Lock Up The Climate Crooks And Throw Away The Keys

It is difficult to grasp how much money has been wasted and how much human suffering has been caused by the hoax surrounding the decades-long myth of man-caused global warming/climate change.

What began as an innocent-sounding and appearing effort to understand the world's weather systems and patterns and how these affect humans on Earth was morphed into a bottomless money drain on taxpayers in the form of endless government funding of ever-increasing ludicrous projects.  Billions and Billions (Trillions) of dollars or their equivalent have been largely wasted.  Job creation?  Hardly.  It is like paying someone to dig a hole and then having them fill it in.

What have any of these "climate studies", laws, treaties, taxes, caps, trades, etc. actually accomplished?  Are we any safer?  Are our lives any better?  Is there less flooding, fewer tornadoes, a stabilization of sea level, are polar bears any happier?  Is there less "pollution", is the air any cleaner, are the glaciers advancing, or retreating, coral reefs living or dying, do we even really know any of those things, if we did, do they matter?  Has anything been done other than enrich Al Gore and people like James Hansen, the taxpayer-paid, global warming fathers of global warming alarmism?  They ought to be arrested, tried before a well-publicized jury of ordinary people, and if guilty, fined to their last penny, and locked up forever.

As I see the United States sink farther and farther into debt, not to mention the rest of the world, and I see money wasted on projects like mandated wind energy, solar farms, electric vehicles, ethanol fuel from corn, and a host of other things that are uneconomic, impractical, and used by corrupt politicians to manipulate people and simply serve as a means of collecting more taxes, I become a tad bit irritated. 

I care about America.  I'm not being paid by "big bad oil" to share this material and my knowledge and experience, limited as it may be.  I simply care about the world and its people and I hate to see the future being ruined by these so-called "environmentalists" for future generations.  Honestly, it is not for me.  I don't have that many years left.  I don't like seeing people being conned and ripped off.  Everyone is in far greater debt, (and remember taxation and perpetual debt is a form of slavery.)  I trust nobody likes being a slave, even if it is just a partial slave, and especially not a slave to these "climate criminals".
Peter

source

Climate Criminal Peter Gleick and James Hansen in Racketeering Probe?

Written by John O'Sullivan, guest post | March 01 2012

James Hansen being arrested at Keystone protest sit-in.FBI agents are urged to grill others linked to self-confessed climate criminal, Dr. Peter Gleick in the 'Fakegate’ climate counterfeiting scandal. Evidence now points to NASA’s Dr. James Hansen as accomplice in global warming racket.

Dr. Peter Gleick resigned last Thursday as chairman of the American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Ethics. Ross Rice, an FBI agent and spokesman from the Chicago field office confirmed an FBI probe is under way, “We are currently working with the [Heartland] institute and the U.S. Attorney’s office in Chicago.

Dr. Gleick's rapid fall from grace has mired other top tier climatologists in what may become a full-blown wire fraud and RICO racketeering investigation by federal authorities. Leading critics are sure that the elements of 18 USC 1343 appear already met under admitted facts.
Questions will now need to be asked about the American Geophysical Union's (AGU) role in enabling Hansen to make a notorious presentation to Congress on June 23, 1988; all thanks to a dubious ‘peer-reviewed’ paper of his that AGU brusquely shoehorned through.

Now identity thief Peter Gleick has been exposed as disseminating at least one forged document used to defame the Heartland Institute, a well-known free trade policy think tank. Gleick admitted to Huffington Post readers that he handled stolen documents. His intent was to injure others – a crime under U.S. Law. Actual financial harm occurred due to Gleick's unlawful release of Heartland's donor list and contributions; one donor has since withdrawn funding.

However, none of the documents distributed by Gleick (other than the fake strategy document) reveal any smoking guns against Heartland. But already, astute investigators have found a worrying link between Gleick, Dr. James Hansen and the AGU that may yet point to a real smoking gun in U.S. climate fraud racketeering from 1988.

