This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -
PM has done everyone a great service by revealing the many untruths that exist in our day. However we should be careful not to tarnish an honest person’s efforts and work, by the actions of groups who are fraudsters, banksters, or just someone who manipulates the facts for their own agenda. Please note that I do not consider the 'Giant Squid' to be an environmental group, despite the nickname.
The first thing to know is that global warming is happening on Mars also, as confirmed by a Russian Scientist. Our primary problem is the sun.
"Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory...
...Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said. "...
The second issue to consider is what moderates this solar effect, or accentuates this problem.
Our human activity has had profound effects on our ecosystem. Richard Leakey’s 1995 book ‘The Sixth Extinction'... describes the tremendous loss of species that has been occurring on a scale that matches only 5 other Extinction Events in the history of time.
James Lovelock has developed the Gaia theory over the last 30 years. In his book ‘The Vanishing Face of Gaia’…Lovelock states he feels ‘Cap and Trade’ IS MORE ABOUT FINANCIALS than the environment. He speaks of several alternatives such as biochar. The book reviews the homeostatic nature of the earth to moderate extreme effects like fluctuations in solar heat, as well as internal effects like the mass production of CO2 which intensifies the heat.
As we destroy our environment, our ability to moderate is lost. In fact, Lovelock thinks it is too late already. Our ice caps have melted to a degree and cooled the earth for a bit, but the sun's heat remains. Weather patterns and moisture levels will change, but most noticeable of all is that our weather will become more extreme.
If the sun is heating us up-there will be little we can do to stop it, short of a space umbrella.
If we want to drop our CO2 levels - use biochar or other alternatives that are much faster and more effective.
If GS actually wants to help-perhaps they could donate all of the money to do these alternatives. These cheaper alternatives are easily within their monetary grasp...
Somewhere along the way this important issue was run over in a mad dash to manipulate it for money and glory. If greed hasn't destroyed the economy yet, it seems hell bent on burning up what mothernature has left.
Kindest Regards,
MAM
I believe they should start with Al Gore being tried for fraud and send directly to jail with Bernie. If Obama signs treaty in Copenhagen we should impeach him...This should also highlight the axis of evil that the UN represents.
God believes in gentleness. As long as it's for the right people. Harmless shoe throwers can rot in prison. But Al Gore. He deserves nothing but a strong talking to. Because sociopaths are so full of conciousness and sympathy and sensitivity that sort of thing cuts right through them.
You should see the responses given at the realclimate.org site. Which is moderated by the same bunch of hacks incriminated in the hacked emails (no pun intended). If you question anything other than AGW is 100% proven (by their own peer reviewed circle jerk) you are insulted and labeled as ignorant. Project Mayhem, your last bit info about the code is what it is all about. They have repeatedly denied FOIA request and deleted emails. Why tout science that is peer reviewed and not be forth coming with the processes the arrived at that data. Phil Jones, director of the research unit at CRU seems to be the ring director with Michael Mann pulling the strings behind the scenes. I can't wait until they all burn in a globally induced inferno.
Questions for Global Warming, er, Climate Change loons:
1) What is the idea Gloal temperature, and why?
2) If we are cooler than that "ideal" temperature, should we dump carbon emmissions into the atmosphere to get that temp back up? Will those who dump ALOT of carbon emissions into the atmosphere going to be rewarded for their efforts at that point?
This whole Global Warming, er, Climate Change hoax is all about $$$ and control over the peasants. Period.
Think of all the rivers, lakes, toxic dumps, invasive species and other KNOWN health hazards and pollutants that could have been cleaned up with the $$ wasted on this utter nonsense called Global Warming, er Climate Change.
My thoughts exactly. Have the sheople feel all warm and fuzzy about 'reducing their carbon footprint' and make 'em pay for it through the nose and give up whatever self delusional freedom they may have left. Very neat.
Move along, nothing to see here. You are responsable for warming the planet. Stop breathing! You're not being poisoned to death with flouride, chlorine, mercury, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, hormones, penecillin etc. etc. etc.
