacity not to sell tickets to people who will not pay a green surcharge!
Some countries are fighting this quota system of tax (Poland is an example), asking why they should pay through the nose to give money to other countries. My question is not about helping other countries – but about giving in the first place, when there is no scientific need to do so. Poorer countries will increase in wealth if they refuse to be involved in greenie subterfuge, but they will suffer greatly under UN brokership, just as Third Worlders are already suffering and dying because of existing EU green laws and demands.
Another ‘deal’ that is yet another tax, is for richer nations to buy ‘carbon offsets’ – another mythical solution to a mythical problem. (See my book chapter on this subject). Costa Rica is complaining that they have protected their forests, whilst huge amounts of money will be given to countries like Brazil, who deliberately allow deforestation. I just hope these fairer countries kick up a rumpus and stop the deal going ahead.
Because poorer nations do not have much electricity, richer nations will stump up $13 trillion to give to them! But, look harder – Africa, for example, is actively being stopped from using fossil fuels and from using electricity, by greenies!! Like everything green, it is farcical and based on a lie.
Meanwhile, green companies producing green solutions will receive high priority and funding, to manufacture technology nobody really wants and that will literally cost the earth.
Poorer nations are already fighting the ideas of Copenhagen, because they produce so much CO2 as part of their development plans. Even if they continue to do so, I doubt they will stop the avid Marxists who organise the Summit, whose will to succeed surpasses any sense and reality. They reject reality because they see Copenhagen as an opportunity to deceive the public around the world quickly, so that governments can impose all their socialist demands on witless people.
UN Meddling
The UN has been working since the end of the Second World War to gain control over all nations, and organised the Copenhagen Summit. The environmental scam is its best yet scheme to get such control without sending in its blue-lidded storm-troopers who love to create chaos and side with any and all Marxist trouble-makers.
The UN News Centre (19th Nov) predicted ‘success’ for the Summit, which tells us that both the agenda and outcome have already been decided, without proper discussion or national acceptance. It is dangerous to allow leaders to attend a Summit and to promise legal cooperation, without going back to their governments, who should then seek a referendum with their voters. It is the politics of iron-fisted socialism, not of freedom.
The presence of Obama is much needed to push the success into being, says the UN. This is because the USA is now reluctant to sign-up to emissions laws made by the UN, knowing it is not a crowd-pleaser. But, Obama is already in the pocket of the UN, so it is most likely he will attend, if only on a flying visit, probably saying he is too busy to stay long. At any rate the outcome will be a disaster for us all.
In the next twenty years – and I hope folks will remember it – all talk of emissions and greeny stuff will be almost forgotten. This is because, by then, the UN will have taken over most rulings and governments, and environmentalism will be relegated to its mythical place in history. After all, it will have done its damage by then, and the real aims will be put in place – worldwide rule by a Marxist regime.
Throughout its statements the UN predicates everything on its own IPCC and on IPCC ruled scientists, and not on truth and facts. It says the whole world knows climate change is dangerous… but this is only ‘known’ because the IPCC has said so! It is not a danger found in real science, and would not be believed if the IPCC and its cronies had not foisted it all on us in the first place.
Copenhagen, then, is a sign of the failure of the people to get rid of fake science. It is a sign of ignorance as to the real aims of the Summit – to bring in Marxism as a world force. It is a sign of politicians controlling the roost of battery-hen science.
Don’t clap for Copenhagen – pray against it, because if it is successful it will be the end of a normal and relatively sane world. The fools will take over and those with minds will never again find a voice.
Will You Resist?
For those who want to fight on – go to the two petitions below. Make sure you sign. Then get your spouse, girl/boyfriend, cousins, brothers and sisters, wider family, school friends, students, churches, local councillors… everyone, to sign. Do it fast, because the UN is moving even faster!
Also send details to every newspaper, radio and TV station you can find. Send to every politician in your country. Pin up details in libraries, on bus shelters, and in shops. Get it moving friends!
Cleaning out the climate science cesspool
The data manipulation and fraud stench is too strong to be ignored any longer
By Paul Driessen Monday, November 30, 2009
As frigid Copenhagen prepares for the upcoming Climate Armageddon confab, a predictable barrage of hothouse horrors has been unleashed, to advance proposals to slash hydrocarbon use and carbon dioxide emissions, restrict agriculture and economic growth, and implement global governance and taxation.
CO2 has reached a new high (0.0385% of the atmosphere), we’re told, because of cars and “coal-fired factories of death.” Rising seas are forcing families to “flee their homes.” Oceans are becoming “toxic.” Climate change is driving Philippine women into prostitution. Higher temperatures will “increase the likelihood of civil war in Sub-Saharan Africa” and “bring human civilization to a screeching halt.” The Associated Press, BBC and other “mainstream” media dutifully regurgitate every press release.
However, the planet and science are not cooperating with the fear-mongering. There has been no statistically significant global warming for over a decade, despite steadily increasing CO2 levels – and for several years average annual global temperatures have actually declined.
Carbon dioxide plays only a minor role, many scientists say, and our climate is still controlled by periodic variations in the same natural forces that caused previous climate changes: ocean currents and jet streams, water vapor and cloud cover, evaporation and precipitation, planetary alignments and the shape of the Earth’s orbit, the tilt and wobble of Earth’s axis, cosmic ray levels and especially solar energy output.
Worst of all, newly released emails from leading crisis-promoting scientists have exposed a cesspool of intimidation, duplicity and fraud that could rock Copenhagen and the alarmist agenda to their core. Their views, data and models are central to reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Kyoto Protocol and proposed successors, and US cap-tax-and-trade bills, polar bear “protection” schemes and EPA “endangerment” findings.
The ClimateGate emails reveal an unprecedented, systematic conspiracy
The ClimateGate emails reveal an unprecedented, systematic conspiracy to stifle discussion and debate, conceal and manipulate data, alter temperature trends that contradict predictions of dangerous warming, pervert the peer-review process, pressure scientific journals and the IPCC to publish alarmist studies and exclude dissenting analyses, and avoid compliance with Freedom of Information requests.
British Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones to Penn State climatologist Michael Mann, of Hockey Stick infamy: “Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report and Briffa’s suspect tree-ring data]. Keith will do likewise.”
Jones to Mann: “If they [Canadian researchers Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre] ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.” Jones subsequently “lost” all the original, raw temperature that had been entrusted to the CRU’s care.
(These actions appear intended to avoid Freedom of Information inquiries. Jones had previously told a researcher, “Why should I make the data available, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Drs. J&M, that’s the scientific method – to ensure that research and experiments are honest, accurate and replicable. Deleting files and data also raises serious ethical, scientific and legal issues.)
Jones: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth, lead author of two IPCC reports] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” (Thereby excluding non-alarmist peer-reviewed papers and skewing the IPCC process.)
Jones: “I’ve just completed Mike [Mann’s] trick of adding in the real temps to each series, to hide the decline [in average global temperatures] .…” (Maintain a warming trend, despite contrary evidence.)
Climate scientist Tom Wigley to Mann: “If you think [Yale Professor and Geophysical Research Letters editor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.” (The American Geophysical Union has likewise gotten into the censorship, intimidation, climate alarm and money train business.)
These are the very tip of the melting climate crisis iceberg. To gauge the scope, depth and depravity of the conspiracy, visit bishophill.squarespace.com, ClimateDepot.com and anelegantchaos.org
These supposed scientists built their careers and reputations on conjuring datasets, computer models, scenarios and reports – all claiming that modern civilization’s use of hydrocarbons is about to destroy the planet, and all financed by well over $100 billion in US, UK, EU and other taxpayer money.
Realist climate experts have long smelled a rat. The alarmists’ data didn’t match other data. Their models never worked. Their claims of “consensus” and “unprecedented” warming had no basis in fact. Too many grant and publication decisions were decided by which side of the issue someone was on.
Now, finally, the rat has been flushed from its sewer. Now, finally, honest elements of the “mainstream” media will no longer ignore or whitewash the scandal.
This bogus, biased “science” is being used to justify expensive, intrusive, repressive, abusive treaties, laws and regulations
The stakes are incredibly high. This bogus, biased “science” is being used to justify expensive, intrusive, repressive, abusive treaties, laws and regulations. The new rules would undermine economies, destroy jobs, close down companies and entire industries, impoverish families and communities, roll back personal freedoms and civil rights – and enrich the lucky few whose lobbyists and connections may enable them to corner markets for renewable energy technologies, carbon offsets and emissions trading.
For the most destitute people on the planet, the repercussions from this fraud are even higher. These people – 750 million in Africa alone – do not have electricity, cars, modern homes, jobs or hope for a better future. They die by the millions from malnutrition and lung, intestinal and insect-borne diseases that would be dramatically reduced with access to dependable, affordable energy.
But the alarmists’ bogus, biased “science” is being used to justify building a Climate Wall between these desperate people and the modern, energy-rich world. To justify perpetuating misery, disease and death.
Jones, Mann, Briffa, Trenberth, Wigley, IPCC chief Rajenda Pachauri, White House science advisor John Holdren, CRU scientist Tim Osborn, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researcher Ben Santer and others implicated in this growing scandal should do the honorable thing – and resign their posts. If they refuse, they should be put on paid administrative leave, until every aspect of this collusion and junk science scandal can be thoroughly investigated. Dismissal or other appropriate action should follow.
They should not be allowed to represent their governments or organizations in Copenhagen.
Institutions that received climate alarm grants should be disciplined and removed from future grant conduits, if they knew about these actions – or would have known, had they exercised due diligence.
The entire IPCC and peer review process must be repaired. The alarmists and self-appointed censors who have corrupted the system must be replaced with scientists who will ensure honest inquiry and a full airing of all data, hypotheses and perspectives on climate science, economics and policy.
Most importantly, the United States, Britain and all other responsible nations should slam the brakes on every proposed “climate crisis” treaty, agreement, bill, regulatory proposal, “endangerment” finding, and endangered species action – until we get to the bottom of this scandal, and determine which data and claims are honest and accurate, which are bogus, fraudulent and unfounded. President Obama should cancel his trip to Copenhagen, his plans to lobby for a new climate treaty, and his intention to commit the US to slashing its carbon dioxide emissions to a job-killing 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.
It is time to clean out the climate cesspool, and bring integrity, transparency and accountability back to science, law, government, universities and public policy.
The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate
Tentacles of Climategate will reach far as information is divulged
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, November 30, 2009
Liberal is an anagram of braille. Appropriate because they appear unable to see or read about the climate science scandals.—Tim Ball
The Public and Mainstream Media Still Don’t Grasp the Implications.
Tentacles of Climategate will reach far as information is divulged. People will rush to get on or off the bandwagon depending on their involvement. As a first hand observer, I must outline the history, identify the people involved and provide context.
