Showing posts with label Global warming fraud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global warming fraud. Show all posts

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Enemies Of The State: Those Who Question Man-Caused Global Warming

Those who question or doubt the ongoing efforts to silence critics of one of the greatest hoaxes of all time, the idea of man-caused global warming, need to read the following article. What I call the "myth" of man-caused global warming relates specifically to the burning of "fossil fuels" and the expulsion of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the primary cause of global warming or "climate change".

This issue has become so politically heated (excuse the pun) that all sense of reason, common sense and scientific integrity have been lost. Those in governmental power see nothing but dollar signs, a way to tax energy usage (read "Cap and Trade") to increase their revenue and gain additional control over the "masses". This is glaringly clear. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of the subject knows that limiting carbon dioxide emissions by taxing them, or by other means, is going to have little if any effect on global warming or climate change. It is beyond the absurd to think we can change something as enormous as the global climate. However, those now in power do not care, not about the environment, not about the economy, people's jobs, or their well-being. All they see is increased power and control for themselves.

Is this political and not scientific? You bet. And those now in control in the U.S. go by the names of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Lieberman, et al. Keep in mind that their spiritual leader is the less than amoral Al Gore. This story is not over and it just gets more sordid by the day with revelations such as that described in the following article.
Peter

Writing for PJM Helped Make Me Enemy of the State Number #38

As a scientist who dares to "think different" and "question authority" on global warming, I'm in good company.
July 7, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler (Source)

Professor Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the Royal Society, is number 3 on the list. Dyson is a friend of mine and is one of the creators of relativistic quantum field theory; most physicists think he should have shared the Nobel Prize in Physics with Richard Feynman. MIT professor Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist who is also a member of the National Academy, is number 4. Princeton physics professor William Happer, once again a member of the National Academy of Sciences, is number 6.

I’m in good company.

The list is actually available only online. The published article, which links to the list, argues that the skeptical scientists — the article calls us “climate deniers,” trying to equate us with Holocaust deniers — have published less in climate “science” than believers in anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

True.

But if the entire field of climate “science” is suspect, if the leaders of the field of climate “science” are suspected of faking their results and are accused of arranging for their critics’ papers to be rejected by “peer-reviewed” journals, then lack of publication in climate “science” is an argument for taking us more seriously than the leaders of the climate “science.”

Freeman Dyson, for example, was not trained as a physicist but as a mathematician. His contribution to quantum field theory was applying his mathematical skills to showing that Feynman’s work was mathematically rigorous and mathematically equivalent to another formulation due to Julian Schwinger (who shared the Nobel with Feynman). Freeman has spent the fifty years after this work switching from field to field, always making important contributions to these fields, and making them precisely because he has looked at the evidence from a different point of view.

Dick Lindzen actually is an insider in real climate science, but he is an insider who can’t be bought, an insider who follows the evidence rather than the grant money.

Will Happer is mainly an experimental atomic physicist, but a physicist who has a decades-old reputation for investigating extraordinary claims in all areas of physics. Will was one of the experimentalists who exposed the cold fusion scam a number of years ago.

As for myself, I’m a cosmologist, with a special interest in the anthropic principle, as my National Academy of Sciences security police dossier correctly notes. Twenty odd years ago, I co-authored a book, published by Oxford University Press, on the anthropic principle. As my co-author and I pointed out, the essence of the anthropic principle is eliminating human bias from the interpretation of observations, and we focused mainly on eliminating such bias from cosmology.

But human bias is human bias. I myself have looked at some of the raw data from surface stations that measure the Earth’s temperature. The raw data are from selected sites in the USA, in New Zealand, in Australia, and in Sweden. I selected these sites because I’m reasonably sure they will not have bias due to changing human habitation, or human wars, or human politics. These sites show no warming in the twentieth century. So I have to conclude that we don’t even know if there was any warming on Earth in the twentieth century.