If global warming (or climate change, if your prefer) is real, it poses an insurmountable logical dilemma to libertarian individuals who fear world government and the elitist indifference that too often comes with technocratic rule.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_... I'll go down there
Many think we'd have a lot less undesired pollution and other environmental issues if for example if we had stood for property rights over the the false "public welfare" dogma of the statists. Got free market environmentalism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrTsaSUFfpo
that utube link is good food for thought. this is along the lines of henry george, but slightly different. i wish we would be having these discussions/debates more often actually, but so much for the 'age of reason'.
could you repost the wiki link please? can't get it to work.
"But as our essayists' name suggests, that wouldn't promote mayhem; instead it might actually further an important discussion about a threat which, if real, requires us to face some hard political questions."
I am hearten by your choice of inserting the words "if real" in the above sentence.
The warming from the late 70's to 2000 or so (including the record 1998 El Nino) was in fact real. Just as the cooling in the 1940's to the late 1970's was also real. The nature of the debate however is one of causality my friend... was co2 the driver of this change?... or was it natural variations in the Pacific Decadal oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which are in themselves affected by the varying levels of solar activity that occur over the years. Since even before the weak solar minimum in cycle 23... temperatures have declined globally and if cycles 24 and 25 are going to be as low as they look they are going to be... we will have continued COOLING.
It will be a great test since co2 levels will continue to rise... if you are going to install a trillion dollar carbon tax shouldn't we wait another year or two to see if AGW is as definitive as many suggest?
Wagers anyone?
Never forget this fact friend... solar output as measured by TSI (total solar irradiance) and planetary magnetic indices (amongst others) has never been higher than in the last 50 years.
How many SUV's were on the road when the Vikings were farming in Greenland? (Still can't do that today)
And please explain to me how a mature tree of this size which came from a forest of similar trees (indicating warm stable climate) came out of thousands year old glacier ice if the climate has NEVER been warmer today as your fucking CRU scientists and the IPCC claim ??????
Just asking... since I must be the idiot here.
http://woostergeologists.scotblogs.wooster.edu/files/2009/07/climate-change-scientist-005.jpg
Kindly pull your head out of your ass before you criticise Mayhem on this particular topic in the future.
Thanks!
Sooty coal emissions from China are responsible for the Arctic summer big melts...
These get reversed come the winter.
The famously disappearing glacier in Patagonia ( featured by 60 Minutes ) lies in the ash-fall of a volcano only miles away -- now active enough to 'salt' the ice!
Yet that little detail did not make it into the broadcast...
////
Carbon dioxide is plant fertilizer. NASA has long established that elevated levels will be needed for any hydroponic food cycle closure -- such as anticipated for a Mars mission.
////
AGW is a mechanism for virtually unlimited rent-seeking; nothing more, nothing less.
"As at least one other commenter observes, melting ice caps are in fact quite real."
Are you basing this claim on what you know as fact or on what you have been reading in the MSM ?... please some take the time to reflect upon this question.
I will be kind with you since you have at least bothered to register here on ZH. I've been following this issue since I became interested in it as a child in the 1970's when the predictions in the National Geographic Magazine was hinting that the world was heading into another ice-age...
The low arctic sea ice levels encountered in 2007 (recovering since as you neglected to mention) were directly due to an unusually strong polar vortex that was solidly in place at that time. This was not an issue of the ice melting per se as much as being driven ashore by strong winds onto arctic shores... please peruse the government publication and information below originating from the National Snow and Ice data Centre below to educate yourself... then we can revisit this issue if you believe it is necessary... even your East Anglia CRU boys will admit as much so I don't consider this issue to be controversial...
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/081809.html
And as for the icecaps my good friend... did you know that the ice mass of antarctica has actually been INCREASING in the last several decades while admittedly there has been a mass decrease of the Greenland icecap? Didn't think so.
Does the "unusually strong polar vortex" account for this trend too?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg
0
I've also been tracking this since noted climatologist and Nobel Prize winner (back when the Nobel actually was awarded for achievement, not potential) Carl Sagan was worried about global COOLING and not a coincidence, nuclear winter. His prescription for global action was, yes, the same as the current prescription. So, do the same thing to achieve opposite results?