The “Ad Hoc Committee Report on the ‘Hockey Stick’ Global Climate Reconstruction commonly known as The Wegman Report said, “Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99 (The infamous hockey stick paper). As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.” Wegman identified most of the people involved with the leaked information from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) – “climategate”. They are still reinforcing each other and refuse to acknowledge the severity of their actions. Mainstream media helps by downplaying the significance or deliberately closing their eyes. It’s deeply disturbing to learn scientists have deliberately twisted science for social and political ends. I watched it happen, now I can set out the history and identify those involved.
Cabal; A Secret Political Clique or Faction
As recently as June 19th 2009, they gathered and reinforced each other at a Symposium to honor (?) Tom Wigley.
In a measure of bureaucratic involvement Univeristy Corporation of Atmospheric Research (UCAR) President Rick Anthes’ opening slide ridiculed McIntyre and McKitrick who broke the hockey stick. “The reply, by Wigley and Jones, is a monument of obfuscation, irrelevance and spite.” (Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick October 2, 2005). This was followed by a quote that said, “This doesn’t sound like the Tom Wigley we know and love…What’s going on here.” Well, Mr. Anthes the avuncular Wigley fooled most of the world. I know. I watched him.
I’ve written about poor climate science and political machinations. Now disclosure of the scientists involved at the CRU and beyond allows me to describe who and how they did it with the support of Maurice Strong. He established the political framework through formation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These scientists provided the science through the IPCC. Strong took their claims to the green movements through the 1992 Rio Conference. Strong’s powerful connections in Canada were apparently used to involve Environment Canada (EC) in development of the IPCC and CRU connections. These bureaucrats drew in other government agencies who easily convinced politicians desperate to appear green. Gordon McBean, Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) at EC, chaired the 1985 Villach Austria meeting when formation of the IPCC was planned. Here are the two major players in the CRU scandal, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, in Villach in a series shown at Wigley’s career Symposium.
Figure 1: Phil Jones, Current Director of the CRU and Tom Wigley the power behind the scenes.

Wigley Takes Control of CRU
While doing my doctoral thesis, I went to CRU for a meeting with the founder Hubert Lamb, justifiably considered the father of modern climatology. These events would mortify him because his diligence and integrity were beyond reproach.
Figure 2: Wigley and H.H.Lamb, founder of the CRU.

Lamb worked every day almost to the end, but the real power was emerging in the person of Tom Wigley (Figure 2). Lamb knew what was going on because he cryptically writes in his autobiography, “Through all the Changing Scenes of Life: A Meteorologists Tale” how a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation came to grief because of, “…an understandable difference of scientific judgment between me and the scientist, Dr. Tom Wigley, whom we have appointed to take charge of the research.”
Wigley is the grandfather figure and in control throughout as the emails illustrate. They seek his advice as in this email, which ends, “I hope these very hasty ramblings are helpful” The originator was seeking ideas for a National Academy of Sciences plan.
Other comments are more direct and frightening. Bishop Hill summarizes, “Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too.”
In another push to have someone removed Wigley supports Michael Mann’s attack on the journal editor of Geophysical Review Letters (GRL) who published McIntyre’s 2005 paper. Again Hill’s summary, “Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted.) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]” This quote illustrates the problem for the public. Unless you understand the science and the events the comments make little sense. Apart from comments like how to avoid Freedom of Information (FOI) requests it is easy to divert attention.
A Channel 4 (UK) documentary released in 1990 titled “The Greenhouse Conspiracy” is relevant today.
PBS refused to show it arguing it was biased. I saw a pirated version with senior management of a public utility who wanted explanation and commentary.
Figure 3: No wonder Prince Charles says we have 100 months left, he has a ‘reliable’ source.

Wigley’s appearance explains why CRU and National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) were indebted. In response to a question about the research, he coyly says he has many research students to fund. This attitude, that the end justifies the means, pervades his commentary in the exposed emails. He’s the intellectual force but more important the bagman as this photo from the Symposium implies.
The IPCC Connection
Figure 4: Jones, Santer and Wigley at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Wigley is prominent in the IPCC from the start. Graduate students are prominent names in the emails and the IPCC. Phil Jones is the focus as current Director of the CRU, but as Figure 1 shows he was alongside Wigley from the start. Another prominent CRU graduate is Benjamin Santer seen here with Jones and Wigley.
Figure 5: Major players in early and later days of the IPCC.

Santer was lead author of Chapter 8 for the 1995 IPCC Report and involved in the first major controversy. He altered contents of the Chapter so it agreed with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) without consent of other authors. The emails show how the Reports similarly achieved political not scientific objectives.
Figure 6: Critical players in CRU and IPCC

Of course, IPCC rules were carefully written to achieve this end.
The people in the picture are connected with East Anglia or the IPCC. In another photo (Figure 6) they are unsure of source or time but it puts Wigley and Jones together early with leading figures like Syukoru Manabe, whose computer model was the basis of the IPCC models, and Bert Bolin first chairman of the IPCC (now deceased).
All the people in the emails are listed in the various author lists of each of the IPCC Reports. For example, the 2007 list includes these names Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Tom Karl, Keith Briffa, Jonathan Overpeck, Andrew Weaver, Martin Parry among others.
Naturally, they are responding in feeble and predictable ways. For example UCAR President Rick Anthes said, “E-mails, by their nature, are quickly and sometimes thoughtlessly written and therefore open to misinterpretation and misrepresentation,” he said. “It’s unfortunate that this illegal hacking and invasion of privacy has generated such headlines and bad will. It doesn’t alter the fundamental scientific fact that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are changing our climate.”
So it’s the hacker’s fault; a common theme from Jones and others. Ignore the fact Anthes’ statement is completely wrong and a circular argument based on the false information of CRU and IPCC. They all claim the comments are out of context. Wigley picks a devastating email to say, “This e-mail was directed to Phil Jones only, and Phil knew exactly what I was talking about,” So do I, Tom! “It does not at all refer to making some arbitrary correction to existing data in order to make such data fit some preconceived ideas about global warming.” Yes it does. Wigley knows that most people including the mainstream media will not understand and liberals won’t want to see. They’ve used this lack of understanding all along.
Government Funding Enlarges the Monster
Political exploitation will delay condemnation. Business and political opportunities created by CRU and IPCC, both heavily funded by government, will not yield easily. I spoke with five farm groups in Alberta recently and at one a company selling carbon credits gave a presentation. The person involved said he didn’t care about or even want to discuss the science. He saw a business opportunity. Farmers saw income. I told them the cost of carbon strategies would put money in their left pockets by taking a greater amount out of their right pockets. Sadly, I’ve known all along it’s based on false and falsified science. Now the world knows.
Climate – Still Not Getting It!
Copenhagen Propaganda Still Winning
By Barry Napier Monday, November 30, 2009
I watch the news and comments about climate claims and The Copenhagen Summit with increasing frustration. Despite the recent email revelations and growing numbers of scientists who are defecting to the good side, people are still not getting it!
The climate scandal is not about arrogant scientists who want to influence fellow scientists with stupidity and crass bad science (which is never successful because their colleagues aren’t stupid). It is about politicians who are using what they say to change the world without our consent.
The BBC refused to make the email scandal public, because it is just a government puppet. It is overrun by PC environmentalist editors, producers and writers. It actually believes what that great showman and rusty anthropologist, David Attenborough, says in his glossy programmes, but they get rid of loftier scientists who are real, working experts, such as David Bellamy, because they express doubts about global warming. No scientific process for the BBC – it gets in the way of a jolly good fictional series! And the BBC continues to up the pressure by putting out even more pro-climate argument programmes. This is called blowing out a smoke-screen. Or, lying your head off. Or, being utterly deceitful using public money. Or, being scientific scammers. (Add any other titles you wish to use. I’m sure there are hundreds).
Petition Failure
Very recently I tried on four occasions to get a petition going on the official 10 Downing Street website, demanding (not requesting) an immediate stop to everything it is doing based on false science. Of course, it got nowhere… each one was rejected on grounds that it ‘might be wrong or libellous’! Eh? It is okay for the government to get it wrong and libellous, and to spread blatant propaganda, but not for a member of the public to even raise a question about its infallibility.
The real reason the petitions were rejected was that they came far too close to the Copenhagen Summit! The government doesn’t want anyone rocking the boat on the eve it wishes to commit another act of treason. Not only did Gordon Brown sign Britain into the clutches of the EU without the nation’s consent, but he is also to attend the summit to again sign us over to another foreign power – this time the UN. By any country’s law, this is outright treason. Obama will do the same thing – and that, too, is treason. But, everyone seems to think it is okay. By ‘everyone’ I mean all those who are allowed to speak by government. Those who dissent are silenced or simply ignored.
Bad science should just be shown up for what it is, by scientists. And that is the proper way to deal with it. But, when scientists themselves cook the books and prevent others from finding out the truth, that hikes up the seriousness of it by a hundred notches.
The problem is not that scientists behave badly (because science is rife with these intellectual ruffians), but that they get politicians to do the same. Once they do that, and politicians force everyone to obey… that is the main point… and it hikes the seriousness by a thousand more notches.
I don’t really care if some scientists act stupidly. When they do, they bring ridicule upon themselves, damaging their own reputations and making a mess of their intellectual prowess. What I care about is when bad, and often fraudulent, science, is used against the people. I have already detailed the results of this kind of socialistic propaganda, and it is frightening.
Just look at information passed off as news in the last few days:
Dr Mark Penning, president of WAZA, a global network of zoos, said that ‘thousands of species of animals face extinction if the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not reduced.’ This is all window dressing for Copenhagen, to help force leaders into the CO2 quagmire.
Similar messages are being issued constantly in the short time before the Summit comes to its inevitably horrendous conclusions. But, the hacked emails and the views of ‘other’ scientists are kept away from public view! This illustrates my main point. Whoever you are, you should be very concerned. Even if you think you are a socialist, bear in mind that once Marxism takes hold, even you will be downtrodden as a mere bit of dirt under the hobnailed boots of our totalitarian leaders.
The theory behind this world-zoo claim is one that has already been debunked by genuine scientists, but is still used by greenies. They can get away with it because the media won’t allow dissent, and neither will governments. The zoos say if CO2 continues to rise, it will also cause temperature to rise. That’s why I am frustrated! How can people in zoos tell the world that species in the wild will die if CO2 rises? It is impossible!
How can a man in charge of a zoo organisation know anything about climate science? They can only get their views from bad science. So, why listen to the zoos? I am not against people in a variety of disciplines making their point known, but not when that point is merely a repeat of debunked and false science. Otherwise, others of intelligence are quite free to speak as they wish. The problem arises when they pass this off as genuine, and when what they say affects my freedom.
