Tag: Climategate

DO SMOKING GUNS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, TOO?

By Ann Coulter

As we now know (and by “we” I mean “everyone with access to the Internet”), the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has just been caught ferociously manipulating the data about the Earth’s temperature.

Recently leaked e-mails from the “scientists” at CRU show that, when talking among themselves, they forthrightly admit to using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in the Earth’s temperature since 1960 — as one e-mail says. Still another describes their manipulation of the data thus: “[W]e can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”

Am I just crazy from the heat or were they trying to deceive us?

Global warming cheerleaders in the media were quick to defend the scandalous e-mails, explaining that, among scientists, the words “trick,” “hide the decline” and “garbage” do not mean “trick,” “hide the decline” and “garbage.” These words actually mean “onion soup,” “sexual submissive” and “Gary, Ind.”

(Boy, it must be great to be able to redefine words right in the middle of a debate.)

Also, of course, the defenders said that the words needed to be placed “in context” — the words’ check was in the mail, and they’d like to spend more time with their families.

I have placed the words in context and it turns out what they mean is: gigantic academic fraud.

The leaked e-mail exchanges also show the vaunted “scientists” engaging in a possibly criminal effort to delete their own smoking-gun e-mails in response to a Freedom of Information request. Next, the fanatics will be telling us that “among scientists,” this behavior does not indicate knowledge of guilt.

If I recall correctly, their next move should be to fire the special prosecutor late Saturday night.

These e-mails aren’t a tempest in a teapot. They are evidence of pervasive fraud by a massively influential institution that has dominated news coverage of global warming.

CRU was regularly cited as the leading authority on “global climate analysis” — including by the very news outlets that are burying the current scandal, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. The CRU alone received more than $23 million in taxpayer funds for its work on global warming.

Having claimed to have collected the most complete data on the Earth’s temperature for the last half century, the CRU’s summary of that data was used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its 2007 report demanding that we adopt a few modest lifestyle changes, such as abolishing modern technology, reverting to hunter/gatherer status and taxing ourselves into servitude.

But then last weekend — in the middle of the “Let’s Cook the Books!” e-mail scandal — the CRU said that all its data on the Earth’s temperature since 1960 had been irretrievably “lost.” (Although I suspect “overcooked” might be a more apt term.)

The way this episode is unfolding, the environmentalists may be forced to drop their phantom threat of global warming and go back to the phantom threat of global cooling.

Most disturbingly, the CRU-affiliated “scientists” were caught red-handed conspiring to kill the careers and reputations of scientists who dissented from the religion of global warming. Indignant that scientific journals were publishing papers skeptical of global warming, the cult members plotted to get editors ousted and the publications discredited.

This sabotage of global warming dissenters may be more galling than their manipulation of the data. Until now, the global warming cult’s sole argument has been to demand that everyone shut up in response to the “scientific consensus” that human activity was causing global warming.

That’s their idea of a free and open debate.

It’s always the same thing with primitive people — voodoo practitioners, rain dancers and liberals. In lieu of facts, debate and a weighing of the evidence, religious fanatics respond to all counterarguments by invoking a higher authority: the witch doctor, a “scientific consensus,” “the Constitution” or “historians are agreed.”

Liberals won’t tell us why Congress passed a law outlawing incandescent lightbulbs by 2014 — a bill solemnly delivered to the president in a Prius hybrid (making it the slowest-moving bill in U.S. history). Instead, they tell us there’s a “scientific consensus” that we have to use fluorescent lightbulbs or we’ll all die.

They won’t tell us why Ten Commandments monuments must be stripped from every public space in America. Instead, they tell us “the Constitution” says so (according to the high priests who interpret it to mean things the document doesn’t remotely say).

They won’t tell us what Sen. Joe McCarthy lied about. They say: Historians are agreed that McCarthy was a liar. (These are the same historians who also stated as fact that “few American Communists were spies” — until decrypted Soviet cables proved that the Communist Party was awash with Soviet spies.)

