This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Global warming exposed as UN-funded fraud

Project Mayhem's picture




 

Global warming exposed as UN-funded fraud

by Project Mayhem

 

Russian computer hackers have published emails and source code from the UN-affiliated Climate Research Unit showing profound corruption, fraud, and criminal activity. What's really behind the Copenhagen treaty?

 

Recently, Russian hackers published over 160mb of scientific emails and source code taken from the primary 'climate research unit' -- the University of East Anglia, which is the center of UN/IPCC-promoted global warming alarmism. What the emails and data prove is shocking, and may represent the greatest scandal in the history of science.

 

In the emails, these UN-funded scientists talk about deleting data under FOIA request, faking data for journals such as Nature, conspiring to keep opposing science out of peer-reviewed journals (which they controlled the editorial boards), using "tricks" to "hide the [cooling period]" etc.

A picture emerges of big science funded to the tune of billions of dollars for the purposes of an underlying international political agenda. The degree of collusion between big media, the UN, and corrupted scientists involved in frank criminal activity is deeply disturbing. As I have detailed before, the purpose here is a political one. Global warming, or now abstractly identified as 'climate change', has been chosen by international banks and think tanks as the method of induction of vast political and social engineering never before seen in the history of the world.  

We see based on the activities of criminals representing themselves as 'climate scientists' that the politics came first, and the science came second. They were more than happy to represent the political interests of the UN and international banks  -- as long as their lab was well-funded.  But there are politics behind this indeed.  Here is a small sample of the underlying political agenda: Billions in new taxes, International regulatory control under the UN, Goldman Sachs/CCX carbon trading, Obliteration of national sovereignty, extreme forced austerity and reduction of the standard of living, deindustrialization of the First World countries, and implementation of Orwellian state policies for the purposes of "carbon tracking". The science does not matter -- the politics does.

 

Let us consider for a moment the cynical political objectives behind 'global warming' before we delve into the mountain of evidence thanks to the leaked emails and source code.

 

 

Global Warming and Orwellian State Policy

The Dutch government attempts to introduce GPS tracking units in everyone's cars under the pretext of 'climate change'.

 

THE HAGUE — The Dutch government said Friday it wants to introduce a "green" road tax by the kilometre from 2012 aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent and halving congestion.

"Each vehicle will be equipped with a GPS device that tracks how many kilometres are driven and when and where. This data will be then be sent to a collection agency that will send out the bill," the transport ministry said in a statement.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iYPTOtIepVKcGL_AcCZFe1ht99UQ

 

 

 

 

Global Warming and New Taxes

One of the primary political aspects of the global warming fraud is the  imposition of a massive and bewildering array of new taxes.  Obviously it is plain to see how this is in the interest of governments and banks, particularly if such taxes are imposed on an individual level.

Carbon Insurance For Your Car May Be Down The Road [Green Gas Taxes at Pumps] by Terry Tamminen (cnbc.com) - Nov. 13, 2009.

"A carbon insurance premium could easily be included in such a gas pump surcharge so drivers pay the true cost of operating their vehicles in terms of all relevant risks, including their fair share of creating both fender benders and climate change collisions."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33906802

 
Carbon ration account for all proposed by Environment Agency by Ben Webster (timesonline.co.uk) - Nov. 9, 2009.

"Everyone should be given an annual carbon ration and face financial penalties if they exceed it, under a proposal by the Environment Agency"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6909046.ece

 

 

 

 

Global Warming and Personal Autonomy

Selling your house? It could be a green crime

Queensland’s flailing government has now made it a crime to sell your house without first doing a big green audit: 

QUEENSLANDERS selling their homes will soon have to complete a 56-point questionnaire detailing the property’s environmental credentials

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/selling_your_house_it_could_be_a_green_crime

 

 

 

Global Warming and Forced Austerity

The UN has advocated funding global birth control initiatives [read: 'population security'] in order to 'reduce CO2 emissions'.  Of course now we know the connection between CO2 and temperatures is based on fabricated data . . .   So where does that leave such UN population initiatives?

 
UN says Birth control the most effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions [UN Wants More Abortions and Sterilizations to cut Co2] by Ben Webster (timesonline.co.uk) - Nov. 19, 2009.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6922245.ece

 

The population control objectives of the global warming fraud do not end there. Andrew Revkin, an NYT correspondent identified in the leaked CRU emails exhibiting a very cozy relationship with the corrupt scientists, advocates restrictions on the number of children couples are permitted to have via the issuance of 'carbon credits'. This is similar to what was advocated by Obama's chief science advisor John Holdren in his book Ecoscience.  There is a political agenda behind global warming.

"Should–probably the single-most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius, it’s having fewer kids, having fewer children,” said Revkin. “So should there be, eventually you get, should you get credit–If we’re going to become carbon-centric–for having a one-child family when you could have had two or three,” said Revkin.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=55667

 

The above is significant because Revkin is identified in the leaked emails corresponding with the corrupt Climate Research Unit (CRU) and has written many pro-global warming articles for the New York Times.

