UK CLIMATE MINISTER GAFFES ON CLIMATEGATE

UK CLIMATE MINISTER GAFFES ON CLIMATEGATE

I wish to share with our readers the ongoing correspondence I am having with the British Minister of State for Climate, Joan Ruddock. I contacted the Minister early last December via my Member of Parliament to express my concerns about the lies and misinformation propagated by the UK government on the climate debate.

I urged the Right Honourable Member to study the facts and see there is no pressing policy consideration to justify imposing a huge new tax burden on voters during the current global economic recession. Indeed, wiser heads would caution doing anything right now, preferring to see a full public investigation of the Climategate scandal first. We are due to have a general election next Spring so these are important times in British politics. But as I show below, the omens for an independent investigation into this farce are not good.

For context, let me advise non-UK readers that all the three main UK political parties are squarely warmist in their policies. This is no easy nut to crack but I thought it would be entertaining, and hopefully enlightening, to share with our readers my latest offering to the Minister of Madness. (BTW: thanks to commentators on my ‘cold’ weather stations article – your analysis of the data is proving invaluable – please keep it coming).

The current Labour Government faces no dissent on climate issues in Parliament and blithely goes its merry way hugging trees and patronising polar bears. The fact that the science behind the fakery has been exposed since Climategate cuts no ice. So needless to say, the Minister tries to fob me off. But anyone who has read my articles knows I have really gotten my teeth into the controversy. So have a read and enjoy:

Dear Minister of State,

Re: The Climategate Scandal at the University of East Anglia (CRU)

Thank you for your letter of December 21, 2009 clarifying your position on the above matter. I feel compelled to reply to point out the lies, subterfuge and misinformation in your correspondence. There is too much there for me to challenge robustly in one letter. Instead I shall for the moment confine myself to three basic issues; (1.) the use of ‘private’ unaccountable police in the CRU investigation; (2.) the deceitful dropping of 806 ‘cold’ weather stations from the 6000 global set in one year and (3.) the facts on sea level rises that conflict with your assertion that “severe impacts” of climate change must be dealt with “now.”

First, I wish to register my protest in the strongest possible terms that a privately run secret police unit, the National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET), is conducting the criminal investigation into the CRU scandal. NDET is directly answerable to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). Because ACPO is not a public body but rather a private limited company, NETCU is exempt from freedom of information laws (FOIA) and other kinds of public accountability, even though they are funded by the Home Office and deploy police officers from regional forces. What further disturbs me is that ACPO cannot be relied upon to handle this investigation when ACPO have a vested interest in the outcome being that their pension fund is invested heavily in environmental stocks. So is this truly your interpretation of an “independent” investigation and will the Labour Government continue to conduct business like this if re-elected at the upcoming general election?

But as to the science, we know, at minimum, from the admissions contained in the leaked emails that the climate data analysis by CRU between 2006-2009 was ‘fudged.’ This has been confirmed by the latest peer-reviewed literature that I shall present further on.

For your information my associates and I contribute to a fast-growing website called http://www.climategate.com. We have been undertaking our own analysis and frankly, Minister, we are deeply shocked at what we have uncovered so far. Firstly, I wish to refer to the leaked emails and the ‘documents/HARRY_READ_ME.txt’ files. These files covers CRU’s latest work from 2006-2009 and CRU scientist, ‘Harry’ admits the climate data CRU possesses is unusable:

“getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented… “

‘Harry’ then later adds, “I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was.”

Clearly, from the evidence to hand, these climatologists are poor data handlers. When you then go beyond the 1,000+ emails and look deeper at the meta data coding within the rest of the leaked 62MB goldmine things get far worse. ‘Harry’ admits he has no training in FORTRAN. He muddles by attempting to teach himself and gamely trying to analyse so much “poor” and “false” data. As we have read, for Harry matters go from bad to worse.

Frankly, Minister, to use the words of one of your climatologists, this whole charade is a “travesty” and your scientists are incompetent. But from incompetence they plunge the depths into wilfully deceit and unlawful conduct. The proof of a conspiracy grows as we read the ‘hockey teams’’ own words. For over three years they admit to have been deliberately foiling FOIA requests. Now we have reached the farcical position where neither you nor your climatologists will come clean with the truth in the midst of the most severe winter in 30 years when newspapers predict deaths due to cold in the tens of thousands and Britain’s transport network liable to be thrown into chaos with just a few inches of snowfall. It is a total dereliction of your duties to continue to rely and defend secretly concocted junk science for what you say is “an issue of unrivalled public importance.”

I can assure you a cacophony of rage is building online over these matters as more ordinary citizens come to the Internet looking for the facts that you and the mainstream media are reluctant to address. Wise up and uphold the principles of the Freedom of Information Act; expedite the processing and completion of all past and pending FOIA requests so that everyone can see that you value independent analysis within a framework supportive of transparent and honest government.

But as you and your scientists appear to have forgotten, please allow me to remind you how the scientific method works. It is incumbent on the purveyor of any theory of science to provide the proof and permit sceptical testing of it. In fact, scepticism is the birthright of every scientist. But sceptics cannot test your junk theory because every one of your cited data sources denies examination of their methodologies and calculations – we are only presented with conclusions. Frankly, Minister, that’s just not good enough and history will regard you and your ilk with dismay for your hubris and contempt for reason and fair play.

