Monday, November 30, 2009

Follow The Money To Understand How The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming Has Grown And Been Maintained

Follow the money indeed! The truth and the reality is indeed frightening. The following article from the Tucson, Arizona paper is excellent. I agree with on commentator who says the following about this article:

"This is a good article, identifying many of the key issues. The only thing I take exception to is the concluding sentence: "If the 'warmists' have their way, the result will be suppression of freedom and a criminal waste of resources." No, Jonathan, it's much more serious than that. The prospect of global totalitarianism is terrifying."


Global Warming Industry Meets Reality
Written by Jonathan DuHamel, Tucson Citizen
Monday, November 30 2009 10:38

It seems that there really is “Mann”-made global warming. It is made of fraud, data manipulation, collusion, squelching dissent, hiding data, deleting data, and punishing scientific journals that dared to publish papers challenging the carbon cabal.

The global warming industry is very big business and there is a huge vested interest in maintaining the myth that human carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous. “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” George Orwell, 1984.

The upcoming Copenhagen meeting sponsored by the United Nations had hoped for a global redistribution of wealth over the next 20 years of between $6 trillion and $10.5 trillion, according to the draft treaty, to “Compensate for damage to the less developed countries’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees.” Third world governments see dollar signs.

In the U.S., the Treasury Department estimates that the president’s cap-and-trade approach would “generate federal receipts on the order of $100- to $200 billion annually.” The Congressional Budget Office reports that a 15 percent CO2 reduction would cost an average household $1,600 a year.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a bureaucrat’s paradise that exists solely to perpetrate the myth, while enjoying frequent meetings at exotic venues throughout the world.

Many governments maintain bureaucracies just to “study” the myth. In the U.S., it’s the Global Change Research Program. NOAA, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the National Climate Change and Wildlife Center of the USGS, and the EPA are just a few other federal agencies feeding at the trough.

Over the last 20 years, the US government spent $32 billion on climate research, yet has failed to find any evidence that carbon dioxide emissions significantly affect temperature or represent a danger. Government agencies, the private sector, and universities were the recipients of this money. These organizations have a vested interest in maintaining the myth.

The feds also spent another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. Solar and wind-power generation of electricity can be a supplemental supply, but these methods could not compete with fossil fuels without a subsidy. These industries have a vested interest in maintaining the myth.

The ethanol industry is founded solely on the myth that we must reduce our use of fossil fuels, even though the U.S. has abundant supplies.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Bailout bill) contained $3.4 billion for research and experimentation in the area of carbon sequestration – burying carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuel plants. There are also, really wild schemes for geoengineering, schemes to block the sun with mirrors, or seed the atmosphere with sulfur to produce more clouds.

On the world commodities market, trading carbon credits generated $126 billion in 2008, and big banks are collecting fees, and some project a market worth $2 trillion. Al Gore’s venture capital firm, Hara Software which makes software to track greenhouse gas emissions, stands to make billions of dollars from cap-and-trade regulation. If the myth is destroyed, this market will evaporate.

Back in 2007, a coalition of major corporations and environmental groups formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) to lobby for cap & trade. The companies planned to profit (at least in the short term) from either the cap-and-trade provisions or from selling high-priced, politically-favored (if not mandated) so-called “green” technology to the rest of us — whether we need it or not, and regardless of whether it produces any environmental or societal benefits.

Corporate USCAP members include: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar Inc., Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, DuPont, FPL Group, Exelon, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, John Deer & Co, PG&E Corporation, and PNM Resources.

Has science been co-opted by greed and ideology; has government been co-opted by scientific elitists?

In his farewell address, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave this warning:

“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.”

“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

“It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

The Obama administration, which promised to “restore science to its rightful place,” is ignoring events and sailing its ideological titanic to Copenhagen.

The vested interests are strong and many. Is the global warming industry “too big to fail?” It remains to be seen whether those interests, and political ideology will triumph over truth and common sense.

We should suspend any further consideration of cap & trade schemes and carbon taxes until there is a thorough investigation and re-analysis of the science, costs, and benefits. We also need the government to re-examine energy policy. We need to examine our system of research grants to universities which seems to have been biased toward the politically correct, rather than seeking scientific truth.

The global warming industry is predicated on manipulated computer modeling rather than observational data. The touted “consensus” has been shown to be the result of suppression of dissenting voices, and fueled by greed, power seeking, and the perversion of the scientific method.

If the “warmists” have their way, the result will be suppression of freedom and a criminal waste of resources.


Global Warming True Believers Up Against The Wall

The global warming true believers are panicking and growing desperate, exposing the rotted and corrupt foundation of the entire "green" movement. There is much more to come. Stay tuned.

Yikes. Someone got the talking points. Can you say, “Peer reviewed studies?” Methinks those leaked emails that pretty much show Global Warming is … what’s the best way to put it?… the big fat freakin’ lie we all knew it was, has stirred our friend Ed up some.

You know what he sounds like? Someone who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old trying to explain away a dinosaur fossil.

Oh, that old time religion…


Bookmark and Share


avatar Brian G Valentine
Ed Begley demands peer review.


I am a peer and I hereby pronounce "man made climate change" an abject fraud.

I also accuse Trenberth, Jones, Mann, and Briffa of willfully deceiveing people about things they knew to be false and promoted them to be true, and then trying to cover it up. I also accuse these people of willfully trying to prevent people who disagreed with them from publishing dissenting views with publishers that previously published pro AGW studies.