 

 

 

Global Warming and Systemic Financial Fraud

 

Where would we be in a Zerohedge article without mention of the fraudsters at Goldman Sachs.  No doubt they are present in almost every evil or fraudulent enterprise known to man and global warming is no exception.  Certainly these charlatans plan on making billions trading hallucinated carbon credits on Maurice Strong's Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).

 

Al Gore's "Carbon Trading" Scam Reeks of Who Else? Goldman

http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2009/05/al-gores-carbon-trading-scam-reeks-of.html

 

 


 

 

 

These examples illustrate how the global warming fraud is used to push a far-reaching political agenda -- an agenda born out of the unholy fusion of governments , banks, and corrupt scientists. But let us consider now the content of the leaked emails.

 

 
Scientific corruption at the highest levels:

 

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH nd N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

source: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7810

Obviously the above email speaks for itself. Despite the glaringly obvious fraud, Phil Jones and his collaborators across the world would have you believe that "trick" and "hiding the decline" are simply normal procedures in any scientific laboratory. The FORTRAN source code tells a different story.

 

 

Climate Research Unit FORTRAN code backs up claims of fraud and corruption

Neal from Climate Audit writes:

"People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples [of] bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:"

 

function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;
pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

;

 

"Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I’ll believe programmer notes over the word of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting there’s nothing “untowards” about it.

Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result."

-Anthony Watts, Meteorologist

 

source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/

 

 

 

Discussion

The source code above shows that the scientists involved manipulated their data in order to achieve a predetermined outcome. This is fraud, plain and simple. What is worse is these scientists also deliberately deleted the paper trail showing their research was fraudulent when the FOA requests arrived. This is criminal activity at the highest levels, and these people should be investigated and prosecuted. The massive amounts of funding they were provided with was used to lie to the public , in order to achieve the objectives of the UN and its affiliated think tanks, whether these scientists were aware of the implication of their corruption or not. The point is these entire 'climate change' claims need to be thrown in the trash heap and evaluated by competent scientists without financial or political interests in the outcome of their research.  

And above all, the UN's Copenhagen treaty for dramatic forced austerity and international political control should be exposed for the vicious and cynical hoax it actually is.  Copenhagen is the culmination of these fraudulent policies. National sovereignty will once again be reduced under a treaty conceived and funded by think tanks and international banks. Massive taxes will be imposed. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan will make billions trading hallucinated carbon credits. Orwellian state policies for tracking individuals and interfering in personal autonomy will become acceptable under the pretext of 'stopping climate change', despite the entire rationale being fraudulent. Monopolistic international finance capital and the billionaire elitists behind it believe they are about to achieve another victory over the unwashed masses with the Copenhagen treaty.

The true political objective behind global warming was proven beyond a doubt in the Club of Rome publication The First Global Revolution. Keep in mind Al Gore is a member of this elitist group of policymakers, and even chaired a full Club of Rome meeting in Washington DC in 1997. 

 

"“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

-Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991.

We should understand that the international political agenda underlying the falsified global warming scandal is, at its core, an ideology of corrupt banks and politicians intent on framing humanity as the enemy , in order to achieve purposes of social control.  Thus, it is no surprise that the 'science' behind global warming has been exposed as fraudulent.

For in-depth coverage of this growing scandal, see:

http://wattsupwiththat.com

http://smalldeadanimals.com

http://climateaudit.org

 


You can download the full copy of the leaked documents and source code here:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 06/27/2011 - 06:30 | 1404889 mediahuset
mediahuset's picture

telefonkatalogen.biz

Very good info that is presented in this post. I prefer to read this kind of stuff.Thanks for your kind support.

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 04:22 | 1402499 mediahuset
mediahuset's picture

telefonkatalogen.biz

I found your website perfect for my needs. It contains wonderful and helpful posts. I have read most of them and learned a lot from them. You are doing some great work. Thank you for making such a nice website.

Sun, 06/05/2011 - 07:59 | 1340852 sun1
sun1's picture

I have to admit that I have never heard about this information I have noticed many new facts for me. Thanks a lot for sharing this useful and attractive information and I will be waiting for other interesting posts from you in the nearest future.keep it up. car insurance

Sun, 12/06/2009 - 08:48 | 154370 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

When pictures seem alive with movements free When boats like fishes swim beneath the sea, When men like birds shall scour the sky Then half the world, deep drenched in blood shall die.

For those who live the century through In fear and trembling this shall do. Flee to the mountains and the dens To bog and forest and wild fens.

For storms will rage and oceans roar When Gabriel stands on sea and shore And as he blows his wondrous horn Old worlds die and new be born.

A fiery dragon will cross the sky Six times before this earth shall die Mankind will tremble and frightened be for the sixth heralds in this prophecy.