CRU, like NASA and NOAA, want to treat their information as proprietary to them but unlike public corporations, they have no such privileges. Publicly funded repositories of data for use by educational and research institutions are obliged to properly maintain the original data, make it available to anyone who is qualified to work with it, AND document each and every adjustment made and why. But what I must now confront you with is the charge that government- funded scientists have been systematically and cynically dropping ‘cold’ rural ground measuring stations from the global set so as to skew the official government results. We have a list of 806 weather stations that were dropped from the total of 6000 worldwide in a single year with no explanation from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN). The only fact in common that we can so far deduce for these sites being dropped is that they exhibit a tendency to be located in rural areas. I attach a copy of those 806 dropped weather stations for your inspection.

The Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) tells us that rural stations are free from the levels of secondary heat contamination generally found in cities, towns and airports. The additional heating within UHI areas increases measured temperatures by a magnitude of several degrees (McKitrick and Michaels 2007). The only possible motive I can infer from our ongoing findings is that your climatologists are dropping ‘cold’ ground weather stations to make the world’s climate appear warmer than it actually is.

So far my colleagues and I are still progressing with our analysis. But already we can report to you is that of the dropped Australian and New Zealand stations most are rural stations (e.g. Port Nelson, Ruttan Lake, Joutel). We shall continue to painstakingly analyze all stations on this list to see if we can substantiate what at the moment, appears to be a conspiracy to omit ‘cold’ rural stations. What we are seeing appears to confirm what peer reviewed papers have found, namely that artificial warming is contaminating 30-50% of the data cited by your sources. In effect, rather than adjusting their calculations to remove the UHI effect, your scientists are actually adding extra weighting to increase the distortion from UHI.

My colleagues have successfully determined that the station count for the U.S. (in the GHCN v2_mean file) dropped from 1177 to 136 in April 2006. We were able to confirm this by importing the data and by doing a simple count of all station ID’s beginning with “425″ for the year 2006. Replication is straightforward. This is a trivial task for any application developer merely – to write the code to import this data and then analyze it. The most significant observation we have noted is that most of the stations left in the U.S. are airports (for the years 2006 and going forward). Please check these facts for yourself and see that a fraud has been committed.

Moreover, the lack of transparency and unlawful conduct exhibited by Professor Phil Jones et al. may allow us to infer that the truth is being deliberately and zealously kept from us. In essence, the conclusions that your cited references provide about the climate are entirely worthless and may be adjudged as GIGO (‘Garbage In, Garbage Out!’).

Also, I cannot conclude without addressing your most absurd assertion made in paragraph five of your letter. Here you state there is a pattern of warming causing “rising sea levels,” and then in paragraph six you attribute this “as a direct result of human activities.” Minister, you are either inadvertently and ignorantly exaggerating the science or you are lying. To put this crazy statement into perspective, even the MET Office does not dispute that the overall rise in temperature is merely less than one degree centigrade since 1860 and with zero additional rises in sea levels on top of natural variation, how can you stand by your statement? Either kindly withdraw it or, alternatively, please quantify and differentiate the amounts of sea level and temperature rise that you attribute to man and to nature. The matter demands clarification.

From my understanding, the debate on current and past sea level rises is non-existent. But, I suspect, that you know we currently face no danger of problematic sea level rises because, like me you are able to check the best oceanographers’ peer-reviewed science that refutes the guesstimates and lies of climatologists on this issue. Sea levels are rising no faster than 2mm per annum – a wholly natural rate for the current Holocene interglacial whereby such an ice melt has been occurring for the past 11,000 years – way before human industrialization. In 2007 Simon Holgate of the U.K.’s Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, produced a history of global sea level from 1904 to 2003 based upon a set of reliable, long-term observations from nine tide gauge stations scattered around the world and he could not find any sea level rises attributable to man-made emissions of CO2. Holgate is renowned as one of the world’s leading oceanographers

But further, may I also suggest you look at what the oceanographers at the University of Colorado have to say on this issue. They rely on the Jason-1 Calibration and TOPEX Calibration and attribute no sea level rises to mankind in any of their work. Their measurements concur neatly with Holgate’s numbers.

Other oceanographers in peer-reviewed papers such as Antonov et al. (2005); Ishii et al. (2005) and Willis et al. (2005) who all report current rises equal to seven inches per century with no human signal whatsoever. These oceanographers have all proved that current sea level rise is entirely consistent with natural Holocene ice melt. Thus the statement that sea levels are rising “as a direct result of human activities” is patently false – please withdraw it or stand accused by your critics as a lying scaremonger.

In paragraph six of your letter you state, “the temporal and spatial pattern of observed warming cannot be explained by natural causes alone.” This is a vacuous non-statement. No one is disputing that human emissions may have ‘some’ impact on climate. But does the one degree centigrade overall rise we have experience since 1860 justify the exorbitantly expensive policy measures of your government? The answer must be a resounding, ’No!’ when we bear in mind that the Earth has shown no warming trend for 15 years, based on analysis of the raw and combined CRU, NASA and NOAA numbers. So with no current decadal warming trend there is no justification in logic for the need to “take action now” as you insist. Look outside you window, Minister, open your eyes and see that after six cooler years in a row we are now in the midst of the worst winter in the northern hemisphere for 30 years. You are off on the wrong track. Your government is being criticised from all quarters for its policy failures to cope with these winter conditions. The travel chaos and rising death toll associated with severe cold proves the hardships of a colder climate outweigh those of the warmer one we lived through in the last quarter of the old century and which ended in 1998.

