This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Global warming exposed as UN-funded fraud
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
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
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:
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 -
THIS JUST IN (todays washington post):
Emma ROTHSCHILD will be at Michele Obama's table for Obama's first state dinner. however usually they keep David Rockefeller off of the invite list and he comes as someones "guest".
there is nothing new under the sun.
The fact of the collection of these emails, their media release and the timing of their release (just before the Copenhagen conference), looks like political espionage, not the work of "hackers".
Would be good if society could keep its focus on the external reality rather than on political/social games.
Climategate is out on the blogosphere, however MSM keeps totally mum about it (WSJ article mentions it as "a heated debate", BBC presents it as a hackers attack only). So don't expect too much out of it. TPTB will sign stuff if they want. Most of the people just want to hear it's going to be an OK. Totemic strains of flu, AGW, masses will gobble up anything, as long as authorities say so. I hope the time when people reject their corrupt governments comes sooner than later... And then what?
We don't know what to do with freedom, people fully deserve the shit that keeps raining on their heads.
There is likely fraud on BOTH sides of this debate, given that it is a huge research effort.
That does not change the obvious. The icecaps are melting, glaciers are disappearing. I am convinced.
here's a nice excerpt from the father of Global Warming on how to handle some un-cooperative statistics with Arctic Sea Ice
Return to the index page | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=858&filename=.txt
Anon said "There is likely fraud on BOTH sides of this debate, given that it is a huge research effort."
I think you are grossly underestimating the significance of the institutions and actors involved in these emails.
The CRU is the center of the human caused climate change universe and the names that populate these emails are the who's who of the human caused climate change lobby.
I like ZH sometimes, but anyone thinking it's not full of people talking their own book (and this is a book, my dear, that has mountains of money between the pages) has to only look at how ravenously climate change deniers have pounced on and worked over a few scientists' emails that talk about mulling, tweaking and testing their data. If this email exchange is it the only thing you can hang your "global warming is a hoax" theory on, it's pathetic - there is no smoking gun in them -- if there were, the deniers would be fighting science with science (i.e. producing data to contradict their findings) --not with just dim accusations.
If there are any of you with sense enough to get beyond the hysterics - here's the real story behind the emails:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
It's very disturbing how willing we are to be misdirected. If there are any of you not working for an oil lobbying firm here - here's an interesting question - who are the hackers working for and why did they release their data now?
Russian hackers have infiltrated NOAA too, which ought to give some of you great pause.
Ooh look, here's a conspiracy theory for you -- how helpful to their oil industry and economy would it be to capture and attempt to debunk U.S./British scientific data to manipulate markets in their favor? Hey, this might even help some ambiguously loyal American investors too!
If there are any patriots left on this site, your stomachs should be turning.
Finally, someone talking sense.
another good site is http://www.climatedepot.com/
One of the concerns I have with realclimate. org is that many of its contributors/founders are the same people who wrote or were part of the CRU emails e.g. Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann etc. So in essence RealClimate has an interest in downplaying the whole issue.
"If this email exchange is it the only thing you can hang your "global warming is a hoax" theory on, it's pathetic - there is no smoking gun in them -- if there were, the deniers would be fighting science with science (i.e. producing data to contradict their findings) --not with just dim accusations."
Considering there are plenty of studies out there contradicting these findings (in fact, several of the files ridicule these very individuals) your point is a red herring.
Your boys lied, and have been lying, for years in a rather pathetic effort to obtain further government grants and make themselves celebrities in the process. The emails blatantly demonstrate concerted efforts to hide and manipulate data, using code and models that are FUBAR. so instead of taking these jerkweeds to task for deliberately strangling the scientific process in the name of politics, you rise to their defense. And you have the gall to call others deniers? You better take a look in the mirror first.
"If there are any of you with sense enough to get beyond the hysterics - here's the real story behind the emails"
Realclimate is the Jim Cramer of the global warming industry, and has been scrambling trying to head this off because they have a vested interest in AGW being accepted by the global populace. Try using an argument from a more objective source next time.
"If there are any patriots left on this site, your stomachs should be turning."