No one should put any belief in human-related climate change. Absolutely none, it is a fraud based on bugus and completely junk science. The people from the Hadley Centre in England have demonstrated that to the world more completely than my words ever could

Ed Begley Jr. Loses It On Fox News


Yikes. Someone got the talking points. Can you say, “Peer reviewed studies?” Methinks those leaked emails that pretty much show Global Warming is … what’s the best way to put it?… the big fat freakin’ lie we all knew it was, has stirred our friend Ed up some.

You know what he sounds like? Someone who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old trying to explain away a dinosaur fossil.

Oh, that old time religion.....

Ed Begley demands peer review.


I am a peer and I hereby pronounce "man made climate change" an abject fraud.

I also accuse Trenberth, Jones, Mann, and Briffa of willfully deceiveing people about things they knew to be false and promoted them to be true, and then trying to cover it up. I also accuse these people of willfully trying to prevent people who disagreed with them from publishing dissenting views with publishers that previously published pro AGW studies.

No one should put any belief in human-related climate change. Absolutely none, it is a fraud based on bugus and completely junk science. The people from the Hadley Centre in England have demonstrated that to the world more completely than my words ever could

Another comment:

The foaming, ranting Ed Begley Jr is a commie nut intent on cramming eco-worship down everyones throat, the latest back door to collectivist tyranny. California has cleaner air because they have run industry out. He is welcome to live in his eco-utopia but has no right to force it on everyone else using guns of government. "The commons" is what he says it is. Peer review?? What a joke. It is the entrenched interests that OWN peer reviewed journals and academia and the entrenched interests want to chain people with this global warming scam so they can control them and their property. So we are not allowed to do own own research, decide what experts and yes, even-gasp-weathermen-we want to listen to?? A physicist isn't good enough, certainly not smart enough to grasp the intricasies of global warming (although actor Ed is convinced HE has)??? Sorry, I'll get my info whereever I want. I no longer subscribe to the government school indoctrination that all knowledge be compartmentalized and is only available to "experts" in whatever field. Buckminster Fuller had an interesting view on that. He contended that the brightest among us are groomed to advance in highly specialized fields of study and because they are so specialized they accept other specialists at face value, thinking that those specialists couldn't know/do what we do in our fields of specialty so we couldn't understand theirs. This leads to a de-fusing of very bright people among the population, a way of keeping them from questioning or trying to understand and connect the dots. The very bright are then "managed" by the "not as bright". Begley is saying that only these highly specialized "climate experts", who would certainly be much easier to control and manipulate are competent to decide whether global warming really exists. This is utter nonsense, the equivalent of saying "don't look behind that curtain and believe what makes sense, listen only to the Great and powerful Oz". Wonder what Begley thinks of Eric Hoffer, Thomas Jefferson, self-taught actors, and the like. My list of actors I will pay to watch or can stomach continues to shrink.

Al Gore---The Game Is Over; Let The Lawsuits Begin

The truth about the global warming hoax should finally expose Al Gore for the fraud that he is.

Brainwashing Behind Global Warming Hoax

The following article provides a glimpse of the extent to which people, in particular young college students, have been misled, lied to, and deceived about global warming and climate change. The belief that humans and carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of catastrophic global warming, sea level rise and destructive climate change has truly become religion-like, beyond reason, much less any real science. Emotion, passion and fear rule. Equating it to the rock concert Woodstock as mentioned in the following article, says it all. Changing people's religious beliefs is a difficult task. Think of the Taliban.

New England sending a crowd to climate talks

Copenhagen draws region’s students, groups

Last spring, when many people were still only dimly aware of the world climate summit planned for Copenhagen, Josh Minney, a Northeastern University senior, stayed up much of the night writing a paper justifying why he should be allowed to go. He spent months after that trying to raise money and plotting details of a trip he felt could be one of the most important of his life.

When he departs this week - paying his way with credit cards, living out of a backpack, and sleeping at a hostel - he will be one of thousands of students, scientists, college professors and nonprofit groups making a pilgrimage to the Danish capital.

Hundreds will be from New England, with its concentration of universities and environmental bent. Some are planning to sleep on floors in a city where hotels have been overbooked. Scores have received special UN designations to witness the proceedings, but most are going just to be in the vicinity of what they hope will be a historic meeting of world leaders trying to hammer out limits on green house gas emissions.

“This is the party of the century in the scientific and academic world,’’ said Minney, an international affairs student who is attending with 16 other Northeastern students and faculty. “The fate of the world really is hanging on what happens there.’’

Copenhagen is expected to be overrun with 20,000 people for nearly two weeks of talks that begin Dec. 7. Among the attendees will be President Obama and more than 60 other heads of state. Negotiations are expected to culminate in a framework to get climate laggards, especially the United States, to join a final agreement to be completed in Mexico City talks next year.

So many are coming from New England that some local observers joke the number is more than the populations of small nations.

People from at least 20 groups - among them Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business; Cambridge-based EcoLogic Development Fund, which works with poor rural communities to save forests; and Ceres Inc., a nonprofit that works with corporations to prepare for the business impact of climate change - have official observer status allowing them to attend open negotiating sessions.

Those observers have little formal role, but many are holding side events, talks, and debates, or are hoping to conduct research, network, and try to understand the confusing and political world of international climate talks.

The climate fever has sparked some creative financing to get to a city where a cup of coffee can cost $4. Tufts Fletcher School student Odette Mucha raised $300 by selling cookies. Noah Hodgetts, a College of the Atlantic senior in Bar Harbor, Maine, sent out an e-mail blast to family and friends who are now contributing more than $850 for his trip.

The fever hasn’t been cooled by the growing realization that an agreement won’t be reached.

“I am going with a lot of hope,’’ said Hodgetts.