The scientific community is increasingly turning against the ‘theory’ of man made global warming (AGW) because, unlike the period from 1975-1998 warmer temperatures no longer correlate with rising levels of carbon dioxide. Thus with no correlation it is irrational to argue for causation. The so-called consensus among scientists on man-made climate change has evaporated since Climategate, while the latest peer-reviewed paper by German physicists, Dr’s. Gerlich and Tscheuschner thoroughly debunks the whole greenhouse gas theory. These German scientists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03% so that it is thus impossible for us to witness a greater rate of warming than seen already in the past 150 years. Gerlich and Tscheuschner further disprove that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal ‘forcing’ effect on the warmer surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Minister, please bring an end to this climate farce. I urge you to conduct independent review of the facts I now present to you rather than rely on fraudulent data that has been exposed as such.

Let me finish by commenting on what is truly dear to me – the future for our children. My teenage son and daughter are currently sitting GCSE and ‘A’ Level examinations. They have assured me that what truly constitutes “unrivalled public importance” is the need to remove political climate propaganda from the school curriculum – the real “greatest challenge” you offer them – is deciphering climate fact from fiction.

Children face this problem because, contrary to the High Court ruling made by Mr Justice Burton of 2007, the Al Gore’s film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is still being shown in our schools without clarification or caveat that this so called ‘documentary’ contains nine ‘errors’ that his lordship ruled were in ‘the context of alarmism and exaggeration.’ Just like Mr. Gore, your government has failed to present the facts honestly and with transparency and have turned to falsehoods to claim that climate change, a natural phenomenon is bringing “severe impacts” and it’s our fault. I hope that after the general election we shall see a new government that upholds the truth. But judging by your current climate stance I see little prospect for our youth while their future lies in your hands and they see a future of crippling taxes as a direct consequence of your policies.

Yours most sincerely,

John O’Sullivan

WHAT DID THE POLAR BEAR SAY TO THE CLIMATOLOGIST?

Having read the full spectrum of alarmists’ posts on blogs I find that there is a recurrent meme that repeats itself time after time:“[1] the Polar ice is melting, [2]glaciers are shrinking, the [3] temperature is going up, [4] sea-level is rising.” So we thought it about time our readers were shown how sceptic scientists debunk those myths. I’ve put together a brief summary while I have an hour to ponder on this frigid, ice-bound day.

First it may be handy to bear in mind the kind of soul who falls for this garbage. Your average alarmist – an otherwise unassuming kindly, liberal soul – is a lover of trees, cuddly polar bears and all things verdant. Such folk have a natural propensity to see the good in others. They are, unlike most conservatives, too trusting of authority figures. You see, in the climate debate apparently intelligent left-leaning men and women can get things so wrong because they are either far too busy hugging each other or just plain tired from so much moralistic preaching. They never check the scientific primary sources – they rely on politicized, spoon-fed secondary ones, instead.

So I say to those duped alarmists if they want to be taken seriously by a hard-bitten cynic like me they need to desist with their ‘appeal to authority’ in junk science; drop the John Lennon green tinted spectacles and read the following.

Let’s start with the ludicrous deification of climatologists and nail that sucker to the cross. Climate science is like any other profession – open to corruption, fuelled by ambition, self-interest and peer-pressure. To get to the bottom of this global scam merely follow the money and find your answers. The biggest payers in the climate business are the ‘big oil’ lobby. Which side is getting the biggest slice of the cake? Well, the claim that ‘big oil’ is solidly behind skeptics is just a MSM myth. ‘Big oil’ is very much bankrolling the green campaigners as per Rockefeller’s much-hyped 350.org initiative that goes global. Let’s remind ourselves of the melee of green ‘big oil’ worldwide activist stunts http://www.350.org/350-action-gallery

http://www.350.org/dec2009/reports/14647

We also see these past few weeks how UN climate officials such as IPCC Chairman, Dr Pachauri, are very fond of jumping into bed with energy companies while also claiming to be ethical and unbiased in managing the world’s climate science. Pachauri is both gamekeeper and poacher, policy maker and beneficiary – paid both by the UN and those private institutions that benefit from his IPCC’s rigged environmental policies – a double-dipping benefit. Judging by last year’s official figures, buying and selling the right to emit CO2 was worth $126 billion across the world. Madoff’s a saint compared to this guy! Pachauri is director general of the former Tata Energy Research Institute, renamed The Energy And Resources Institute, and now ‘charity’ with the name ‘Tata’ removed but still funded by Tata. In case you’re not up on these convoluted enterprises, Tata is one of the global business interests that will make – and indeed already has made this crook – large sums of money thanks to the climate doom scenarios spouted by the IPCC.

But Pachauri is just the latest in a long line of stooges installed at the UN to do the bidding of the petrochemical conglomerates. The energy big boys need someone on the inside especially since they started switching their R&D dollars from oil field discovery to renewables long ago.