You sound like a cult member.
Some useful links:
This is the site (http://wikileaks.org/) that broke the story (worth visiting on a regular basis)
From November 13
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRU_emails_reveal_a_worrying_pattern_of_bad_be...
This site has indexed all of the CRU emails in a format that can be searched
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/
NOTE there is a question as to "weather" these emails were simply hackers at work or the efforts of a whistleblower - stay tuned for the court cases
Indeed, it's possible that the one who leaked these files is a CRU employee. The leak came just a few days after the institute denied yet another FOI request, perhaps it was an inside job from someone who could no longer stand this travesty.
There were attempts made at silencing the publication of the dox, e.g. through docstoc.com crew (ZH seems to use the service): http://www.docstoc.com/docs/17324539/docstoc-cpyrght2
It started just after peak traffic to the file listing East Anglia climatic research scam grants: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/16992057/Climatic-Research-Unit-pdj-grant-si...
Great post!
To say that we are as important as ants on this planet is disrespectful to ants. How does human endeavour compare to the power of the sun?
But saying that, what we can do is poison the planet with certain chemicals and radioactive substances. So it follows that the whole environmental thing is a scam as they don't propose to tax known poisonous substances, but tax carbon: the fundamental building block of life. You couldn't have picked a better tax revenue maximizer; I'm surprised they didn't work out a way to tax water.
These so called scientists should be penalized for having the world spend billions of dollars on something that does not appear now to exist, as supported by evidence.
admin
http://invetrics.com
As a working research scientist (physical chemistry) who read the emails in question and has experienced fraud motivated by grant funding in my own area of nanoscience I can well believe the claims of deliberate fraud made in this article. And the comments in the Fortran code substantiate previous indications that raw measured temperatures in the 1940-1970 period were systmatically "corrected" downward by the scientists in question while radiometric measurements from later times (which measure both land and sea T) were ignored in favor of land based T measurements-many obtained from large heat sinks (i.e. cities). These corrections gave the "desired" upward trend to the data of the latter half of the 20th century (though the last few years have a cooling trend which as been ignored as none of the "models" predicted this behavior)
More importantly, CO2 is a lagging indicator of global T increases. This is because the oceans are the largest repository of CO2. As T (Temperature) increases more gas is released but with a time lag. The ice core record shows this to be the case for hundreds of thousands of years and many heating/cooling cycles. As the global T increases, CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase. CO2 is an effect, not a cause of global warming. We are currently in a long term warming period due to changes in the axis of tilt and orbit of the earth as well as due to solar flux changes. Humans don't cause this and they can't control it-it is the height of hubris to assert otherwise and literally a waste of energy/capital to try.
And may I add another "inconvenient truth" mentioned by some others. The global T was considerable warmer 1000 years ago during the Viking colonization of Greenland and iceland than in the the 20th century. Good scientists don't confuse correlation with causation (also important in capital markets). But it is also true "it is very hard to make a person understand something when their salary/grant depends on not understanding it"
I used to live near a major university, consequently some of my friends were doctors doing serious research.They also waited tables at local restaurants.Most Americans have no idea how the grant race has distorted and captured science.If nothing else, global warming was lucrative for many ethically challenged scientists.My friends were ethical, thus poor.This does not mean good paying research jobs do not exist, they are just exceedingly rare in most fields.
I really enjoyed your post.The warm periods that don't fit the model must be suppressed!
The ancient Scythians discouraged frivolous prophecies by burning to death any soothsayer whose predictions did not come true.
How long a timeline did the Scythians give the Soothsayer? To paraphrase the Motto of Zero Hedge, "On a Long Enough Timeline, the value of any currency goes to Zero". Or as Voltaire put it "Paper Money always returns to its intrinsic value. Zero."
In any event, I'll take the risk here, without Hedging the Bet. This system is FUBAR.
RE
In order for the NWO to make a profit of climate change, real or imagined, they would have to have a functioning monetary system. They also would have to have people employed making money they could tax. They seem to be able to manage neither at the moment, so why worry about taxation of money you will never make, and if you made it wouldn't be worth the carbon based paper it was printed on anyhow?