This is precisely what liberals accuse Christians of doing, but which Christians never do. We don’t cite the Bible as authority — and then refuse to let anyone read it. We certainly don’t claim to have “lost” it, so you can’t check for yourself. But that’s exactly what the CRU has done with its secret data allegedly showing a warming Earth.

Also, biblical data on the great flood and Noah’s ark have held up remarkably well.

Even if the Earth were warming — which apparently it is not — the idea that humans using energy-efficient lightbulbs would alter the temperature of the globe is approximately as plausible as the Aztecs’ belief that they were required to wrench the beating heart out of living, breathing humans in order to keep the sun on its path.

Sadly, the “human sacrifice deniers” lost the argument to Aztec CRU scientists, who explained that there was a “scientific consensus” on the benefits of ritual murder.

But at least the Aztecs only slaughtered tens of thousands of humans in the name of “climate change.” The global warming cultists want us all dead.

Source

Munk Debate: Skeptics score a win against alarmists

By Terence Corcoran

The audience shift at the Munk Debate followed a global trend

On Tuesday night about 1,100 people participated in a sold-out global warming debate that, in the end, turned downtown Toronto’s new concert hall at the Royal Conservatory of Music into a microcosm of a larger tranformation that is sweeping the world. The debate pitted two well known global warming activists of international repute against two well-known skeptics. The skeptics won, shifting the audience’s support away from the drastic global warming action demanded by activists and toward the moderate reponse of the skeptics, a move that is rapidly becoming a trend everywhere. If global warming is a problem — and many have growing doubts about that — it is not a crisis that warrants draconian policy intervention in Copenhagen or anywhere else.

In polls and in science debates, in political discourse and in the buildup to Copenhagen, the foundations of support for global warming action are in decline. A new Harris Poll yesterday found a big drop, from 71% to 51%, in Americans who believe that the release of carbon dioxide and other gases will lead to global warming. While many people are not sure, those who do not believe that carbon dioxide emissions will cause global warming have increased from 23% to 29% since 2007.

Australia is in political turmoil over carbon emissions policy. In the United Kingdom, the leading scientist charged with assembling temperature data has resigned pending an investigation. The recent leak of emails from Britain’s Climate Research Unit, at the University of East Anglia, where the words “trick” and “hide the decline” are found, is gradually snowballing from being a skeptical bloggers’ dream event into a mainstream political scandal. From Daily Show host Jon Stewart to Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice, there is a sense that all is not right with the global warming file. “I take from what’s happened at the East Anglia institution is that there were some serious allegations of impropriety and some serious questions about the quality of the scientific work that was done there,” said Mr. Prentice yesterday.

At the Munk Debate in Toronto Tuesday night, the email scandal was barely mentioned and so had little direct impact on the results. Before the debate, the 1,100 people in the audience cast ballots, with 61% supporting the resolution that “climate change is mankind’s defining crisis and demands a commensurate response.” At the end of the debate, support had fallen to 53%.

Had the email exchange among leading scientists been explored, the outcome might have been even more significant decline in support for extreme climate action. Support might have collapsed completely had there been a way to have a fact checker interrupt the debate to review the various clashes over science and the statistics.

On the activist side were two leading climate activists, Canadian Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and British author and columnist George Monbiot. The miracle is that these two grandstanding professional agitators held on to as much of the audience as they did after two hours of cheap theatrical tricks, ad hominem attacks, dubious science claims and frequent dips into Stephen Lewis’s tear-filled pool of emotive personal anecdotes of poverty and disease. They rarely got the science or the economics right.

Trying to bring rational argument to all this were Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool it: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide To Global Warming, and Lord Nigel Lawson, Margaret Thatcher’s former finance minister and also the author of An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming. They stuck to their core arguments and, for the most part, successfully defended their positions against exaggerated claims and counter arguments that were questionable or just plain wrong.

Too bad the audience had no way of knowing what was fact and fiction. A fact-checking referee would have helped verify Mr. Monbiot’s and Ms. May’s frequent stretches and exaggerations.