That’s how back in 1972, another big oil player, Maurice Strong, head of Petro-Canada, Ajax Petroleums, Cordex Petroleum, etc. got to be top dog on important UN ‘environmental’ programs. He got his first big shoe-in on the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Ever since then ‘big oil’ has ran the environmental movement from inside the UN. In 1991 Maurice Strong was a key figure in advancing the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) inspired by self-described ‘ecosocioeconomist’ professor Ignacy Sachs. Strong and Sachs were pushing for the transfer of global wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 year timescale. They admit to a policy of global communism by way making the environment the vehicle to drive forward their political agenda. Strong finished his big oil UN work abruptly when he had to stand down in 2005. He had got caught out in the Oil-for-Food scandal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong

So for over thirty years the big energy lobby has been pulling the strings to set up the environmental ‘catastrophe’ by promoting a series of lies as described above in [1], [2], [3] and [4]. So let’s demolish all four one by one:

1.) There is no discernible statistically significant aggregate Polar ice melt. The IPCC Antarctic data has been falsified http://savecapitalism.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/ghcn-antarctica-careful-selection-of-data/#respond. Check the facts and see no loss of Antarctic sea ice extent:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png Sea ice is in fact increasing in the southern hemisphere.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

While global sea ice has been remarkably stable since records began.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

But even if the entire Arctic ice cap were to disappear altogether, as it did during the summer in the medieval warm period and throughout the year 850,000 years ago, sea level would not rise by as much as a millionth of an inch, because the Arctic polar ice cap is floating (liberals: check that melting ice cube in your eggnog).

2.) Glaciers have been retreating for the past 11,000 years. http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/example-page-2.gif
If they hadn’t been steadily retreating for thousands of years then the Great Lakes, London and the rest of northern Europe would still be buried under a mile of ice. We are living in the Holocene Period, folks, an interglacial where a long-term warming trend persists – check it out. Ice melts during an interglacial. http://www.answers.com/topic/holocene This is because Earth’s climate is aligned to solar variability In a peer-reviewed paper Scafetta & West (2008) attribute 69% of the 1975-1998 warming to the Sun, leaving only 31% for other natural processes and for CO2. Lord Monckton, in his recent paper ‘LET COOLER HEADS PREVAIL’ tells us, “The global warming rate from 1975-1998 was identical to that from 1860-1880 and from 1910-1940.” So rate of warming in the last quarter of the 20th century fits entirely a pattern caused by nature. Or as we skeptics say, ‘it’s the sun, stupid’: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PDOAMOTEMP.jpg

3.) As stated in (2.) the long-term trend over several thousand years have maintained a general warming trend during human history. So we should not be surprised to see modest warming. However, the slight surge in warming seen between 1975-1998 has been jumped on by alarmists as if its somehow and exceptionally rapid warming event. But it isn’t. And more recently doubts have been raised that the methods used by climatologists are ‘fudged’ in order to ‘hide the decline’ as the leaked CRU emails tell us. So that we may infer that cherry-picking of stations has taken place based on official analysis of independent international bodies. For example, the Moscow Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) has substantiated the controversy in a recently published report that suggested climatologists dumped 90% of the data taken from colder stations in Russia. “Only one tenth of meteorological sites with complete temperature series are used,“ says the Moscow team. What’s particularly galling to skeptics is that Russia’s ‘warming’ was hyped as the smoking gun of man made climate change.

http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-12-18/climate-scandal-new-evidence.html

The Russians have accused climatologists at the UK’s Climatic Research Unit of deliberately choosing sites close to large, warmer, urban areas because the Urban Heat Island (UHI) will affect them. Following the Russian revelations a greater outcry from sceptics is being heard demanding clarification from the climatologists as to why they inexplicably dropped a total of 806 ground stations from the 6,000 global total in one year http://www.climategate.com/climatologists-drop-806-cold-weather-stations-in-a-single-year. (UHI explained here >) http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=urban-heat-island1
effect also plays a part in creating a city’s local micro-climate making it warmer than rural areas. Half the world’s population lives in towns and cities and that figure is set to rise to 60% (4.9 billion)

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WUP2005/2005wup.htm

by 2030 thus more of us will feel the warming effect of urban micro-climates. The ‘adjustments’

http://climateaudit.org/2009/01/20/realclimate-and-disinformation-on-uhi/

made in the climate data for the effects of UHI are hotly debated so we perceive the climate to be warmer than it is.
Skeptics argue that the methodologies used to ‘homogenize’ the discrepancies between urban and rural weather stations are undisclosed. Steve McIntyre and Alan Watts are among other independent analysts who have identified a whole host of problems that climatologists have not clarified about the reliability of the data from these ground weather stations. So if the ground temperature stations are so problematic what do the numbers from the oceans and atmospheric sensors tell us? Well they say no “global warming.” Sea surface temperatures have shown a slight decline over the past five years, based upon high-quality data from the 3175 automated Argo bathythermograph buoys that were deployed throughout the world’s oceans in 2003. The media have largely failed to report either the seven-year global cooling of the atmosphere or the five-year cooling of the oceans (see also Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007).