Paul Pearce-Kelly, a senior curator at London Zoo, makes similar claims to those made by WAZA. I do not wish to disparage the man, but when comments like his are used to strong-arm people like me into paying huge taxes and be made a slave to the UN, I am not amused. What does a curator at a zoo know about climatology? Nothing. By all means hold your view as an opinion – but don’t present it as expert knowledge, when even climatologists are faking it. Even though my own articles are strongly worded, I must rely on genuine climatologists for my information, though I can see the errors of science-logic myself. Especially when true science shows that temperature change precedes a rise in CO2 by hundreds of years. Get my drift?
The biggest threat to animal species is not climate or CO2, but the activities of hunters, tree-fellers and mighty eco-fuel conglomerates. They are removing trees and habitats for the sake of money. So, don’t blame CO2, and don’t blame humans for ‘damage’ supposedly caused by the CO2 increase. ‘Other’ science says something different. If even climatologists get it wrong, there is no valid reason to rush ahead and force a socialist conclusion to the coming Summit.
Hey! You’ve Been Debunked!
In genuine science, conclusions come after a long period of scientific study and falsification, etc. But, say our greeny deceivers, if we wait until that happens, “it will be too late.” Eh? Please, don’t insult our intelligence. What you are saying is that you have not yet proved your case, and almost every claim made by greeny science has been debunked, yet you still want to hurry up, disregard proper means of investigation and peer examination, and load the world with a financial and social burden it cannot bear? Just in case? In case of what? That the deceptions already discovered might be further debunked and treated with the contempt they deserve? Until you go through the scientific process, and stop getting our backs up, you will not gain our approval or even the faintest whiff of credibility.
Cut Finger Made Into a Disaster
Let me put it this way. Imagine you cut your finger on a sheet of paper. Ouch, that hurts! Now, you go to your first-aider to get a band-aid. But, he goes into a panic and runs you to his vehicle after shouting urgently to the boss. He races through traffic, causing multiple pile-ups, until he gets you to the hospital. Your cut has by now stopped hurting and there is no blood. But, the emergency doctor looks and panics. He calls the Registrar, who also panics. He calls the consultant, who panics, and calls a surgical specialist, before he shuts down the clinic and makes it an isolation-zone just in case you have Ebola, putting the entire city on standby. “Sorry, but your arm has to come off, because I fear gangrene will set in”. Before too long you are hauled into a side room and prepared for surgery. Your arm is removed and you are at last safe from the danger.
But wait.
Do you think that perhaps it was all a bit over the top? If a medical man looked at the above scenario he would laugh out loud and say that a paper cut only needs the initial “ouch!” and nothing else. And he would be right. But, one idiot met another idiot, and all along the line each idiot generated another idiot. Before too long, huge numbers of them coincide their conclusions based on panic and false medical processes, not because there is any validity in what they say or do, but because a lot of them say the same thing! Now that, friends, is what greeny science is like. It takes a paper cut that will heal in minutes into the realm of make-believe, radical surgery and a city shut-down.
The Ignorant Leading the Ignorant
One of those radicals is Ed Miliband, the UK’s Energy and Climate Change Secretary. He is in the chain of panic. He says that world leaders must “unite and reach a workable deal on climate change ahead of crunch talks in Copenhagen…” Note that? ‘Ahead’ of the Summit. Forget due process (again) and just forge ahead, making private deals away from the public eye. And that deal would subscribe everyone in the world to higher taxation, etc., etc., etc.
This comes from a member of the same government whose MPs stole and deceived to get massive financial expenses. Politicians don’t do anything unless their own interests are served first. If this somehow coincides with what the voters want, then that’s a bonus, but not required. If a politician reads this and says he is not like that – then prove it and make a public stand against what’s happening. Otherwise, well, carry on pretending.
The aim is to get the deal done fast, so that no more embarrassing revelations can be found beforehand. Not that it has made any difference thus far. For all those who think Copenhagen is a great idea, just re-read the illustration of the paper cut. If our leaders get their way, what they sign up to will be irreversible. It will lock us all into a continual cycle of paying heavily in every way possible. The only ones to benefit will be politicians. Once the greenies have fulfilled their role, they will be ditched. And then folk will run around asking ‘Why? Why? How did this happen?’ Yeah, right.
Miliband even had the gall to say that “Copenhagen must succeed, but it will take maximum pressure from politicians and public alike.” Hang on! In a previous article I showed that under half of the people in the UK believe there is a climate problem to begin with. Even fewer (possibly none) want government to drag them kicking and screaming into a binding worldwide agreement! So, where does this “and public alike” arise from? Miliband already knows how many people do not believe in his harebrained schemes. So, how can he add those same unbelievers to his merry band of destroyers?
Called ‘Fascist’ Because it is
Think you know your history? Then you will recognise that this is how Hitler came to power. Even in the USA today, thugs are roughing-up dissenters to Obama’s wicked healthcare scheme. In his early days, Hitler intimidated the population, fouling the air with socialist propaganda, and silencing any opposition. That is where we are at right now.
Then came the real stuff, the stuff he always wanted to do. Violence became the norm. And did you know that Hitler’s rise to power from the 1920s was due extensively to the support of Jews? You probably didn’t know that. Hitler was quite happy to use their money and votes until he got into real power. Then he threw away all superficiality and what he did to the Jews is now, well… history. Beware, all you greenies, who know as much about green science as the German Jews knew about Hitler’s real aims. Follow the Grim Reaper and his scythe will mow you down. Dramatic? Yes, because that is what will happen.
We are seeing the grim reality of Fascism growing fanatically in the West. Obama is nobody. He had no political experience, and yet he somehow became a (p)resident. He is using Fascist techniques to bring about Marxist objectives, by removing all dissent.
If a publication such as Canada Free Press can allow other views (see ads for climate change movements), why can’t Obama and friends? They can’t because freedom means they will be found out. Those who fear truth will always stop freedoms.
Europeans already acknowledge that the EU is Fascist. Everything the EU does is Fascist. Yet, voters were complacent until it was all too late. The people don’t matter, nor does real science. You can still fight Copenhagen. Just voice your concerns and opposition in as many ways as you can. And please sign the two petitions attached to my last article on Copenhagen.
‘The Global Green Agenda’, Barry Napier. Published, Petra Press, 2009.
Attention Lawyers! Make Millions Off Of Climategate Crooks!
Suing Al Gore for making fraudulent claims, Arresting Al Gore
By Jim O'Neill Monday, November 30, 2009
“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” —Thomas Jefferson (1743—1826)
“What we are faced with is a tyranny, world wide, over the mind and body of man, and it is the duty of every red blooded United States citizen to oppose with every fiber of his being what is being done…by this Administration to try and sign away your Constitution at Copenhagen.” —Lord Christopher Monckton November 28, 2009
“There’s gold in them thar hills!” Lawyers need to get off their butts, and realize what a financial bonanza the Climategate criminal scam represents. The possibilities for financial remuneration are mind boggling.
For patriotic conservative lawyers, this should be a “no brainer.” But even ambulance chasing weasels, who care about nothing but money, should be clamoring to get on the bandwagon.
The possibilities for them to make money out of Climategate, are almost endless—as is the amount of money the public has been defrauded of, and continues to be robbed of.
“Global warming” scam, Criminal intent to defraud the public of massive amounts of money, advance an ideological agenda
It is now clear that the entire CO2/global-warming scam has been one Big Lie; a lie that continues to bilk people out of billions, possibly trillions, of dollars. There is no reason to put litigation off any longer.
Co-founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, had the right idea last year, when he suggested suing Al Gore for making fraudulent claims. But the proof to back up such a suit, was obscure and scattered. Such is no longer the case.
The leaked documents from the East Anglian CRU (Climatic Research Unit ) have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the “global warming” scam was perpetrated with criminal intent to defraud the public of massive amounts of money, advance an ideological agenda, and make the criminals involved, quite wealthy. All at our expense.
Idiots, crooks, and criminals
There are only around two dozen individuals directly involved in the criminal fraud committed by the climatology “scientists.” These people, or as Lord Monckton calls them—idiots, crooks, and criminals—should be tried in an international court, for crimes against humanity.
These people are already responsible for the deaths of millions of people, world-wide.
The Left has always been enamored with population control, whether it be the slow, deliberate genocide of Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood, or the starving of millions, by turning America’s “breadbasket” into an “eco-friendly” wilderness.
I strongly urge you to watch the interview that Alex Jones had with Lord Monckton on November 27, in order to understand just how evil, and amoral, these individuals are.
Aside from the duplicitous “scientists,” there are also those who, like Al Gore, have swindled the world through the use of lies, misleading statements, and scientific falsifications.
Their insistent, loud, hysteric calls for CO2 reduction—or else—have resulted in the implementation of laws that have bilked taxpayers, corporations, and entire countries, out of billions of dollars.
There is money to be made in bringing these individuals to justice. Lawyers who undertake to right these wrongs, not only stand to make a lot of money, but they will also have the extra cache of being on the side of the underdog, the oppressed, the mistreated and fleeced.
“We the people” are the underdog, the oppressed, the mistreated and fleeced. It is time to demand our “pound of flesh” from these tyrants hiding behind the mask of environmentalism.
CO2 is not a danger, and it never has been. All this “toxic greenhouse gas” nonsense is a load of rubbish.
Scientists are familiar with the “Cambrian Explosion”—a period in the earth’s distant past when, in a relatively brief period of time, new forms of life burst into being around the globe. During the “Cambrian Explosion,” CO2 levels were approximately 20 times higher than they are today.
That hardly qualifies CO2 as some sort of life threatening toxin—or a “man made” toxic gas, for that matter.
At periods in the earth’s past, CO2 levels have been up to 10,000 times higher than they are today! I’m not saying that such extreme levels are healthy. I’m just pointing out that the auto industry, for example, most assuredly had nothing to do with the extreme levels of CO2, millions of years ago. When Mother Nature feels like it, she can leave one huge carbon footprint.
Renowned geologist, Leighton Steward, points out that US Navy submarines don’t consider CO2 levels to be dangerous until the atmosphere reaches a level of 8,000 parts per million of CO2. The atmosphere on earth, currently contains about 338 parts per million of CO2. That’s a looong way from being alarming.
So why are all the Chicken Littles running around screaming about an imminent, catastrophe, and horrific consequences unless we stop CO2 emissions NOW, RIGHT NOW, OH PLEASE GOD STOP IT NOW, BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!
Well, because they know that the public is starting to wise up to the con. They know that if they don’t push through legislation now, while many people are still befuddled by the ruse, and the media is still largely in their pocket—then they will have lost their “window of opportunity.”
An opportunity for what? An opportunity to destroy America as a threat to one world government. An opportunity to force humanity to do the bidding of a Global Elite, at the helm of a repressive planetary regime.
An opportunity that these narcissistic, arrogant, greedy misanthropes don’t intend to let slip by.
