|
U.N. Climate Chief Rajendra Pachauri |
Overview:
Those of us keeping abreast of the climate literature have known for quite some time that the explanation for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) relating to climate change, was far from the entire story, with almost all dissenting opinion having been actively suppressed. But the full extent of the problem was not made clear until November 19, 2009, when approximately 160 megabytes of data files and email correspondence was leaked from Britain's government-funded University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).
An initial review of this material revealed four damning facts:
- Current global temperature data was being actively manipulated in
order to conceal real-world temperature declines that did not
support the computerized climate models that were being used to
predict runaway global warming. Additionally, historical data
showing that during the Medieval Warm Period (900-1300 AD), the
earth had been warmer than what was seen today, thereby shattering
any causal connection between man made CO2 and
temperature rise.
- For quite some time, as is a normal part of any scientific
peer-review process, independent scientists and organizations had
been requesting the release of the raw temperature data used by
the CRU in determining its results. Nevertheless, the CRU had
continually refused to make their data available. (And now we
understand why!) Additional requests for the data were made under
the UK's Freedom of Information laws, and the scientists at the CRU
are seen discussing how to circumvent these laws, including
destroying correspondence and the temperature data itself, rather
than allow it to be seen by others.
- A review of the source code for the computerized models used to
predict the significant global temperature gains being reported,
showed that much of it was completely unintelligible to the
programmers charged with maintain it, and in some cases, these
programs could not be made to reproduce similar results previously
obtained by others using the same code base and data sets. This
code was in a constant state of manipulation in order to produce
predetermined results.
- The correspondence shows a small group of scientists frequently discussing ways to subvert the normal scientific peer-review process. This included having climate papers only be "reviewed" by one another, or by people already fully committed to the belief in AGW, stopping publication of any papers that were skeptical of AGW, and working to remove editors from scientific journals that were willing to publish any dissenting opinions.
Soon after the release of the CRU files, this event came to be known as
Climategate. However, none of this came as a real shock to a
group of skeptical scientists who had been questioning the AGW results
for some time, but had been effectively barred from publishing their
analyses in standard scientific journals and media outlets. In this way,
the general public had been manipulated through the presentation of an
unchallenged propagandist viewpoint, into supporting drastic government
interventionist policies in order to stave off the supposed pending crisis
to all of humanity.
The Facts Revealed:
The real impact of the Climategate scandal was to cause people across the globe to finally begin to examine all of the information used by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in support of its assessment report, used by every government to back up its environmental policies. Let's examine the results of this investigations.
| Description | Date | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| All AGW computer models predicted a steady increase in global temperatures. However, for the past 11+ years, the global temperatures have not increased, and in fact, decreased, despite a continuing rise in CO2, countering the theory of a causal connection between increasing carbon dioxide and rising temperatures. | 10-13-09 | BBC |
|
A close group of climate scientists (Phil Jones, Michael Mann,
Keith Briffa, Malcolm Hughes, Robert Bradley, Tim Osborn, et al)
"peer-reviewed" one another's papers, insuring that only those
which supported the view of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)
as an imminent worldwide danger, would make it through their
process. Quoting Phil Jones:
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" |
11-19-09 |
East Anglia Email East Anglia Email |
|
Scientific journals which published climate research were either
headed up by "true believers", or else pressure was applied by the
AGW scientists to insure that dissenting opinions were never
published. Non-compliant journals were harassed and "punished".
"The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate'
peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that
the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a
few skeptics on the editorial board."
"I told Mike that I believed our only choice was to ignore this
paper. They've already achieved what they wanted--the claim of a
peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now,
but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper,
which will be ignored by the community on the whole..."
"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not
publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'."
"I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our
colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit
to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider
what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who
currently sit on the editorial board..."
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing
more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome
editor."
|
11-19-09 |
East Anglia Email |
|
The East Anglia basic historical climate data used to forecast
future climate trends was heavily manipulated to "produce" the
desired results.