You are worried about some Goobermint apparatchik in Belgium preventing you from selling you house because its not Green enough? Wake Up Call. you can't sell your house NOW, whether it is Green or not! At least not unless its a short sale and not unless Da Goobermint will provide some other sucker with an FH backed loan you can't sell it.
If our Illuminati friends ever figure out how to stop the cascading collapse of the monetary system they built here, then we might have some worries about how they might tax carbon credits or anything else. Right now they look completely ineffectual in terms of controlling the collapse, and its going to be VERY hard to tax businesses on their Carbon Emissions when there are no biz left to tax here. Increasing emissions from cars burning gas is highly unlikely when no car manufacturers are left standing. More cows farting methane is highly unlikely when fewer people have enough money to buy Steaks.
If/when the Warburgs, Rockefellers and Rothschilds figure out a way to get their bullshit currency system operational again, then we might have to worry about being taxed on it. Meanwhile, fewer people all the time make any money at all to tax, and fewer all the time own homes they don't send in Jingle Mail on, so how Green said house is is a moot point.
Let me clue you in here. Peopl who have no money to tax, who have no cars to drive and who have no houses they can afford to live in will not give a Rat's Ass WHAT kind of Tax is dropped down here by the UN, Al Gore or Lucifer himself. The big problem faced by the Illuminati is exactly how to maintain power when the House of Cards of the Monetary System fails. Coming Soon to a Theatre Near You.
RE
What if a cascading collapse of the monetary system is indeed all part of the plan? Just another step. Devalue the dollar to nothing and implement a new 'world currency' to take its place. At that point they could reset the 'House of Cards Monetary System'.
Global warming may or may not be happening.
But man-made global warming is a MYTH. This is all about serfdom.
Fall Of The Republic indeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LPNRI_6T8
I've read through this whole debate and no one has mentioned 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. Made to look controversial at the time, its looking mighty accurate in light of the CRU hack. For all those who say the 'science is settled', even in the face of this latest evidence that it isn't, I recommend you go and watch it, although if your mind is made up I don't think there is much anyone could say here to convince you otherwise. I guess you shouldn't bother if you've personally just completed polar flyovers to confirm the icecaps are shrinking.
Of course, AGW most certainly being a fraud doesn't mean that we aren't being killed at various speeds by all the other environmental toxicity present. But that's not the issue at hand. The issue, IMHO, is what seems more reasonable? That we ignore every other important environmental/health issue to focus on a gas we breath out and is used by plants as food, but, unchecked, will apparently bring on the Apocalypse if we don't pay taxes to an unelected World Government? Or that the same Powers That Be behind the push to World Government, and most likely the controlled takedown of the world economy, need a way to make the sheople pay for it directly, while at the same time ceding large portions of their delusional freedoms and feeling good about it all? I'd say the latter personally.
The CRU hack is not only historic in and of itself, but is timely and of monumental, very imminent importance because of Copenhagen. Will BO sign or not?
Project Mayhem, kudos for putting all this together.
I have wondered for some time what drives the global warming nonsense.I wonder what TPTB would do if they knew that the oil reserves were quickly running out?Would they try to figure out a way to drive demand down through the floor?Just doing that would lower tax income so much it would be disastrous for them.The global warming scam seems a plausible way for governments to reduce demand, enhance tax revenue, and reduce the number of the unsightly and troublesome poor.I do not necessarily think the UN or some global gov plot makes the most sense.Is there a conspiracy?Absolutely.But I suspect the real villains are far more pedestrian than the global elite theorists think.
As far as man made warming goes....it is just laughable.A volcano, sun output changes, etc have the REAL control.Personally, I am glad we are not in an ice age.That would suck big time.And the Sahara used to be a grassland.That was man's fault how?
I will tell you what would be comical...an actual climatic emergency.These self important frauds would soil their clothes if 1.The Yellowstone caldera erupts apocalyptically. 2.A 5 mile diameter meteor hits in the ocean(or anywhere actually).3. The sun's output drops dramatically.Note no one can tell you why we endure cyclic ice ages.Nor can they prove the cycle has been broken.They are CLUELESS.