So it’s time for conservative, patriotic lawyers to step up to the plate. Now is the time—we may not get another chance. As Lord Monckton recently said, “we are in the last few seconds before freedom dies.”
Lord Monckton, a former science advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, has been fighting the good fight against global warming’s “financial fraud, and international racketeering,” for a number of years. He knows what he’s talking about.
We would be wise to listen to him.
“We the people have now got to rise up, world wide, found a party in every country, that stands for freedom, and make sure that we fight this communistic, bureaucratic, world government monster, to a standstill. They shall not pass!”
Laus Deo.
Kahn, Alexander, Attila, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin
How long will it take to herd the entire human race into the corral of world-wide enslavement?
By Ron Ewart Sunday, November 29, 2009
Who next will set out to conquer the world? Who will follow in the footsteps of the great conquerors of all time? How long will it take to herd the entire human race into the corral of world-wide enslavement? What name will we call this new-world country created thereby?
What weapons will this new conqueror use to subjugate and unify by force or other means, the peoples of the world under the brutal hand of an all-powerful, dominant King ..... or is it a bunch of bankers? What!!!!!!!!? Not man-caused global warming! It couldn’t be. The people of the world aren’t that dumb ..... or are they? Who was it that said: “If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the perception of truth in the general population”.
Now with the heavy hand of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) hanging over a potential conqueror’s head, military might, in and of itself, cannot conquer the peoples of the world, so the weapons of mass destruction can be ruled out of the equation, unless purposely executed by terrorists to start a world war.
Perhaps there is a weapon that has nothing to do with military might or weapons of mass destruction. Way back in the middle 18 hundreds, one of the early Rothschild’s (a banker) said this: “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” The Rothschild’s, Rockefeller’s, the Morgan’s and other money elites and power brokers, led us into the U. S. Federal Reserve that isn’t Federal and isn’t a reserve and established the IRS with the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913. They already control our Nation’s money supply and the taxes to “feed” it. Could our laws be meaningless as an early Rothschild quipped?
But if money was the weapon to conquer the world, the people would be suspicious, as they are today and that is why over 300 U. S. Congressmen and women have called for an audit of the Federal Reserve. So money by itself can’t be the weapon to conquer the world, unless it was combined with something else ..... something intangible, something ethereal, something that would “touch” the emotional hearts and minds of an ignorant populace, or “trigger” their collective guilty conscience. It would have to be something that “tugs” at the very core of irrational compassion, like saving the planet, or maybe even protecting the cute little polar bears ..... those white, furry creatures that would rip your heart out with one paw and eat it in front of you, that just happened to be the largest land carnivore on Planet Earth. One might ask, why do they need saving in the first place?
Still, why would polar bears need protecting? Aren’t we told that their total population is increasing? (That doesn’t matter to the lead spokesman for global warming, Al Gore.) But let’s say we could gin up a crisis, you know, like man-caused global warming that is melting the ice upon which the cute little polar bear requires to survive. And let’s just say we could alter the data to make it appear that CO2 (a so-called greenhouse gas, but a compound upon which all life on Earth depends) is growing rapidly in the atmosphere and man is the direct cause of the increase and the increase is causing the unprecedented crisis of global warming. Oh my God, we’re doomed if we don’t act now!
Now, let’s add to the mix a way to save the planet (and the polar bear) from the scourge of man-generated CO2, by limiting the amount of CO2 the human population can emit by a complex scheme of caps and trades and the government gets to set the emission standards for all of the emitters ..... cows and horses excluded of course. The government also gets to be the broker for caps and trades. Just think of the money that government will rake in under Cap and Trade (or is it “cap and tax”?).
The plan almost worked, didn’t it? Those all-wise scientific and political folks in the UN (IPCC) and Europe almost had us convinced they were right and the debate was over. To take the heat off, they even changed the name from global warming to climate change. Countries of the world were (and probably still are) headed for a world treaty on CO2 emission limits in Copenhagen, Denmark this December.
Even with all the hype, many skeptics tried to open the debate but it was quickly shut by the corrupt perpetrators who had an elaborate plan to conquer the world using the heart-wrenching theme of “saving the planet from man” and a diabolical scheme to transfer the wealth (money) from the wealthy nations of the world and re-distribute it to the poorer nations .... or is it into the bank accounts of the money changers and the power brokers who had set out to conquer the peoples of the Earth using money and man-caused global warming as their weapons of choice, making high-paid pawns of scientists who were willing to exchange their honor and integrity for a few pieces of silver?
All was going well until the proverbial cat was let out of the bag by the clandestine release of a whole bunch of documents and e-mails from one of the “academic leaders” in so-called scientifically-proved, man-caused global warming, that finally exposed the scheme for what it was. Now the whole world knows that the science was totally contrived, bogus and “cooked” for a fair-the-well.
The “enlightened one”, the Obama, the great orator, is planning to attend Copenhagen in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence refuting man-caused global warming and in spite of the new evidence that was just released, exposing the perpetrators of a massive global conspiracy.
But in the end, only one country stands in the way of world domination by the money changers and the power brokers who are using “money” and “man-caused global warming” to subjugate the entire human species and transfer the West’s wealth in and to a one-world government. It is the free peoples in a free and sovereign America who will trample the “money” and “global warming” weapons of a shadowy elite, out to conquer the world ..... without a shot being fired. It is wise Americans who have seen through the global warming smoke screen of propaganda, hype, distortions and lies, emitted by a corrupt government and an even more corrupt fourth estate. It is the people of America, once again, that will lead the world towards freedom, instead of the bottomless pit of abject socialism and the mind-numbing slavery that socialism brings, under a looming one world government.
An Inconvenient Truth
By Geoff Metcalf
November 29, 2009
"One of the common failings among honorable people is a failure to appreciate how thoroughly dishonorable some other people can be, and how dangerous it is to trust them." -- Thomas Sowell
The brouhaha over the recent epiphany regarding junk science and climate change duplicity is a big deal.
Science is ‘supposed’ to be all about facts, evidence and proof. The scientific method that kids are taught at an early age is explained as “A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data.” It is not ‘supposed’ to be a sporting event of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ or team competition.
Reportedly, computer hackers obtained some 160 megabytes of emails from the Climate Research Unit a University in England. The e-mails were exchanges between researchers and policy advocates who shared a similar gospel according to them. Shockingly, authorities were discussing the “destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims”. HELL-0!?!?
Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, exchanges about “the trick of adding in the real temps to each series…to hid the decline (in temperature),” is way egregious. Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit and professor Michael E. Mann at Penn State are now tap dancing.
Mann, in an effort to defend the indefensible, told the New York Times, “scientists often use the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem ‘and not something secret.’ Yeah…right!
There is a boatload of damning evidence about concealing information that does not coincide with the gospel according to Al Gore.
Jones went so far as to encourage Mann to delete e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s controversial assessment report.
The rats are scrambling big-time. Jones told Mann, Professor Malcolm Hughes at University of Arizona and Professor Raymond Bradley of UMass/Amherst, “I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!” Too late pal!
Another co-conspirator at CRU, Professor Tim Osborn, was told by Mann to hide data because it supports critics of global warming.
Hackers are reprehensible criminals. However, their sins pale in comparison to the intentional deceit of lofty academics conspiring to delete data that does not conform to their fantasy hypothesis. Although we only know of the CRU emails and don’t know what we don’t know about the broader conspiracy, we do know that facts, evidence, and documentation that contradicts the global warming theocracy have intentionally been destroyed, alerted and massaged.
This scandal is scientific fraud of epic proportions.
• Conspiracy
• Collusion
• Illegal destruction of embarrassing data
• Organized resistance to disclosure
• Manipulation of data
• Private acknowledgment of flaws
I’ve been grousing about global warming for over a decade. Last year I was debating the issue with a professor from the University of North Carolina and quoted an interview I had done years ago with Dr. Fred Singer. It was a long interview and rich in data that debunked the gospel according to Al. The professor’s refutation consisted of blowing off Singer and “one of those”.
Talk about those who don’t want to be confused with facts that contradict a preconceived opinion and prejudice, there it is.
I told Dr.Singer “I’m getting the feeling they can manipulate data to get the results they want? He replied, “I don't think they quite do that.” Now we learn, gosh-oh-gee-golly, that is EXACTLY what they have been doing.
The CRU goat rope reveals a long series of communications covering “how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.”
CRU’s researchers have been exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that “global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millennium.” CRU also, “in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community, conspired for years, withholding data from researchers that did not conform to their agenda.
One of the most rabid propagandists of the global warming theocracy is George Monbiot. Even he, albeit begrudgingly, concedes he should have been more skeptical. Even he now admits the science needs to be rechecked and fully vetted.
“It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.”
Monbiot, to his credit, notes that “skepticism is the essential disposition of our craft”. He concludes that “the opposite of skeptical is gullible.
Skepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of skeptical is gullible.”
Someone Please Slay the Climate Change Turkey
Leftist politicians like Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, and Barack Obama need to be held accountable for their alarmist rants and raves
By John Lillpop Saturday, November 28, 2009
With the exception of several million unlucky turkeys and Tiger Woods, most Americans have a reasonable shot at escaping the Thanksgiving holiday unscathed and not all that worse for the experience.
Tiger will probably be OK as well, eventually, although he will need to explain where the hell he was headed at 2:25 in the morning in his spiffy Cadillac Escalade.
Hint: Given your billion dollar fortune, claiming to be in a hurry to beat the crowds at a Black Friday sale simply will not be credible.
Mrs. Woods, also known as Elin Nordegren, will need to explain a few things as well such as how it was that she mistook Tiger’s head for a driving tee in the wee-wee hours. The Florida Highway Patrol needs to explain why Ms. Nordegren was not handcuffed and carted off to jail for her violent assault on the world’s greatest ever golfer.
Before America moves on to the full-blown Christmas season, there is one remaining piece of business from Thanksgiving that must be seen to: That grotesque turkey known as Climate Change must be killed and disposed of once and for all.
Thanks to the efforts of Dr. Tim Ball, frequent contributor to CFP, and other honorable scientists, the myth of climate change has been exposed for the fraudulent hot air that it really is.
Leftist politicians like Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, and Barack Obama need to be held accountable for their alarmist rants and raves which have unnecessarily panicked millions of folks into passive acceptance of junk science as a New Age cult religion.
The whole sordid mess needs to be investigated with those found guilty subjected to severe punishment.
Al Gore must be ordered to refund the proceeds from his “An Inconvenient Truth” flick and his book sales, and fitted for an EXTRA EXTRA large orange jumpsuit for his retirement while in federal custody.
Barbara Boxer should be appointed Governor of California, a punishment bordering on “cruel and unusual,” given the mess created by liberals there.
And what about Barack Obama?
The president should proceed to Copenhagen as planned, but he should add a stop in Oslo, Norway in order to return that flaky Nobel Peace prize.