Notice that I am not saying that there has been no warming, just that the available raw data that I’ve personally been able to check do not show it. Until all the raw temperature data are placed online, so the data can be checked by anybody, a rational person has to suspend belief in global warming, to say nothing of AGW.

The official government adjusted data for these sites do show a warming trend. All the warming is in the “corrections.” Sorry, I don’t buy it. Especially from “scientists” who are known to “correct’ their raw data to “hide the decline.”

There have been calls to silence the 496 scientists on the list. Besides “climate deniers,’ we have been called “traitors.” We all know the penalty for treason.

So far, no federal agents have come to pick me up. But nowhere in Mein Kampf does Adolf Hitler call for the extermination of the Jews. Hitler does repeatedly refer to the Jews as “tuberculosis bacilli.” What does one want to do with tuberculosis bacilli?

I’m an enemy of the state. It’s an honor.

Frank J. Tipler is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University. He is the co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press) and the author of The Physics of Immortality and The Physics of Christianity both published by Doubleday.

Friday, May 7, 2010

Global Warming: The Biggest Hoax Becomes The Biggest Heist

The myth of man-caused global warming has led to all kinds very real man-caused disasters, such as turning food crops into fuel (ethanol), subsidizing uneconomic forms of energy generation, (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.), mandating absurd fuel economy standards for vehicles, promising "green jobs" to stimulate the economy, and now the biggest fraud of them all....."Cap and Trade" of carbon dioxide emissions. Will America wake up and vote these destructive, power-hungry, hypocritical socialists out of office?
Read the following article and see how well carbon trading, or "cap and tax" is going in Europe, a foretaste of what America can expect, fraud and corruption on an unimaginable scale. Thank you Al Gore.
Peter


The Biggest Heist in American History – Cap and Trade 2

90% of the European cap and trade is a fraud according to Europol.

Europol, the European criminal intelligence agency, announced that Emissions Trading System fraud had resulted in about 5 billion euros in lost revenues.

Europol said:

“In announcing the raids, the agency said that as much as 90% of Europe’s carbon trades were the result of fraudulent activity.

“Carbon markets are highly susceptible to fraud, given their complexity and the fact that it’s not always clear what is being traded,” says Oscar Reyes of Carbon Trade Watch.”

This is the he system that Crime Ink wants to force on us, that puts all the burden on the common people and does nothing whatsoever for the environment.

This is a scam to enrich the corrupt.

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANIDATE BARACK OBAMA:

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

See also my previous post:

The Biggest Heist in American History – Cap and Trade

More on cap and trade on my blog uddebatt.wordpress.com

Europol announcement:

http://www.europol.europa.eu/index.asp?page=news&news=pr091209.htm

http://euobserver.com/22/29996

w.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=532610

Europe’s Carbon Mafia, And Ours

Posted 05/06/2010 07:18 PM ET

Corruption: The carbon trading system being pushed here has spawned crime and fraud across the pond. Cap-and-trade is not about saving the planet. It’s about money and power, and absolute power corrupting absolutely.

All across Europe authorities have been conducting raids, rounding up individuals involved in a new version of Climate-gate. This time the data aren’t corrupted. Europe’s Emissions Trading System is. The system is so sick, it’s turned out to be a scam built upon a scam.

Twenty-five people have been arrested in raids by British and German authorities as part of a pan-European crackdown on carbon credit VAT tax fraud.

U.K. officials announced raids on 81 offices and homes, nabbing 13 people in England and eight in Scotland. The operation involved 450 investigators from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs office.

German authorities raided 230 locations, including the headquarters of Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt and the offices of RWE, one of the largest energy firms in Europe. The German operation involved 1,000 investigators targeting 50 companies and 150 suspects.

The amount of money involved in carbon trading is huge and the temptations vast. While our Congress demagogues about banks and their “complex financial instruments,” they are simple compared to cap-and-trade, which as we have noted involves essentially the buying and selling of air. Throw in an oppressive value-added tax and you have a recipe for corruption and fraud.