4.) Let’s look not just at sea temperatures, but at sea levels now which are proven to be rising at a rate of less than 2mm per year, or about 7 inches per century. That’s peanuts and is a rate lower than has occurred before in the paleontological records when human civilization wasn’t even around. You see, I checked out all this sea level rise alarmist nonsense before I bought my seafront property on the east coast of England four years ago. I guess Al Gore must have done the same because he’s reported as being the proud owner of ocean front real estate, too. Al, being a climate ‘guru’ would also presumably know that the best place to check is the University of Colorado’s website. They use the Jason-1 Calibration and TOPEX Calibration to run their sea level data. Their numbers accord very neatly with those of oceanographic peer-reviewed papers by Antonov et al. (2005); Ishii et al. (2005) and Willis et al. (2005). Conclusion: no unusual sea level rises. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/steric.php

Climate always changes. Sea levels rise and fall, it’s all so natural. Claims that mankind has in any way been causing ‘catastrophic’ climate change is a total lie not supported by the weight of evidence.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Although there may indeed be thousands of scientists contributing their part to the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the overall story of ‘catastrophic’ warming falls down to whether you believe the word of the few scientists directly involved. Climategate has demonstrated that the core scientists exhibit bias and peer pressure so that the concept of a genuine scientific consensus with regard to global warming is nonsense. Here’s how they first cooked up that consensus crap on October 9, 1997(email 0876437553 ):

“ The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones…Conclusion—Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication…. Get those names! “

You can see how it works, can’t you? If you sing from the green hymn sheet you’ll get the nod from the inner sanctum. Thus we see how ‘climatologists’ become ‘qualified.’ But you can’t blame it all the new recruits. Climatology is such a young discipline that no university yet teaches a degree in climatology. So whether you’re a geologist, botanist, parasitologist or ornithologist, if you’re shrewd enough to spin a research proposal to include the word ‘climate’ you’ve a far better shot of landing a lucrative government grant.

And if the carrot doesn’t work the alarmist lobby will resort to the stick. Just ask Dr. Cliff Mass, of the University of Washington. Dr. Mass recalls the ‘Snowpackgate’ outrage:

“A group of us noted that the snowpack in the Cascades was NOT rapidly melting away, in contrast to some publications by some local climate scientists and publicized by Mayor Nickels. The reaction was intense. One of my colleagues, Mark Albright, who was the first to notice the lack of snowpack loss was fired as associate State Climatologist. I was told in the hallways to keep quiet about it…the denier types would take advantage of it!…. I have heard case after case of similar treatment…so this is no anomaly.”

You see, eco-fascism can make or break scientists’ careers. But anyone can make it big as a climatologist if you have the right connections; you only had to tap up Phil Jones or Michael Mann (Earth scientists). In another insightful leaked CRU from November 25, 1997: email 0880476729 warmist Tom Wigley “one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change and one of the most highly cited scientists in the discipline.” chastises his peers for prostituting their principles to fabricate the Big Climate Lie. He shows how far the whole thing got out of hand(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wigley)

So when we get away from the flannel and look at the raw data instead of the ‘homogenized’ crap we see no significant warming let alone the ‘catastrophic’ kind. For example, from perusing the world’s longest and most reliable raw data set in England it shows no warming for 351 years. In fact UK summers in the 20th century were cooler than two earlier centuries!

http://carbon-sense.com/2009/10/01/british-record/

But what we do glean from the leaked CRU emails is that certain key alarmists scientists are, to be blunt, scheming, money grabbing crooks. Look no further than the following leaked CRU email entitled, 1120676865.txt, where Prof. Phil Jones says:

“ I hope I don’t get a call from congress ! I’m hoping that no-one there realizes I have a US DoE grant.”

But Jones is not the only one who is milking the climate cash cow. As Stepan Shiyatov writes to Keith Briffa on March 6, 1996, leaked email 0826209667):

“it is important for us if you can transfer the … money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 United States Dollars. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes…”

The prospect of obtaining further sums of cash from government grants for their work on revealing ‘catastrophic’ climate change skews their ethics even further as Keith Briffa, a key climatologist at CRU wrote in another leaked email:

“It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.”

No, these jokers left objectivity in the trashcan on their way into the lab as shown by
Gary Funkhouser (leaked email 0843161829 ) who reports on his attempts to obtain anything from the data that could be used to sell the message of climate change:

“I really wish I could be more positive about the … material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that.”

The Climategate scandal has already eclipsed Watergate in terms of its global political ramifications. Read here to see why it’s so distressing to scientists: http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/cg.pdf

But right from the start the MSM were hard at work trying to play down the scandal. The Associated Press set up their own ‘investigation’ to assess the gravity of it all and made the following pronouncement:

“E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.”
[By Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter and Malcolm Ritter, Dec 12, 2009]
But the AP were entirely wrong because they were entirely biased as that superb website, WUWT, discovered.
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/ap…

This is because Seth Borenstein, the guy in charge of the AP investigation, is none other than the same Seth Borenstein who is a crony of those very same climatologists at the University of East Anglia’s CRU implicated in the scandal. Here is how what Seth Borenstein had to say to his crooked buddies in one of the leaked CRU emails:

On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[7]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20005-4076
202-641-9454

So Seth is not remotely the truth hunting investigate journalist AP might like to have us think. Seth, in fact, is well known among other journalists for his die-hard green credentials.

But the good news is that government grants fraud recovery in the U.S. is well litigated and the rewards for conscientious whistleblowers in helping to recover ill-gotten taxpayer funds are high. So watch this space: the law is coming after the snake oil salesmen.