"I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan
material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying
to milk something out of that. ... I don't think it'd be productive
to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I
already have"
"So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment
that 'something else' is responsible for the discrepancies in this
case. Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the
processing that went into the series and the potential factors that
might lead to it being 'warmer' than the Jones et al and Mann et al
series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard.
Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our
ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates"
"Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in
tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1931-60 period
might yield a more biased result than using a longer 1881-1960
period."
|
11-19-09 |
East Anglia Email East Anglia Email East Anglia Email |
|
The code for the computer climate models was freely manipulated
in order to force the desired results. Despite their best efforts,
the programmers could never get these programs to run properly,
occasionally producing nonsensical results. And the data sets used
by these programs were clearly in a hopeless state. Here are
samples of some of the code comments left by the programmers:
"stop in 1960 to avoid the decline"
"stop in 1940 to avoid the decline"
"but why does the sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!"
"and already I have that familiar Twilight Zone sensation."
"this renders the station counts totally meaningless."
"Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)"
"As we can see, even I'm cocking it up!"
"yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our
databases"
"recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED"
"Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"
"artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline"
"we know the file starts at yr 440, but we want nothing till 1400"
"It's botch after botch after botch."
"Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue
the case for junking the inherited program suite."
"As far as I can see, this renders the [weather] station counts
totally meaningless."
"So what's going on? I don't see how the 'final' precip file can
have been produced from the 'final' precipitation database, even
though the dates imply that. The obvious conclusion is that the
precip file must have been produced before 23 Dec 2003, and then
redated (to match others?) in Jan 04."
"You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the
operator to assign false WMO [World Meteorological Organization]
codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially
when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..."
"OH F--- THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and
just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem
that's based on the hopeless state of our databases."
|
11-19-09 11-25-09 11-29-09 |
HARRY_READ_ME.txt Watts Up With That? Toronto Sun |
| East Anglia's Phil Jones wrote that he was using Michael Mann's "Nature trick" to "hide the decline" in actual temperature data. This was the same "trick" previously used by Mann to produce the infamous "hockey stick" temperature graphs which has since been totally discredited. |
11-19-09 12-05-09 |
East Anglia Email JoNova |
| East Anglia scientists broke the UK's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) laws by refused to release the raw global temperature record data used in their climate computer models, despite repeated requests by scientists interested in attempting to review and reproduce their results. | 01-28-10 | UK Times Online |
|
When East Anglia scientists could no longer evade the FOIA requests
to release their data, they then reported that all of the original
global temperature data had been conveniently destroyed, insuring
that no one would ever be able to check their results. However, in
an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann dated 02/02/05, Jones
states:
"The two MMs [Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." And magically, it happened! |
08-13-09 11-19-09 11-24-09 |
The UK Register East Anglia Email Wall Street Journal |
| Shortly after the East Anglia scandal broke, it was revealed that the New Zealand government's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) was also found to have been manipulating its own temperature data to manufacture a rising trend. | 11-25-09 | Watts Up With That? |
| It was next discovered that, like East Anglia, NASA had been stonewalling Freedom of Information requests for over two years. Once the information was released, it was discovered that they too had been manipulating the temperature data and issuing false findings. | 12-03-09 | Washington Times |
| Additional research into the temperature data for both Darwin, Australia and Russia show the extent of fraud used in manipulating the temperature data. |
12-08-09 12-16-09 |
Watts Up With That? UK Telegraph |
| A researcher reported that important tree ring growth data, used as a proxy for temperature reconstruction, was held by Queens University of Belfast, but that the University refused to make the data available for analysis. | 12-01-09 | Pajamas Media |
| A former top climate scientist and NASA manager was convicted of defrauding the government of $50,000 by diverting these NASA climate funds to his wife's company, highlighting the role that government funding of climate research plays in driving the researchers to produce "results" that will keep the funds flowing. | 12-02-09 | Washington Examiner |
| Ground-based temperature data sets such as those maintained by the Hadley Centre Climatic Research Unit, greatly exaggerate temperature rise when compared to the more reliable satellite-based readings taken of the lower troposphere. | 01-09-10 | Climate Conspiracy |
|
The IPCC governmental advisory report's claimed that the Himalayan
glaciers were receding faster than anywhere else in the world and
would be gone by 2035. Whoops, that estimate came from a
report that predicted their demise by the year 2350.