Last December, Europol, the European criminal intelligence agency, announced that Emissions Trading System fraud had resulted in about 5 billion euros in lost revenues as Europe’s carbon traders schemed to avoid paying Europe’s VAT and pocket the difference. In announcing the raids, the agency said that as much as 90% of Europe’s carbon trades were the result of fraudulent activity.

“Carbon markets are highly susceptible to fraud, given their complexity and the fact that it’s not always clear what is being traded,” says Oscar Reyes of Carbon Trade Watch.

Climate change has been found to be a fraud. Now the system to fight it has been. Yet it’s that system the administration and others want to establish here through cap-and-trade legislation such as Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer.

As we also have noted, the mechanism for such phantom carbon trading here has already been established in the form of the Chicago Climate Exchange. The Joyce Foundation in 2000 and 2001 provided the seed money to start CCX when Barack Obama sat on its board.

CCX founder Richard Sandor estimates the climate trading market could be “a $10 trillion dollar market.” It is an invitation to fraud that would make Europe’s ETS scandal seem like petty theft.

In 2000, according to Joyce Foundation records, $347,600 was allocated to Northwestern University’s Kellogg Graduate School of Management, where Sandor was a research professor, “to design a Midwestern pilot program for the voluntary trading of carbon dioxide and other emissions that cause climate change.”

Now President Obama would make such carbon trading mandatory, limit total emissions and make carbon as valuable a commodity as booze during Prohibition.

The Joyce Foundation’s two grants totaled just over $1 million. CCX has proved very lucrative for Sandor, whose 8 million shares in the exchange has grown to more than $260 million even before a national cap-and-trade system like Europe’s is established.

Al Gore, who recently increased his carbon footprint by spending $8.9 million on an oceanview villa near Santa Barbara, Calif., sitting on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa, fountains, five bedrooms, nine bathrooms and no fewer than six fireplaces, is co-founder of Generation Investment Management LLP, the fifth largest shareholder in CCX.

The largest shareholder is, uh, Goldman Sachs. Other CCX founders include former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood, as well as Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris, also of Goldman Sachs. Presumably they know a lot about playing shell games with other people’s money.

What has happened in Europe is going to happen here and may already have begun. We, too, can save the earth for fun and profit.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

A Voice Of Reason About Global Warming And Climate Change

And I might say, a very welcome and wise voice of reason. As I have been saying since I began this blog, this is really serious business folks! There are Billions and Billions of dollars at stake. If this global warming hoax and fraud is allowed to continue everyone on Earth will suffer far more than from any natural disaster.

Please note the author of the following is a PhD. (Harvard I think) Geologist, NOT a politician. It is a shame more geologists don't speak up and speak out, because I know most agree with Dr. Harrison Schmitt.
Peter




FROM-Pajamas Media

Climategate: What We Should Be Doing About Natural Climate Change


Just because AGW is a fraud doesn't mean that we should ignore the natural and cyclical changes in the Earth's temperature.


by Harrison Schmitt

Earth’s climate changes are extraordinarily complex phenomena. They represent decadal, to millennial, to epochal changes in weather patterns as nature continuously attempts to compensate for solar heating imbalances in and between the atmosphere and oceans.

Nature’s attempts to restore heat balance take place under the complicating influences of the Earth’s inclined daily rotation, movement and release of heat stored in the oceans, aerosol production by many natural processes, water and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, and periodically changing orbital position and orientation relative to the sun. In spite of all these variables and more, the Earth currently controls its temperature in a very narrow range as shown by satellite measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere (troposphere) since 1979.

Global surface and near surface temperatures have risen about half a degree Centigrade (about 0.9 degree Fahrenheit) each 100 years since the minimum temperatures of the Little Ice Age in 1660. Multi-decade intervals of more rapid warming and cooling have occurred during this current, centuries-long general warming trend as they have for over 10,000 years since the last major ice age.