So what did the polar bear say to the climatologist? We couldn’t get an answer from the bears but we know their population has increased five-fold since the 1970’s. http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opinion/columns/article_1f6f58fa-04cf-55bc-b10a-07c432fca8ab.html But, if we could get one to comment I feel certain they’d want ‘scientists’ to stop exploiting them and leave them alone – they’re busy.

http://newsofinterest.tv/global_warming/effects/extinction/polar_bears.php#scott_armstrong

John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain.
Website: http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/

For ‘We the People” It’s Time to Act

Hopefully many of you have read my articles on Climategate.com, especially the scoop we broke regarding our legal team’s generous offer to assist whistleblowers at crooked climate research units to assist in a Department of Justice criminal investigation.

As I write I’m sat in my armchair looking out from my window at the white-carpeted winter wonderland. For most of the morning of this snow-bound day I’ve been reading a swath of comments on my article, http://www.climategate.com/german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory.

I feel a need to clarify my views and explain my true purpose is here. I am an unpaid humble servant in the campaign for intellectual and ideological transparency on important world issues. Transparency is what we have not had. Not only is it absent in the highly politicised realm of climate science, but also within other major issues where, across the globe, citizens’ constitutional rights are under attack. Your freedoms are soon to be taken from you under the theory of the “law of the air,” whereby the so-called scientific ‘consensus’ has advised the United Nations that national boundaries must not be borders to green taxation. The argument goes that carbon dioxide is a ‘pollutant,’ this well mixed gas must be controlled and thus the air that we all share must come under UN control. In the old millennium men conquered land, now in this new millennium they claim the air, too.

But who controls the UN? Follow the money and see. Make sure in your search you pay attention to Maurice Strong, Ben Santer and David Rockefeller. The truth gravitates somewhere in their vicinity.

The climate was never the real focus of western leaders at Copenhagen. ManBearPig isn’t real. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf69EEL3WBk The game is about bringing forth one world government, a ’lose-lose’ dystopia for the masses. When the game is over a pyramid of power will have been created for the enjoyment of the rich elite who will have garnered even greater wealth and power. From their vaulted position the ‘great and the good’ will look down on us in a planet vastly depopulated, subdued and over-taxed – all at the expense of truth, democracy and free speech. Before many of you switch off and consign me to the ranks of the Kool-Aid drinkers please keep an open mind in what I am about to say and heed the words of Joanne Nova

http://joannenova.com.au/:

“A trial without a defense is a sham.
Business without competition is a monopoly
Science without debate is propaganda.”

That no binding international treaty was signed at Copenhagen was most fortuitous for those of us who don’t want the eco-fascist future. We were given a brief respite due to the acts of a whistleblower that leaked those 62 MB of revealing documents from one of the UN’s key climate research units, the UK’s CRU at the University of East Anglia. We have a window of opportunity. If we cherish our freedoms we must urgently ponder what kind of future we want for our children and ourselves. But if we dither and equivocate others will make those choices for us.

The enemies of our freedom have sent against us their battalions of bogus ‘charities’, think tanks and NGO’s (non-governmental think tanks). They have grossly impacted upon and influenced world leaders. Swarm after swarm of these ‘tanks’ evokes another 1940’s blitzkrieg. The parallels that may be drawn are uncanny. The NGO’s are flanked by footsoldiers who shoot by advocacy to defend or promote a specific cause. They are the well camouflaged troops in the cause of eco-fascism. As opposed to operational project management, these organizations typically try to raise awareness, acceptance and knowledge by lobbying, press work and activist events. This juggernaut of neo-fascism has infiltrated then overrun the sensibilities of many. The number of internationally operating NGOs is estimated at 40,000 (Anheier et al., “Global Civil Society 2001″, 2001). While national numbers are even higher: Russia has 277,000 NGOs – a legacy from the militaristic Soviet experiment.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/may/07/news/chi-russia-civil_rodriguezmay07

Worldwide NGO’s are replacing voters as the drivers of government policies and actions. Consider for a moment one such ‘charity’ that has served that elitist, David Rockefeller, so well. When he was an up and coming US senator, Barack Obama used his position on the Joyce Foundation to help set up the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCE) for his rich backer. The Rockefeller Foundation has sponsored many such similar ‘causes’ under the guise of philanthropy. But beneath the façade the acquisition of great power and money is the motive. These mercenaries have a track record of substantial financial plunder.

http://warofillusions.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/obama-maurice-strong-al-gore-key-players-cashing-in-on-chicago-climate-exchange/

According to Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) Obama, Al Gore, Maurice Strong et al. will likely do to carbon trading what Gore and Strong did with Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI) i.e. Federal funds will be filched, the stock price raised artificially high and at the top of the market the players cash in. When Gore and his gang got the inside scoop that the federal funds for MMTI were to be cut they acted like insider traders and sold fast and ran from MMTI. The stock plunged by 49% and co-investors hit back at these crooks with a class action suit. Gore and Strong ducked and dived well enough to escape jailtime. Strong paid $5 million to dodge a jury verdict and ran from his native Canada to skulk in China. But the mercenaries don’t quit. The fortunes they capture just keep encourage them to pursue even more. And still we trust them. Their propaganda machine would be the envy of Joseph Goebbels. The MSM won’t ‘out’ these crooks because they are in with them, too. Be it for profit, idealism or cronyism, the media has been stitched up. Am I wrong? Well, read on to see how deep the Associated Press (AP) are in with the Climategate fraudsters.