Peer reviewed economics: Mr. Lawson, for example, got into a slugging match with Mr. Monbiot over a British economic report, the Stern Review, which claimed that climate change would bring massive economic decline. The report, said Mr. Lawson, was politicially generated rubbish that had never been peer reviewed and had been dismissed by all serious economists. Mr. Monbiot then introduced the preposterous idea that while the Stern Review had not been peer reviewed, it was itself a summary of a lot of other peer reviewed papers, and therefore was above reproach, an “uber-peer reviewed” report.

Global water stress: The Lomborg argument is that while global warming is a real global issue, it is not one that should be allowed to divert attention and money away from more pressing and real crises. Mr. Monbiot claimed global warming would only make the plight of the world’s poor all the worse. He said — citing official United Nation’s science reports — that 2.3 billion people would be subject to new “water stress” as warming advanced, meaning they would not have access to minimum quantities of water. Mr. Monbiot reacted vehemently when Mr. Lomborg said the opposite was true — that studies showed that global warming would also relieve water stress on 3.3 billion people.

The audience had no way of knowing that Mr. Lomborg was right. The official UN report says that “using the per capita water availability indicator, climate change would appear to reduce global water stress.” The research paper supporting that finding shows, for example, that while as many as 2 billion people might experience more water stress by 2050, as many as 4.3 billion will experience reduced water stress.

Food production: The audience also had no way of knowing that Mr. Monbiot was also wrong when he clashed with Mr. Lawson over the theoretical impact of global warming on food production. Mr. Lawson said the UN reports that food production would increase if the global temperature rose by 3 degrees Celsius. Mr. Monbiot disputed the number, claiming that the world food production would begin a “net decline” if the temperature rose above 3 degrees. The actual report is far from categorical, although the general conclusion is that climate change is not a major driver of food production (relative to technology and economic and social factors).

The audience did see through Ms. May’s antics. Many groaned when she tried to link climate change with AIDS in Africa. At one point the moderator, Rudyard Griffiths, had to cut Ms. May’s sound off when she would not stop one of her many attacks on Mr. Lomborg, who is obviously still a thorn in the sides of green activists. For a while, it looked like Ms. May was going to do a page-by-page assault on Mr. Lomborg’s books, which she had piled up on a nearby table along with other material.

The declining alarmist case hit bottom in the dying minutes when Mr. Monbiot, in Stephen Lewis mode, brought in a personal story that linked climate change with the slaughter of 96 people in Kenya (see Mr. Monbiot’s closing statement). Nobody groaned.

The debate, on the whole, was a conceptual and disjointed mess, as are most global warming debates. Which may be why the activists lost the Munk event and are losing the global event.

To be published in tomorrow’s National Post.

Time to Cancel IPCC and Withdraw Nobel Prizes From Them and Gore

By Dr. Tim Ball

Al Gore is the only Nobel Prize winner, whose work was ruled politically biased and containing nine major scientific errors by a court (UK) a week before it was awarded. The Nobel Committee should have known. They could argue they’d already made their decision. Problem is there was considerable evidence about the errors easily available long before. Clearly they didn’t do their homework, so their decision was purely political. The Prize should be revoked. Gore shared his prize with the members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He used their research, but went further. He misused it to achieve the falsehoods that permeate his movie An Inconvenient Truth. Now we know through the files obtained from the Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia (Climategate), that all the information put in the global arena was falsified, manipulated and deliberately made wrong. Silence of those involved in climategate about Gore’s misuse of their false data tells several stories. They couldn’t point out the error and risk exposure. Like everything they did the end justified the means. Gore was useful. He distracted the mainstream media and kept the global warming pot boiling while they had access to power behind the scenes through the IPCC. He was the buffoon who distracted the audience from the real villains. Again the Nobel committee didn’t do their homework and made a political decision. This Prize should also be revoked.

Nothing Nobel: Time To Terminate The IPCC.