Indeed, by the end of the 17th century, glaciers had advanced over valley farmlands cultivated as those same glaciers receded during the preceding Medieval Warm Period (about 800-1300). Since the last major ice age, decades long periods of warming and cooling have been superposed on longer cycles, the longest repeating about every 1500 years.

All of this has occurred without any significant human activity. Cooling between 1935 and 1975 and since 2000, and warming between 1975 and 1995 have been the most recent such variations and correlate strongly with variations in solar activity.

In contrast to these facts, climate change assumptions and computer modeling, rather than real-world observations, underpin the government’s efforts to restrict American liberties and confiscate trillions of dollars of American income in the name of “doing something” about climate change. The scientific rationale behind this proposed massive intrusion into American life requires more than a “consensus” of like-minded climate analysts and bureaucrats. It needs to be right.

Recent disclosures and admissions of scientific misconduct by the United Nations and advocates of the human-caused global warming hypothesis shows the fraudulent foundation of this much-ballyhooed but non-existent scientific consensus about climate.

Still, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other government agencies persist in over-stepping their regulatory authority to jam climate related regulations into our lives and economy at the expense of liberty, jobs, and incomes. Federal control of energy production and use, advocated by special “climate” interests, will have a vanishingly small effect on slowing three and a half centuries of very slow, erratic, but natural global warming.

A long-term federal and commercial agenda to gather power and profit in the name of “environment” at the expense of liberty has no constitutional foundation. The Tenth Amendment leaves to the states all governance responsibility for environment as no direct or indirect mention of it exists in the Constitution. Prudent protection of local environments by the states and the people does have justification in the Ninth Amendment’s protection of natural rights, including “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as formalized in the Declaration of Independence. The Feds need to butt out!

So, what should the people do now about climate, if anything? We must prepare to adapt to inevitable change, however unpredictable it may seem. We can recognize that production and use of our own domestic oil, gas, coal, and nuclear resources buys us time to meet these challenges and, at the same time, preserve our liberty.

We can develop far better surface and space observational techniques and use them consistently over decades to better understand the science of our Earth. On political time scales, we can quit taking actions with unknown and unintended consequences. We can choose sustained research and development of energy alternatives, those with clear paths to commercialization, rather than continue tax dollar subsidies and loan guarantees for premature or flawed introduction of politically motivated concepts. We can provide investment and business environments that will advance new sources of energy, particularly through reduction of personal and business income tax rates.

Basically, instead of being ideologically greedy and ignoring good science and economics, we can start being wise and truly concerned about our children, and their children, and the society in which they will live.

Harrison Schmitt is a a former senator from New Mexico and a geologist. He walked on the Moon as part of the crew of Apollo 17.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Let The Legal Battles (Over Global Warming) Begin

When the claims of man-caused global warming goes to court, the true-believers, Al Gore disciples, and global warming alarmists will be slaughtered. The science behind the myth of man-caused global warming is being shown (and admitted) to be ever more fraudulent by the day.

What happens when during a trial your "expert" witnesses, (in this case global warming-promoting, climate "scientists" are proven to be liars and a cheats? It is being shown they don't even merit the name scientist. They have been behaving like the worst kind of con-artists. Bernie Madoff pales when compared to these ClimateGate scoundrels. Well at best the case gets thrown out of court. At worst you lose the case, pay a hefty fine, and get thrown in jail. Such is the case going to be for people who continue to promote the concept of man-caused global warming. Their days are numbered. DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS.
Peter




The Rebellion Is On!

FROM-KVUE

Texas takes EPA to court

AUSTIN -- The State of Texas is taking the federal Environmental Protection Agency to court.
Top Texas leaders say the EPA used bad science when drafting new rules that say that the carbon dioxide from power plants and factories endangers Texans.

Now Texas leaders believe it's that ruling which endangers the Lone Star State.

"They’re using sweeping mandates, draconian punishments to force a square peg of their vision into the round hole of reality,” Governor Rick Perry, R-Texas, said at a news conference at the State Capitol Tuesday morning.