With 34,000 additional American troops headed to Afghanistan at his behest, Obama’s Nobel Prize is nearly as much a hoax as the Climate Change turkey!
The Gigantean jackass narrowly escapes
Global Warming just like Al Gore, is a monumental hoax
By Aaron Cantor Saturday, November 28, 2009
Back on 20th October I wrote a column about Al Gore and his financial shenanigans (using our bailout money) with a Finnish automaker.
After just reading an e-mail from W.G.E.N. to Jackie Juntti, I can barely write this as my stomach hurts and my eyes are all teary with laughter. The subject is our old friend Al Gore.
Headline: Gore Flees in Panic from Chicago Book Signing!
Gore was confronted by a group of demonstrators from a grass roots group called “We Are Change” while appearing in a downtown Loop area bookstore to sign his latest load of manure on global warming (he calls it a book, I have another name for it), however we must maintain a modicum of civility.
Every time I picture in my mind that fat momzer running down the alley and jumping into a waiting car to get away from a crowd of angry demonstrators chasing after him and pounding on the car I break into almost uncontrollable laughter, it couldn’t happen to a nicer liar (oops I meant guy).
Organizers from another group who happened to be on the scene, provided the eye witness account of events.
The recent revelations about the “smoking gun” e-mails from East Anglia University global warming BS center have hopefully caused chubby Al to lose a little sleep, not to mention possibly putting a little fear or panic in his gut when it comes to appearing in public. Hey Al, do you think you might need to hire some muscle?
People all over the world are waking up to your line of bull
I harken back to October when the Irish reporter shot down your clever little segue of refusing to answer the question about the ruling by a British judge concerning the nine blatant mis-statements of fact in your documentary (kind of makes your Oscar and your Nobel prize rather hollow doesn’t it?), you remember when you switched to Polar Bears being endangered and the young Irishman came back with “how can they be endangered when their numbers are increasing” and one of your stooges cut off the microphone.
The point is, people all over the world are waking up to your line of bull and you are not going to be able to get away with it any more.
Lets’ face it Al, you have, by your own words and actions, reduced yourself to a sad caricature and a sick joke all rolled up into one.
I can only come to one conclusion, the inconvenient truth is, Global Warming just like Al Gore, is a monumental hoax.
Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama's Cap and Trade laws
By Gerald Warner
November 26th, 2009
Just a few considerations in addition to previous remarks about the explosion of the East Anglia Climategate e-mails in America. The reaction is growing exponentially there. Fox News, Barack Obama’s Nemesis, is now on the case, trampling all over Al Gore’s organic vegetable patch and breaking the White House windows. It has extracted some of the juiciest quotes from the e-mails and displayed them on-screen, with commentaries. Joe Public, coast-to-coast, now knows, thanks to the clowns at East Anglia’s CRU, just how royally he has been screwed.
Senator James Inhofe’s Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has written to all the relevant US Government agencies, acquainting them with the nature of the e-mails. But the real car crash for Obama is on Capitol Hill where it is now confidently believed his Cap and Trade climate legislation is toast. It was always problematic; but with a growing awakening to the scale of the scientific imposture sweeping the world, as far as the Antipodes, the clever money is on Cap and Trade laws failing to pass, with many legislators sceptical and the mid-term elections looming ever closer.
At the more domestic level, the proposed ban on incandescent light bulbs, so supinely accepted in this servile state of Britain, is now provoking a huge backlash in America. US citizens do not like the government coming into their houses and putting their lights out. Voters may not understand the cut and thrust of climate debate at the technical level, but they know when the Man from Washington has crossed their threshold uninvited.
The term that Fox News is now applying to the Climategate e-mails is “game-changer”. For the first time, Anthropogenic Global Warming cranks are on the defensive, losing their cool and uttering desperate mantras such as “You can be sceptical, not denial.” Gee, thanks, guys. In fact we shall be whatever we want to be, without asking your permission.
At this rate, Copenhagen is going to turn into a comedy convention with the real world laughing at these liars. Now is the time to mount massive resistance to the petty tyrants and hit them where it hurts – in the wallet. Further down the line there may be, in many countries, a question of criminal prosecution of anybody who has falsified data to secure funds and impose potentially disastrous fiscal restraints on the world in deference to a massive hoax. It’s a new world out there, Al, and, as you may have noticed, the climate is very cold indeed.
UK Scientist: 'Case for climate fears is blown to smithereens...whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed'
'We should end this anti-scientific nonsense now' -- UN's 'Copenhagen jamboree is a scandal and it must be stopped'
Thursday, November 26, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
UK astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, of the long range solar forecast group Weather Action, declared that the ClimateGate revelations have rendered man-made global warming fears “false.”
“The case is blown to smithereens and this whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and Copenhagen conference should be closed,” Corbyn said in a contentious on air television exchange with an environmental activist with Russia's WWF. The live TV debate with Corbyn appeared on Moscow's RT TV on November 25, 2009. The RT TV's segment was titled “Heating Cheating.” See Full Video of Debate here.
“The world is cooling and has been cooling for 7 years and the leading scientists, so-called 'scientists' have been trying to hide that evidence,” Corbyn said in reference to hacked emails showing top UN IPCC scientists apparently conspiring to manipulate temperature data and exclude scientific studies from peer-review that they did not agree with.
“We should end this anti-scientific nonsense now,” Corbyn said.
“The data, real data, over the last one thousand, ten thousand or million years, shows there is no relationship between carbon dioxide and world temperatures or climate extremes. Now we can see that actually the people in charge of data have been fiddling it, and they have been hiding the real decline in world temperatures in an attempt to keep their so called moral high ground,” Corbyn told host Bill Dod and Aleksey Kokorin, the Climate Program Coordinator for WWF in Russia.
The upcoming UN global warming summit in Copenhagen is a "complete waste of time,” according to Corbyn.
'A scandal'
“The Copenhagen jamboree is a scandal and it must be stopped,” he added.
“There is a gigantic bandwagon run by governments who want to control world energy supplies and hold back development in the third world. This thing they are doing now is just the same as they are doing in the banking crisis, it is creating a whole bubble of false values,” Corbyn explained.
Corbyn said the ClimateGate revelations further revealed that man-made climate fears are not scientifically valid.
“Their claims are false, I repeat, they are false, and this theory they've got is like the titanic and it will crash. I would suggest that honest green campaigners who want to preserve biodiversity should get off this [man-made global warming] bandwagon before it sinks,” Corbyn explained.
"Carbon dioxide levels are driven by temps, not the other way around. There have been big peaks in CO2 in past...carbon dioxide is actually a good thing for the world," Corbyn explained. "More CO2 makes plants and animals more efficient," he added.
A Political Who’s Who of Global Warming Liars
Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Boxer, Markey, Waxman
By Alan Caruba Thursday, November 26, 2009
As the global warming fraud unravels, it’s a good time to look at the politicians who have been some of the most outspoken advocates, using global warming/climate change to advance “Cap-and-Trade” legislation and other related laws and regulations.
Top of the list is President Barack Obama who has made many references to “climate change” and “global warming” to further this national and international fraud. He’ll pick up his Nobel Peace Prize in December; the same one given to Al Gore and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a few years back. Further proof of his mendacity will be his attendance at the UN Climate Change Conference in Denmark.
Speaking on World Environment Day last June, Obama said of global warming, “We’re going to have to make some tough decisions and take concrete actions if we are going to deal with a potentially cataclysmic disaster.” This mirrors years of similar doomsday statements by former Vice President Al Gore.
This is the kind of drivel Americans and others around the world have heard from their supposed “leaders” for far too long.
As we move through the congressional hierarchy, one of the biggest prevaricators about global warming/climate change has been Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-C) and her counterpart in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), manages to wheeze about it from time to time.
Former presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, (D-MA) has been leading the fight for “Cap-and-Trade” but after much reflection former presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) concluded his support of global warming was a mistake.
Sen. Kerry said that failure to pass the Senate version of “Cap-and-Trade” (of greenhouse gas emission credits) would be comparable to another 9/11. He also has blamed tornadoes on global warming. The man is a complete idiot.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has uttered every global warming falsehood and has been joined by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). All three have played a critical role in advancing the “Cap-and-Trade” bill despite the fact that it is a massive tax on energy use and based on a lie.
Writing for the Huffington Post in October, Sen. Boxer said, “Global Warming is one of the greatest challenges of our generation. Addressing this challenge also represents enormous opportunities for economic recovery and long term prosperity.” Her commentary was titled, “Telling the Whole Story on Global Warming”!
Never mind that global warming has been the excuse environmental groups have used to stop the building of coal-fired plants, nuclear plants, drilling for oil offshore in our continental shelf, et cetera. There’s no economic recovery to be found in so-called “green jobs” and prosperity is a small light at the end of a very long tunnel as the result of the Obama administration’s investments in “renewable energy” and massive increase of our national debt. Among the other politicians hovering around Cap-and-Trade have been Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.VA), Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont), and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM). Sen. Bingaman is a big fan of “renewable energy” (solar and wind) and proposed a nationwide renewable electricity standard even though it provides barely one percent of all the electricity Americans need and use every day. Among the nation’s prominent governors, California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger has been vocal about environmental issues, many of which have left Californians trapped by idiotic measures ranging from restrictions on fireplaces in new homes or the purchase of large screen television sets. California’s failure to anticipate its growing need for electricity has left it dependent on importing it from other states. Meanwhile, over at the Environmental Protection Agency, they are using global warming to justify securing the right to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, claiming that they “cause” a global warming. The expose of the phony “scientific” data behind this massive fraud should, if truth mattered, end this power grab. The ability to regulate CO2 is the ability to control the use of all energy in the nation. That should be stopped!
Alone among his colleagues, Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma (R) has been the one outstanding voice for reason and for truth about global warming. The odds are that history will not give his courageous effort to expose the massive fraud the recognition he deserves. The nation owes him a debt of gratitude.
The lesson we can draw from this is that the next time any U.S. Senator or Representative, let alone the President and any member of his Cabinet, says anything positive about “global warming” or refers to “climate change” to justify some action, they are lying to you.
Pity The Fools That Believe in Man-Caused Global Warming
Sunspots, Ice ages, Plate Tectonics, Meteor impacts
By Ron Ewart Wednesday, November 25, 2009
What a snow job some corrupt scientists, the arrogant elite, radical environmentalists, the United Nations and their co-conspirators in the United States, have perpetrated on the people of this planet in order to convince a gullible public into believing in the Alice-in-Wonderland fairy tale of man-caused global warming! In the process they have sullied true science and corrupted the scientific method, maybe beyond repair.
Their specious arguments stretch credulity and are what we call MAI science, or Made-As-Instructed. In other words, you manipulate the data to arrive at the desired outcome. What has transpired in this debate is nothing less than the trashing of all of the science greats since Copernicus, Galileo and Newton.