The IPCC Nobel Prize was questionable in the first place. There are serious questions about giving a Nobel Prize to government employees. Why didn’t the prize money go back to the taxpayer who funded the work? How did they divide the money? Did the CRU gang receive more because they controlled most of the process? Regardless, all the money should come back, just like Olympic Gold medals are withdrawn from members of a team if one member has cheated. IPCC members were eager to be on board the ship and should have known about the corruption. Several prominent members with integrity resigned including Richard Lindzen and Chris Landsea; they should receive the Prize taken from those who participated. If outsiders like myself could see the problems then there is no excuse for those inside. The IPCC has completely lost all credibility and should be terminated immediately. The current Chairman R.K.Pachauri received the Nobel Prize on behalf of the IPCC. As Chair he is also a recipient. As a railway engineer he went off the tracks in his apparent craving for power. He is also cc’d on many of the emails obtained by climategate so he clearly knew what was going on. That is completely unacceptable.

Politics Makes a Mockery of Reward

The Nobel Committee have made a mockery of what constitutes Peace and the entire concept of the Peace Prize. That award, though noble, should also be terminated because it will always be political and politics ultimately taints everything it touches. We need to blow it up with some of that material used to provide the funding in the first place because at least Alfred Nobel had a conscience about his actions. As Lord Acton said power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Those in power will now use it to whitewash and absolve those responsible. We know this already because the University of East Anglia spokesperson Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement has already made a biased comment. He said, “It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.” This incorrect comment shows how little he knows about climate science and the degree of corruption. It’s a comment apparently provided by the CRU gang. These people who have perpetrated the greatest scandal in history, because it is global in its impact, will silently glide away under the cloak of political power. Source

Climategate Round-Up #5

Welcome to the 5th round-up of all things climategate. Global warming alarmists will deny that this post can exist because there is no such thing as climategate, otherwise they’d have seen it on CNN. Anyone interested in what’s really news, grab a beverage and continue reading, those interested in Tiger Woods or DC party crashers should watch CNN or lobotomize themselves with a salmon, it’s your choice.

Climategate Data & Fallout

One of the things exposed in the leaked documents and emails: ‘smug groupthink‘. The IPCC is tarnished by association with climategate ’scientists’, and may be too politicized to survive. It doesn’t help when you have a runaway railway engineer at the head of the IPCC making scaremonger quotes like this:

“There are enough technologies in existence to allow for mitigation,” he said. “At some point we will have to cross over and start sucking some of those gases [CO2] out of the atmosphere.”

An Army of Davids carry the climategate torch whilst the majority of the MSM studiously ignore it and pretend that Tiger Woods is news. Kudos to Fox for giving the issue real attention. The BBC paid a private green firm to indoctrinate train its presenters and staff on how to toe the Big Green line. Maybe the recently suspended Phil Jones can help out? Australia’s opposition leader lost his job over his plan to support the Rudd government’s ETS policy. Then that policy was destroyed by a climategate emboldened opposition under a new, skeptical, leader. It’s still not news? Dr. Tim Ball, who must feel vindicated by the CRU scandal, names names of those that perverted science in the name of a global warming ideology. Phil Jones, the CRU Director, steps down. It’s temporary pending the investigation by the EAU, but it’s a clear sign that there is substance to climategate, something the warmists have denied to date. CRU Help Clippy(Image h/t Theo Spark) Lord Monckton wasted no time, he’s got a book out on climategate already. Link to the PDF here. The IPCC should erase any work that relies on Phil Jones and CRU data. Pretty much all of it, then. John Holdren will be investigated for his links to climategate. Obama warms up the underside of his bus… Malpractice is an ugly word, but that’s what global warming scientists and their cheering section in politics and the media have conspired to achieve. If there is one academic that has earned respect during the climategate affair, it’s Judith Curry, the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. See why she deserves respect here. A letter from her is here, and is equally fair. Perhaps this is the kind of person that can restore trust in science and the scientific process.

Climategate in the Media

Climategate makes the front page of the UK’s Daily Express:

ouchouch

Clive Crook in The Atlantic has second thoughts about just how serious the CRU scandal is:

The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And, as Christopher Booker argues, this scandal is not at the margins of the politicised IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process… It goes to the core of that process.