Gleick, Hansen and the AGU Complicit in the 'Greatest Crime'
Hansen's paper, foretelling of a world of catastrophic man-made global warming was 'peer reviewed’ to sway an otherwise skeptical Congress. The AGU is thus a vehicle of dubious patronage.

Hansen misled elected officials by deceitfully claiming that carbon dioxide (CO2) from ocean out-gassing and other natural vents has different carbon ratios 'signature' than human 'fossil fuel' emissions. Hansen then successfully duped policymakers into believing human CO2 emissions were linked to global warming. But the truth is that there is no way to distinguish between natural or man-made sources of CO2. Hansen's paper was thus not up to the scientific standard necessary for publication and should never have passed proper peer review.

Thus Hansen’s Congressional charade precipitated the U.S. government’s resolve to fight global ‘greenhouse gas’ warming and blow $100 billion tackling a proven non-problem (despite 30 percent rises in carbon dioxide emissions global temperatures have fallen this century).

Federal agents now have a green light to apply RICO statutes, designed to root out racketeering, based on the following facts:
As a self-confessed climate criminal Dr. Peter Gleick faces incarceration. He has already admitted to being implicated in identity theft, stealing private documents and falsifying evidence to defame, and thus injure the Heartland Institute and others. Gleick is linked via the AGU to Hansen's 1988 paper and by association to other scientists suspected of fraud (inc. hockey stick graph conjurer, Michael Mann).
Over the decades such unprincipled alarmists stand accused of filching millions in taxpayer funds by exploiting public fears in a phony global warming narrative.

How RICO Statutes May Be Applied
If the FBI can show that a fraudulent AGW narrative was knowingly implemented by Gleick, Hansen and other key players, then not only can prosecutions for racketeering be swiftly implemented, but the whole climate science house of cards will collapse.

Federal law sets out the meaning of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961. Identity theft and the fraudulent creation of documents that Gleick dishonestly attributed to Heartland clearly qualifies his crimes as possible racketeering offenses under RICO.

To sustain convictions a pattern of racketeering activity must first be established. This requires the FBI to produce evidence that Gleick, AGU and/or other co-conspirators have engaged in at least two acts of racketeering activity. The law requires that investigators tie together such acts within 10 years of each other.

The burden for prosecutors is not a light one but these riders of the global warming gravy train may well fit the bill as per the test applied by the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the 'continuity-plus-relationship test' applied to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern.

U.S. Supreme Court guidelines state that co-conspirators "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." (H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.)

Where Does Climate Politics and Law Go From Here?
Other experts share my opinion that there is sufficient probable cause to follow through with a thorough in-depth federal investigation into the Gleick ’Fakegate’ case to see how far the 'post-normal' climate cancer has spread. Certainly, Peter Gleick should be offered a plea bargain deal if he rats out the other racketeers.

Apologists for climate criminals will not be curbed until the leaders of this 'post normal' academic cult are jailed. But whether the Obama government has the stomach to follow through and permit such prosecutions remains to be seen, as Chicago FBI agent, Ross Rice hinted:
“Whether Gleick, a member of the U.S. intellectual elite and a former student and coauthor with John Holdren, Obama’s Science Adviser, is ever charged is a different issue than whether his acts meet the elements of 18 USC 1343.”

Skeptics have already seen how the British police have stalled for two years despite admissions by one British climatologist of his climate crimes (Dr. Phil Jones could still feasibly be prosecuted under the UK Fraud Act).

If national governments won’t put a stop to it then state prosecutors and civil litigants likely will. Indeed, Glieck's crimes may also be prosecuted under California law. Section 528.5 to the Penal Code deals specifically with such impersonation (SB 1411: Internet Impersonation).
While over in Virginia, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is a high-profile prosecutor adamant he will continue the fight on behalf of the Commonwealth’s taxpayers and expose Michael Mann's hidden misdeeds.

Meanwhile, in Vancouver popular skeptic climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball is making strides defending vexatious libel suits filed separately by Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Andrew Weaver. History will eventually join all such pieces of the puzzle to show how just extensive the climate fraud truly was.