Perry, Attorney General Greg Abbott and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples are prepared for a years-long legal battle. They filed a 38-page petition asking the EPA to abandon its finding. They filed another with a federal appeals court in Washington.

"The EPA is required to base its decisions on scientifically reliable information, not dogma driving conclusions,” Abbott said.

”These regulations have the potential to drive domestic food production outside the borders of Texas and outside the borders of the United States of America. We need to focus on sound science and not political science,” Staples said.

In addition to weighing down Texas farmers and ranchers, the trio of Republican leaders believes the EPA’s rule uses information which has been discredited. Environmentalists stand-by the EPA regulation.

“Instead of suing the EPA, Gov. Perry should join the governors of 39 other states, by beginning to act on climate change or planning to do so,” said Tom Smith, Public Citizen.
“We’re here today to actually applaud the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding, because it is a necessary step to protect all Texans and our economy,” said Eva Hernandez, Sierra Club.

Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Public Citizen, believe the EPA’s ruling helped protect family farms already reeling from drought.

While they blame global warming, Perry cited evidence to the contrary.

”The data is clear now that the globe has not warmed at all since 1995,” Perry said.
Perry's leading opponent in the Republican gubernatorial primary, Key Bailey Hutchison released a statement saying she's been fighting the rule in Washington. She characterizes the rule as disastrous for Texas.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Now We Have GoogleGate: A Form Of Mind Control

Now we learn how Google manipulates and influences public opinion. They do it much the same way Wikipedia does, by censoring the information that is made available to people using the internet and doing searches for information. This is truly frightening when one considers who is behind this form of mind-control, and why. Read on.
Peter

Better off with Bing by Lawrence Soloman, National Post
Saturday, January 16th 2010, 8:59 AM EST
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
Googlegate: The search engine may be standing up to Chinese censors. What about Google’s own censors?

This week, Google announced an end to its long-standing collaboration with the Chinese Communists — it will no longer censor users inside China.

That’s good of it. Maybe Google will now also stop using its search engine to censor the rest of us, in the Western countries.

Search for “Googlegate” on Google and you’ll get a paltry result (my result yesterday was 29,300). Search for “Googlegate” on Bing, Microsoft’s search engine competitor, and the result numbers an eye-popping 72.4 million. If you’re a regular Google user, as opposed to a Bing user, you might not even know that “Googlegate” has been a hot topic for years in the blogosphere — that’s the power that comes of being able to control information.

Despite Google’s motto of “Do No Evil,” it has long been controversial and suspected of evil-doing — and not just in its cooperation with China, or in protecting itself by hiding criticism of itself from unsuspecting Google users. In recent months, most of the evil-doing has focused on the Climategate scandal, the startling emails from the Climate Research Unit in the UK that show climate change scientists to be cooking the books.

For many weeks now, readers have been sending me emails describing how Google has been doing its best to hide information relating to Climategate, which has been the single biggest story on the Internet since the Climategate emails came to light on November 19. By Nov. 26, the term had gone viral and Google returned more results for “climategate” (10.4 million) than for “global warming” (10.1 million). As the Climate Scandal exploded, and increasing numbers of blog sites covered it, the number of web pages with Climategate continued to climb. On Dec. 7, Google’s search engine found 31.6 million hits for people who searched for “Climategate.”

Sometime around then, in early December, Google began to minimize the Climategate scandal by hiding Climategate pages from its users. By Dec. 17, the number of climategate pages that a Google search found dropped by almost 10 million, to 22.2 million. One day later Google dropped its find by another 8 million pages, to 14.1 million. By Dec. 23, Google could find only 7.5 million hits and on Dec. 24 just 6 million. And yesterday, when I checked, Google reported a mere 1.8 million climategate pages.

Bing, in contrast, didn’t make climategate pages disappear. As you’d expect from a search engine that wasn’t manipulating data, search results on Bing climbed steadily until they peaked at around 51 million, where they have remained since.