Sorry, for the alarm, it was just a typo! It was also revealed
that Syed Hasnain, who made the original prediction, realized this
and other errors in the IPCC report back in 2008, but did not
report them to the head of the IPCC, saying:
"My job is not to point out mistakes." Of course, it was also later determined by Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service, that: "There are simply no observations available to make these sorts of statements." |
12-01-09 01-20-10 01-20-10 |
Pajamas Media CNN UK Times Online |
| Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the UN climate change panel, said that besides the Himalayan glacier error, there may be other errors in the IPCC report, but was not more specific. | 01-23-10 | UK Times Online |
|
The IPCC advisory report's claim that global warming is already
affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters such as
hurricanes and floods, was shown to be based upon a 2007
unpublished report that had not been subjected to peer-review. By
the time the paper was actually published in 2008, it included the
disclaimer:
"We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses." |
01-24-10 | The Observatory |
| It was discovered that the IPCC claim that global warming might destroy 40% of the Brazilian rainforest, was based upon an unsubstantiated claim by eco-campaigners who had little scientific expertise. | 01-31-10 | UK Times Online |
| It was discovered that the IPCC report incorrectly stated that 55% of the Netherlands was below sea level, when the actual figure is only 26%. Fact checking at the IPCC was so lax, that even simple errors such as this could and did find their way into its report. | 02-03-10 | Sott.net |
| The IPCC published inaccurate data on the global production of wave powered electricity, which was also wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company. | 02-06-10 | UK Telegraph |
It was further discovered that the IPCC report contained:
|
02-06-10 | UK Telegraph |
|
While doomsday predictions point to recent annual decreases in
the total amount of Arctic ice, the record increases in the
accumulating Antarctic ice and snow is conveniently ignored.
"The doomsday portraits of Antarctica's glaciers reacting to a global climate change should be blurry at best. Consensus on changes in ice sheet thickness and their causes is difficult, and therefore of limited use on either side of the global warming debate." |
10-11-06 | World Climate Report |
|
Data concerning the warming of other planets in the solar system,
indicating the sun as a major influence of earth's temperature
rise, has been ignored by the AGW supporters.
"But how do we square the fact that almost every planet in our
solar system is simultaneously undergoing temperature change
and volatile weather patterns. Does this not suggest that
global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving
nature of the sun?"
"Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C
since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on
Earth over approximately the same period. Since there is no
known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates
could be natural phenomena."
|
11-16-06 04-29-07 |
Prison Planet UK Times Online |
|
Warming trends in temperature data sets around the world are now
seen to be due to local factors such as land development (Urban
Heat Island Effect), and not attributable to actual global warming.