Have We Been Misled About Past Carbon Dioxide Levels?

There are many reasons why atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, from any source, do not control the Earth's climate. However, most of us assume that measures and estimates of past levels of CO2 are accurate. New evidence shows that may not be the case. If this is true, why have we been misled? If we have been misled about the temperature history, and there is much evidence suggesting we have been, why not historical CO2 levels?
Peter


CO2 is not causing warming or climate change. It is not a toxic substance or a pollutant.
Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. How and why we are told otherwise?
By Dr. Tim Ball Wednesday, December 10, 2008

How many failed predictions, discredited assumptions and evidence of incorrect data are required before an idea loses credibility? CO2 is not causing warming or climate change. It is not a toxic substance or a pollutant. Despite this President Elect Obama met with Al Gore on December 9 no doubt to plan a climate change strategy based on these problems. They make any plan to reduce of CO2 completely unnecessary.

• 
  Proponents of human induced warming and climate change told us that an increase in CO2 precedes and causes temperature increases. They were wrong.

• They told us the late 20th century was the warmest on record. They were wrong.

• They told us, using the infamous “hockey stick” graph, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did not exist. They were wrong.

• They told us global temperatures would increase through 2008 as CO2 increased. They were wrong.

• They told us Arctic ice would continue to decrease in area through 2008. They were wrong.

• They told us October 2008 was the second warmest on record. They were wrong.

• They told us 1998 was the warmest year on record in the US. They were wrong it was 1934.

• They told us current atmospheric levels of CO2 are the highest on record. They are wrong.

• They told us pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were approximately 100 parts per million (ppm) lower than the present 385 ppm. They are wrong. This last is critical because the claim is basic to the argument that humans are causing warming and climate change by increasing the levels of atmospheric CO2 and have throughout the Industrial era. In fact, pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today, but how did they conclude they were lower?

In a paper submitted to the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski explains,
The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.”

Ice cores provide the historic record and data collected at Mauna Loa the recent record. Both records are drastically modified to produce a smooth continuous curve with little variability. This was necessary to confirm the evidence falsely concluded from many 19th century measures that pre-industrial levels were approximately 280 ppm and didn’t vary much. So how did they engineer the smooth curves and ignore the fact the 19th century record shows a global average of 335 ppm and considerable variability from year to year.

Most people don’t know that thousands of direct measures of atmospheric CO2 were made beginning in 1812. Scientists took the readings with calibrated instruments and precise measurements as the work of Ernst-Georg Beck has thoroughly documented. Guy Stewart Callendar was an earlier visitor to these records. He rejected most of the records including 69% of the 19th century records and only selected certain records that established the pre-industrial level as 280 ppm. Here is a plot of the records with those Callendar selections circled.
It is clear how only low readings were chosen. Also notice how the slope and trend is changed compared to the entire record.

As Jaworowski notes,
“The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv.”

Beck recently confirmed Jaworowski’s research. A September 2008 article in Energy and Environment examined the readings in great detail and validated the 19th century findings. In a devastating conclusion Beck writes,
Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis? Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel.

So the pre-industrial level is at least 50 ppm higher than the level put into the computer models that produce all future climate predictions. The models also incorrectly assume uniform atmospheric global distribution and virtually no variability of CO2 from year to year.
Beck found, “Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.” Here is a plot from Beck comparing 19th century readings with ice core and Mauna Loa data.

Compare the variability of the atmospheric measures with the smooth line of the ice core record. Eliminating extreme readings and then applying a long term smoothing average achieved this. When smoothing is done on the scale of the ice core record a great deal of information is lost. Elimination of high readings prior to the smoothing makes the loss even greater. Also note that as with all known records the temperature changes before the CO2, in this record by approximately 5 years.