Vermont lawyer Brian Dunkiel is going as part of the diplomatic delegation for the Pacific island of Palau, which is threatened by sea level rise. Arlington Quaker Mary Gilbert wants to lead “earth care’’ interfaith silent worships there. Baby-boomers Roger and Sue Shamel of Bedford are going because they want to let their grandchildren know they tried.

Neil Oculi, a College of the Atlantic student, will be part of the official delegation of St. Lucia, his country. Fifteen students are attending as observers from the small college and his professors urged him to ask the island nation if it wanted his help. It did.

“The St. Lucia delegation is small - only seven of us, including the prime minister,’’ he said.

Oculi, Nasser Brahim, a Yale University graduate student who is part of the Grenada delegation, and others from New England are working with islands because such places often do not have enough funds to be fully represented at climate talks. At the same time, islands are especially vulnerable to sea level rise, a consequence of global warming. Dunkiel, the Vermont lawyer who has worked for years on environmental issues, was contacted by the New York nonprofit Islands First to help Palau.

Hundreds of college students and their professors are attending - at least 79 from Yale alone. For some, the Copenhagen meetings are the subject of their scholarship.

Peter H. Liotta of Salve Regina University in Newport, R.I., part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the IPCC - the leading international scientific body on global warming, will come back to lead a lecture series on the talks. Miquel Muñoz, a postdoctoral fellow at Boston University, is trying to figure out just how much is being spent on the conference. Robert Stavins of Harvard University, an expert on international climate treaties, will be working with governments behind the scenes.

Idealism is the primary reason many others are going.

“Our future is being decided, our voices should be there,’’ said Uxbridge resident Lauren Nutter, 21, of College of the Atlantic. Nutter is also representing SustainUS, a youth-led sustainable development group.

Despite the cost - and hassle - many New Englanders said they felt compelled to go for no other reason than to show the world that US residents care deeply about lower greenhouse gas emissions, despite their government’s reluctance to tackle the issue in the past.

“We want to represent the US to say we care,’’ said Sue Shamel.

Shamel and her husband run a small global warming education nonprofit organization and is going to connect to other climate change groups and offer help.

Those who have attended previous rounds of climate talks offer a caution for the novices: Confusion reigns. And, it can be hard to see your personal contribution at the talks.

“I am going with my eyes open but knowing it is like watching paint dry on the walls,’’ said Adil Najam, director of the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future at Boston University.

A lead author of the IPCC who has been to other climate talks and is going with more than a dozen BU students and faculty, Najam has gotten requests from people who have no research or other reasons to be in Copenhagen. After explaining to them it probably would not be worth the money, many opted not to attend.

Still, he said, “for many, it is a Woodstock moment. There is a sense it’s important. And you need to be at a place at a particular moment in time to say you’ve been there.’’

Global Warming Criminals

Climate Change Scientists Admit Dumping Data

Monday , November 30, 2009



Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data."

The CRU is the world’s leading center for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Continue reading at The Times of London

Spreading The Truth About The Hoax Of Global Warming

Spread the word, speak out, don't let this one go. Al Gore really is a fraud. Let freedom from the global warming fraud ring loud and clear around the world.

Emails spreading the word

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. (And the most obvious fool is going to be Obama) 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.


Sunday, November 29, 2009

The Great Man-Caused Global Warming Hoax Exposed

The truth is finally coming out, as it should, as it would, as it must. The "science" behind so-called global warming and climate change is fraudulent. What began as a harmless hypothesis was picked up by those seeking power and control (e.g. Al Gore) and shamelessly blown up into a great cause, a crusade, so-to-speak. God rest his soul, the late Michael Crichton saw through it all in his novel "State of Fear".

Now that the truth is coming out it will be interesting, if not amusing to watch the cover-up, the finger-pointing, and the scape goats being sacrificed. Stay tuned. Smart politicians who once supported this hoax had better run for cover if they want to be re-elected.


The following cartoon says it all....."cooking the books"....climate style.....

Let the Great Global Warming Cover-Up Begin!

Now that some enterprising and possibly conscience-stricken soul has served up the emails and other data of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, revealing the deliberate efforts to hide the corrupted research that justifies the “global warming” fraud, all the various journalists and alleged climate scientists who have been a party to it are trying desperately to cover up or minimize the scandal.


Just The Tip Of The Iceberg......

The need to clean out the climate change cesspool is a gross understatement. There are so many people and institutions with a vested interest in the on-going charade of man-caused global warming that cleaning out the cesspool is a monumental task. The true-believers are not going to go down without a fight. They stand to lose everything, and they know it. It is not about science, the climate, the Earth, polar bears, or anything other than pure power and control.

The following is an excellent article written by someone who grasps the magnitude of the problem. However, there are already attempts to trivialize these email leaks, and write off the "scientists" involved as unfortunate anomalies, just a "few bad apples". Maybe some will be made sacrificial lambs, but far more than that is needed to clean out this climate science cesspool. Let the cleaning begin.

Cleaning Out the Climate Science Cesspool
Paul Driessen
Saturday, November 28, 2009

As legions of scientists, activists, journalists, bureaucrats and politicians prepare to embark for Copenhagen, a predictable barrage of climate horrors has been unleashed, to advance proposals to slash hydrocarbon use and carbon dioxide emissions, restrict 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 now say, and our climate is still controlled by the same natural forces that caused previous climate changes: periodic shifts in 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.

Far worse for the Climate Armageddon movement, newly released emails from its leading scientists reveal a cesspool of intimidation, duplicity and fraud that could rock Copenhagen and the alarmist agenda to their core. The emails cast deepening suspicion over global warming data, science and models.