For seven days and seven nights Man will watch this awesome sight. The tides will rise beyond their ken To bite away the shores and then The mountains will begin to roar And earthquakes split the plain to shore.

And flooding waters, rushing in Will flood the lands with such a din That mankind cowers in muddy fen And snarls about his fellow men.

He bares his teeth and fights and kills And secrets food in secret hills And ugly in his fear, he lies To kill marauders, thieves and spies.

Man flees in terror from the floods And kills, and rapes and lies in blood And spilling blood by mankinds hands Will stain and bitter many lands

And when the dragon's tail is gone, Man forgets, and smiles, and carries on To apply himself - too late, too late For mankind has earned deserved fate.

His masked smile - his false grandeur, Will serve the Gods their anger stir. And they will send the Dragon back To light the sky - his tail will crack Upon the earth and rend the earth And man shall flee, King, Lord, and serf.

But slowly they are routed out To seek diminishing water spout And men will die of thirst before The oceans rise to mount the shore.

And lands will crack and rend anew You think it strange. It will come true.

And in some far off distant land Some men - oh such a tiny band Will have to leave their solid mount And span the earth, those few to count, Who survives this (unreadable) and then Begin the human race again.

But not on land already there But on ocean beds, stark, dry and bare Not every soul on Earth will die As the Dragons tail goes sweeping by.

Not every land on earth will sink But these will wallow in stench and stink Of rotting bodies of beast and man Of vegetation crisped on land.

But the land that rises from the sea Will be dry and clean and soft and free Of mankinds dirt and therefore be The source of man's new dynasty.

And those that live will ever fear The dragons tail for many year But time erases memory You think it strange. But it will be.

And before the race is built anew A silver serpent comes to view And spew out men of like unknown To mingle with the earth now grown Cold from its heat and these men can Enlighten the minds of future man.

To intermingle and show them how To live and love and thus endow The children with the second sight. A natural thing so that they might Grow graceful, humble and when they do The Golden Age will start anew.

The dragon's tail is but a sign For mankind's fall and man's decline. And before this prophecy is done I shall be burned at the stake, at one My body singed and my soul set free You think I utter blasphemy You're wrong. These things have come to me
This prophecy will come to be.

Sun, 11/29/2009 - 10:03 | 145318 AN0NYM0US
AN0NYM0US's picture

November 29, 2009

Climate change data dumped

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

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

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

____________________________

November 29, 2009

U-turn on climate change 'cover up' as university says it will publish leaked email data

The university said it will make all the data accessible in conjunction with the Met Office Hadley Centre as soon as the CRU had negotiated its release from non-publication agreements. However, how much information this will include was today thrown into doubt, as the Sunday Times reported that scientists had admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231788/U-turn-climate-change-co...

Fri, 11/27/2009 - 19:45 | 144485 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

I am sorry but melting ice caps now does not mean humans did it.

Falling victim to proximate cause does not help the debate, just reveals your dim-witted logic.

Thu, 11/26/2009 - 18:28 | 143470 Cistercian
Cistercian's picture

 The wall st journal article today is harsh...on the fraudsters!Epic.

Thu, 11/26/2009 - 00:57 | 142928 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

To:
climatesceptics@yahoogroups.com

I have paid a very large price but all along have consulted with my family because they ultimately pay the price. I am proud to say, and I tell them often, how much I appreciate their support. I was denied promotion in the university to the point where I understand I became the longest in rank as an assistant professor in Canadian history. A fact that was part of the ridicule against me on Wikipedia. I was fired from my position as a columnist for a weather column for farmers that I wrote for 17 years.

I am not complaining, it was a conscious decision made in consultation with my family. I knew when I stood up in the cocoanut shy they would throw at me. I have some sympathy with people who have mortgages and families but the truth is if we don't have integrity we have nothing as the amoral and immoral behavior all involved with CRU prove. It is also revealing to see people trying to flee the torpedoed ship. Many of them resorting to the modern tactic of victimology.

Tim Ball

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 22:56 | 142861 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Remarkable how Russian hackers are now considered reliable sources. Also significant is how much faith the financial wizards that populate this blog place in the supposed truth that those global warming guys are making a fortune and that this surely discredits the science. How much is being made on the back of national defense and wars that go on forever? How much is being made by allowing GS to borrow at the Fed window? How many billions do health insurance companies scam by simply paying millions to several senators for their votes.
If, and it will take a lot more than this, to make global warming into a fraud. It will still only be a pimple on an elephants ass compared to the rip offs that have become part of every day life.

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 22:33 | 142852 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

There are more combinations of DNA than there are atoms on planet earth. And the scientists working hard for those big bonuses promised at the end of the project see the easy way out is to simply declare 97% of the genome as junk DNA. Basicaly any bit they don't understand. If one tweaking of their doing causes a mass wipout of cereals what are they gonna do? Say sorry? These people are writing checks no bank can cash. Scientific objectivity, my @ss. This si science gone rogue.