Elimination of data is also done with the Mauna Loa and other atmospheric readings, which can vary up to 600 ppm in the course of a day. Beck explains how Charles Keeling established the Mauna Loa readings by using the lowest readings of the afternoon. He ignored natural sources, a practice that continues. Beck presumes Keeling decided to avoid these low level natural sources by establishing the station at 4000 meters (m) up the volcano. As Beck notes “Mauna Loa does not represent the typical atmospheric CO2 on different global locations but is typical only for this volcano at a maritime location in about 4000 m altitude at that latitude.” (Beck, 2008, “50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2 on Mauna Loa” Energy and Environment, Vol 19, No.7.)
Keeling’s son continues to operate the Mauna Loa facility and as Beck notes, “owns the global monopoly of calibration of all CO2 measurements.” Since the young Keeling is a co-author of the IPCC reports they accept the version that Mauna Loa is representative of global readings and that they reflect an increase since pre-industrial levels.

The Ice Core record
Jaworowski estimates the ice core readings are at least 20% low. That is more reasonable given the CO2 levels for 600 millions years using geologic evidence. Here the current level of 385 ppm is the lowest in the entire record and only equaled by a period between 315 and 270 million years ago (mya).

There are many problems with the ice core record. It takes years, sometimes up to 80, for air to be trapped in the ice so the question is what is actually being trapped and measured? Melt water moving through the ice especially when the ice is close to the surface can contaminate the air bubble. Bacteria form in the ice releasing gases even in 500,000-year-old ice at great depth. Under the pressure below 50m ice changes from brittle to plastic and begins to flow. The layers formed with each year of snowfall gradually disappear as the ice layers meld and compress. A considerable depth of ice covering a long period of time is required to obtain a single reading at depth.

Further evidence of the effects of smoothing and the artificially low ice core readings are provided by measurements of stomata. Stomata are the small openings on leaves that vary directly with the amount of atmospheric CO2. A comparison of a stomata record with the ice core record for a 2000-year period illustrates the issue.

Stomata data on the right show the higher readings and variability when compared to the excessively smoothed ice core record on the left. This aligns quantitatively with the 19th century measurements as Jaworowski and Beck assert. A Danish stomata record shows levels of 333 ppm 9400 years ago and 348 ppm 9600 years ago.

The EPA is planning to declare CO2 a toxic substance and a pollutant. Governments are preparing to create carbon taxes and draconian restrictions that will cripple economies for a completely non-existent problem. It appears that a multitude of failed predictions, discredited assumptions and pieces of incorrect data are required before an idea loses credibility. Credibility should have collapsed but political control and insanity prevail. (4)

“Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.”
Letters@canadafreepress.com
Older articles by Dr. Tim Ball

Tornadoes Not Related To Global Warming

Tornadoes can be terribly destructive and deadly. Before we jump to hasty (and often erroneous) conclusions about their cause, let us consider some facts, gained from careful study and observation. Here is a relatively simple explanation. It is extremely foolish to assume that tornadoes are caused by carbon dioxide emissions which supposedly cause global warming. The weather systems that generate tornadoes are not affected by atmospheric CO2 in any way. There are many other factors at work. The following article explains it well.
Peter

“Environmentalists bound to use recent storm events to ‘prove’ their dogma."

source:

Tornadoes not a sign of global warming
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, February 18, 2008

In his book State of Fear, Michael Crichton wrote about exploitation of fear by environmental extremists. He should write another book about exploitation of lack of knowledge.

Climate and environment were previously outside of politics, but once they became potential election issues politicians exploited them better than environmentalists. It fulfills H.L Mencken’s observation that, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

So before anyone attempts to make political gain from the tragic events of the tornados that killed people across the southern US recently, let’s put the science on the record. And while we’re at it let’s explode another false claim that storms and severe weather will increase with global warming.

Most major storms and severe weather, including tornadoes, occur in the middle latitudes between approximately 30 and 65 degrees of latitude. Much weather terminology such as Advancing Fronts, Retreating Fronts, outbreaks of warm or cold air reflect its World War I genesis. Fronts are the battle zone between different air masses and as they move they are labeled warm or cold. If you are warm and the temperature drops, a Cold Front has passed; if you are cold and the temperature rises, a Warm Front has passed. It’s the cold air that dictates what happens because it is more dense and heavier than the warm air. It pushes the warm air out of the way or allows the warm air to move in behind. Overall, Earth’s atmosphere is in two air masses with a dome of cold polar air over each pole and over-running warm subtropical air separated by the Polar Front. Temperature difference across the Front is variable but quite dramatic most of the time. It is this difference that creates pressure differences and very strong winds. Above the surface this manifests as the powerful Jet Stream.

At the surface waves develop and spiral into low pressure systems known as mid-latitude cyclones. They migrate along the Front like a wave moving through the ocean. In winter they bring snow and are called blizzards; in summer they bring heavy rain, occasionally with severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. The Front moves seasonally as the cold dome expands and contracts with the changing sun angle (the Greeks understood this - the word climate comes from their word klimat meaning angle). As it moves through latitude the seasons change, marked by these low pressure storm systems.

In the US, the most extreme temperature contrast across the Front occurs when cold air pushes well south and meets with warm moist air coming off the Gulf of Mexico. This pattern creates a general zone running from the Texas panhandle northeast through the Ohio valley and in to southwest Ontario. This zone is known as Tornado Alley. It’s a wide zone that varies with the season and conditions. The loss of life is tragic, but is a sad part of living in the tornado zone. Natural risks exist in every part of the world. People weigh the risks against the potential for obtaining a living or a lifestyle. In Bangladesh, millions risk cyclones and flooding to farm the rich soils. In Indonesia they live on the side of active volcanoes because of the fertile soils. People ignore the risk of earthquakes for the lifestyle in California.

Despite what the environmentalists want you to think, it is not, and cannot be, a no-risk world and risks, in general, are not being enhanced by human activity. But environmental alarmists’ ideas about risk underpin their foolish ideas that we can stop the risk of climate change. We can certainly reduce other risks and that is apparent from an analysis of the statistics gathered in Tornado Alley - National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration information shows how the loss of life from tornadoes has decreased significantly. This is even more dramatic when you consider the increase in population density in this region. (Source: http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/public_html/tornado/)

When asked about a tornado in New York on August 8, 2007 NASA’s James Hansen, a climate change alarmist of the first order, said. “No, you cannot blame individual events like that on climate change, as it was possible for them to occur even without the human-made changes to the atmosphere. However, it is fair to ask whether the human changes have altered the likelihood of such events. There the answer seems to be yes. Storms driven largely by latent heat, and that includes thunderstorms, are expected to become stronger as the air becomes warmer and contains more moisture. Global warming does cause just such a tendency. (Source: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/climate-expert-.html)

But, this is only half the story. It is, however typical of statements from climate catastrophizers. Hansen also claims that global warming will result in greater warming in polar air than in tropical air. This means the temperature difference across the Polar Front will decrease and, as a result, the strength of the major mechanism for storm creation will decrease. Fewer storms means fewer tornadoes. Storm and accompanying tornadoes that caused the recent deaths were partly created by increased warm moist air off the Gulf of Mexico as a result of La Nina. Specifically, NOAA reports, “For the contiguous United States, potential impacts include above-average precipitation in the Northern Rockies, the Pacific Northwest, and Ohio and TennesseeValleys.” (Source: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.pdf)

This influx of warm moist air is needed to meet with the cold air that pushes far south, as it has all this winter. It will continue to do as the Earth continues to cool, as it has generally since 1998. The dilemma then is that storms will most likely increase in frequency and severity, but it will be because of global cooling, not warming. Proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis have positioned themselves to continue to claim they are right no matter what ultimately happens. They switched from calling it ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ as the concern as global temperatures began to decline while carbon dioxide levels increased. This position produces incredible statements that merely demonstrate ignorance such as Greenpeace climate spokesperson Steven Guilbeault’s comment, “Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter, that’s what we’re dealing with.” Unfortunately most of the public are not yet knowledgeable about the issue to know how silly Guilbeault’s comment is, but they’re learning.

Dr. Timothy Ball is a Victoria, British Columbia-based environmental consultant, former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, and Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (http://www.nrsp.com/).