It's funny... TPTB are actually a number of factions, sub factions and unrelated groups of ageing assholes.
I know oil is running out. In my estimates and study and the reports I've read, it's going to be critical within 10 years. By critical, I mean, it will take more energy to take a barrel out than what the barrel is. This is simple energy balance. Other groups... specifically the 'Templars' think there is at least another 50 years though significant change must be had... though there are some in 'Templars' which doubt that.
What all do agree, is that nuclear is a way out. But, to get to that there must be WWIII (within three years though I'm gunning for sometime next year or 2011).
So, once that is understood, debates about climategate are mute as it won't matter in a few years.
This article is really good... pretty funny too...
Climategate: MSM Writers Try to Ignore Scandal in Global Warming Stories But Readers Bring Them Back to Reality
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/11/24/climategate-msm-writers-try-ignore-scandal-global-warming-stories-read
the comment section is priceless
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/6734481.html
Smoking Gun?
*From:* geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[5]mailto:geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[mailto:geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[6]mailto:geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>] *On Behalf Of *David
Schnare
*Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2009 10:49 AM
*Cc:* Alan White; geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[7]mailto:geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
*Subject:* [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
Gene:
I've been following this issue closely and this is what I take
away from it:
1) Tree ring-based temperature reconstructions are fraught with
so much uncertainty, they have no value whatever. It is
impossible to tease out the relative contributions of rainfall,
nutrients, temperature and access to sunlight. Indeed a single
tree can, and apparently has, skewed the entire 20th century
temperature reconstruction.
2) The IPCC peer review process is fundamentally flawed if a
lead author is able to both disregard and ignore criticisms of
his own work, where that work is the critical core of the
chapter. It not only destroys the credibility of the core
assumptions and data, it destroys the credibility of the larger
work - in this case, the IPCC summary report and the underlying
technical reports. It also destroys the utility and credibility
of the modeling efforts that use assumptions on the relationship
of CO2 to temperature that are based on Britta's work, which is,
of course, the majority of such analyses.
As Corcoran points out, "the IPCC has depended on 1) computer
models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are
sitting on firm ground."
Nonetheless, and even if the UNEP thinks it appropriate to rely
on Wikipedia as their scientific source of choice, greenhouse
gases may (at an ever diminishing probability) cause a
significant increase in global temperature. Thus, research,
including field trials, on the leading geoengineering techniques
are appropriate as a backstop in case our children find out that
the current alarmism is justified.
David Schnare
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Eugene I. Gordon
<[9]mailto:euggordon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>
wrote:
Alan:
Thanks for the extensive and detailed e-mail. This is terrible
but not surprising. Obviously I do not know what gives with
these guys. However, I have my own suspicions and hypothesis. I
dont think they are scientifically inadequate or stupid. I
think they are dishonest and members of a club that has much to
gain by practicing and perpetuating global warming scare
tactics. That is not to say that global warming is not occurring
to some extent since it would be even without CO2 emissions. The
CO2 emissions only accelerate the warming and there are other
factors controlling climate. As a result, the entire process may
be going slower than the powers that be would like. Hence, (I
postulate) the global warming contingent has substantial
motivation to be dishonest or seriously biased, and to be loyal
to their equally dishonest club members. Among the motivations
are increased and continued grant funding, university
advancement, job advancement, profits and payoffs from carbon
control advocates such as Gore, being in the limelight, and
other motivating factors I am too inexperienced to identify.
Alan, this is nothing new. You and I experienced similar
behavior from some of our colleagues down the hall, the Bell
Labs research people, in the good old days. Humans are hardly
perfect creations. I am never surprised at what they can do. _I
am perpetually grateful for those who are honest and fair and
thankfully there is a goodly share of those._
-gene
Nice find
Have you read the comments from the CRU scientist trying to rework the climate model data and source codes yet? Just out today on Wattsupwiththat don't miss it.
If this were a murder investigation it would be a slam dunk but for the most part the MSM has missed this... I guess they don't want to look as bad as they should. The Emperor indeed is wearing no clothes.
I've always smelled bullshit with this IPCC crap... now I smell blood.
And it smells wonderfully.
Heres a sample....
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)
Priceless... it's full of this stuff...
The sad state of the climate pseudoscience:
It’s unthinkable. Big Government has spent $79 billion on the climate industry, 3000 times more than Big Oil. Leading climate scientists won’t debate in public and won’t provide their data. What do they hide? When faced with freedom-of-information requests they say they’ve “lost” the original global temperature records. Thousands of scientists are rising in protest against the scare campaign. Meanwhile $126 billion turned over in carbon markets in 2008 and bankers get set to make billions.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/11/skeptics-handbook-ii-global-bullies-wan...
I know I will be ridiculed for this but the book came came out in 2007. An Inconvenient Book by Glenn Beck. Chapter 1. I know most people think he is a nut, but he nailed this years ago.
This is the book I have loaned out and recommended to people since it was published:
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551164/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0
As does Alex Jones in his latest documentary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LPNRI_6T8
Another "nut". Easy to slap on a disparaging label, not so easy to refute facts.
Conspiracy, no simply Fraud. Neurotic scientists hired by the CRU with grants provided by the Ted Turner UN Foundation's Director Timothy Wirth who were AGW zealots and true believers.
So when does the movie An Inconvenient Fraud come out? Just askin'....
Prescient work by the Cato Institute, pointing out the fraud that these e-mails show. And doing it two months ago:
The Dog Ate Global Warming
Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10578
Amos the Elephant
Al Gore...................go bk.
The Clausius-Clapeyron equation demonstrates that moisture (or more specifically, saturation vapor pressure) increases nonlinearly with temperature. Funny how we've had a lot of extreme rainfall events recently.
I hope that PM continues to refine the approach to this issue, as the most provocative line here isn't the most valuable one for this blog's energy. The big picture science has indeed been settled for over a century. The political economy is well worth fighting about.
I also urge my fellow posting/reading humans (since we all passed the ZH screens) to reconsider their stance on this issue, and to accept the mainstream scientific community's best efforts to come to grips with this issue.
There are lots of evil plots out there. The science of global climate change isn't one of them. How to handle it needs to be debated; I hope ZH, PM and others here take the time and energy to participate in the real debate rather than the phony one.
"... accept the mainstream scientific community's best efforts ..."
Yo, Jim, that a'int science, but it is politics.
Ned
Jim;
Even someone with a subterranean I.Q. knows you can't debate fraud!!! Fraud is what it is.
Care to expand on your comment "the big picture science was indeed been settled for over a century?"
It's late. I'm tired. Start on page 121.
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/FCMTheRadiativeForcingDuetoCloudsandWaterVapor.pdf
Happy Thanksgiving.
Say Jim it's a new day and you shouldn't be tired so let's play...
It's interesting that you quote settled climate science that originates in the 1800's. You should really update your library :-)
Try this first... it's an easily understandable (yet longish) study on solar/atmospheric climate physics... by real scientists... I've got tons of current research so we can spend weeks on this if you wish... heres an interesting hypothesis for ya big guy...
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/the-climate-engine/
Remember just because your stuff is dated doesn't mean its correct. Didn't they put leaches on Washington to cure him before he died? Just askin...
Oh, Jim is tired.
Good grief man, after all of the information presented you go back to the playbook call of "the science is settled". You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink - did you vote for Al Franken?
You are not an intellectual as you would like to believe if you can't evaluate new information as it becomes available. Your statement "since we all passed the ZH screens" is indeed unusual and suggests to me that you are not one of us but pushing an agenda or propaganda - The reality is there is no screen, we just sent an email address and picked a name and picture so your statement that we all passed a screen is a poor premise with which to establish your credibility. I will summarize what we most likely have here, a confluence of interests and issues:
FACTS
1. Oil is extremely important to our economy and we have passed peak (cheap) oil - cost
2. Population growth and expanding economies will require more energy including oil
3. Pollution is real, but CO2 is beneficial for plants and therefore people and animals
4. We are stuck in the middle east to control strategic oil resources (but Obama anti-war)
LEADERS MINDSET
Government and leaders manage to the least common denominator and towards the masses, so the message is not designed for those in the higher IQ side of the bell curve. These leaders believe all people act in their own best interest, and not necessarily the interest of the planet at large or our combined interests. They might also believe that unless there is a financial incentive for businesses to innovate (huge potential profit especially on carbon trading - again not a producer but a banking leach) that capital formation will not make the initiative effective. We can understand creating a true message everyone can understand, but intellectuals are incensed with being lied to.
We must transition off of middle east oil for cost and conflict reasons as the cost for those resources will increase due to reduced future reserves (fine now, but planning ahead when the cost curve increases if we don't have alternatives).
With the internet, it is increasingly difficult for 1% to rule the other 99% so they want to control information and disinformation (Jay Rockefeller, congressman and brother of Mr. Big, stated it would be better if the internet had not been invented and has put forward a bill that would allow Obama to eliminate the internet by decree in an "emergency"). As Zbigniew Brzezinski (Obama advisor) stated, it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people (a chilling statement if you look at the tens of millions that have been killed in countries by their governments in the last 100 years - many of which were socialist/fascist leaders).
WORLD GOVERNMENT
Now that we have established where we are, a group decided to lie to us. They fabricated information and sold an idea with movies that the fate of the world rests on reducing CO2. Why was CO2 chosen? Well, CO2 is given off by every man, woman, child, and animal and whoever controls CO2 controls every man, woman, child, and animal.
Rockefeller stated a world government run by bankers and intellectuals is superior to democracies, and this is tempting but elitist logic when you think of the decisions that voters have made (although voters aren't given real choices). Warburg in front of congress in the 50's said we will have world government, whether you like it or not, by consent or conquest (family with ownership of the federal reserve).
Kissinger (administration advisor) stated Americans would be outraged if the UN entered their cities, but if they were made to believe in an outside threat, whether real or promulgated, they would gladly welcome them with open arms because mankinds greatest fear is fear of the unknown. Re-read that statement, H1N1 and Global Warming fit this promulgated fear of the unknown perfectly.
These banking oligarchs want to rule the world, and they don't want the peasants (us) to have a say in it. But because the US is so strong, they can't take over the world unless Obama gives them the keys to the car and we cede sovereignty from within. Many events have taken place in the past and will take place in the future that they plan ("never waste a crisis" - red flag operations) to move in the direction of their world wide government agenda.
Statements from UN:
"The UN is the greatest fraud in history. It's purpose is to destroy the United States." (John E. Rankin, a U.S. Congressman)
"The age of nations must end. The governments of nations have decided to order their separate sovereignties into one government to which they will surrender their arms." (U.N. World Constitution)
The first president of the United Nations General Assembly, Paul-Henri Spaak, who was also a prime minister of Belgium and one of the early planners of the European Common Market, as well as a secretary-general of NATO, affirmed, "We do not want another committee, we have too many already. What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all the people and to lift us up out of the economic morass into which we are sinking. Send us such a man, and whether he be God or devil, we will receive him."
"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a luciferian initiation (David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations)
“When the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.” — H. G. Wells, in his book entitled “The New World Order” (1939)
Is it any wonder why rational individuals don't want a world government led by luciferians? By the way, the highest levels of the Masonic order (33+) are illuminated luciferians - read the writings of Albert Pike, a key Mason held in high esteem.
The UN has been promoting and voting for sinister agenda items to kill off large sections of the world population from a malthusian perspective, many of these individuals use "spirit guides" - clearly occultic, just like Hitler. Nature will be elevated into a religious cult and humans will be de-humanized so that mass genocide will be considered acceptable to "save the planet". Read the quotes again, I didn't say it they did.
AGENDA DECISION
This movement to combat an imaginary threat (global warming) was promoted since it would require world government to solve. It would provide more control to Oligarchs (CO2 = your life) and line these bankers pockets by taxing all of humanity. It would also strategically benefit the US for the necessary transition from middle eastern oil. Liberty is the balance of power between the collective and the individual rights, and a totalitarian state in any form is the opposite of freedom in whatever form the totalitarian power takes if too concentrated: fascist/capitalist/socialist/ or communist. Always fight for a balance of power if you cherish your liberty and your freedom - don't trade liberty for security.