Any actual warming experienced across the earth during the past 30
years is well within the normal temperature fluxuations seen at
least twice before in the past 1,000 years. Quoting John Christy,
a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville, and a former lead author on the IPCC:
"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change" |
02-09-09 02-14-10 |
EPA UK Times Online |
Phil Jones, the East Anglia Climate Research Unit scientist at the
center of the Climategate scandal, admitted the following:
|
02-14-10 |
UK Mail Online |
| An examination of the data used to support the IPCC claims of a man-made increase in hurricanes and cyclones was cherry-picked to show the resired results. When all data was examined, no statistically significant increase is observed. | 02-15-10 | The UK Register |
|
In Britain, the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and the Royal
Statistical Society (RSS) both call for scientific data and
evidence compiled by climate researchers to be made publicly
available for scrutiny. The RSC said:
"The apparent resistance of researchers from the CRU at the University of East Anglia to disclose research data has been widely portrayed as an indication of a lack of integrity in scientific research. ... It may also be necessary to incorporate an independent auditing system into peer review with the ability to demand access to raw data sets to ensure best practices are being adhered to." Dr Don Keiller, deputy head of life sciences at Anglia Ruskin University said: "What these emails reveal is a detailed and systematic conspiracy to prevent other scientists gaining access to CRU data sets. Such obstruction strikes at the very heart of the scientific method, that is the scrutiny and verification of data and results by one's peers." Professor Darrel Ince, from the department of computer science at the Open University said: "A number of climate scientists have refused to publish their computer programs; what I want to suggest is that this is both unscientific behaviour and, equally importantly ignores a major problem: that scientific software has got a poor reputation for error." |
03-07-10 | UK Telegraph |
| Three of the world's four global temperature datasets have been shown to be be seriously tainted. This includes the data from: 1. East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU); 2. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS); and 3. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The remaining Japanese dataset remains to be investigated. | 03-11-10 | Pajamas Media |
|
Japanese scientists, investigating arctic wind patterns determined
that:
"Much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in
recent years is down [sic] to
the region's swirling winds and is not a direct result of global
warming"
"The study does not question that global warming is also melting
ice in the Arctic, but it could raise doubts about high-profile
claims that the region has passed a climate "tipping point" that
could see ice loss sharply accelerate in coming years."
|
03-22-10 | UK Guardian |
| The UN admitted that a 2006 study showing that livestock (meat) production was responsible for 18% of the total greenhouse gas emissions — exceeding those produced by transportation — was flawed and overstated the impact. The UN had used this study to recommend less meat and milk production worldwide in the name of environmentalism. | 03-24-10 | UK Telegraph |
|
Nils-Axel Mörner, the formerly chairman of the International
Commission on Sea Level Change (INQUA), after spending the past
35 years studying sea levels around the world, declared that the
talk about rising sea levels was a "colossal scare story".
Quoting from the article:
"Despite fluctuations down as well as up, 'the sea is not rising,'
he says. 'It hasn't risen in 50 years.' If there is any rise this
century it will 'not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an
uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm'. And quite apart from examining
the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent
heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about."
"The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so
certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent
wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions,
whereas his findings are based on 'going into the field to observe
what is actually happening in the real world'."
|
03-28-10 | UK Telegraph |
|
"Germans citizens are rapidly losing faith in global warming
following the Climate-gate scandals, according to a new report
in Der Spiegel."
"Many people have little faith in the information and prognosis of climate researchers, The Local [a German news site] explained, with a third questioned in the survey not giving them much credence." |
03-29-10 | Fox News |
|
Mike Hulme and Martin Mahony, from the School of Environmental
Sciences at the University of East Anglia, write in a paper
entitled, Climate Change: what do we know about the
IPCC?, that the consensus claims made by the IPCC in
support of manmade global warming are fabrications. They state
(pages 10-11):
"Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields." |
04-12-10 | Hulme & Mahony |
| Over 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing evidence that human-related activities are causing catastrophic climate change, and urge the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto global warming agreement, along with all other similar proposals. | 05-06-10 | AGW Petition Project |
|
In response to criticism over it corrupted temperature data (due
to urban heat effects) and the fact that 90% of their climate
measuring sites do not meet the government's own standards for
obtaining accurate temperature measurements, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has simply redefined the
nature of its collection methods so as to reassert the validity
of the use of its data. On the
NOAA website, it makes the following statement:
"But for detecting climate change, the concern is not the absolute temperature — whether a station is reading warmer or cooler than a nearby station placed on grass — but how that temperature changes over time. " All of which is so much handwaving, because if temperature increases are due to urban heat island effects, then it makes no difference whether those increases are absolute or relative, they have nothing to do with actual global temperature trends. NOAA then goes on to state: "Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years? No." As the article's author points out: "This is another clearly deceptive political answer. If one actually looks at the temperature trend in the United States over the last 50 years, you will see something quite different from what NOAA says. From 1960 to the late 1970s, the United States temperature was clearly falling. From that point on, there was a two-decade warming trend through the 1980s and 1990s. That warming trend ended in the late 1990s and there has been no warming since." |
06-12-10 | Pajamas Media |
|
The IPCC apparently relied upon the opinion of a single scientist,
J. Lean, to author the chapter in its climate report which states
that solar activity is not a major influencer of earth's climate.