On Dec 12, 2009 an announcement was made on behalf of AP by staff writer Seth Borenstein. Borenstein stated that after a thorough review the AP had concluded that the leaked Climategate emails, “don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked.” End of story, right?

Well, no. Let’s examine exactly who Seth Borenstein is. He is none other than the same Seth Borenstein whose email correspondence with those CRU conspirators was also leaked along with the rest from the crooked scientists. Seth is very much part of the problem! Here is just one example of Seth’s bias as shown by what he wrote on Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM to his pals on the inside:

“Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth”

Seth is known among other journalists as very pro green and makes no bones about his loyalties. So much for investigative journalism from AP. This one-sided procession towards global green governance would never succeed without the willing consent of the MSM propaganda machine. To visually bolster the sham of public ‘acceptance’ we see news clips of green activists lining the streets in corporate-styled green costumes, as we saw with 350.org protestors (paid Rockefeller Foundation shills). All this to make sure the Big Lie gets told over and over again. And we all know who used the Big Lie to best effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

While the high command are cleaning up the tills their green shirt goons march the streets protesting for ‘climate justice.’ Honourable environmentalists sickened by the hijacking of a noble cause and who won’t follow the paid piper have been marginalized. Some others have become whistleblowers to the great scam e.g. Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore, has denounced the tactics and lies of the eco-fascists who drove him out.

And so what of the so-called ‘consensus’ among scientists? That’s a sham, too. Like any profession, climate scientists are either bought or coerced. If they don’t follow the line of the warmist orthodoxy they are hounded out or fired. This is fact not fiction. There are many scientists who have spoken out but the MSM won’t report that. To give just one illustration take a look at the statements of Dr. Cliff Mass, of the University of Washington. Dr. Mass recalls the ‘Snowpackgate’ outrage:

“A group of us noted that the snowpack in the Cascades was NOT rapidly melting away, in contrast to some publications by some local climate scientists and publicized by Mayor Nickels. The reaction was intense. One of my colleagues, Mark Albright, who was the first to notice the lack of snowpack loss was fired as associate State Climatologist. I was told in the hallways to keep quiet about it…the denier types would take advantage of it!…. I have heard case after case of similar treatment…so this is no anomaly.”

I could go on an on about the Big Lie machine. I could go on about how the NASA data was fiddled to make it seem the 1990’s was the US’s warmest decade instead of the 1930’s, or I could show you the shocking worldwide cull of thousands of ‘cold’ weather stations. But these facts I urge you find out for yourself. Knowledge is power, empower yourself and become a freethinker. Use the Internet before Obama shuts it down later this year. He is doing this by way of legislation now before the US Congress. None other than Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V has put forward every fascist dictator’s wet dream in Senate bills No. 773 and 778 as part of the Cybersecurity Act. Thus Rockefeller Senior will have used well his Bilderberg puppet, Barack Obama. If Congress grants the bills then the White House will take to itself sweeping new powers to regulate the cybersecurity, even shut down Internet traffic during a declared ‘cyber emergency’ that may well be set occur sometime in 2010. We already see their gambit for such a move being played out with the latest raft of ‘false-flag’ bomb attacks on international flights, across the Middle East, etc.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag

Al-Qaeda is actually a CIA Brigade flying a false flag. The Arab world has been poked with a western big stick so long now you will never know the difference between the real jihadists and the false-flaggers. Even former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski testified to the Senate that the war on terror is “a mythical historical narrative.”

I urge everyone to waste no further time. Please research these facts online and the ‘penny will drop’. Also, try to catch some of Lord Monckton. See his freely available videos before the thought police have YouTube shut him down on “cyber security” grounds:

Just as in Nazi Germany, the fascists target the young to indoctrinate them to be the vanguard of the movement. The neo-fascists are not above breaking existing national laws to get their message across. Despite the English courts ruling against the fraudulent lies of Al Gore’s sci-fi comedy, “An Inconvenient Truth’ the UK government still shows it on British schools. Despite a High Court judge ruling that Gore’s film was ‘one-sided’ and would breach education rules unless accompanied by a warning to schoolchildren, Mr Justice Burton’s warning that the film contained nine lies has been ignored.

I took heed to what Justice Burton said. That’s when I first looked into this controversy for myself. I learned as a concerned parent of two teenage children attending a typical English school, that despite Justice Burton’s ruling, teachers here are still compelled to teach the alarmist line. Scepticism is not addressed in the classroom. Kids are politicised early and spoonfed Malthusian scare stories that are as false today as when they were first heard over 200 years ago.

http://whyfiles.org/096y6b/5.html

The greens are avid neo-malthusians and neglect to tell you that the rise in carbon dioxide, the key to photosynthesis, is good because it is a plant food that will increase crop yields by up to 30% if CO2 levels continue to rise at current rates. Obama lies when he calls this benign gas a ‘pollutant.’