The global warming hoax/fraud/scam; it’s all unravelling now. Russia TV continues to scoop the major media networks, first they had Piers Corbyn now they have Peter Lilley decrying scientists who prefer to alter the facts than their theories: .. Margaret Wente thinks climategate is a PR disaster for global warmists. More importantly, it might have saved us from economic disaster that would surely follow any cap and trade treaties. Botch after botch after botch. The leaked HARRY_READ_ME.txt file blows the lid off any pretence the CRU ’scientists’ had to credible data. Will Heaven (yeah, him again) took a look at Delingpole’s traffic and blew a nut that maybe there are more skeptics than he thought:

I’m just an English graduate who recognises that the broad consensus among the world’s best climatologists is as follows: recent global warming is mostly caused by mankind’s emission of greenhouse gases. Delingpole, on the other hand, is slowly turning into a rather scary Dr Strangelove figure, whose bad science could help to usher the end of the world as we know it.

Heaven thinks that Delingpole is a pied-piper leading skeptics down a dangerous path that will lead to global warming destruction. What he fails to see is that the ‘broad consensus’ he so believes in is based on junk data. Repeat after me, Will: there is no such thing as global warming.

Hippie Heads Exploding

More details on the Penn State investigation into Michael ‘Stick’ Mann and his role in the CRU scandal. Perhaps the investigators might ask Mann why no-one told him what he was doing. Hollywood star Adam Baldwin (Jayne of Firefly) celebrates the CRU leak and skewers the Green Freak Hollyweird crowd. Climate alarmists, or weather hysterics, or dirty hippies – whatever your label du jour is – love to cite peer-review as the great defense of their science. Inconveniently, Mark Steyn skewers peer-review permanently. More peer review destruction here.

red alertred alert

Alarmists dismiss skeptics if they so much as accepted a free mug at a service station, claiming that it proved they were in the tank for Big Oil. Now that we know that climate scientists were on Big Green’s payroll, can we equally dismiss their work? It might be that the motley CRU were only the first domino to fall. New Zealand’s NIWA has some awkward questions to answer, now Albany and Queens Belfast are in the cross hairs too. A detailed look at how Queen’s Belfast have ducked and dodged to avoid providing requested data is here. In the light of the CRU leak, this is damning against academics involved in climate research. Some are still trying to spin the CRU scandal, claiming there is nothing to see. Oops, cometh the smackdown. More criticism of the now tainted peer-review process. The damage done to science by the motley CRU may be one of the lasting legacies of these over-zealous idealogues. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change thinks he and his corrupt organization can survive the CRU scandal. He’s wrong, and it won’t be long before the hammer falls on those at the forefront of the global warming hoax, because the world has seen what’s behind the curtain. Obama’s mouthpiece says the science is settled, still. Obama’s record shows that he’ll ignore the climategate issue until he can’t, then it’ll go under the bus to join Van Jones, Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers. Louis Gray gets super-excited because she found a small error from a skeptic. The skeptic admitted the error, corrected it and explained how it happened, unlike the CRU. The difference is lost on her, I suspect.

Climategate Hottie

Adam Baldwin, star of Firefly, walks the skeptic side of the street, which makes him a fine fella in our book. Also fine, his Firefly co-star, Summer Glau: summer7 Thanks for reading.Source

Climategate – the news goes mainstream

By John Ingham

The scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”.
Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going. In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes. He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over ­billions of years.Prof Plimer told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.” His comments came days after a scandal in climate-change research emerged through the leak of emails from the world-leading research unit at the University of East Anglia. They appeared to show that scientists had been massaging data to prove that global warming was taking place.