This conclusion runs counter to scientific research put forward by
others such as Dr. Willie Soon, Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv.
The Norwegian government first noted the lack of evidence backing
up the IPCC conclusion, and a representative stated:
"I would encourage the IPCC to [re-]consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section about solar forcing hangs on one single paper in which J. Lean is a coauthor." The article continues with the following statement: "Dr. Soon has presented solar irradiance data showing global temperatures during the past century have almost precisely mirrored solar output. The Danish National Space Center further reported that solar output by the end of the 20th century had reached its highest amount in at least 1,000 years." |
06-28-10 | The Heartland Institute |
|
Long after the infamous "hockey stick" temperature graph was
discredited by showing that the data used to produce it had been
heavily manipulated by its author Michael Mann, Mann himself now
back-pedals in an attempt to distance himself from accepting
full responsibility for its intent and use. As quoted from an
article in the UK Telegraph:
"[S]peaking to the BBC recently, Prof Mann, a climatologist at
Pennsylvania State University, said he had always made clear
there were "uncertainties" in his work.
'I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central
icon of the climate change debate,' he said. "
Oh, well OK then .... |
06-28-10 | UK Telegraph |
|
A new review of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency, concluded that the IPCC's 2007 report was biased towards
overstating the negative consequences of any global warming,
while ignoring the beneficial effects.
"Maarten Hajer, director of the Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency, which is funded by the Dutch government, said
the IPCC's summary conclusions focused on the potential dangers
of climate change because 'that is what the politicians wanted
to know.'"
"But since the 2007 report's publication, he said, 'the times have
changed,' and the public now is demanding a fuller, more
transparent look at how the IPCC comes up with its conclusions.'"
In addition, the Dutch agency determined that the IPCC had made "another significant error" in projecting a 50-60% decrease in anchovy production off the west coast of Africa, due to "an erroneous interpretation of the literature references." "The literature in fact suggests a 50% to 60% decrease in 'extreme wind and seawater turbulence, with some effects on the anchovy population that were not quantified'." It is hard to believe that a supposedly scientific community, using peer review procedures, could allow errors of this magnitude to propagate through its literature for years by accident. Every new fact uncovered casts doubt on the validity and objectivity of all other aspects of the IPCC organization and on every one of its conclusions. |
07-05-10 | Wall Street Journal |
Conclusions Concerning The IPCC Report:
So what is left of the UN's IPCC advisory report? Absolutely nothing.
Every conclusion that it draws rests upon global temperature data that
has been shown to be useless in its native form, even before being
artificially manipulated by pseudo-scientists in order to manufacture
false apocalyptic projections. And why would these "scientists" do
such a thing? As is often the case, the answer is money. It is estimated
that in America alone, since 1989, the U.S. government has spent over
$79 billion on climate science. As the single significant source
of funding for this research, it doesn't take much imagination to realize
that the dollars only continue to flow so long as there is a "problem"
that needs to be addressed. Not even Congress is going to spend $79
billion just to be told that everything is fine. So it is imperative
that the funding mechanism continue to be well greased with doom and gloom
scenarios. And the same is true for other countries. This is the tragic,
but predictable consequence of government subsidization of scientific
research, which inevitably results in replacing the search for truth as
embodied by the facts of nature, with the generation of political
propaganda in support of man-made policy agendas.