‘Global Warming’ is, and always was, a policy for genocidal reduction of the world’s population. The preposterous claim that human-produced carbon dioxide will broil the Earth, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life, first came out of a 1975 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, organized by the influential anthropologist Margaret Mead, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Ever since, a disparate assembly of communists, eugenicists, self-serving politicians and scientists, have jumped on the eco-bandwagon for their own interests. This was where Maurice Strong, a ‘big oil’ buddy of Rockefeller took control inside the UN. Strong drew up the international road map to a corrupt one-world government under the control of the richest. In a 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by self-described ‘ecosocioeconomist’ professor Ignacy Sachs, Maurice Strong was able to advance a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years.

Thanks in no small part to Strong’s long stint at the upper level of the UN until 2005, the ‘big oil’ interests of despots like David Rockeffeller have been well served.

And the tyrants know the people will learn of these facts very soon. The despotic elite is ready to shut down dissent. Obama has served Rockeffeller’s agenda so well and betrayed the American people that he is now officially the most unpopular US president. Because of (unreported) growing public outrage over cap and trade, Climategate and false flag imperialist plotting Obama’s administration foresees severe internal strife. According to Russian Military Analysts reporting to Prime Minister Putin, the US President has issued orders to his Northern Command’s (U.S. NORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to “begin immediately” increasing his military forces to one million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.

http://atomicnewsreview.org/2009/11/30/obama-orders-1-million-us-troops-to-prepare-for-civil-war/

All of this was foretold by the those who had studied the Club of Rome’s publication, Limits to Growth, which removed the role of scientific advances, was drummed into the public consciousness. The hubris of the rich elite encourages their bravado. Lately, even Al Gore admits that humans could not have been the driver of global warming before 2001.

http://www.infowars.com/al-gore-admits-co2-does-not-cause-majority-of-global-warming/

The Big Lie machine has also been spun about nuclear energy. Nuclear power was under attack, because of its promise of virtually unlimited cheap energy to support a growing population. In the guise of protecting the world from potential terrorism, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty prohibited developing countries from acquiring civilian nuclear technologies. Any nation that dares seek nuclear energy to lift the burden of energy poverty from its people is immediately condemned as a potential threat to US security and must be quashed.

But as time passes we learn that the MSM has had some success at massaging public opinion against such ‘enemies.’ Many of us still send our sons, brothers and fathers to risk their lives to fight the ‘threat’ in the ‘war on terror.’ It all sounds as ridiculous and imponderable as ‘fighting climate change.’ At this late hour, just before the trap of global tyranny is about to snare us, that conspiracy that brings shame on both the US and UK governments is being exposed by online bloggers that bypass the MSM lies. We now know the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was the ‘trial run’ for the Anglo-American Empire to test its mettle for world domination against the wishes and the laws of the United Nations. Britain and America took Iraq unlawfully. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people died. No WMD was ever found. The UN sat on its hands.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/major-fears-regime-change-was-blairs-motive-for-iraq-war-1855695.html

Soon it will be Iran. US forces are currently deployed ready for an invasion. These criminal enterprises are not about preserving our freedoms, as Bush and Blair sought to portray. No, Bush and Blair (and now Obama) are motivated purely for political and financial gain to bring about regime change. All to achieve the ultimate goal of fulfilling the Bilderberg agenda: one world global government, a central bank under their authority, punitive global green taxes and eugenic international population control.

The game-players continue to toy with our lives. By the same token the people of Europe were given their taste of another Bilderberg ‘trail run.’ They successfully advanced their own puppet to become the first president of the ‘United States of Europe.’ A small, rich clique determined that outcome in a Bilderberg meeting and installed their crony Rompuy of Belgium, a nonentity unknown to 99% of Europeans. Despite the historic nature of the occasion the deceit and its implications were not mentioned by the MSM

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4181

Ordinary citizens are realising there is no point in casting votes to elect conservatives or liberals, republicans or democrats, capitalists or socialists. No, it seems whichever candidate we choose the rich elite gets to them. The game in the US has been loaded since that sham stooge Jimmy Carter took office. Every US president since then is either a Bilderberger or Trialateralist working for the same crooks that hide behind the scenes. We have learnt that whichever candidate we put into power, the real power always resides with the same despotic megalomaniacs. The European Union is the proof to the world of a “federal” oligarchy run from Brussels for the principle benefit of those who support the aims and ambitions of David Rockefeller and his ilk.

By the same process of deception, lies, misinformation and conspiracy was the Copenhagen Climate Conference set up to be the dawn of the legal entity of One World Government. It was never about ‘climate change.’ The parallels to be drawn with the great propaganda coup that made eugenics a ‘noble’ crusade in post-Weimar Germany truly scare me. Free speech on the Internet will be shut down for good once Senator Rockefeller’s Senate bills No. 773 and 778 are passed. After that it’s welcome to the 21st century’s remake of George Orwell’s ‘1984.’

I entirely endorse the sentiments of James Delingpole in his insightful article. I urge you to read his words and those of others I have cited or linked here:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100021097/2010-reasons-not-to-be-cheerful-part-1/

His eloquence and understanding stand as a beacon of light shining as bright as that of Lord Monckton,

and other heroes of our age, Steve McIntyre, the guy that filed all of those pesky FOIA requests of “The Team” over the past 8 years.

http://climateaudit.org/

and Alan Watts, the man who exposed the shocking truth of wretched ground weather station mismanagement and cherry-picking.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Please heed these men and women as time is short.