And the data about Mars and Pluto suffering global warming? Least-hypothesis gives us a better answer than man-caused global climate change (and Pluto doesn't even get to be a planet any more). If I can develop an alternative explanation, then we can/should be able to test for the correct (or better) explanation. So the second part of the fraud is "science as consensus".
Ned
That's because there is no scientific facts to refer to! IT'S ALL A BIG FRAUD!
Ah, useful idiot number two makes an appearance.
- the entire notion of man-made global warming, er, man-influenced global warming, er, man-made climate change, oh fuck it, climate change ( thats the ticket: an all-encompossing term that blames man for weather. Hee hee thats good ) came from Michael Mann's computer model output that showed an alarming "hockey stick" future, i.e. drastic one-way yearly temperature increases. All this from a computer model later to be found riddled with faulty algorithims ( algore rhythems, if you prefer), and very questionable assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out.
- then, it was postulated the cause was an increase of man contributed CO2
- long story short: the hockey stick never happened. In fact, not only did temps not go up every year, since 1998 they have flattened or decreased. In science, we call that a dead theory ( projected outcome did not occur ). In science, end of story.
- CO2: of all the villians they could have postulated, this is so silly. The amount of total CO2 in the atmosphere is minute, the portion attributed to man is minute minus minute, equalling mini-minute, and the killer is, wait for it, wait for it, CO2 is not much of a heat collector in any event.
- CO2 only absorbs IR radiation in three narrow spectra. In laymans terms, as a solar panel it pretty much sucks. So the bogeyman here is a wee fraction of a man, who isn't scary anyway.
I realize many of the useful idiots won't care about fraudulent science, or illuminati world domination, or loss of freedom, because a lot of the useful idiots don't like Exxon, or the Saudis or our dependece on foreign oil.
Hey I don't either. But getting our own energy sources, our own oil, conserving energy ( and everything else ), these ideas stand on their own merit, we don't need a BIG LIE and algore and other cretins making billions while taking away our freedom.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING. It is and has always been junk science, pure politics.
Indeed. No man-made global warming but Mann-made global warming!
Government Scientists, what an oxymoron!
It's warming all over the GALAXY! Feel free to join the localization.
http://www.articlesbase.com/environment-articles/galactic-global-warming...
Yes, I guess now Al Gore invented the internet and is now trying to save the universe from mann's global warming. He should be a comic book character, he would like us to think he is the hero of the story but in reality is the underbelly of gotham.
He is the excrement of the Beast he fellates.
Apocalypse Now
Project Mayhem, this is the best written, most succint, and most important post I have ever read. There it is in black and white - tyranny when the light of truth shines on the lies. We must stop tyranny at all costs.
Obamas nobel peace prize was a down payment on the copenhagen treaty, a bribe to influence his decision. World tyranny being sold under the guise of peace or a fear of the unknown, whether real or promulgated, is still world tyranny at heart - the opposite is freedom and liberty.
Bravo, well done. This Thanksgiving I am giving thanks for ZH, you and this piece - I am grateful to have a post so well articulated that I can send it to friends and family. Mccarthy was right, socialists/communists are among us.
DEFEAT THE CARBON WHORES !!
To defeat the Carbon Whores we need to connect Jamie Dimon and GS to this through the carbon credits scam before B.O. throws Tim under the bus and puts J.D. in at treasury.
Tyler!, Marla!, how about making this a top of the page gray box with daily updates? Surly somebody out there knows how to nail GS and J.D. with some of this filth.
B.O is in on the whole thing, do you really think that they don't know this global warming B.S. is a scam? Been outside lately?
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT VICTORY FOR
THE TRUTH MOVEMENT.
DEFEAT DARTH GORE
It's a little disappointing to see people on what I'd consider a pretty educated blog lapping up a handful of released e-mails and completely disregarding the fact that hundreds of scientists around the world find the research still strongly in favor of anthropogenic global warming. In fact, if you examine Dr. Ball's academic record, he's published nothing of note refuting this theory - just talked it up on Fox News.
Check this out for a more enlightening perspective on this topic: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/, and I encourage everyone to actually read the papers cited in this.
I'll see your pathetic hundreds of scientists and raise you 31,000.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
As Rainman said, be skeptical of everything you read:
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine held a press conference this morning to announce that 31,000 "scientists" have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming.
According to OISM officials, the purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that "the claim of 'settled science' and an overwhelming 'consensus' in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong."
So what does it take to be included among the 31,000 "experts" on the petition? Well, according to the OISM criteria, any undergraduate science degree will do just fine. Bet you never thought that BS you earned 20 years ago made you a qualified climatologist. Congratulations!
OISM also wants to let you know that 9,021 of the signers hold PhDs. They don't specify what the doctorates are in, but they repeat that figure quite a bit, as if it means something. Since the group was nice enough to list all 31,000 signers, including the dead people, let's take a look at the qualifications of three randomly-selected "climate experts."
Oh christ not another one!!!
And the head of the fucking IPCC is an Indian railroad engineer... check it out...
http://development.asia/issue01/img/cover01-01.jpg
And that makes him a climate expert how exactly?
Apples and oranges.
"The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[4] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change; implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature."
The 30 some odd thousand signatures were posing as relevant scientists.
"The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself.
Of course it doesn't Davey that way they avoid getting caught up in the fraud.
So it doesn't trouble you that the IPCC... remember the lead climate agency on the planet does not have a climatologist at its head???
That's plain frightenening Davey... listen kid the reason I'm taking this time is that so 5 years or so from now when the MSM "breaks" this story... your wife and kids and the neighbors won't laugh at you for being an AGW "gasser".
BTW read the emails sometime and please get back to me I'm about 1/4 of the way through all of them now and the postings at the climate sites are absolutely hilarious.
The physics are pretty simple. CO2 reflects infrared. The planet radiates heat as light from the Sun bounces off of it. More CO2 in the atmosphere, more radiated heat stays down here and less flies out to space. What part of the hacked files changes physics? Just might have something to do with folks predicting this effect a long time ago. Kinda strange that some of the same people who freak out that we've taken out and burned up half of the stuff that runs our world's industry, transportation, and economy think its retarded (and a conspiracy) to suggest that it might affect our atmosphere. When exactly in the history of the earth have we taken out stuff that took millions of years to form and thrown half of it's burned up product up in the air? You're right, how immature, impractical, illogical and unscientific to suggest an effect.
Yeah, the one thing the loons here always ignore is the melting glaciers and polar caps.
It's kind of hard to ignore that, but they do. But it will catch up with us all, unfortunately.
You can't fake Mother Nature, but a lot of people do try.
Don't try to reason with moonbats who know almost nothing about some subject area (climate science), but somehow know everything about it. And lack the logical grounding to see that an incident of fraud does not "debunk" a matter both scientifically settled (except to Glenn Beck, maybe) and common sense (the north pole is melting, south sea islands are disappearing under the waves, etc -- sorry, the earth is not flat).
I mean, the financial insights here are excellent, but then we see Mr Mayhem and the chorus of moonbats suddenly sprout hair and start baying at the moon.
Clearly, not a lot of climate science background on this site, though it does not seem to restrain the gratuitous climate science opinion.
Sure am glad your God Mother nature melted the last ice age!
The research they're willing to go public with, at least.
The Science is settled? Seems that the math isn't even settled.
I wouldn't be exaggerating the total number of times I've heard this mentioned in the MSM, local news (always shit), local or national papers... ZERO
An entirely new market place would be established under this agenda... we're talking carbon here. What single thing in your daily existence did not generate some sort of emissions? Nothing. Thats because everything does and some people wanted to somehow cash in on it.
Groups, organizations, companies, countries fail when their corruption and greed becomes their sole purpose to exist. What happens when this starts happening globally?
It's already international. Global carbon credits are sold from India and China and etcetras into the internationally subsidized market. It's become a global welfare system off the back of the global warming bullshit.
Reminds me of an old saying : " Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see and you'll always be well informed ".
Australia just passed a nice, fat, multi-billion dollar deal on this.
Talk about timing.
Ah, I was wondering when this story would show up on the ZH marquis.
As for all the conspiracy theories about climate change being some tool for global government domination, I can think of far less complex and disruptive ways from a government POV to increase control and surveillance. Like invoking "national security" and putting CCTV cameras all over the place, for one. Or massive databases to sift through all electronic communication.
I mean, if climate change is such a great tool for gov't domination, why is every government doing their darnest to do absolutely nothing substantial about it?
Just sayin'.
We know Maurice Strong began pushing carbon dioxide as a pollutant in 1988, long before any "global warming" scam came along. GW is a convenience to harness carbon dioxide reduction as a control tool.
Similarly, DuPont pushed the Ozone Layer scam to terminate freon, as its patent had run. Voila, DuPont has a new patented refrigerant waiting in the wing. Yup, yup, we's dumb.
Carbon trading and green tech are (were?) supposed to bring about the next bubble to keep the US dollar from collapsing.
A "successful" Copenhagen treaty will also bring about global governance and (they think) population reduction, two of the top concerns of our Globalist Overlords.
The most bothersome thing (to me) about the whole "carbon is the enemy" approach to environmentalism (besides the bogosity) is that it presumes the presence of a human being on this planet is a NEGATIVE that ought to be compensated for somehow. A very misanthropic worldview. We could go about global population management and environmental stewardship in positive, humanity-affirming ways instead, but . . . BAH don't get me started. Nobody cares what I think.
"A very misanthropic worldview. We could go about global population management and environmental stewardship in positive, humanity-affirming ways"
i care what u think and think u should say this more.
imo, this is the core issue of the entire kit-and-kaboodle.
the challenge now is how to communicate this when the control freaks are hijacking the issue.
You just answered your own question. Climate change is not about Global Warming! WAKE UP!! It is precisely that. (a gov't tool for domination) That is why nothing is being done. Besides you can't do something about somethig that does not exist.
Ever hear of the Patriot Act. They are already sifting through the data bases. Pull up to any inner section in any medium sized city in America and look around. The cameras are already here! As soon as everyone is broke and starving they will come and take the guns away. It's already happened in New York city and Chicago. The only people allowed to own a handgun in Chicago are the corrupt politicians.
http://www.retrojunk.com/movie/trailers/47-rollerball/46/#intro
They are about to sign a treaty in Copenhagen that will make it impossible to sell your house unless it meets certain 'green' standards set by these international bodies. This is just one of many implications.
I think that alone makes this issue pretty significant , as it represents a destruction of national sovereignty was well as personal autonomy.
Selling your house? It could be a green crime
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/selling_your_house_it_could_be_a_green_crime
I may be missing something re: the Andrew Bolt article but AFAICS there was nothing in the Queensland law that would even portend a prohibition on selling non-green homes. AFAICS Queensland has enacted a law to require home sellers to provide information to prospective buyers, not to limit the sale of a home in any manner. Since a free and immediate flow of information is necessary for efficient markets, I would think ZHers would support this law. Are informed consumers only desirable in certain contexts?
You may not be able to sell your house unless you comply with the apparatschicks but you can certainly burn it to the ground, walk away from the illegitimate shyster bank debt and flip the bird.
It's called the Wild West for a reason.
Andrew Bolt is an uber rightwing journalist and self-confessed climate change denier employed by Rupert Murdoch, so a little perspective please. The simple facts are Australia is in the grip of its worst ever drought, we're having midsummer temperatures in Spring and increasingly severe bushfires. That short-term analysis doesn't mean anything in long run. But looking at the glacial record we can see the ice retreating. The question is this: What do you want to die of? On our current trajectory we're heading as a globe for a major dose of the unsustainable, including:
Overpopulation, leading to increased consumption which increases:
Resource depletion
Water shortage
Food shortage
Pollution of air & ground water
Biodiversity loss leading to a breakdown in the food chain
Which all lead to geo-political struggle, more war and war profiteering, a lower standard of living and a reduced ability to deal with the non-linear increase in these problems as time goes by.
So you choose...the problem isn't just climate change real or no, its the fact our way of life is unsustainable on this planet. So stop yelling conspiracy and go do something useful like reduce your footprint so we have more time to deal with the total shitfest we're digging ourselves further and further into.
Cap & Trade is a nightmare,