It All Sounds Familiar:
It's an old story. It wasn't that long ago that the same sort of people who currently tell us that we are on the verge of worldwide destruction due to "global-warming", were proclaiming that we were on the verge of worldwide destruction due to "global-cooling" and over-population. If you are old enough, you might remember some of these memorable quotes:
-
".. civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate
action is taken against problems facing mankind"
[George Wald, Biologist, Harvard University, April 10, 1970] - Due to increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor:
"the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze,
and a new Ice Age will be born"
[Newsweek Magazine, January 26, 1970] - By 1995:
"..somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of
living animals will be extinct."
[Senator Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look Magazine, April, 1970] - The world will be:
"11 degrees colder in the year 2000 (this is about twice what it
would take to put us into an ice age)"
[Kenneth Watt, Ecologist, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970] -
"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of
this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human
habitation"
[Barry Commoner, Biologist at University of Washington, The journal Environment, January, 1970] -
"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small
increases in food supplies we make"
[Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April, 1970] -
"air pollution ... is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands
of lives in the next few years alone"
[Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April, 1970] -
"By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight
reaching earth by one half ..."
[Life magazine, January, 1970] -
"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation"
[Denis Hayes, Earth Day organizer, The Living Wilderness, Spring, 1970] -
"By the year 2000 ... the entire world, with the exception of
Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine"
[Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring, 1970]
Whoops again! With over forty years to see these predictions realized, there was no worldwide famine. No end to civilization. No ice age. No mass species extinction. And there is still enough sunlight to require SPF 45. Yet, I don't remember getting an apology from any of these people, their sponsoring universities, or a retraction published in any of the major magazines.
And despite their utter failure at accurate predictions, every one of these purveyors of doom was being funded from the same government trough, and consequently, demanding exactly the same "solution" as is being proposed today: complete regulation over the behavior of every individual and businesses by government overseerers. If the true goal of these policies was human salvation, then the lessons of history and the Climategate facts should give one pause. But if the actual goal is gaining control as a means to increased power, then ignoring all these bothersome facts, as is being done, begins to make a perverted sort of sense.
Now, take a look at this table put together by a blogger known as Kaz,
titled:
Climate
Change Timeline — 1895-2009. This documents the
histrionics reported in the media over the past hundred years regarding
our imminent death by cooling or heating. The only consistent thing is
that none of the end-of-the-world scenarios has ever come to pass.
What About Al Gore?:
|
|
It was the IPCC report that allowed the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change to share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore back in
2007.
However, there was another interesting event that took place in 2007 that went generally unreported by the American media. Gore attempted to have his film, An Inconvenient Truth, shown to British school children as a documentary which presented scientific fact. This was challenged by concerned individuals and eventually ended up in court where a judge was asked to review the content and render judgment. The result was that An Inconvenient Truth was declared to be a "political film" which could not be shown in the schools, and was determined to be riddled with the following nine significant errors: |
- Responding to Gore's claim that a "near future" rise in sea
levels, up to 20 feet, the judge ruled that "The Armageddon
scenario ... is not in line with the scientific consensus."
- Where Gore claims that Pacific atolls "are being inundated
because of anthropogenic global warming", the judge
rules that there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet
happened.
- Gore claimed that global warming was shutting down the Atlantic
Gulf Stream, but the judge said that that was "very
unlikely".
- Gore claimed that two graphs showing increases in CO2
and rising temperatures demonstrated "an exact fit" and
causal correlation. The judge said that "the two graphs do
not establish what Mr Gore asserts".
- Gore argued that global warming was directly responsible for
the melting snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro. But the judge ruled that
other factors were much more likely to be the cause.
- Gore argued that the drying of Lake Chad was due to global
warming. The judge said there was insufficient evidence and
that other causes were much more likely.
- Gore blamed Hurricane Katrina on global warming, but the
judge ruled that there was "insufficient evidence to show
that".
- Gore claimed that polar bears were seen swimming up to 60 miles
in order to find new ice. The judge said that the only
scientific evidence presented related to four bears, and that
did not support Gore's thesis.