They reveal an unprecedented, systematic conspiracy to stifle discussion and debate, conceal and manipulate data, revise temperature trends that contradict predictions of dangerous warming, skew the peer-review process, pressure scientific journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to publish alarmist studies and exclude dissenting analyses, and avoid compliance with Freedom of Information requests. (continued here)

The following are some key points from Mr. Driessen's article:

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 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 and unfounded. President Obama should cancel his trip to Copenhagen, and his plans to lobby for a new climate treaty and commit the US to slash 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 and public policy.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

The Truth Is Out.....Man-Caused Global Warming Has Been A Fraud All Along

November 25, 2009

Green totalitarianism

FROM-UK Spectator

Melanie Phillips

Lord Lawson was right to call in today’s Times for an inquiry into the global warming scandal. As noted below, through a set of hacked emails a group of some of the most influential scientific proponents of anthropogenic global warming have been revealed to have been manipulating, suppressing and distorting scientific evidence in order to bolster their claim. They in turn have said the email messages have been taken out of context. And with so much material now in the public domain, it is possible that some of it has an innocent explanation. But in an awful lot of it it is hard to see such innocence. As Lawson observes:

There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government,but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.

This is the kind of thing these emails have revealed.
Here is lead IPCC scientist Keith Briffa admitting:

"I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same."

Here are Phil Jones, Director of the Hadley Centre’s Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University and Michael Mann, creator of the infamous (and false) ‘hockey stick curve’ that underpinned AGW theory, discussing how to suppress the work of AGW sceptics, including changing the peer-review rules to do so:

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes. "I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

Here is Phil Jones proposing to delete data to avoid having to reveal it under a Freedom of Information request:

The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. 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.

And here is lead IPCC scientist Kevin Trenberth effectively acknowledging the sceptics’ case. On a thread fretting about the likely influence of the BBC’s ‘climate change reporter’ Richard Black in reporting that there had been no warming since 1998 and that Pacific oscillations would ‘force cooling for the next 20-30 years’, Trenberth wails:

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days forthe coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather)... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't...The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

This material has revealed what has been described as ‘Nixonian-style paranoid plotting’ by these scientists to defraud the public. Actually, I think it reveals something even worse.

What appears to be the case is that these scientists did not set out to mislead the world so much as try to force data which did not correspond to their ideology of anthropogenic global warming to support that ideology. For me, one of the most telling emails was this one from Phil Jones on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

Bottom line - their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.(My emphasis)

In other words, despite the fact that science (or history) tells us that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, thus destroying the basis of the AGW myth that we are living through an unprecedented warming of the climate caused by carbon dioxide arising from industrialisation, it cannot be true – because the Hadley CRU Director’s ‘gut’ tells him so.

All the manipulation, distortion and suppression revealed by these emails took place because it would seem these scientists knew their belief was not only correct but unchallengeable; and so when faced with evidence that showed it was false, they tried every which way to make the data fit the prior agenda. And those who questioned that agenda themselves had to be airbrushed out of the record, because to question it was simply impossible. Only AGW zealots get to decide, apparently, what science is. Truth is what fits their ideological agenda. Anything else is to be expunged.

Which is the more terrifying and devastating: if people are bent and deliberately try to deceive others, or if they are so much in thrall to an ideology that they genuinely have lost the power to think objectively and rationally?

I think that the terrible history of mankind provides the answer to that question. Nixon was a crook. But what we are dealing with here is the totalitarian personality. One thing is now absolutely clear for all to see about the anthropogenic global warming scam: science this is not.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Obama And White House Out Of Touch With Reality

We know MSNBC is owned by General Electric (do a search on this blog for more information), and we know GE stands to benefit from climate legislation. We know NBC and MSNBC lie and distort information about global warming and climate change to suit their own purposes. Now we see that even Mr. Obama is gullible and susceptible to the same manipulation. This is a scam, a hoax on a major scale folks!

The "scientists" who have been behind this myth of man-caused global warming have been lying to everyone. They hide data, change data, effectively silence their critics, violate laws, and in essence do everything contrary to the basic tenets of science. This can not go on. The leaks of emails and data are deadly serious. Billions of dollars have been fraudulently spent and Trillions of dollars of proposed "cap and trade" legislation and economic disruption are at stake.

In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, Obama and his troop of idiots are going to Copenhagen to declare on behalf of the American people, that he (we) are going to reduce our "greenhouse gas" (meaning carbon dioxide) emissions. What a stooge he is.

U.S. sets climate target ahead of summit
Obama to take goal of 17 percent emissions cut to Copenhagen talks staff and news service reports
updated 6:27 p.m. CT, Wed., Nov . 25, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama will attend the U.N. climate summit next month in Denmark, taking with him a target to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020, the White House said Wednesday.

The pledge will not be part of a binding international treaty — the hopes for which have been dashed by the lack of a climate law coming out of Congress — but it will mimic the cuts passed by the House earlier this year. The Senate is still debating climate legislation.

"This provisional target" of 17 percent "is in line with current legislation in both chambers of Congress and demonstrates a significant contribution to a problem that the U.S. has neglected for too long," the White House said in a statement.

Administration officials don't want to repeat the mistake of the 1997 Kyoto climate accord, when the U.S. agreed to emission reductions but never implemented them because of strong political opposition at home. The U.S. never ratified the Kyoto agreement.

The president will attend the summit on Dec. 9 before heading to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.

(Continued here)

Climate Fraud......Be Angry, Very Angry, And Let Congress Know

Has there ever been such a scandal as the creation and perpetuation of this myth of man-caused global warming? Think of the untold Billions of dollars wasted. And it goes on. The recent news is that President Obama is going to attend the climate conference in Copenhagen next month and announce that the United States is going to (somehow) reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.