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 22:31 | 142850 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

The excerpts from emails and code comments are thought provoking but do not prove fraud on the part of Dr. Jones or the East Anglia center (not to mention the scientific validity of human induced climate change). They should be investigated in the proper forum, of course. That is, within the research community not on financial blogs.

As far as grant money is concerned, I would imagine climatologists could make make much more money telling the oil companies what they want to hear.

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 19:05 | 142732 ShankyS
ShankyS's picture

PM - thanks for catching the fringe items that deserve front page status. This is a enormous issue that ties in with a lot of other possible fraudulent activity. This bluff has to be called and why the hell people are not marching with pitchforks now I simply don't understand. I'm sure is has nothing to do with the MSM's stellar coverage of this historic event. Anyway, thanks for posting this and spreading the good word. I appreciate it.

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 18:56 | 142725 Lexington Duffet
Lexington Duffet's picture

Project Mayhem and the other RW bloggers filling this site with their worldview-  

I do not see how you get from the emails you published--a minority out of thousands of emails by your admission--to the conclusions which you reach that the vast majority of scientists are criminals and liars.  

Such a position was adopted by the Catholic church in the 1600's.  They burned to death various persons and tried to keep the scientists from doing anything.  I'd suggest that if you actually believe in such government rules, that the scientists are mostly liars, that you stop using your car, reading books, using computers, or the internet.  None of  wld exist if the anti-scientist crowd runs things. 

Let me suggest that it is normal for their to be disputes within a scientific community.  And?  Your point is?

The overwhelming physical evidence shows that the Climate is changing--as do the measurements buts its hard to measure because there are so many local variables involved.  Is it really so controversial to conclude that SOMETHING is changing the climate?   

The best model which the scientists now have predict that if the tempature rises, then we should see wider swings of weather:  higher highs, lower lows, changing in rainfall patterns, bigger storms.  That seems to be happening too.  Overwhelming evidence throughout the world.  Melting ice, droughts, changes in tree patterns, rain falls, etc.

I'd suggest that the RW refusal to admit science, the collective wisdom of open minded individuals, is usually right is contributing to the US downfall and weakening the country. 

Not the Republican's opposite conclusion, that the collective judgment of the scientific community is usually wrong.   And that ignorance should be praised and promoted. 

On a somewhat related issue:

The RW bloggers using this site to claim that science and regulation will leading us on some road to  serfdom should read  Hayek's book of that name.  Hayek discusses how the Nazi's rose to power.   His book does not discuss science.  Hayek ACTUALLY concludes honest democracy, regulations, and the rule of law will PROTECT against serfdom and abuses of power--not the point for which the book is cited by the RW, who obviously either never read Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom and are ignorant or delusional or read the book and are lying about what it said. 

Since that book is thrown around quite a bit by the RW attackers of democracy and law, let me suggest the readers of this blog get the book and read chapter 3 of the Road to Serfdom, in which Hayek concludes that society should allow more competition over central planning, derides monopoly power, and writes "To prohibit the use of certain poisonous substances or to require special precautions in their use, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition.  The only question here is whether [the benefits outweigh the costs]."

I'd suggest from reading Hayek's book that he SUPPORTS the liberal establishment and the scientific community-- and the idea neither is perfect only that its the best we've got. 

That some cheat and lie is nothing new.  The idea that everyone does is not always correct. 

 

 

 

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 21:30 | 142805 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

i have read the road to serfdom, and i have always consciously considered my perspective more from the LW than the RW (according to your acronyms).  and i do understand much of where you're coming from and very much appreciate your recognition of hayek's work as one that respects human rights as a foundation for economics.

with that said, let me ask you a couple things:

do you have a compost bin? 
how many gallons of petrol did you personally burn in the last month?
how many plants are you growing/taking care of?
what is your monthly usage of coal-derived electricity in KwH's?

(answer honestly please)

 

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 20:05 | 142764 AN0NYM0US
AN0NYM0US's picture

    #142725  says "Let me suggest that it is normal for their to be disputes within a scientific community.  And?  Your point is?

    The overwhelming physical evidence shows that the Climate is changing--as do the measurements buts its hard to measure because there are so many local variables involved.  Is it really so controversial to conclude that SOMETHING is changing the climate? "

If you take a few moments and speed read the thousands of emails you will find that these titans of anthropogenic global warming have a unique approach in  dealing with disputes. A random example (one of many in regard to FOIA requests):

    Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 4:22 AM:
    Wei-Chyung and Tom,
    ...
    Nothing much else to say except:
    1. Think I've managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA
    requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
    2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said
    they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are
    threads on it about Australian sites.
    3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning)
    about the availability of the responses to reviewer's at the various
    stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on
    paleo.
    Cheers
    Phil

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=802&filename=1182255717.txt

 

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:58 | 142661 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

I think some of these scientists probably need to step back and take a break. Some of the emails -- where they want to withhold data from skeptics who are a pain in their collective ass -- are upsetting to me. This is an argument for absolute transparency.