But to see anything clearly, you must have a sufficiently broad perspective, accompanied by hard data, repeatable long-term observations and verifiable facts. If you are standing and looking at the ground, your perspective and your field of view are quite limited. If however, you are standing on the top of a mountain, your perspective broadens exponentially. And thus it is with the subject of global warming. Without a broader view, it is almost impossible to know whom or what to believe. So, a short history of the Earth is in order. The history we present here is reasonably accurate, based on the collected scientific data over the last 500 years, with not much argument within the honorable scientific community.
Human civilization is but a bare 5,000 years old. If you took the entire life of Planet Earth, some 4.5 billion years and divided that life span into a 24-hour clock, our puny 5,000 years represents the last tenth of a second, of the last second of the 86,400 seconds that occur in one 24-hour period. If you took the age of enlightenment, commonly known as the Renaissance (14th to the 17th Centuries) when true science was born, it represents less than the last 100th of a second of the last second in our 24-hour clock. During the last 5,000 years the Earth has been relatively quiet, with a few burps in climate variables, but it hasn’t always been that way.
The Earth has endured the effect of massive sunspots, reversing poles, shifting magnetic fields, drifting continents, asteroid and comet collisions and ice ages, in its 4.5 billion-year history. It has experienced the wondrous 165 million-year dinosaur experiment. Approximately six hundred million years ago, the “Cambrian explosion” occurred, when life almost magically erupted, emerged and evolved at a pace never before seen. Some scientists have contributed this explosion of life to a sudden increase in atmospheric oxygen.
Over its lifetime the Earth spun, tilted, heaved, shifted its orbit, drastically changed, expelled poison gases, ash and molten lava, grew hot and then cold. Continents, floating on an underground sea of molten magma, drifted first toward each other (Pangea) and then away. Polar ice caps and glaciers melted and sea levels rose and then lowered. New evidence has come to light that the entire Earth was one big ball of ice at one time in its long and violent history.
A little more recently, about 12,000 years ago, one-third of the Earth’s surface was covered in a layer of ice more than one mile thick. During that ice age, which lasted longer than civilized man has lived on Earth, there were no animals, plants or insects that could survive in this harsh, frozen environment. But life on Earth still survived in other places less-hostile. The ultimate thaw and the rushing torrent carved deep gouges and massive channels in the Earth’s surface. It created riverbeds and dry falls and lakes and inland seas and other features in the Earth’s crust, not there before. Now that was global warming on a grand scale and humans hadn’t even come out of their caves yet.
Whole forests grew and then died out. Mountains rose out of the bowels of the Earth, pushed up by continents in collision and then flattened back into the crust. Rivers changed direction. Monster lakes were formed. Giant meteors struck the Earth at galactic speeds, carving massive holes in the crust and sending continent-size clouds of sunlight-dimming dust into the atmosphere. The atmosphere became opaque and cut off the life-giving sunlight, rendering lifeless enormous parts of the planet. Millions of species of plants and animals evolved, survived, reproduced and then died out, to be replaced by entirely different species of plants and animals. Had the dinosaurs not gone extinct, it has been posited that mammals would have never evolved in their current form, including humans.
However, major changes seldom occurred in cataclysmic events. They almost always took place agonizingly slowly, over eons of time, through the tedious, grinding, random, chaotic, disorganized process of natural evolution and natural selection. The variables were almost infinite and still are.
And today, those same agonizingly slow processes are at work. We (humans) are an integral part of those processes but we will have little or no effect on any final outcome. Those who tell you so are lying. We will but only tickle the grander elements such as the sun, the moon and the Earth itself, none of which is predictable, much less measurable to the degree necessary for accurate predictions over long periods of time. Our only avenue for survival is to get out of the way, if we can. The whole idea that man-generated CO2 is causing run-away global warming, when atmospheric CO2 represents a small fraction of so-called greenhouse gases and man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 is a miniscule fraction of naturally occurring CO2, would be laughable, if it wasn’t that evil men were exploiting it for evil purposes.
A few spewing volcanoes or an episode of sunspots can totally invalidate any computer models. Just look at weather predictions. Any prediction is good for about two hours and that is why the environmentalists’ models were predicting an ice age 20 years ago and now they are predicting global warming. Any credible scientist will tell you that the greater the number of variables in a non-linear dynamic system (such as the weather) render long-range predictions virtually meaningless the moment they are spit out of the computer. What has been done in the name of man-caused global warming, is an insult to true science. It is fueled by dirty, agenda-driven money, a corrupt ideology and the lust for global power.
The universe, our solar system and even our Earth are violent, dangerous places to humans and other life forms and always have been. Just ask the dinosaurs. So far, we have just been lucky. A close-by (in galactic terms) supernova in the spiral arm of the Milky Way, in which our solar system resides, could flood the sun and planets with massive amounts of deadly radiation and render Earth lifeless and barren in a virtual geologic instant. If the sun changed its energy output by a significant fraction, all life on Earth as we know it, could cease. An errant asteroid or comet could cross the Earth’s orbit and the resulting collision could dramatically change the pattern of life, or terminate it altogether.
Environmentalists cry “wolf” on very little data and way-too-short time periods to come up with so-called accurate predictions, as they have with man-caused global warming. Unfortunately, environmentalism has become a cult of mindless followers with a distorted vision of how humans and the Earth should relate to each other. Earth gets the highest priorities — over people — in spite of true science. In reality, humans are but a part of the evolutionary and natural processes of Earth and those processes, not environmentalists or governments, will determine whether we, as an intelligent species, will survive or die out. This is why their man-caused, global-warming theory is an unmitigated farce and this is why that any very expensive attempts to control man-generated CO2 is an unprecedented fraud, with dire consequences for the global economy.
We must always be vigilant against the never-ending threat of governments and special-interest groups peddling crises with propaganda, hype, distortions and lies, because behind each crisis is a hidden agenda and in the end their hidden agenda has more to do with control of the masses and the transfer of wealth. They only use pseudo science as a means to an evil end. Shall it ever be thus.
Why Global Warming is Not Science
The Global Warming boom is big business for Green Companies and certain liberal politicians
By Daniel Greenfield Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The leaked email correspondence from the University of East Anglia, whose Climatic Research Unit is a key element in the push toward blaming humankind for the earth’s natural global and cooling cycles, only graphically revealed what was known all along, that the supposedly scientifically proven conclusions of global warming science were a political fortress guarding a scientific house of cards built on manipulated data and an aggressive campaign of silencing critics and dissenters.
The Global Warming boom is big business for Green Companies and certain liberal politicians who have jumped on their bandwagon, such as Al Gore who went from a few million to a hundred million, and is likely to become a billionaire if cap and trade becomes a reality. But it is science, not simply because it is wrong, but because it is a case of scientific conclusions being powered by political ideas, rather than the other way around.
Using the scientific method to form questions, test them and emerge with true answers is only valid to the extent that the process itself is pure. Global Warming promoters have repeatedly accused dissenting climate research scientists of being tainted by money from the oil industry. But if the science of researchers who took money from the oil industry is tainted science, then the science of those climate researchers who stand to financially benefit from green industries and those who view it as a political agenda first, must be at least as tainted.
The politicization of climate science has thrust it into the middle of a philosophical intellectual war between those who believe that humanity’s impact on the planet has been a negative one and those who believe it is a positive one. The essential debate is an old one, but it has significant real world implications, the apex of which has been reached with the attempt to assign every human being living on earth his or her own Carbon Footprint, which essentially means charging everyone for their part in “warming up” the planet by driving to work, using toilet paper or breathing.
While Global Warming promoters may sell their message with fuzzy images of adorable children and polar bears, the underlying message behind their ideology is a fundamentally anti-human one, that views children as a form of biological pollution and humanity as a destroyer, ravaging not merely a few forests and streams, but destroying life on earth. From the standpoint of human intellectual history such a view is not a new one. Many religious groups had an equally negative view of humanity’s presence on earth. But environmentalists have cloaked their New Age beliefs about humanity’s ecological sinfulness in science. And that takes it beyond philosophy and into the realm of fraud.
There is a reason that we do not unveil research programs to study which religion is the true religion or which food tastes the best. Such ideas are inherently subjective and while scientific principles can be applied to their study, the results would only reflect human bias. Thus while some questions are unanswerable because they exceed humanity’s grasp, others are unanswerable because they exceed human tolerances for bias. Global Warming has clearly become one of those subjects because it is not simply about the causes of the earth’s warming and cooling cycles, but about the most fundamental human questions—namely the purpose of man on the earth.
The passion which the Global Warming debate invokes is not motivated simply by greed, though indeed there are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, particularly if every business in the world has to buy carbon credits in order to do the most elementary things, a cost that will of course be passed on down to every single man, woman and child living on earth. But greed can only motivate people to go so far, it takes a higher passion, a fanatical belief in the rightness of your cause to push it that much further. And while the Al Gores and the companies rushing to find a way to make money from being Green may do it out of greed, many climactic scientists have been committed to pushing Global Warming because they see it as the best vehicle for transforming the relationship between man and the planet.
Essentially imagine a group of sociologists who discover an idea that they believe will force everyone to end poverty. The idea would be a compelling one, and one that they might push regardless of whether or not it was actually true. When faced with contradictory data, they would suppress it. When faced with criticism, they would suppress it and shout it down. All in the name of a higher cause that took primacy over the actual science. And that is exactly what happened with Anthropogenic Global Warming and many climate researchers who with the fervor and guarded dedication of medieval priests have assembled and championed a gigantic fraud that has captured the imagination of so many people.
Before there was global warming, there was global cooling. A theory that seems its opposite in temperature, but in fact was its duplicate in intention. Both have their origin not in a scientific method, but in an ideological one. In an agenda that proclaims apocalypse through the land in the hopes of getting mankind to live simpler and poorer lives, more in harmony with what the planet’s self-proclaimed guardians think would be better for it and for us.
Climategate is only a small peek behind the stone walls of that elite global warming fraternity
What has been branded as East Anglia University’s Climategate is only a small peek behind the stone walls of that elite global warming fraternity, at the anger and tension, the secrets and the lies of those perpetuating the fraud for the highest and lowest reasons. The lowest of course is the hundreds of billions of dollars at stake and the highest is a quest to reduce men from the lords of nature, to its humble servants.
The world may not be set to end in fire and ice, but far more certain that fiery or snowy apocalypse, is taxes. And politicians have seen the potential uses of global warming by manufacturing an imaginary crisis that they can solve without any chance of failure, as have many of their business friends who are eager to engage in rent seeking behavior, with the planet itself being out to rent. And when all these factors are combined together, the motivating force behind promoting the myth of Global Warming takes on a terrible force, born of greed, environmental ideology and cynical politics. And all these also demonstrate all too well why Global Warming is not science. It is politics, it is ideology and big business… but it is not science.
Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal
A truculent and nasty manner
By Dr. Tim Ball and Judi McLeod Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Lift up a rock and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding as “Climategate”.
Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.
“The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time t o put it all in context,” says Ball. “However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature. It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised.
“The fallout will be extensive as material continues to emerge. Reputations of the scientists involved are already destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and their reputations destroyed or sullied.”
While the mainstream media is bending into pretzels to keep the scandal under the rug, Climategate is already the biggest scientific scandal in history because of the global policy implications.
A throwback to the intro of the television series Dragnet, “Ladies and Gentlemen: “The story you are about to hear is true, only the names have been changed to protect the innocent”, the innocent in Climategate have already been thrown to the ravening wolves.
“There is a multitude of small but frightening stories in the massive files,” Ball writes. “For example I’ve known solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon for a long time. I’ve published articles with Willie and enjoyed extensive communication. I was on advisory committees with them when Sallie suddenly and politely withdrew from the fray. I don’t know if the following events were contributing factors but it is likely.
“Baliunas and Soon were authors of excellent work confirming the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from a multitude of sources. Their work challenged attempts to get rid of the MWP because it contradicted the claim by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Several scientists challenged the claim that the latter part of the 20th century was the warmest ever. They knew the claim was false, many warmer periods occurred in the past. Michael Mann ‘got rid’ of the MWP with his production of the hockey stick, but Soon and Baliunas were problematic. What better than have a powerful academic destroy their credibility for you? Sadly, there are always people who will do the dirty work.”
Indeed, Holdren’s emails show how sincere scientists would be made into raw “entertainment”.
How the deed was done
“A perfect person and opportunity appeared. On 16th October 2003 Michael Mann, infamous for his lead in the ‘hockey stick’ that dominated the 2001 IPCC Report, sent an email to people involved in the CRU scandal;
Dear All,
Thought you would be interested in this exchange, which John Holdren of Harvard has been kind enough to pass along…” At the time Holdren was Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy & Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is now Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—informally known as the United States Science Czar.
In an email on October16, 2003 from John Holdren to Michael Mann and Tom Wigley we are told:
“I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my “Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or less self-explanatory.”
The Wednesday Breakfast Group
“This is what Holdren sent to the Wednesday Breakfast group.
“I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me, correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position.”
“The exchange Holdren refers to is a challenge by Nick Schulz editor of Tech Central Station (TCS). On August 9, 2003 Schulz wrote;
“In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my website [1 techcentralstation.com, you are quoted as saying: My impression is that the critics are right. It s unfortunate that so much attention is paid to a flawed analysis, but that’s what happens when something happens to support the political climate in Washington. Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not?”
“Holdren provides lengthy responses on October 13, 14, and 16 but comments fail to answer Schulz’s questions. After the first response Schulz replies, “I guess my problem concerns what lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily, much more heavily, given the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree?” Of course, Holdren doesn’t agree. He replies, “But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing-it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.” No it doesn’t evolve; it is either on one side or the other. This argument is in line with what has happened with AGW. He then demonstrates his lack of understanding of science and climate science by opting for Mann and his hockey stick over Soon and Baliunas. His entire defense and position devolves to a political position. His attempt to belittle Soon and Baliunas in front of colleagues is a measure of the man’s blindness and political opportunism that pervades everything he says or does.
“Schulz provides a solid summary when he writes, “I’ll close by saying I’m willing to admit that, as someone lacking a PhD, I could be punching above my weight. But I will ask you a different but related question. How much hope is there for reaching reasonable public policy decisions that affect the lives of millions if the science upon which those decisions must be made is said to be by definition beyond the reach of those people?”
“We now know it was deliberately placed beyond the reach of the people by the group that he used to ridicule Soon and Baliunas. Holdren was blinded by his political views, which as his record shows are frightening. One web site synthesizes his position on over-population as follows, “Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.”
“Holdren has a long history of seeking total government control. He was involved in the Club of Rome providing Paul Ehrlich with the scientific data in his bet with Julian Simon. Ehrlich lost the bet. Holdren’s behavior in this sorry episode with Soon and Baliunas is too true to form and shows the leopard never changes his spots,” Ball concludes.
Meanwhile, even with an AWOL mainstream media, the Climategate snakes continue to slither out from under the rocks.
Al Gore to Speak at November Allstream Marquee Event
Event Proceeds Go To the David Suzuki Foundation
Changes in the global economy continue to shape the world and the environment in which we live. Guests of the 2009 Allstream Global Forum will be the first in Canada to hear former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore share his new and compelling vision of how business can play a pivotal role in ensuring these changes are for the better through innovation and investment in new technology. Proceeds from the event, which will take place on November 24, 2009, at the Allstream Centre at Exhibition Place in Toronto, will go to the David Suzuki Foundation and its efforts to help transform the Canadian economy in ways that are consistent with a sustainable future. Co-founded by award-winning scientist, environmentalist and broadcaster Dr. David Suzuki, the David Suzuki Foundation is a world-renowned organization committed to helping Canadians achieve sustainability within a generation.
Global Warming Fraud: Somebody Needs to Go to Jail

Al Gore’s pusillanimous “documentary” is a fraud along with just about every other statement uttered by any scientist
By Alan Caruba Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The revelations that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) doctored the data supporting the global warming claims of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) means that EVERYTHING attributed to or based upon “global warming” is invalid.
It means the Kyoto Climate Protocols that nations agreed to on December 11, 1997 and which entered into force on February 16 2005, and all subsequent agreements based on “global warming” have no validity, scientifically or as the basis for public action by any nation, state, province, city or town.
It means that Al Gore’s pusillanimous “documentary” is a fraud along with just about every other statement uttered by any scientist, academician, or politician claiming that something, anything, should be done to avoid “global warming.”
There is no “global warming”, if by that discredited term, you mean a dramatic increase in the Earth’s temperature, the vast rising of ocean levels, the melting of the polar ice caps, and the thousands of other things attributed to a massive fraud orchestrated by the IPCC and a vast network of scientists and environmental groups that benefited from the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars they received in grants and other payments for their “research.”
Global warming, allegedly the result of rising levels of “greenhouse gas emissions”, primarily carbon dioxide (C02), underwrites the sale of “carbon credits” that industries, utilities, and other entities purchased for the “right” to use energy and as further revelations about the doctoring and virtual invention of false scientific data become known, it means those sales were a complete fraud.
It was never really a secret. You could have read about in “Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know” and a dozen other books I can put my hand on this very moment. The only thing missing was the proverbial “smoking gun” and the revelations about the CRU now confirms what the “deniers” and “skeptics” kept saying.
It’s worth keeping in mind that in several Northeastern States, utilities were required by law to purchase these worthless carbon credits and spend millions, not on improvements to the electric grid, not on building more capacity to serve their customers, but on what is worthless paper.
Someone needs to go to jail
The release of thousands of emails and other data, now believed to be the work of a conscious-stricken CRU insider, will as they are examined in detail reveal what has long been known to those actively opposing the “global warming” fraud. As Christopher Horner, the author of “Red Hot Lies”, recently noted, the CRU and its lead scientists refused for years to release the data which they alleged proved that “global warming” was happening.
This data and the periodic reports of the IPCC are the basis for the existence of the IPCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the “cap-and-trade” legislation awaiting a vote in the U.S. Congress. Horner observed “After running out of excuses, in September CRU’s Phil Jones simply claimed that he had lost the data so, sorry, no one can check it.” Horner called it “implausible beyond comprehension.”
And yet the United States and the representatives of many other nations will gather in Copenhagen in December for yet another UN conference on climate change, the now preferred synonym for “global warming.” Basing any international treaty on climate change or global warming is an utterly deceitful act.
The IPCC conference is based on the original Kyoto Protocol and, since there is no global warming, and since the science supporting it has been revealed to be false and misleading, no action should be taken other to disband the IPCC entirely.
All U.S. laws and regulations based on the so-called “global warming” should be reexamined and exorcised from the Congressional Register and from all state bodies of law. Most certainly, “cap-and-trade” should be withdrawn from further consideration.
Beyond that, school books about the environment must now be reviewed to determine how much of their content is invalid as well.
The undoing of this fraud must begin and begin NOW!
Knocking Down the Global Warming “House of Cards”
Pompous advocates of global warming hysteria, are liars, and/or gullable fools
By Jim O'Neill Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Today we’re seeing that climate change is about more than a few unseasonably mild winters or hot summers. It’s about the chain of natural catastrophes and devastating weather patterns that global warming is beginning to set off around the world…the frequency and intensity of which are breaking records thousands of years old.—Barack Hussein Obama
What does the recent release of documents surrounding “Climategate” mean? It means that the “deniers” who have been claiming that the global warming Chicken Littles are wrong—are right.
It means that the pompous advocates of global warming hysteria, are liars, and/or gullable fools.
The increasingly irrelevant LSM (Lame Stream Media) are in full “damage control” mode. They are doing an admirable job of trying to ignore the stink, but even the New York Times has had to break down, and say something.
They begin an article on the subject by noting that “Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics….”
“Causing a stir among global warming skeptics.” As if only politically incorrect “deniers,” would bother to be interested in such things—the rest of you sheeple can go back to grazing.
The “documents hacked from a computer server at a (ho-hum) British University,” refer to files downloaded from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia, England.
Why are these files important?
Because the CRU has supplied much of the data that the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has based its erroneous conclusions on. And it is largely the IPCC’s conclusions, that Al Gore has used to justify his claims about global warming. And it is Al Gore’s claims about global warming, that have so effectively fueled the ongoing Marxist/Communist attempt to take over the world under the auspices of the UN.
That’s why.
The emails and files downloaded from the CRU, show that there has been a blatant, long-term effort to, in Dr. Tim Ball’s words, “pervert science in the service of social and political causes.”
The “scientists” at the East Anglia CRU, are not valid scientists at all. They are political ideologues, who distorted and manipulated data, withheld information, and knowingly promoted false findings—in collusion with others, outside of the CRU. All of them are wolves in (new) sheep’s clothing.
Fraudulent global warming hysteria
Because of the billions of dollars that taxpayers worldwide have been bilked for, due to the fraudulent global warming hysteria, it seems to me that somebody (or several somebodys) ought to be going to jail.
The IPCC is also directly related to the UN’s FCCC (Framework Convention on Climate Change).
According to Wikipedia, “A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UNFCCC, an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change.”
UN’s Agenda 21, and its “sustainable development” doctrines, that are responsible for the plight of the farmers in California.
In 1992, at the UN’s “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, President Bush Sr. signed the U.S. on board for the FCCC treaty. This has led directly to the UN’s Agenda 21 protocols being implemented throughout America’s government—top to bottom.
It is the UN’s Agenda 21, and its “sustainable development” doctrines, that are responsible for the plight of the farmers in California, and the fishermen along the Gulf Coast, among many other damaging perversions of common sense.