If Obama can be this badly misled, if he is this naive, this ignorant, what does that say about the other ideas on his agenda?

The mere fact that most of the mainstream media is ignoring this scandal says volumes about their obvious bias and lack of objective, honest reporting. Thank goodness for the internet, otherwise we might never know of this kind of deceitful activity. The following article comes from

November 25, 2009

You should be angry. Very angry.

by Ian Plimer

FROM-Pajama Media

Climategate: Alarmism Is Underpinned by Fraud (PJM Exclusive)

A decorated scientist and author of the most influential book debunking global warming joins Viscount Monckton in calling the CRU behavior criminal.

In the geological past, there have been six major ice ages. During five of these six ice ages, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was higher than at present. It is clear that the colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas called carbon dioxide did not drive past climates. Carbon dioxide is plant food, not a pollutant.

Humans have adapted to live on ice sheets, deserts, mountains, tropics, and sea level. History shows that humans and other organisms have thrived in warm times and suffered in cold times.

In the 600-year long Roman Warming, it was 4ºC warmer than now. Sea level did not rise and ice sheets did not disappear. The Dark Ages followed, and starvation, disease, and depopulation occurred. The Medieval Warming followed the Dark Ages, and for 400 years it was 5ºC warmer. Sea level did not rise and the ice sheets remained. The Medieval Warming was followed by the Little Ice Age, which finished in 1850. It is absolutely no surprise that temperature increased after a cold period.

Unless I have missed something, I am not aware of heavy industry, coal-fired power stations, or SUVs in the 1,000 years of Roman and Medieval Warmings. These natural warmings are a dreadful nuisance for climate alarmists because they suggest that the warming since 1850 may be natural and may not be related to carbon dioxide emissions.

There was warming from 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, and 1976 to 1998, with intervening periods of cooling. The only time when temperature rise paralleled carbon dioxide emissions was 1976-1998. The other warmings and coolings in the last 150 years were unrelated to carbon dioxide emissions.

Something is seriously wrong. To argue that humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics. This is exactly what has been done.

The answer to this enigma was revealed last week. It is fraud.

Files from the UK Climatic Research Unit were hacked. They show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination.

Data was manipulated to show that the Medieval Warming didn’t occur, and that we are not in a period of cooling. Furthermore, the warming of the 20th century was artificially inflated.

This behavior is that of criminals and all the data from the UK Hadley Centre and the US GISS must now be rejected. These crooks perpetrated these crimes at the expense of the British and U.S. taxpayers.

The same crooks control the IPCC and the fraudulent data in IPCC reports. The same crooks meet in Copenhagen next week and want 0.7% of the Western world’s GDP to pass through an unelected UN government, and then on to sticky fingers in the developing world.

You should be angry. Very angry.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

"Stick A Fork In 'Em, They're Done"

They're done, finished, cooked......referring to the entire discredited man-caused global warming myth-promoters.

The source of the following is here.

Hadley CRU Data Update

The enterprising folk at Elegant Chaos have created a searchable database from the hacked/leaked data, you can find it here.

The Daily Telegraph covers the story here and the UK’s Daily Mail here.

Horrified lefties are trying to ignore the scientific deceit, fraud and skulduggery, instead focusing on the fact that there isn’t much science in the leaked documents. What they forget is, it’s not about the science, it’s about the shattered credibility of the scientists the world has been told to trust on the science.

Stick a fork in ‘em, they’re done.

Another Destructive Myth Exposed

The Oil Addiction Myth

Posted By William Yeatman On December 12, 2008 @ 9:32 am
Every day some pundit, politician, activist, business leader, or academic claims that America’s “oil addiction” endangers U.S. national security and, indeed, the habitability of our planet. Champions of this message now include defense intellectuals, who have joined forces with global warming campaigners to demand new taxes or regulations on fossil energy use.

How refreshing, therefore, to find that not everybody in the Pentagon buys this message! A new report by the Joint Forces Command (The Joint Operating Environment 2008: Challenges and Implications for the Future Joint Force [1], November 25, 2008) presents a very different perspective.

In a nutshell, the JFC report argues that the performance of the global economy will be the most important factor affecting international stability and national security in the coming decades, and that sustained economic growth will require accelerating oil production both domestically and worldwide.

One point the JFC makes repeatedly is that globalization fosters expectations that only a strong global economy can meet. By dashing expectations, a weak global economy sets the stage for violence within and among nations:

Serious violence, resulting from economic trends, has almost invariably arisen where economic and political systems have failed to meet rising expectations … Thus, the real danger in a globalized world, where even the poorest have access to pictures and media portrayals of the developed world, lies in a reversal or halt to global prosperity. Such a possibility would lead individuals and nations to scramble for a greater share of shrinking wealth and resources, as occurred in the 1930s with the rise of Nazi Germany in Europe and Japan’s “co-prosperity sphere” in Asia. [Page 15]

The JFC also clearly affirms the dependence of U.S. military power on the health of the U.S. and global economies:

A central component of America’s global military posture is its massive economic power. This power is predicated on a financially-viable, globally connected domestic economy. Should this central feature of American power be weakened, it is highly likely that military capabilities will be diminished or otherwise degraded as a result. [Page 16]

JFC then argues that maintaining U.S. and global economic growth critically depend on increasing oil production:

To meet even the conservative growth rates posited above [2.5% growth for the developed world and 4.5% for developing countries], global energy production would need to rise by 1.3% per year. By the 2030s, demand would be nearly 50% greater than today. To meet that demand, even assuming more effective conservation measures, the world would need to add roughly the equivalent of Saudi Arabia’s current energy production every seven years. [Page 16]

The JFC indicates that our real oil problem is largely self-inflicted:

