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.

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

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/

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s