But yeah, there's very little in the massive disclosure that is even remotely upsetting. Out of all that data, critics have cherry picked a few things that are being published out of context. The explanations for some of the stuff is unsatisfactory, but even at its worst, my response is... "Meh..."

What is really noteworthy, as the RC folks have said, is how absolutely little there is that's remotely damning, and how there's NOTHING in there that suggests a broad conspiracy in the slightest. In fact, most of the concerning stuff is from a tiny handful of scientists, leaving the vast, vast majority of scientists in the clear. And there's definitely no suggestion of a bias motive or any incentive to falsify findings.

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 18:29 | 142700 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Now maybe the vast majority of scientists can now tell the truth. Instead of talking book, for cru, without jeopardizing their careers.

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 16:24 | 142470 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

This is by far the worst post I have read on ZH. I highly doubt that almost anyone venting their opinions here has any clue what they are talking about. When I look for insight into the financial industry I come here, because I believe that people here know some shit about shit. However, when I want to know more about climate change I listen to those well versed in the physical and natural sciences, aka scientists (not financial bloggers).

Every single one of my science professors at school (the Nicholas School of the Environment) was very certain that global warming will be a very real threat in the not-so-distant future. These are people who have dedicated their lives to researching geology, oceanography, marine biology, chemistry, physics and the energy industry. No disrespect, Mr. Mayhem, but I trusted them to tell me the truth, and I believe that they have. But keep up the good work on your other postings (you know, about economics, finance and that sort).

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 18:09 | 142674 lookma
lookma's picture

Every single one of my science professors at school (the Nicholas School of the Environment) was very certain that global warming will be a very real threat in the not-so-distant future.These are people who have dedicated their lives to researching geology, oceanography, marine biology, chemistry, physics and the energy industry.

Do you think this weighs in favor of their credibility?  It would appear to suggest an enourmous bias.


Wed, 11/25/2009 - 20:08 | 142773 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

While I may have exaggerated a bit in saying EVERY SINGLE ONE supports the man made theory, I believe that the vast majority do. And I do not think this suggests an enormous bias. Generally speaking, these academics have each done their own independent work supporting certain hypotheses and that, when this work is combined with projects from other fields, the overall picture points to the theory of man made global warming. Other experienced and intelligent scientists then use prior work to make further conclusions, and extrapolate upon the evidence for MMGW.

Clearly, there will be some academics and scientists who cook their results, like the ones caught in this post, and later research done will be tainted by these results. But as a whole, the science community in the United States and in the World is very supportive of the MMGW theory. I think you would be hard pressed to walk into any top university or graduate school and find a well-respected physical or natural scientist who would be willing to seriously argue against the basis of a man made global warming theory. Now, if you think they are all paid off, tenured lemmings then that is your view, but not mine.

As to dealing with it, I fall more in line with the ZH bandwagon. Cap and *Trade* sounds good on paper, but in the real world it has not and probably will not work as well as planned (or even close). Too many perverse incentives, and GREED comes into play (although when does it not?). What we need is a simple carbon tax, one that would allow alternate energy to compete on even footing with coal and oil. Once we get the ball rolling on this, and the more money that is poured into these industries, that is when our leaders will stop blowing Saudi kinds and fighting criminally wasteful (in financial and human terms) wars in deserts and mountain tundras. The technology is there. Wind farms are being built as we speak. Solar panels are growing in use and getting more cost and energy efficient, we just need to tip the scales in their favor. Yeah, your energy bill will probably go up in the short term... big fuckin deal. This is a long term problem that requires a long term solution. Maybe use tax receipts from this program to subsidize energy cooperatives in low income areas, or give tax exemptions to tech firms in this industry that keep their employees in THIS country.

To finish, here is what I remember from a rant that a friend of mine went on after hitting a rather large L.

He believes that it would be impossible for man made global warming not to be true. Just think of the amount of shit that gets pumped into the atmosphere every day, from the hundreds of millions of cars and trucks driving around to factories spewing millions of gallons of poisonous chemical A to the amount of dirty ass coal we burn to the hundreds of millions of houses and hotels and office buildings with every god damn light on at all times and the heat or AC cranked to the fucking max, to all the pollution we create and get rid of (where does this all go? landfills? the ocean? but really where, in the end?) Have you ever been to Mexico City? It looks like fuckin New England FOG when you fly in but that, my friend, is actually Mexican SMOG. That shit is filthy.

The "Climate" as we know it, has changed drastically over the life of this world. But the questions are the same. What exactly caused the ice ages? Why did the dinosaurs die? Are the polar caps melting? Will all of Florida be underwater in 50 years? WHO THE FUCK KNOWS. All I know is that there have never, ever been this many organisms on earth before using every single combustible or poisonous substance they can get their grimy fuckin hands on and then pumping, blowing, shooting, pissing or even shitting them up them into the air. I mean, I start up the diesel engine on my boat and a nasty ass dark cloud of toxic smoke dissapates into the atmosphere... that can't help. Times that by who knows how many billions and that is what we put into the air every single day. Now, I'm not saying that the world is going to end in the next century... but were definitly fucking some shit up. And if you don't believe that... your a re-tard.

Thu, 11/26/2009 - 06:09 | 142995 Apocalypse Now
Apocalypse Now's picture

An error in a priori logic.  Most of these arguments begin with an assumption that is relied upon to try and prove an argument where the facts do not fit the hypothesis but that is not science.  You see, this is like an argument that God exists by starting with the premise that God exists and using it for proof - the same goes for evolution, they are both theories that start with an assumption to prove the argument - in reality both evolution and intelligent design both require faith because we can't put either under a microscope to prove either. 

Many of us believe what we have been taught to believe and what we have seen on TV and what we have read in the paper - they are real, because they are real to us and what we have been led to believe.  Truly objective individuals are a rare breed.

Relevant Rousseau Qutoes:

  • Falsehood has an infinity of combinations, but truth has only one mode of being.
  • General and abstract ideas are the source of the greatest errors of mankind.
  • The less reasonable a cult is, the more men seek to establish it by force.
  • The first step towards vice is to shroud innocent actions in mystery, and whoever likes to conceal something sooner or later has reason to conceal it.
  • I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery.
  • Truth is no road to fortune.

I can understand wanting to save the world and being told your profession will do just that.  Take solace in saving the world from tyranny - including the tyranny of the dishonorable corporations poisoning the earth and the food supply (and measuring the impact of pollution - not CO2) if you want to fight a real enemy.

A good movie to watch would be Network, here's an excerpt:

"Because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube. Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn't come out of this tube! This tube is the Gospel, the ultimate revelation. This tube can make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers... This tube is the most awesome God-damned force in the whole godless world, and woe is us if it ever falls in to the hands of the wrong people, and that's why woe is us that Edward George Ruddy died.

Because this company is now in the hands of CCA -- the Communication Corporation of America. There's a new Chairman of the Board, a man called Frank Hackett, sitting in Mr. Ruddy's office on the twentieth floor. And when the twelfth largest company in the world controls the most awesome God-damned propoganda force in the whole godless world, who knows what shit will be peddled for truth on this network?

So, you listen to me. Listen to me: Television is not the truth! Television is a God-damned amusement park! Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God! Go to your gurus! Go to yourselves! Because that's the only place you're ever going to find any real truth...

"We're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here. You're beginning to think that the tube is reality, and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you! You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube, you even *think* like the tube! This is mass madness, you maniacs! In God's name, you people are the real thing! *WE* are the illusion! So turn off your television sets. Turn them off now. Turn them off right now. Turn them off and leave them off! Turn them off right in the middle of the sentence I'm speaking to you now! TURN THEM OFF...

Global unifying themes are so much more attractive to the human psyche than stating we want an all powerful one world government paid for with carbon taxes because everything that can be controlled from energy, movement, and all life forms emits CO2.  The fact that thousands of scientists have bravely signed petitions stating that the science is not settled, and that evidence exists that the data has been manipulated would lead a rational individual to conclude this is a flim flam sham-wow.

Now you are in a difficult position thinking originally that you could save the world from the threat of global warming.  You can either choose to believe that you are like a comic book hero and can save the world from imminent doom, or you can get mad at the manipulation.  You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, Goddamnit! My life has VALUE! Stick your head out the window and I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!'

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:54 | 142658 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

In the FED captured world of financial academia. You either tow the line or they dead end your career. Nicholas is a mirror of the same corruption,bought and paid for peer review, bought and paid for publications. WAKE UP!

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:22 | 142598 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

From one of the emails:

Mike,

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two [climate skeptics] 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. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

….

Phil

If Ben Bernanke or Tim Geithner had sent out an email in regards to the distribution of TARP money that said something similar to the above, you'd be calling for their heads, not arguing from authority.

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 16:10 | 142445 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

I'm sure someone has brought this up already, but Michael Crichton exposed this exact type of fraud years ago in his fiction novel "State of Fear". He references legitimate weather and climate journals in the scientific arena that explicitly support the idea that Global Warming is either not happening, or happening on an extremely smaller scale than we realize. None of what the above news article is saying is new. But it has become so trendy and popular to portray yourself as "green" and "environmentally conscious" that to say global warming is not happening could subject one's self to a reactionary witch hunt as if though one had just stated the Holocaust never happened. I believe that you can acknowledge that there is strong peer-reviewed scientific literature supporting that global warming is not taking place, and still be "green" and "environmentally conscious". But lets not behave like the trendy green hippie folks that don't even necessarily understand the science behind the whole "green" philosophy they so blindly follow. It's time to start understanding the facts behind what causes Global Warming and think cynically.

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 15:41 | 142391 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

If you really want to make an argument against global warming that has been increased by humans, I suggest you go into environmental science and start doing your own experiments and studies, rather than focusing on arguing through words, because science is where your arguments are lacking. There has not been one scientific study that has been able to explain a) what else could be causing it and b)why putting so many greenhouse gasses in the air would NOT cause an increase in global warming. In reference to the last point, we have done many experiments and have known for many years that gasses like carbon dioxide make enclosed spaces, from inside a box to the earth's atmosphere, hotter. And humans have been releasing a LOT of carbon dioxide, more than the global system usually does.

I am assuming here, of course, that you are a smart person and realize like everyone, even people who argue against global warming caused by humans, that the earth is warming up. It doesn't take a climatologist or even a high-school student to understand that data. I am also assuming that you realize the significance of the earth warming up even a degree. In terms of average climate, the warming of one degree should happen over thousands of years, not hundreds, and it has a large effect on everything from sea level to ecosystems. The nation of Maldives may have to buy new land if it is going to survive, because the sea level is rising.

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:17 | 142593 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Exxon wasted millions fighting known fraud that is now provable. It's your turn to prove global warming. Since you are so convinced, you should have proof available at your fingertips. Please send proof to Gavin, Jones, Mann, Algore, and cru everything they have has been exposed as FRAUD!! Then come help me shovel this Global warming off my porch. I have not seen snow here in november in the 57 years I've been alive and no one older than me has either.

You remind me of the guilty victim, koolaid drinking, finger pointing, libs scared to death of some woman out selling a book that couldn't hurt them if she wanted to!

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 15:39 | 142385 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

(Of course, WHO is denying it.)

Scientist Repeats Swine Flu Lab-Escape Claim in Published Study

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=ajw2AS.d1wK8#

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 15:36 | 142370 anynonmous
anynonmous's picture

Hey Mayhem this in from Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5AO16220091125

China expert warns of pandemic flu mutation
Wed, 11/25/2009 - 13:39 | 142132 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

It is a matter of empirical, common sense, everyday FACT that the climate is changing. Anybody over age 20 will agree that overall winters are warmer. When my mother was a kid in the 1930s they always went ice skating on Thanksgiving. When I was a kid, there was no ice, but always snow. Now there's no snow.

All I can see that these released documents show is that there is a lot of uncertainty in science. Well, duh.

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 15:50 | 142413 Apocalypse Now
Apocalypse Now's picture

Your argument is a logical fallacy, the sunspot cycles occur over hundreds of years, why do you think Greenland was called Greenland?  We are experiencing record cold temperatures, that's why they had to change the term to global climate change.

You convince nobody with your rhetoric and perhaps the most absurd reasoning I have ever seen, the same scientists that are falsifying information are also leaving anonymous comments on many articles to spread disinformation.

Stupid is as stupid types.  Either half the country is brainwashed or we have the same individuals here posting as anonymous.

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 16:37 | 142498 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Maybe you read too much into my comment. I have no idea whether the climate change we are experiencing is natural or man-made or both (or neither?). But the climate is changing.

But hey, conspiracy theories can brighten up a boring day, so have fun.

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 13:17 | 142101 Gunther
Gunther's picture

 

Great stuff, Mayhem.

The Finnish TV station YLE had a documentation with a similar tone running.
It is available in Finnish and with German subtitles.
There are two interviews in English with Steve McIntyre (Canada) and Richard Lindzen (MIT) in the doc.
The Finnish took samples from trees too and found no evidence of warming and rejected the hockeystick-temperature curve.

http://www.science-skeptical.de/blog/finnische-tv-doku-deckt-fehler-in-d...

On the website is a link to an english transcript that led me to the website of the finnish TV station where I did not understand a thing.

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 13:11 | 142092 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Given the almost total reliance of the Russian economy on the revenue generated from the sale of fossil fuels, and given the Russian's lack of achievement in the development of alternate energy technologies, and given the timing of the 'leak' (just prior to COP), is it not a credible possibility that the FSB (formerly KGB) has created this controversy to detract from any progress towards transitioning the world economy from fossil to alternate fuels?

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 12:57 | 142064 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

I knew it was all a fraud, and here's the smoking gun from the chief fraud himself...finally justice will be done...

From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk

Sent: 29 October 2009

To: The Knights Carbonic

Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called "the ordering of men's affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man", which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.

The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master's initial thesis - that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere - had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master's rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to "demonstrate" the Master's thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.

More resistance was encountered (and swiftly dispatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master's second grand law - that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet's atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.

Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.

The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the 10 warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001. From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.

Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world's glaciers.

Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world's wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world's biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, birdwatchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.