If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.
– Professor Pilmer

The Climate Research Unit also admitted getting rid of much of its raw climate data, which means other scientists cannot check the subsequent research. Last night the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, said he would stand down while an independent review took place.Professor Plimer said climate change was caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, the shifting of the Earth’s orbit and cosmic radiation. He said: “Carbon dioxide levels have been up to 1,000 times higher in the past. CO2 cannot be driving global warming now. “In the past we have had rapid and significant climate change with temperature changes greater than anything we are measuring today. They are driven by processes that have been going on since the beginning of time.” He cited periods of warming during the Roman Empire and in the Middle Ages – when Vikings grew crops on Greenland – and cooler phases such as the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850. And he predicted that the next phase would cool the planet. Climate change is widely blamed on the burning of fossil fuels which release greenhouse gases such as CO2 into the atmosphere, where they trap the sun’s heat. The talks at Copenhagen are expected to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally. But Professor Plimer, of Adelaide and Melbourne Universities, said that to stop climate change Governments should find ways to prevent changes to the Earth’s orbit and ocean currents and avoid explosions of supernovae in space. Of the saga of the leaked emails, he said: “If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.” The CRU’s Professor Jones has admitted some of the emails may have had “poorly chosen words” and were sent in the “heat of the moment”. But he has categorically denied manipulating data and said he stood by the science. And yesterday he dismissed suggestions of a conspiracy to alter ­evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming as “complete rubbish”. But mining geology professor Plimer said there was a huge momentum behind the climate-change lobby.
He suggested many scientists had a vested interest in promoting climate change because it helped secure more funding for research. He said: “The climate comrades are trying to keep the gravy train going. Governments are also keen on putting their hands as deep as possible into our pockets. “The average person has been talked down to. He has been treated like a fool. Yet the average person has common sense.”Read rest here.

Leading U.S. Science Groups Endorsed the Global Warming Fraud

By Alan Caruba

Americans, from the earliest days of the Republic, have always been fascinated by science and its potential to improve our lives. Benjamin Franklin was as much famed for his early experiments with electricity and his inventions as for his diplomacy to secure funding for the Revolution.

The tragedy of the global warming fraud will be a generation whose faith in climate science will have been severely shaken. They will have witnessed the deliberate distortion of climate data for a political objective.

Consider a letter dated October 21, 2009 and signed by the presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Society of Plant Biologists, the Association of Ecosystem Research Center, the American Chemical Society, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Society of Agronomy, the American Statistical Association,

And the Botanical Society of America, the Crop Science Society of America, the Natural Science Collections Alliance, the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the Soil Science Society of America, the Ecological Society of America, the Organization of Biological Field Stations, the Society of Systematic Biologists, and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

Together, they asserted that “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” It went on to repeat all the usual scary scenarios of rising sea levels, urban heat weaves, wildfires, and other climate-related events.

In a footnote, the letter to U.S. Senators said, “The conclusions in this paragraph reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Global Change Research Program.”

We now know that the “science” being cited by these two entities was, at least in the case of the IPCC, totally rigged, but the presidents of these alleged science-based organizations took it on face value despite ample scientific evidence it was false. The revelations of emails exchanged between the perpetrators of the hoax have demonstrated the deceptions.

Ivan Kenneally, an assistant professor of political science at the Rochester Institute of Technology recent wrote in The New Atlantis that “Those who disagree with the scientific and policy orthodoxy (of global warming) have been maligned as greedy capitalists bent on rapid the earth of its natural resources for cheap material gain; they have been cast as the benighted enemies of reason itself.”

Referring to the vast store of emails between the cabal that has provided the IPCC with “scientific” justifications for global warming, Kenneally wrote that, “There can be little doubt after even a casual perusal that the scientific case for global warming and the policy that springs from it are based upon a volatile combination of political ideology, unapologetic mendacity, and simmering contempt for even the best-intentioned disagreement.”

The political ideology is socialism. The objective is power over the lives of Americans, Europeans, and others worldwide, all of whom have been falsely led to believe that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a “pollutant” and responsible for a non-existent rise in the Earth’s average temperature. In point of fact, the Earth has been cooling for a decade and is likely to do so for several decades to come.

In light of this, who can trust these organizations? And who can trust the “science” produced by NASA and other U.S. agencies that have benefited from billions in grants directed at so-called climate, i.e. global warming research?

These organizations must now publicly admit to their role in advancing this international fraud and must take steps to correct the record, to examine the data of those courageous climatologists, meteorologists and others who, while barred from having their work appear in the IPCC reports, did not shrink from sharing it with the public.

It won’t be easy. The President of the United States, despite lofty statements in support of science, is totally committed to the fraudulent “science” of “global warming.” He has surrounded himself with people associated with the fraud, from his “Science Czar” to his “Climate Czar”, as well as appointments such as the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency.