Bankers have bought off the leaders of the world and acadamia - with a printing press you can bribe the world to promote the agenda - always follow the money.
That's just silly, taken as a whole, particularly the ad hominem insults. Most of that UN stuff is entirely fabulous, and I mean that in its original sense: a fable. I believe you have constructed a faulty framework for your understanding of the situation. I will grant you a benign motivation in doing so; more than you have shown me.
We face deadly serious times so I hope you can clear your head.
For your level of understanding I would suggest the simple but profound book 'World Population and Human Values' by Jonas and Jonathan Salk. Think sigma curves and phase shifts. Also if you think you can handle it 'The Society of the Spectacle' by Guy Debord.
It would make more sense to say that the damages brought about by global climate change should be consciously acknowledged and borne by society, because the level of state control required to bring about major changes in energy systems is itself an unacceptable cost in terms of our liberty.
Funny, I have never seen anyone actually say that. Oh well.
So you did vote for Al Franken?
You never addressed your non sequitur that since we all passed the screen you are somehow credible and to be believed.
The statements on the UN are indeed accurate, you must be a sympathizer. Rockefeller also thanked the major publishing and television companies for keeping silent on the world government agenda, and that without their discretion their plan for world government would not have been possible. The fact that they are now talking about it in the open suggests that the infrastructure and groundwork is solid and operating. Here's another interesting fact I failed to include about the publishing company for the UN:
The Lucis Trust is the Publishing House which prints and disseminates United Nations material. It is a devastating indictment of the New Age and Pagan nature of the UN. Lucis Trust was established in 1922 as Lucifer Trust by Alice Bailey as the publishing company to disseminate the books of Bailey and Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society. The title page of Alice Bailey's book, 'Initiation, Human and Solar' was originally printed in 1922, and clearly shows the publishing house as 'Lucifer Publishing CoIn 1923. Bailey changed the name to Lucis Trust, because Lucifer Trust revealed the true nature of the New Age Movement too clearly. (Constance Cumbey, The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, p. 49). A quick trip to any New Age bookstore will reveal that many of the hard-core New Age books are published by Lucis Trust.
At one time, the Lucis Trust office in New York was located at 666 United Nations Plaza and is a member of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations under a slick program called "World Goodwill". In an Alice Bailey book called "Education for a New Age"; she suggests that in the new age "World Citizenship should be the goal of the enlightened, with a world federation and a world brain." In other words - a One World Government New World Order.
I believe you have constructed a faulty framework for your understanding of the situation, you sir are looking at trees when I merely showed you the forest. Every major agenda must benefit powerful interest groups to get traction, and I showed how the confluence of interests enabled this agenda to solve mutual objectives. You are not a genie granting wishes or motivations.
We do agree that we indeed face deadly serious times, so I hope you can clear your head as well, and your dire predictions are not scary. The very definition of terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes or the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. Fear is the tool of tyranny, and those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will get tyranny. You see, these "issues" that we are facing are all "global" in nature, quite a coincidence don't you think: Global warming, Global terrorism, Global H1N1 flu. The reason for all of these is to create problems that have high probability responses so that they can implement the solutions (never allow a crisis go to waste) that just happen to line up with their agenda - world government (PRS system).
Your last paragraph is gobblety gook "It would make more sense to say that the damages brought about by global climate change should be consciously acknowledged and borne by society, because the level of state control required to bring about major changes in energy systems is itself an unacceptable cost in terms of our liberty." - this wrongly presumes that global climate change only causes damages when there are benefits and misconstrues mankinds role when the planet is part of a naturally occurring cycle caused primarily by sunspot activity. However, if your point is really that we should be open about national energy policy transition for real reasons (consciously acknowledged), I can accept this. Inexpensive energy provides greater freedom, like our ability to get into our car or plane and travel freely over a long distance.
<duplicate>