Starting in late November, Google has been keeping the public in the dark about Climategate in other ways, too. Ordinarily, when people begin keying in their search terms, Google helpfully suggests the balance of their text, through an automatic feature it calls Google Suggests.

At the very beginning of the Climategate scandal, before it became huge, Google Suggests worked as advertised. If someone typed in c-l-i-, Google would have shown them “climategate” on a list of options. Many people, in fact, learned about Climategate this very way, because most major media outlets had not yet picked up on the scandal. As Climategate rose in intensity, the term also rose in prominence on the Google Suggest list — anyone keying in c-l-i would see “climategate” at the top of the list.

But suddenly in late November, for reasons known only to Google, Google often would not suggest “climategate” to those who keyed in c-l-i. Even c-l-i-m-a or c-l-i-m-a-t-e-g-a-t weren’t enough to solicit a suggestion. Bing, in contrast, did not and does not steer users away from climategate — it has consistently suggested “climategate” to those who keyed in c-l-i or even c-l.

For those whom Google can’t steer away from “climategate,” and who key in all 11 letters to learn about the eye-opening emails, Google goes the extra yard in keeping people in the dark — it dishes up a page that trivializes the scientific significance of climategate. Those who click on Google’s “I’m feeling lucky” after asking for “climategate” find themselves on a Wikipedia page entitled “Climatic Research Unit hacking incident” that downplays the content of the emails and focuses on the “unauthorised release of thousands of emails and other documents obtained through the hacking of a server,” the “illegal taking of data,” the “Law enforcement agencies [that] are investigating the matter as a crime,” and “the death threats that were subsequently made against climate scientists named in the emails.”

For those who don’t use Google’s “I’m feeling lucky” feature, Google presents them with this one-sided Wikipedia page as the first item in its search results. Wikipedia actually has a page called “Climategate” that contains damning information about the scientists caught up in the scandal but its own censors won’t let the public see it — anyone who tries to key in “Climategate” on the Wikipedia site will be instantly redirected to the Wikipedia-approved version of climategate, where the scandal is described as nothing more than “a smear campaign.”

Why would Google want to tamp down interest in climategate? Money and power could have something to do with it. Search for Google and its founders and you’ll see that they have made big financial bets on global warming through investments in renewable and other green technologies; that they have a close relationship with Al Gore, that Google CEO Eric Schmidt is close to Barack Obama.

But search for Googlegate and you’ll also see that more than money is at stake. The accusations against Google of censorship are wide-spread, involving schemes to elect Barack Obama, attacks on Christianity (key in “Christianity is” and Google will suggest unflattering completions to the phrase), and political correctness (key in “Islam is” and nothing negative is suggested).

The bottom line? Google is as inscrutable as the Chinese, and perhaps no less corrupt. For safe searches, you’re best off with Bing.

Financial Post

LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.
Source Link: network.nationalpost.com

Monday, December 14, 2009

The Fallout From ClimateGate Continues

Oh geez......the game is over says Al Gore....we're toast.....the world is catching onto the hoax that we call man-caused global warming. I look like a total fool. All these years these climate "scientists" have been lying to me! Can you believe it????





Climategate: the Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth Has Begun


My colleague at CEI, Iain Murray, just sent around a column by the well-known environmental and science writer Fred Pearce. It appeared yesterday at Yale Environment 360 and is titled “Climategate: Anatomy of a Public Relations Disaster.” The whole article is worth reading, but the last two paragraphs say it all. Any comment by me would be superfluous:


“I have been speaking to a PR operator for one of the world’s leading environmental organizations. Most unusually, he didn’t want to be quoted. But his message is clear. The facts of the e-mails barely matter any more. It has always been hard to persuade the public that invisible gases could somehow warm the planet, and that they had to make sacrifices to prevent that from happening. It seemed, on the verge of Copenhagen, as if that might be about to be achieved.


“But he says all that ended on Nov. 20. ‘The e-mails represented a seminal moment in the climate debate of the last five years, and it was a moment that broke decisively against us. I think the CRU leak is nothing less than catastrophic.’”

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

More Fallout From Climategate.......

The damage caused by the fraudulent activity of climate "scientists" and true believing activists of man-caused global warming is just beginning to be revealed. This scandal has been taking shape for at least twenty years, a generation. The extent of this damage is truly unprecedented and literally affects everyone in the world, far more seriously than any change in climate ever could. The following article is just the beginning.
Peter

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”

Vaclav Klaus
Blue Planet in Green Shackles

Peer review locks gate

by David Archibald

November 30, 2009

The only thing that the Climategate emails tell us about the peer review process is that it was used as a gate-keeping exercise to keep sceptical papers out of the system. For those of us who served in the trenches in the climate battle, part of the much larger culture wars, this revelation is not news. In disparaging my papers, one of the first things that warmers would say was that they were not peer reviewed. They were, but that did not matter either, because like the warmer scientists, I got to choose my own reviewers. One of my papers passed a higher test than peer review. Real Climate devoted a post to attacking it, which was fabulous because it told me that I was having an effect, and gave me encouragement to keep going.

My nemesis in the solar science trench of the climate battle recently retired from the fray. One of the things he used to say was that bad papers will be forgotten and that they would be replaced by good papers. Of course, another researcher told me that he had to publish to counter the misinformation from my nemesis, who had taken it upon himself to go through the solar record, flattening out the bumps so that the Sun could not have an effect on climate. All that means is that good and bad papers will be published, nothing can stop that from happening, but the truth will finally out.

I don’t believe that changing the peer review system will help, in fact any prescribed changes are likely to make it worse. As the Climategate emails show, the warmers captured the whole system – all the journals, all their editors and the journals’ boards. They successfully removed inconvenient editors. As a last line of defence, they were going to change the definition of what peer review meant. Making the system more prescriptive will simply entrench the corrupted establishment, similar to what happened as a result of the ban on tobacco advertising. With no advertising, new brands could not enter the market and the existing brands were spared the expense of advertising, increasing their profitability.

The way to improve the review of papers is to break the power of the corrupted establishment. Two of the most prestigious science journals have been Science and Nature, but both of these now publish a certain amount of twaddle. In fact Nature seems to have degenerated to occupy the niche formerly occupied by New Scientist, and New Scientist has degenerated into the publishing arm of Greenpeace. There are two ways to break the power of the corrupted establishment. In the first instance stop subscribing to journals that have promoted the climate fraud. If you work in any sort of academic establishment, it is your responsibility to the nation to recommend to your librarian that the subscription to Nature not be renewed. Secondly, we need more online journals so that good work can more easily find a home. This would increase the rate of creative destruction in the journal space.

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."

Peter


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.

Source


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.
Peter


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIl2gdDtbCg&feature=player_embedded

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…

Source

Bookmark and Share

Comments

avatar Brian G Valentine
+2
Ed Begley demands peer review.

OK.

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

source

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.

OK.

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.

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.
Peter


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.

SOURCE

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.
Peter


MSNBC.com

U.S. sets climate target ahead of summit
Obama to take goal of 17 percent emissions cut to Copenhagen talks
msnbc.com 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)

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.

Peter

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 WattsUpWithThat.com.

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"

Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

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

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Climate Scientist Trenberth Says Everyone (Except Him) Is "Poorly Informed"

This Prof. Trenberth has sure shown himself to be a fool. Read his comments, then consider the caliber and qualifications of people he calls "poorly informed". (I've listed hundreds of them on this blog.) Either he (Trenberth) is a fool or incredibly ignorant and arrogant.