Let me say that I am all for being ecologically responsible. That we should be good stewards of the planet, is something that I take as a given. But I do not confuse Agenda 21, with good stewardship of “spaceship earth.”
Agenda 21 is designed to wipe out America’s middle-class, cripple our food producing capacity, control our waterways, minimize our industrial output, diminish our energy grid, and take away our freedom. Agenda 21 has been at work for some time, and is nearing its final stages of completion.
When I say that Agenda 21 is designed to wipe out America’s middle-class and take away our freedom, I mean that almost all Americans will be (by our current standards) poor, and controlled by a planetary police state, run by a small, wealthy, Global Elite.
Oh it’s coming, trust me. Been enjoying the force-feeding of Obama-Care down America’s throat? Well, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Don’t let these lying weasels slink away from the revelations coming out of the CRU. Don’t let them downplay this scandal, or slip away into “climate change,” or some other vague, vaporous generality.
We need to hold their feet to the fire on this one. We need to hit them with the truth. Hit them in earnest, hit them hard, and hit them often.
The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, conservative talk radio, and blogs, need to wake up any Americans who are still unaware of what’s barreling down on us.
By unceasingly shining the light of truth on the lies coming out of the East Anglia CRU—with a bit of luck, and God’s grace, the whole evil “house of cards” may well come tumbling down.
Even Monbiot says the science now needs “reanalysing”
Andrew Bolt
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at 07:14pm
Even George Monbiot, one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked:
It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
Sure, Monbiot claims the fudging of what he extremely optimistically puts as just “three or four” scientists doesn’t knock over the whole global warming edifice, yet…
If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly:
I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.
Scepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of sceptical is gullible.
Climate Change Treaty a Precursor to Global Government
By Chuck Baldwin
October 30, 2009
Writing for WorldNetDaily, Dr. Jerome Corsi states, "A former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says the real purpose of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Dec. 7-18 is to use global warming hype as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world government."
Corsi quotes Lord Christopher Monckton as telling a Minnesota Free Market Institute audience at Bethel University in St. Paul, "Your president will sign it. Most of the Third World countries will sign it, because they think they're going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won't sign it."
Corsi quotes Monckton as also saying, "I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word 'government' actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity."
To see a YouTube video segment of Lord Monckton's address click here.
Plus, here is a later Fox Business interview with Lord Monckton, in which he further expands his thoughts.
Did Lord Monckton exaggerate?
My research of the Climate Change document that Monckton references found the following: it is a 181-page working document that does not mention the words "ballot," "elected official," or "vote" anywhere in it. In my opinion, Lord Monckton did not exaggerate; if anything, he may have understated the situation. The document does indeed appear to be the institutional framework for an unelected supreme communist-style world government.
By signing this document, the United States (and other industrial nations) will forever take responsibility for the ills of backwards and third world countries. And, according to Lord Monckton, this would include China and India, along with the countries of Africa. Notice:
Page 6, "PP.15 Further acknowledging that developed countries have a historical responsibility for their disproportionate contribution to the causes and consequences of climate change, reflecting their disproportionate historical use of a shared global carbon space since 1850 as well as their proposed continuing disproportional use of the remaining global carbon space . . . Warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal."
Page 38, "28. The adverse effects of climate change and response measures, due to the historical cumulative GHG emissions of developed countries, constitute an additional burden on all developing country Parties (particularly low-lying and other small island countries, countries with low-lying coastal, arid and semi-arid areas or areas liable to floods, drought and desertification, and developing countries with fragile mountainous ecosystems) in reducing poverty, developing strategies to address social vulnerabilities and attaining sustainable development and a threat to achieving the United Nations Millennium Development Goals."
Page 122, "17. (a) Compensate for damage to the LDC's economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity . . ."
"(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses . . ."
By signing and being party to this document, we are accepting legal financial responsibility to support non-developed countries FOREVER.
Page 27, "(b) Particularly vulnerable populations, groups and communities, [or] All vulnerable groups whose adaptive capacity is low, [or] Groups requiring special protection . . ."
Page 43, "41. (a) Assessed contributions of at least 0.7% of annual GDP of developed country Parties." These funds will go directly to governments and "community organizations."
Page 39, "33. [The financial burden] must be at least USD 67 billion (in the range of USD 70-140 billion) per year."
The commitments of the developed countries are "economy wide." Page 58, "7. (a) Mitigation commitments by all developed countries are legally binding economy wide and absolute quantified emission reduction commitments."
"(b) Mitigation actions by developing countries are VOLUNTARY . . ." (Emphasis added.)
The system appears to be loaded to ensure that the world body overseeing this document is granted total control for the enforcement of the requirements of this document throughout all developed countries. Penalties for non-compliance by developed countries are scattered throughout the document.
It appears that what a U.S. President and Congress (Republican or Democratic) could not do through the constitutional legislative process, they are attempting to do through international treaty. Therefore, it is my studied opinion that Lord Monckton's assessment that this upcoming Climate Change Convention in Copenhagen is a "pretext" for the establishment of one world government is "spot-on."
It does seem to be getting clearer and clearer that if the elected civil magistrates in Washington, D.C., do not quickly grow some backbone and develop some sagacity as to the direction these globalists are taking our country, resistance will be forced (in one way or another) upon the States and the People, because it is not possible for the policies and financial burden that are--and will be--levied upon the backs of the American people to be sustained without the surrender of independence, the abridgment of constitutional government, and the loss of liberty. Stay tuned.
Analysis of Alarmism: Ocean acidification
Scare tactics
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, July 20, 2009
“Only the unknown frightens men.” Antoine de St. Exupery
Scare Tactics to create fear
As public awareness grows that human caused warming is false the extent and degree of attempts to scare the public increases. The scare preference is for remote geographic areas such as the Arctic or Antarctic or complex obscure topics ideally with global implications, which the public knows little about. The latest scare story is ocean acidification, which combines these traits with the advantage of a word with negative connotations and used before in acid rain.
Like all scares it is based on total acceptance that an increase in atmospheric CO2 is a problem. The claim in this case is it is causing temperature increase, but also changing the chemistry of the oceans. Like all the scares it is pure speculation after you accept the false claim CO2 is causing temperature increase. To counteract suggestions that they are overstating the threat they use a form of the precautionary principle, which holds we must act anyway. So the problem exists, it is just a matter of the extent of the impact. Yet the full impact of ocean acidification and how these impacts may propagate through marine ecosystems and affect fisheries remains largely unknown. (Source)
What is Ocean Acidification?
Oceans absorb or release CO2 primarily determined by the amount in the atmosphere and the water temperature. The argument is that regardless of what the air temperature does increased CO2 amount in the atmosphere due to human activity guarantees more going into the oceans. This change results in a change in water chemistry reflected in one measure, the pH.
A solution has a pH level that is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity. The pH scale is from 0 to 14 and a measure of 7 is neutral. The scale is created relative to standard solutions and agreed on internationally. Above 7 the solution is more alkaline and below 7 it is more acid. The oceans are considered to have a pH of 8.2 with a variance of 0.3, so it is an alkaline solution.
The claim of ocean acidification is based on estimates and computer models; these use the very questionable pre-industrial atmospheric level of CO2 to calculate an increase of about 0.1 pH units. Of course, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) attributes the CO2 increase to human production, which is wrong because the global carbon cycle is very vague about sources, storage and length of time in each condition. For example, the error in the estimate of CO2 from the oceans each year is greater than the total human contribution.
The idea that a 0.1 pH unit increase is significant is ludicrous when the estimate has a range of 0.3 units. There is a subtle but important point here because words are part of the scare component. Even if you accept the claimed change it is not acidification, it is proper to say the solution is becoming less alkaline but that doesn’t sound threatening. More problematic is the validity of the measures. Although pH in seawater has been measured for many decades, a reliable long- term trend of ocean water pH cannot be established due to data quality issues, in particular the lack of strict and stable calibration procedures and standards. Moreover, seawater pH is very sensitive to temperature, and temperature is not always recorded or measured at sufficient accuracy to constrain the pH measurement.
(Sources: Here and Here)
Even if CO2 increases to 560 ppm by 2050 as the IPCC predict it would only result in a 0.2 unit reduction of pH. This is still within the error of the estimate of global average.
What is the Real Threat?
So what is threatened by this reduced alkalinity? Most marine life if you read all the stories, but, scare stories need one issue people view positively. Coral fits the bill well because the underwater scenes of color and diversity of life mesmerize us all. According to the experts, ocean acidification may render most regions of the ocean inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050, if atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase. It could lead to substantial changes in commercial fish stocks, threatening food security for millions of people as well as the multi-billion dollar fishing industry. (Source)
Scares require dramatic change beyond any previously recorded
Scares require dramatic change beyond any previously recorded. “Ocean acidification is more rapid than ever in the history of the earth and if you look at the pCO2 (partial pressure of carbon dioxide) levels we have reached now, you have to go back 35 million years in time to find the equivalents.” Scares also require an impending critical point beyond which remedial action is useless. This so-called “tipping point” is currently estimated to allow a drop of about 0.2 pH units, a value that could be reached in as near as 30 years. It is no surprise the author of these outrageous and incorrect remarks is chair of the EuroCLIMATE program Scientific Committee.
A plot of CO2 levels over the last 600 million years shows current levels are very low at 385 ppm.
Source: Temperature after C.R.Scotese. CO2 after R.A.Bernier.
The only period in 600 million years when CO2 levels were equal to the present was over 300 million years ago. Since that time CO2 levels averaged 1000 to 1200 ppm or 3 to 4 times current levels. How did the plant and animal life survive those levels? It makes a mockery of the claim that even a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is a problem.
More recent measures of pH levels show how current levels and claimed changes are well within natural variability. Here is a reconstruction of pH levels for the South China Seas by Liu et al (2009) that illustrates the point.
Source: Liu et al. (2009) “Instability of seawater pH in the South China Sea during the mid-late Holocene: Evidence from boron isotopic composition of corals.”
The Light of Understanding
Marie Curie one of the greatest scientists of all time said, “Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.” Gradually more and more evidence shows the hypothesis that human CO2 is causing warming or climate change is false. Fear is subsiding as more people including many scientists understand and are speaking out. A surprising one recently was Tom Tripp, a member and lead author of the IPCC since 2004. At the July 2009 Utah Farm Bureau Convention he said there is so much natural variability in weather it makes a scientifically valid conclusion about man-made global warming difficult. Specifically he said, “It may well be, but we’re not scientifically there yet.” That contradicts the message from the reports he helped author. It also disavows the claim the science is settled. The outrage is alarmists continue to present a message of certainty. However, just in case you are wavering the sky is definitely falling and they will continue to produce outrageous unsubstantiated scares to prove it.