New sources (Caspian Sea, Brazil, Colombia, and new portions of Alaska and the Continental Shelf) could offset declining production in mature fields over the course of the next quarter century. But without drilling in currently excluded areas, they will add little additional capacity. [Page 16]

To avoid a disastrous energy crunch, together with the economic consequences that would make even modest growth unlikely, the developed world needs to invest heavily in oil production. There appears to be little propensity to consider such investments. [Page 17]

The JFC cautions that biofuels cannot replace oil on the scale required to sustain global prosperity but could endanger global food security:

Production could increase to approximately 3 MBD-equivalent, but starting from a small base, biofuels are unlikely to contribute more than 1% of global energy requirements by the 2030s. Moreover, even that modest achievement could curtail the supply of foodstuffs to the world’s growing population, which would add other national security challenges to an already full menu. [Page 16]

Finally, the JFC is skeptical about the scientific bona fides of claims linking energy use to an impending climate catastrophe:

The impact of global warming and its potential to cause natural disasters and other harmful phenomena such as rising sea levels has become a prominent—and controversial—national and international concern.
Some argue that there will be more and greater storms and natural disasters, others that there will be fewer. In many respects, scientific conclusions about the cause and potential effects of global warming are contradictory. [Page 21]

So much good sense in one document! It restores belief in the phrase “military intelligence.”


Article printed from

URL to article:

URLs in this post:

[1] The Joint Operating Environment 2008: Challenges and Implications for the Future Joint Force:

Climate Alarmists Exposed

What is going to be the result of this leaked information? Will the global warming alarmists succeed in covering it up? Will there be an effect on the upcoming climate conference in Copenhagen? Will the public learn of the enormous magnitude of the betrayal of trust, and waste of Billions of taxpayer dollars on a flawed and deceptive concept of man-caused global warming? Will there be firings and legal action? How much longer can Al Gore continue his charade? These are just a few of the questions that need answering.

The following is an thought-provoking and well-written article that should be read by every practicing scientist and particularly by young aspiring scientists.


November 23, 2009
Climategate: When Scientists Become Politicians

Fudging results in an attempt to make the world fit one’s preconceptions is beyond the scientific pale and a real crime.

FROM-Pajama Media

At the dawn of the modern age of science, a few hundred years ago, accounting for the motion of the planets was a mystery, but one driven by a flawed theory. It was thought, going back to the ancient Greeks and Plato, that the motions of the planets, being otherworldly and celestial objects, must be perfect and therefore circular. Unfortunately, actual observations were hard to reconcile with this notion. The ancient astronomers could have fudged the data to make it conform to the theory, but that would have been unscientific, so they fine-tuned the theory to try to make a better fit. Almost two millennia ago, Ptolemy refined the concept of circles within circles, or epicycles, to try to develop a model that would explain the observed planetary motions. The theory reached its height half a millennium ago when Copernicus, with the insight that the earth orbited the sun, like the other planets, came close to modeling planetary motion by adding new epicycles, albeit with a different model for each planet. But it was a very complex system, and still wasn’t quite close enough.

Kepler resolved the issue by demonstrating that the best fit of the motion was not circles within circles, but rather simple ellipses. He came up with simple but powerful and explanatory laws that described the motion of the planets as a function of their distance from the sun. Newton in turn used this finding to validate his own universal theory of gravitation.

But it still wasn’t quite good enough. For centuries, the innermost planet, Mercury, stubbornly refused to conform perfectly to Newton’s laws, and many more modern astronomers postulated a hidden planet elsewhere in the solar system that might account for the discrepancies; they didn’t abandon Newton’s theory. However, despite years of trying, they could never determine its location or mass. But despite this frustration, they never yielded to the temptation of simply denying the planet’s mercurial behavior — they continued to refine the theory, no matter how difficult.

About a century ago, another physicist, Albert Einstein, came up with a new theory of gravitation. A key part of it is that Newton’s laws must be adjusted slightly to account for the near presence of large masses. By Einstein’s new theory of general relativity, of which Newton’s earlier theory was simply a special case for velocities much less than that of light and locations not adjacent to very large masses, Mercury’s motion was perfectly explained by its close proximity to the sun.

Over thousands of years, at each step, the response of the scientists was to continually adjust and refine their theories to conform to the data, not the other way around. This is how science is done and how we developed the knowledge that has given us such tremendous and accelerating scientific and technological breakthroughs in the past century. It is occasionally reasonable to throw out a bad data point if it is in defiance of an otherwise satisfactory model fit, as long as everyone knows that you’ve done so and the rationale, but a deliberate and unrevealed fudging of results in an attempt to make the real world fit one’s preconceptions is beyond the scientific pale. Journal articles have been thrown out for it; PhD candidates have lost their degrees for it.

But such behavior, along with attempts to cover it up and dishonestly discredit critics, is exactly what was revealed in a leak of emails last Friday from a research facility in eastern England. And it was not the behavior of previously unknown researchers on some arcane topic of little interest to anyone outside their own field. It was the behavior of leading luminaries in perhaps the greatest scientific issue and controversy of our age: Whether or not the planet is warming to a potentially dangerous degree as a result of humanity’s influence. It is a subject on which billions — if not trillions — of dollars worth of future economic growth and costs hinge. It was the basis for the massive “cap and trade” bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives in the spring and seems stalled in the Senate. It is accordingly a subject on which a great deal of money is being spent on research to understand the problem. And when there is a great deal of research funding at stake, often funded by people less interested in truth than in power and political agendas, the temptation to come up with the “correct” answers can perhaps overcome scientific integrity.

It is hard (perhaps impossible) to know the motives of the people who would so betray the basic precepts of science. It is easy to postulate that they have political aims, and there are certainly many “watermelon” environmentalists (green on the outside, “red” on the inside) who see the green movement as a new means to continue to push socialist and big-government agendas, after a momentary setback with the collapse of the Soviet Union two decades ago.

But scientists are human, with human failings. Thomas Kuhn noted half a century ago that science doesn’t always follow the idealized model of the objective scientist seeking only truth; it is often driven by fashions and fads, peer pressure, and a lust for glory and respect by the other courtiers of the court that fund them. So we may never know whether this defense of a flawed theory arose from the sense of power that it might give them over the rest of our lives. Or perhaps it was due to simply an emotional attachment to a theory in which they had invested their careers. Either way, what they did was not science, and they should be drummed out of that profession. They can no longer be trusted.

Many in the climate change community have condemned what they call “skeptics,” often to the point of declaring them de facto criminals and assigning them to the same category as Holocaust deniers. They tell us that “the science is settled” and that we should shut up. But every scientist worthy of the name should be a skeptic. Every theory should be subject to challenge on a scientific basis. Every claim of a model’s validity should be accompanied by the complete model and data set that supposedly validated it, so that it can be replicated. That is how science works. It is how it advances. And when the science is supposedly “settled” and they refuse to do so, it’s not unreasonable to wonder why.

Well, now we know.

In fact, when scientists become politicians but continue to pretend to be doing science, that is the real crime. The theory being promoted by these men was being used to justify government actions that would result in greatly diminished future economic growth of the most powerful economy on earth (and the rest of the world as well). It would make it more difficult and less affordable to address any real problems that might be caused in the future by a change in climate, whether due to human activity or other causes. It could impoverish millions in the future, with little actual change in adverse climate effects. And when such a theory has the potential to do so much unjustified harm, and it has a fraudulent basis, who are the real criminals against humanity?

Global Warming Myth Biggest Scandal Of All Time

Is the public so jaded they pay no attention to this global warming scandal? Or is the public so thoroughly brainwashed about the myth of man-caused global warming they can not question its validity or accept this scandal? The truth will prevail, as it always does, and this myth that carbon dioxide emsissions cause global warming will go down in history as one of the greatest scandals of all time.

Inhofe to call for hearing into CRU, U.N. climate change research
Posted: 23 Nov 2009 12:41 PM PST

Sen. InhofeThe publication of more than 1,000 private e-mails that climate change skeptics say proves the threat is exaggerated has prompted one key Republican senator to call for an investigation into their research.

In an interview with The Washington Times on Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) announced he would probe whether the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."

WarmerGate Fallout: 'I am sick to my stomach': 'As a long time AGW supporter I must say I found the emails very disturbing'

Posted: 23 Nov 2009 12:32 PM PST

AGW supporter: "I feel ashamed for the behavior of our leading scientists … I feel betrayed."Former believers in the UN and media hyped "consensus" of man-made climate fears are now pausing and reconsidering the "evidence" which "ClimateGate" or "WarmerGate" has exposed.

A posting on the Christian Science Monitor named "Ron" sums up the impact of the scandal that is rocking the United Nation's global warming establishment. These comments may turn out to be the inconvenient sentiment of many.

If the CRU leak was an inside whistleblower, here’s the line-up of potential suspects heroes
Posted: 23 Nov 2009 12:26 PM PST

Keith Briffa: Could this man be
the whistleblower?If it was indeed an insider whistleblower, Jones, Briffa, Kelly, and some others could be crossed off of this CRU staff list, but who knows what lurks in the hearts of the others?

Hmmm, I’d put my money on Mr. Mike Salmon, just because he’s the IT guy. But, if it’s hard to get in contact with Salmon to inquire about this matter, it’s probably because he’s being water-boarded by Jones and Briffa.

NYTimes: We Won't Publish "Statements that Were Never Intended for the Public Eye."
Posted: 23 Nov 2009 11:38 AM PST

Andrew Revkin taking the high road? Hardly.With the release of hundreds of emails by scientists advocates of global warming showing obvious and entirely inappropriate collusion by the authors -- including attempts to suppress dissent, to punish journals that publish peer-reviewed studies casting doubt on global warming, and to manipulate data to bolster their own arguments -- even the New York Times is forced to concede that "the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists." But apparently the paper's environmental blog, Dot Earth, is taking a pass on publishing any of the documents and emails that are now circulating. Andrew Revkin, the author of that blog, writes:

Climate change scientists launch defense of Climategate emails

Posted: 23 Nov 2009 11:30 AM PST

Kevin Trenberth trying to get in front of the
storm of controversy.Some of the world’s top climate change scientists have found themselves having to defend their internal communications after thousands of emails were exposed on the Internet last week. The emails, stolen from Britain’s Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, show the inner workings of the elite group of scientists and have those involved struggling to explain the contents.

Skeptics of the manmade climate change theory have seized on the messages saying the messages are evidence of collusion among the scientists to falsify and hide data. The scientists for their part have said the messages are being ‘taken out of context.

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round Up Special Edition: Hadley CRU/Leak Hack
Posted: 23 Nov 2009 07:37 AM PST

s been a weekend for the hippiesHere’s a bonus round-up of all things Hadley CRU hack/leak. The Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round Up will still appear here on Thursday, fear not.
The site at the center of the storm is Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre’s web lair. If you have trouble getting it to load (because lots of people just discovered that the science isn’t settled), try the mirror site.

Already there are calls for a public enquiry in the UK, and you can bet that Michael Mann’s involvement will interest Senator Inhofe. It’s about time someone took Mann to task, that Miami Vice remake was terrible.

Global Warming: Can we Get an Apology Now?Posted: 23 Nov 2009 07:34 AM PST

For the last few years, many of us have been screaming from the frozen mountaintops that global warming is a farce intended to make lots of money for those that are warning of ocean covered coasts and melting ice sheets. Profiteers like Al Gore have been showing slide shows to our kids, making goofy movies and trying to funnel billions if not trillions of dollars into their pockets.

These people, I understand. They are money grubbing idiots who's intents are easily seen (at least if you are not wearing green eyeglasses).

Settled Science? Computer hackers reveal corruption behind the global-warming "consensus."
Posted: 23 Nov 2009 07:27 AM PST

Mann oh man: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.""Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach," the New York Times reports. "They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic." But some scientists have confirmed that their emails were quoted accurately.

The files--which can be downloaded here--surely have not been fully plumbed. The ZIP archive weighs in at just under 62 megabytes, or more than 157 MB when uncompressed. But bits that have already been analyzed, as the Washington Post reports, "reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies":

Gore’s Manipulation Allowed By Mainstream Media Climate Change Bias – Continues With CRU
Posted: 23 Nov 2009 07:22 AM PST

“It is a characteristic of all movements and crusades that the psychopathic element rises to the top.” Robert Lindner

How much longer will Al Gore get a pass from the mainstream media? A little bit longer if their failure to react to the devastating revelations of files hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia is a measure. Their behavior reflects how most, especially from the left, have abetted the scientists who deliberately perverted climate science.

Gore’s Manipulation Allowed By Mainstream Media Climate Change Bias – Continues With CRU
Posted: 23 Nov 2009 07:22 AM PST

“It is a characteristic of all movements and crusades that the psychopathic element rises to the top.” Robert Lindner

How much longer will Al Gore get a pass from the mainstream media? A little bit longer if their failure to react to the devastating revelations of files hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia is a measure. Their behavior reflects how most, especially from the left, have abetted the scientists who deliberately perverted climate science.

Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data 'manipulation'

Posted: 23 Nov 2009 07:18 AM PST

Lord LawsonThousands of emails and documents 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.

This morning Lord Lawson, who has reinvented himself as a prominent climate change sceptic since leaving front line politics, demanded that the apparent deception be fully investigated.
Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on "Climategate" on Washington Times Americas Morning Show

Posted: 23 Nov 2009 07:14 AM PST


Sunday, November 22, 2009

Redemption.....Skeptics Proven Correct

The Death Blow to Climate Science
Written by Dr. Tim Ball, Canada Free Press
Saturday, November 21 2009 09:43

Global Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.

Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia. A very large file (61 mb) was downloaded and posted to the web. Phil Jones Director of the CRU has acknowledged the files are theirs. They contain papers, documents letters and emails. The latter are the most damaging and contain blunt information about the degree of manipulation of climate science in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular.

Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists
Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).

I had the pleasure of meeting the founder of CRU Professor Hubert Lamb, considered the Father of Modern Climatology, on a couple of occasions. He also peer reviewed one of my early publications. I know he would be mortified with what was disclosed in the last couple of days.

Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn’t and it is enough to destroy all their careers. Jones gave a foretaste of his behavior in 2005. Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” He has stonewalled ever since. The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century. The emails obtained are a frightening record of arrogance, and deception far beyond his 2005 effort.

Another glimpse into what the files and emails reveal was the report by Professor Deming. He wrote, “ With publication of an article in Science (in 1995) I gained sufficient credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said. “We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The person in question was Jonathan Overpeck and his even more revealing emails are part of those exposed by the hacker. It is now very clear that Deming’s charge was precise. They have perverted science in the service of social and political causes.

Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other’s work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names. They threatened to isolate and marginalize one editor who they believed was recalcitrant.

Total Control
These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.

CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.”


Saturday, November 21, 2009

The Deception And Lies Of The Global Warming Alarmists

These are not "climate scientists", they should be called what they are, criminals, and they should be prosecuted for fraud.


Global Warming Establishment Uncovered

Julie Walsh

The electronic files of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, UK have been hacked and 61 MB worth of emails, approximately a thousand documents, have been posted on the internet on a Russian server. CRU is one of the few institutions in the world that compile and maintain the records of the world’s temperature data. In an interview with “Investigate” magazine, the director of CRU Professor Phil Jones said, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.” Anthony Watts has the evolving story at

Here are some of the most revealing and shocking email quotes unearthed so far (my emphases):

On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:

Mike (Mann),

The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical runs with PCM look as though they match observations -- but the match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low climate sensitivity -- compensating errors. In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and forcing assumptions/uncertainties.

From: Phil Jones

To: "Michael E. Mann"


Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. 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 !

From: Kevin Trenberth

To: Michael Mann

Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

From: Phil Jones

To: “Michael E. Mann”

Subject: IPCC & FOI

Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

From: Ben Santer

To: P.Jones

Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record

Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:56 -0700

I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.

My colleague Chris Horner wrote a book published in 2008 on this exact subject, “Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed

The Real Climate Crisis: The Alarmists Are Liars And Cheats

Al Gore has been duped by a bunch of lying, cheating pseudo-scientists promoting the global warming con-game for their own personal gain. Please read the following article and pass it around. It had to come down to this. The "science" supporting the myth of man-caused global warming has never made sense. Poor Al Gore, if the man had an ounce of dignity or honesty himself, he would return his Nobel Award, or throw it in the sewer where it belongs. Maybe Mr. Obama should do the same. It is almost frightening how easily these world leaders are played for fools.


Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

Written by James Delingpole, Telegraph
Friday, November 20 2009 17:21

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

Searchable CRU email database

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“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…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were 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 millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.