The author of the following aritcle, Marc Morano is correct. There is a growing swell of prominent scientists coming out of the closet, so-to-speak, and denouncing what I call the myth of man-caused global warming. The mainstream media is even beginning to catch on. It could be the bad economy is making people take a closer look at the rationale behind the myth. The science behind the myth is incredibly weak. The sensationalism used by people like Al Gore to promote the myth is preposterous and downright fraudulent. Al Gore is a liar, but unfortunately, as a former politician I suppose people just pass that off as normal behavior. Here's a new truism: "boys will be boys and politicians will be liars".

Maybe things like the pending "cap and trade" legislation will finally make people take a serious look at this thing called man-caused global warming and realize what a baseless a concept it really is.
Pete


Ignorant Skeptics?: UN Scientist Prof. Trenberth says only 'poorly informed' scientists disagree with UN - Appeals to Authority: 'The IPCC has spoken'

Written by Marc Morano, Climate Depot
Tuesday, October 13 2009 12:09
Dr. Kevin Trenberth
Dr. Kevin Trenberth

Dr. Kevin Trenberth — head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder CO and a UN IPCC lead author, claimed dissenting scientists were ignorant of the science behind man-made global warming. Trenberth also declared the debate over and wrote 'the IPCC has spoken."

"I have found that the only scientists who disagree with the IPCC report are those who have not read it and are poorly informed," Trenberth, declared in an October 10, 2009 written debate with Hurricane guru Dr. Bill Gray, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. See: Another climate debate: Dr. William Gray vs. UN IPCC's Dr. Kevin Trenberth - October 10, 2009

The 'IPCC HAS SPOKEN"

Trenberth appealed to authority in order to convince readers that man-made climate change was a threat to mankind.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has spoken: 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal' and it is 'very likely' due to human activities," Trenberth asserted.

Trenberth also claimed that the "IPCC process is very open." Trenberth also added his own policy prescriptions to address global warming. "There is much that can be done, and America should lead. If done in the right way, benefits to the climate through reduced emissions save energy and promote the economy, while increasing sustainability," he expalained.

Back in 2007, Trenberth surprised many with his candid comments about climate models. He admitted that the climate models touted by former Vice President Al Gore, the UN, the media and scientists are not predictions, but merely “story lines.”Climate Depot Response to Trenberth's claim that only 'poorly informed' scientists disagree with UN IPCC's spoken word.

“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers 'what if' projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios,” Trenberth wrote in journal Nature's blog on June 4, 2007. Trenberth also admitted that the climate models have major shortcomings because “they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess." (LINK)

The simplest way to respond to Trenberth's assertion is to let the latest scientific data, peer-reviewed studies and UN IPCC scientists speak for themselves.

In 2009, the climate has changed dramatically -- the scientific observational data and most surprisingly -- the media climate. Even the BBC, the Houston Chronicle, the UK Times, the Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor and New York Times are no longer buying the insulting notion that when the UN IPCC "has spoken" the debate is over.

Trenberth's Retro Climate Claims

Trenberth is living in 2006 or 2007 America when the media used to believe uncritically the UN claims and never questioned the "man behind the curtain." The science is disintegrating so fast that even climate activists are now openly lamenting the entire man-made climate fear movement. See: Climate Activists Shock Admission: 'Climate change campaigners should not have fixated on carbon dioxide' -- 'only responsible for about half of the problem' - Sept. 18, 2009

In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion and even activists at green festivals are now expressing doubts over man-made climate fears and a Nobel Prize-winning economist is wishing for 'tornadoes' and 'a lot of horrid things' to convince Americans of a climate threat.

It's time Trenberth got a badly needed reality check, which of course Climate Depot is only too happy to provide.

A small sampling of recent developments include: new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies, more evidence that rising CO2 is a boon for the atmosphere, and the Earth's failure to warm.

The year 2009 saw a report from 35 international scientists directly countering the UN IPCC's scientific claims. See: “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” This year also saw the flow of peer-reviewed scientific papers continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. as well. See: Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans' – July 23, 2009

A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”

Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here ]

For more complete analysis see: Science of man-made climate fears continues to collapse – August 26, 2009

Read rest…