President Obama has repeated every global warming lie that has been around for far too long and will shortly bless the December UN Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen with a visit before picking up a now worthless Nobel Peace Prize.

All of this is a national disgrace and remains, in the form of the Cap-and-Trade legislation awaiting a vote in the Senate, a threat to the nation’s economic recovery and to the faith that Americans have always had in legitimate science.

Caruba blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. He is the founder of the National Anxiety Center, a clearinghouse for information about “scare campaigns” to influence public policy and opinion.

The perpetrators of world’s greatest scientific hoax should go to jail

By Frank J. Tamel
Throughout history people, for various reasons, have perpetrated scientific hoaxes on the public. Here are a few examples: Piltdown Man — In 1912 Charles Dawson “discovered” the Piltdown fossils, a skull and jawbone that appeared to be half-man half-ape, in Sussex, England. They were hailed as the evolutionary “missing link” between apes and humans. 40 years later the fossil was exposed as a fake. In fact, the skull was constructed from a medieval human cranium attached to the jaw of an orangutan.The Cardiff Giant — A ten-foot “petrified man” was dug up on a small farm in Cardiff, New York, in October 1869. The “Cardiff Giant” became a huge news story and many Americans traveled to see it. It was revealed as the creation of New Yorker George Hull, who had paid for it to be carved out of stone.The Spaghetti Tree — In 1957, the BBC show Panorama broadcast a program about the spaghetti tree in Switzerland. It showed a family harvesting pasta that hung from the branches of the tree. After watching the program, hundreds of people phoned in asking how they could grow their own tree. It was revealed as an April Fools joke.The Sokal Hoax — In 1996, American physicist Alan Sokal submitted a paper loaded with nonsensical jargon to the journal Social Text, in which he argued that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. When the journal published it, Sokal revealed that the paper was in fact a spoof. The Secret of Immortality — Johann Heinrich Cohausen, an 18th-century physician, wrote a treatise on the prolongation of life, entitled Hermippus redivivus. Among other secrets of longevity it claimed that life could be prolonged by taking an elixir produced by collecting the breath of young women in bottles. Cohausen admitted that it was a satire. Man-made Global Warming — In 2007 former Vice President Al Gore addressed Congress telling lawmakers that they need to adopt an immediate freeze on greenhouse gases in order to fight global warming. According to Gore, the star of the film An Inconvenient Truth, the science is settled. Carbon-dioxide emissions from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources are heating the Earth’s atmosphere. If left unchecked, global warming could lead to a drastic change in the weather, sea levels and other aspects of the environment. These are the conclusions of a vast majority of scientists who study the issue.But are they real scientific conclusions, or a hoax perpetrated on an unwary and poorly informed public? Recently someone hacked into the Emails of the world’s top global warming proponents. Those Emails and other documents revealed that these grifters have been fabricating climate change data for years and using deception to hide any facts that might contradict their trumped up findings.There are three primary revelations in the leaked Emails that could shed the light of truth on their deception: First is the realization that leaders in the climate change field have been discussing how they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.They have devised every possible excuse for concealing the data on which their findings were based, including the claim that much of the data had simply gotten “lost.” Some of the Emails advised scientists to delete large chunks of data. It is a felony to delete information after a freedom of information request has been issued.The second revelation found within the leaked documents is that scientists have been manipulating data through their computer programs to point to their predetermined conclusion and manipulating global temperature data to show a large spike in warming.Third is the way in which these flimflam artists have conspired to silence any member of the scientific community that questions their findings or their methodsIn light of these incredible revelations, it becomes evident that the snake oil salesmen have been working overtime, not on behalf true scientific inquiry, but rather on behalf of a different cause; that of total domination of the world economy and the enslavement of humanity.
The former Chancellor Lord Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, called for an independent inquiry into the skulduggery revealed by the Email leaks: “Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.” Any and all legislation that limits access to fossil fuels and raises the cost of energy to combat a nonexistent global warming agenda must be stopped. Cap and Trade legislation cannot be allowed to move forward in Congress. Any treaty that comes out of the Copenhagen summit must not be ratified. Anyone who intentionally perpetrates the global warming hoax on the American people should be thoroughly discredited and thrown in jail. You too, Al.