- Gore argued that global warming was bleaching coral reefs around the world, but the judge stated that it was difficult to separated the stress on reefs due to temperature from other factors including over-fishing and pollution, so Gore's claims were unjustified.
In addition, Gore based many of the film's fundamental points on Michael Mann's fraudulent "hockey stick" temperature graph (or as Bill Whittle calls it, "Mann-made global warming") which has since been thoroughly debunked, thereby invalidating all subsequent conclusions. A thorough discussion of the many other errors in this film can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Keep up the good work Mr. Gore!
If you ask what Al Gore's vested interest is in global-warming, it turns
out to be the same answer as for the research scientists: the government
money. Gore is an investor in
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a venture capital firm which makes
money from involvement with energy companies that ultimately score taxpayer
funding from government handouts and grants. Gore has also invested
significantly in Chicago Climate
Exchange (CCX) a trading outlet for Carbon Credits, which will become
lucrative, only if government-imposed energy caps are placed upon
businesses and individuals worldwide. The bottom line is summed up in the
title of the UK Telegraph's article:
Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire. Yes, Gore
stands to gain considerably from a climate crisis—whether real or
imagined, and is an example of the new breed of "businessmen" who rely
upon leveraging government contacts to acquire a sizable portion of the
tax dollars being extracted from productive wealth creators and
redistributed to these "Political
Entrepreneurs".
Media Reporting On Climategate:
Another possibly more important question is why has most of this
information which challenges the AGW orthodoxy not been reported by
American main stream media outlets? Reviewing the reference sources
below, it becomes clear that almost every report originated either in
the UK, or from independent internet reporters. American newspapers,
radio, television and major magazines have remained virtually silent on the
subject of Climategate, with a few minor exceptions, while National Public
Radio (NPR) continuing its active propaganda machine in service of the
government's takeover of the entire US economy as the only possible
solution to avoiding an Armageddon that is not coming. There is an agenda
operating here, with the media organizations having transformed themselves
from the role of reporter of the facts, into organs for government policy
indoctrination. The failure to report on the ongoing Climategate story
clearly demonstrates why these established media outlets deserve the rapid
death they are currently experiencing. They have failed in their purpose
of objectively reporting verified facts, and can no longer be relied upon
as a source of unbiased information.
The Philosophy Behind The Environmental Movement:
|
|
On December 14, 2009, George Monbiot published an article in Britain's
The Guardian, where he laid bare his soul and explained, in
no uncertain terms, the philosophy and intent behind the environmental
movement.
This is bigger than climate change. It is a battle to redefine humanity |
In this article, when describing the then coming 2009 Copenhagen climate summit, Monbiot states:
-
"This is the moment at which we turn and face ourselves. Here,
in the plastic corridors and crowded stalls, among impenetrable texts
and withering procedures, humankind decides what it is and what it will
become."
And as with all good socialists, the issue for Monbiot is not what will we, as individuals, become. The only relevant question is what will be the transformation for humanity as a whole — with all of the inconsequential individuals simply forced to conform to the single-minded collective will.
And who is to decide this bold new direction for humanity? Well, for Monbiot that's a moot point as the decision has already been cast, with the consequences of that foregone decision sprinkled throughout the remainder of the article. Consider such prescient observations as the following:
-
"The meeting at Copenhagen confronts us with our primal tragedy."
"Now we find ourselves hedged in by the consequences of our nature, living meekly on this crowded planet for fear of provoking or damaging others. We have the hearts of lions and live the lives of clerks."
"The summit's premise is that the age of heroism is over."
"[I]t is ... a battle between two world views. The angry men who seek to derail this agreement, and all such limits on their self-fulfilment, have understood this better than we have."
"[F]ossil fuels have granted the universal ape amplification beyond its Paleolithic dreams. [... allowing] us to live in blissful mindlessness"
"The angry men know that this golden age has gone; but they cannot find the words for the constraints they hate. Clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged, they flail around"
"All those of us whose blood still races are forced to sublimate, to fantasise. In daydreams and video games we find the lives that ecological limits and other people's interests forbid us to live."