The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master's third grand law has been established: world government will be established under the guise of controlling man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.

Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse's head turned up in James Hansen's bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus? Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.

Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.

This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that man-made climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:04 | 142565 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

"This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that man-made climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that."

The science of AGW will withstand the science's advocates falsifying, hiding, and manipulating the data they present to support their theories, while conducting an incestuous circle-jerk of "peer review"? That's not science, that's blind faith and apologetics.

Thu, 11/26/2009 - 14:07 | 143230 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

4 out of 5 circle jerk dentists recommend Oral B. We alway keep one person out of the circle jerk to use as ridicule bait. Meanwhile while employing our methodology our commercials get met with hostility such as "Shut the fuck up and put the stupid nylon bristles in the stupid nylon stick, I'm not giving you 8 bucks for a toothbrush you dicks."

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 12:52 | 142062 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Given the almost total reliance of the Russian economy on the revenue generated from the sale of fossil fuels, and given the Russian's lack of achievement in the development of alternate energy technologies, and given the timing of the 'leak' (just prior to COP), is it not a credible possibility that the FSB (formerly KGB) has created this controversy to detract from any progress towards transitioning the world economy from fossil to alternate fuels?

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 12:44 | 142051 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Regardless of whether the global warming is occurring or not, I think it is silly to question the fact that increasing CO2 levels, along with other forms of pollution, isn't the best thing for the environment and humans.

For those who think all this alarmist and environmentalist push hidden agendas, please do the rest of us a favour and conduct a simple test as follows:
1. Park your car in a private garage (it has to be small - like a house/townhouse garage; public parking wouldn't do)
2. Close the garage doors and windows
3. Leave the car running
4. Sit down beside it
4. Run the experiment for an hour. Then, post your findings here

Cheers and enjoy your home project!

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 15:14 | 142320 anynonmous
anynonmous's picture

C02 will get you every time errrrrr ummmm I mean C0 will get you every time - CO2 is the stuff humans exhale and plants "breathe" so to speak - C0 is the stuff that comes out of the tail pipe of most automobiles.

So how about sitting in your garage with a Ficus benjamina

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 12:17 | 142036 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

Hmmm: some people have issue with Dr. Ball being the truth savior:

Dr. Ball can't even tell the truth about his own resume. His claim to be the first Climatology Ph.D. in Canada is a total falsehood; his degree was in historical geography - not climatology - and it was nowhere near the first ever granted to someone writing vaguely in the field. It also was granted by the university as a doctor of philosophy, not the more prestigious "doctor of science" that Ball claims in these articles.

He claims as well to have been a professor (again of climatology) at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years, while he confirmed in his own Statement of Claim in a pending lawsuit (look here ) that he was a professor (of geography, never climatology) for just eight years.

Dr. Ball claims never to have been paid by oil and gas interests, but if you look here , you'll find a Globe and Mail story in which Dr. Barry Cooper, the man behind Ball's former industry front group, the Friends of Science , offers this clumsy admission: "[The money's] not exclusively from the oil and gas industry," says Prof. Cooper. "It's also from foundations and individuals. I can't tell you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter, or the individuals."

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 11:51 | 142000 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Wait... will this happen before or after the Ukrainian weaponized flu that Mayhem posted about last week?!? I am so confused. You remember, the one that turned out to be totally bogus.

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 11:39 | 141989 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

I was wondering how long ZH "radical" take would take to reveal its neoliberal foundations. Nice going guys,

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 11:25 | 141979 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Mayham.... Whatever

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 11:15 | 141968 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

check out UN Agenda 21.

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 11:04 | 141959 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

You obviously drank the kool aid on environment change being a scam a long time before these hackers. Proof of climate change as a result of human activity is established. It doesn't depend solely on one set of data or one researcher. You, "project mayhem', are obviously an avid Fixed News watcher. An I'm sure you believe that NASA faked landing on the moon. So, light a big fat cigar. Stick your head in a plastic bag and breath it in baby, breath it in. One less rotted head to deal with...

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 13:02 | 142073 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Another Greenshirt fascist weighs in on the debate.

The emails show that data was falsified and/or manipulated to bring up the results these "scientists" wanted, resulting in collusion and incestuous "peer review" to legitimize the studies. When skeptics requested the data to cross-check the claims, these "scientists" either hid the data or "lost" the research. The so-called established "proof" you speak of has been faked, as the emails clearly show.

Your post reflects the ranting of a simpleton and a religious nut.

Wed, 11/25/2009 - 11:01 | 141956 trx
trx's picture

I'm puzzled by the timing of this information (just as the Copehagen meeting is about to start).....

 

In April this year I wrote a piece called "eco-logical miscalculations", about the exact same same issue.

I managed to piss of a few fanatics, but that was it...

 

(Original Post in original language here: http://econotwist.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/øko-logisk-regnefeil/)

 

 

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!