Source

Let the Great Global Warming Cover-Up Begin!

Now that some enterprising and possibly conscience-stricken soul has served up the emails and other data of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, revealing the deliberate efforts to hide the corrupted research that justifies the “global warming” fraud, all the various journalists and alleged climate scientists who have been a party to it are trying desperately to cover up or minimize the scandal.

Others like the U.S. “Climate Czar” Carol Browner have announced their faith in the disputed data, but Browner, who served as EPA Director in the Clinton administration has never shown any interest in honest science and is not likely to have left a paper trail in her present position. No word yet from Obama’s loony “Science Czar”, John Holdren.

The truth is, those closely allied with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been suppressing the real science, substituting their own corrupted data, and trying to avoid the process of “peer review” by which other scientists, the real ones, can test the data for accuracy and validity.

Thousands of real scientists have signed petitions over the years demanding that global warming claims be submitted to rigorous examination.

The Heartland Institute, a non-profit, free market think tank, spent—-for them-—an enormous amount of money to put on international conferences that brought together top scientists who demonstrated how utterly false the IPCC, CRU and other data was, but the mainstream media simply mocked their effort.

Initially, the culprits at the CRU claimed that their computers had been “hacked”, but many others believe that the data and emails had already been culled by CRU insides for the purpose of removing it from any impending investigation.

In England, its Freedom of Information Act, similar to that in the U.S., had been used to demand the data supporting the global warming theory which, at one point, Phil Jones, the CRU director, claimed had been “lost.” Reportedly, Jones has attracted more than $22 million in grants to the CRU for climate research!

His colleague, Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, became famous for concocting a “hockey stick” graph that depicted a sudden rise in the Earth’s temperature that was later revealed to have been falsified, but these concoctions have been used for decades by the IPCC to claim that global warming is real and on-going.

The prevailing belief now is that the emails and data were already on a disk that a conscience-stricken CRU staffer decided to make available on the Internet for all to see and examine before it too became “lost.”

You can be sure, however, that the global warming journalists whose careers have been based on furthering the fraud will continue to emphasize the “hacking” theory to suggest this “stolen” data lacks merit and those using it, the so-called “skeptics” and “deniers” are still not to be trusted.

In the U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) who has been the lone voice in the Senate debunking “global warming” has called for an investigation. Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank, has already filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies that, for three years, has refused to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

In the United States, James E. Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute, got the “global warming” hysteria going in the 1980s when he testified before Congress that his research revealed an incipient catastrophe if the U.S. did not significantly reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that he said were causing “global warming.” The result was that NASA has averaged more than $1 billion each year since 1995 for climate research.

Estimates of the amount of money the U.S. has spent on all manner of “research” and related programs peg the figure at $50 billion or more. That’s a lot of money for something that was NOT happening and in 1998 the Earth entered a natural cooling cycle; one in which we’re likely be for two decades more or longer.

All of this is exacerbated by the fact that the President of the United States will briefly attend the forthcoming December UN Conference of the Parties on Climate Change being held in Copenhagen. He has made it clear that he believes the false data put forth by the IPCC and wants the U.S. to sign a treaty that would yield U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations.

President Obama has repeatedly said the United States has to reduce its CO2 emissions, the mantra of the global warming liars. It would destroy what’s left of our battered, debt-ridden economy.

So a major cover-up will be the objective of the U.S. news media that has pushed “global warming” for years with one scare story after another aimed at energy producers and users.

The battle now is to force the mainstream media to tell the truth about “global warming” and to find out just how many billions of taxpayers dollars have been squandered on junk climate science and policies detrimental to the nation.

As for President Obama, he should just pick up his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway, give another florid speech, get on Air Force One, and come home.

Caruba blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. He is an author, business and science writer, and founder of The National Anxiety Center, a clearinghouse for information about “scare campaigns” intended to influence public opinion and policy.