"There is no space for heroism here; all passion and power breaks against the needs of others. This is how it should be
As Ayn Rand once wrote:
-
"Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his
own destroyer — and that is the way he has acted through most of
his history.
This article perfectly summarizes the real issue behind the environmental movement. I agree that it is concerned with nothing less than the redefinition of humanity. And the vision of that new humanity is as a passive video-gamer, vicariously placated by virtual-acts that were once undertaken in reality. With our lion hearts caged, and all thoughts of heroism ground out of existence, we should all voluntarily accept our new place as clerks and stewards of the planet, and sacrifice ourselves in service to "other people's interests". Nothing more can be expected when the "original sin" of our human nature unavoidably leads to "primal tragedy".
Monbiot perfectly articulates the polarity that exists between the
environmentalists' view of mankind as a meek, mindless, collective
destroyer and those held by Ayn Rand of men as heroic beings capable
of unparalleled achievement and limitless potential. So, who is the
destroyer and who is the savior? The choice is yours. Either lay
down you copy of Atlas Shrugged and accept your Monbiot-redefined
role as a hapless, mindless sheep — or grasp your copy firmly in
hand and wield it as the tool it was intended to be, standing proudly
in the long tradition of our Paleolithic ancestors who knew how to
dream of a better future and then work creatively to realize it.
Heaven and Earth:
|
|
For people who wish to get a more comprehensive overview of the issues
impacting the climate change debate, I highly recommend reading Ian
Plimer's book:
Heaven and Earth: Global Warming — The Missing Science |
Plimer is a geologist who presents a comprehensive history of the earth's climate, explaining exactly what we know and do not know about factors influencing it. In his heavily researched book, he brings together information from a number of scientific disciplines (there are over 2,300 footnote references) to present a comprehensive picture that sheds real light on issues related to the current climate change debate. He demonstrates the following:
- With a proper historical perspective, there is absolutely nothing
out of the ordinary regarding our current climate variability and
trends.
- The earth has been much warmer in the past, and while we
experienced a mild late-20th century warming followed by the
much under-reported 21st century cooling trend, there is
nothing here that does not fit into the historical validated
variability for climate.
- There is absolutely no correlation between CO2
levels and temperature.
- The earth is a self-balancing system that sequesters
CO2 in the oceans (among other processes) and that
is why there has never been a run-away greenhouse effect in the
history of the earth, despite much higher CO2 levels
than we currently experience.
- Historically, mankind has prospered when temperatures were warmer
than the current levels.
- There is still a great deal about earth dynamics that we do not
fully understand or monitor, but which likely plays a huge role
in determining earth's climate.
- The computerized climate models used to "predict" global warming
ignore huge amounts of known data as well as all the dynamic
factors for which there is little data available, and therefore
fail to come close to being able to predict the earth's climate;
something easily demonstrated by the fact that they cannot
properly model well known historical results when given accurate
historical data.
- The UN's IPCC reports on global warming are filled with bad data, much of which has been publicly discredited over the past few years, but which goes unreported in the main stream press
There is a lot more to this book and it is a fascinating read just for the education that you will gain into the current state of sciences relating to the earth, atmosphere, oceans, glaciers and sun. But the important issue here is that no one who has not read this book and is ready to address the issues it raises, should be making any pronouncements regarding climate change — let alone passing legislation that will affect the lives of us all.
Read it, and then write to the President and your congressional
representatives and demand that they too read this book and demonstrate
a real knowledge of the science behind global warming before casting
an uninformed vote on this issue. Of course, be prepared for them to
ignore this request, because the real political goal behind the IPCC and
the push to regulate CO2 has nothing to do with
scientifically-based environmental concerns, and everything to do with
the further consolidation of power in the hands of governments seeking
nothing less than total control over every aspect of their subjects' lives.
Climategate References: