In this article we turn the focus on the UK’sGuardian as this stridently leftist national newspaper sets itself the pointless task of a diversionary, “unique experiment” into allegedly unravelling the truth behind the Climategate emails. Guardian readers are now being asked to read the paper’s analysis of the Climategate emails and then
“send in your own annotations.”
In other words, they’ve been found out as being incapable of doing real journalism – something skeptics have been telling them for years. Now they need readers to do their job for them. Perhaps our readers might oblige?
But please be under no illusions that the Guardian has had some epiphany and is abandoning being just a mouthpiece of the UN’s IPCC. Oh, no, not a bit of it. Look no further than the top skeptic science blog, WUWT to see their latest take on how conniving and complicit the Guardian truly is in this doomsaying scam.
This parsimonous labelling of us internet skeptics with the meme that we are nasty well-funded shills in the pay of the tobacco and big oil lobby is fast back-firing. I’ve never been paid for my blogging and neither have the tens of millions of other skeptic grass-roots supporters. It’s the Guardian that profits from muck spreading not us.
So with so much misinformation and propaganda in the leftist mainstream media, savvy bloggers have come to rely on their own resources to advance the cause of truth and justice. The internet is where we are exposing the greatest of all Ponzi schemes. We, the public still want the scoops, we want to see what the legal eagles are doing now this circus enters the courtroom stage. For example, we all know that the British government has confirmed climate crimes were perpetrated by British scientists.
Jones confessed he did wrong while the leaked CRU emails proves he encouraged other scientists to break the law.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) stated that Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests were unlawfully refused. This finding thus indicates that one or more climate scientists committed their crimes to cover up data fraud that enabled them to fraudulently procure tens of millions in government grants. But more insidiously, the implication is also that such scientists falsified global warming data upon which international governments may have unecessarily premised public policies on needless mitigation of non-existent ‘global warming’ costing world taxpayers trillions of dollar. I can think of no more pertinent public interest requirement for a rigorous police investigation than this at the very highest level.
However, neither the ICO nor Norfolk Police have have made comment as to whether they intend to pursue such enquiries which, under the Roskill Report (1988) mandates that international fraud involving sums in excess of £1 million be investigated, not by provincial police services acting unliaterally, but by the full weight and expertise of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). The SFO are THE fraud specialists with the powers to apply the Fraud Act (2006), which has no statute of limitations in cases involving conspiracy to defraud.
It is an outrageous abuse of standard procedure that the SFO is not on the case despite Jones’s public admissions and the ICO’s affirmation that climate data was criminally and irrevocably destroyed. As someone who has ligitated for over ten years in government corruption cases I know a political whitewash when I see it. This is the greatest scandal of our age.
But with the greatest scoop at his feet what does Guardian environment journalist, Pearce, the author of ‘The Last Generation: How nature will take her revenge for climate change’ seek to do?
Pearce remains an apologist from climate con artists. He and his cult followers are not interested in detecting and exposing crimes that have already cost hundreds of thousands of lives due to biofuel-induced famine and hundreds of millions in funding junk science and gravy-train showboating by world leaders.
Poor, pathetic Pearce has his eyes resolutely fixated on his navel. He sees the game is almost up and we have reached his credibility tipping point. He won’t be making his fortune from the sale of his ridiculous book. His career, like his socialist dreams are fast headed for the trash can to join Phil Jones’s data.
The growing reluctance of the public to swallow any more of this climate crap has at least, compelled the Guardian to do something, anything to appease the masses. So they have tossed old fumbler Pearce into a metaphorical Petri dish so we can all re- examine those 12 microbe-laden samples of Fred’s ‘take’ on 1,000 Climategate emails. Ok, I’ll join in with this ‘experiment’ for a moment just to prove that environment journalists like Fred are now more exposed than the junk science he blatantly trumpets.
To expose him I put this paragon of the paparazzi under the microscope and my attention was immediately caught by the heading for ‘Part Two’ of this special feature. Immediately Fred gives away his game. As soon as I clicked on the hyperlink the first of many biased headline hit me in the face:
Just like the climatologists Fred knew what his conclusions were going to be even before he started his ‘experiment.’ As you’ll see Fred avoids the science and keeps to the propaganda pitch. But I reserved making further judgment and conscientiously delved deeper.
But, as I’d feared immediately we are continuously fed Pearce’s partisan prose:
“Whether it was democracy in action, or defence against malicious attempts to disrupt research, climate scientists were driven to siege mentality by persistence of sceptics.”
Yes, us nasty skeptics who wanted to know why Jones and his ilk were defying FOIA request and hiding data drove these poor scientists into a ‘seige mentality.’ Way to go, Fred- tell it like you see it. I was pleasantly surprised to find at the end of that article a slew of incisive comments from readers attacking this drivel. Clearly, some Guardian readers are more knowledgeable on the subject than frightful Fred.
But, sadly, as I proceeded to the next instalment what I found in Pearce’s ‘Petri dish’ of an experiment was distinct and unwelcome cross-contamination. Everywhere I looked it was the same moribund organism beginnning to decompose.
In Part 10 Fred gives up that decaying hacker theory and surrenders to idle speculation:
“After the July incident, perhaps CRU failed to batten down the hatches, either through technical failings or because someone inside was subverting the efforts.”
‘Perhaps…either…or’? It’s not very edifying stuff here, Fred. If readers are by now overwhelmed by this odious green guff then save I suggest you cut to the chase and go to Part 12 and amaze yourself (not) with Fred’s considered conclusion:
Oh, now? That’s strange, Fred. I thought Phil Jones had cleared that little issue up for us recently.
Pearce is an establishment relic still twittering to himself hoping someone, somewhere gives a fig about his analysis.But in that alternative green reality, yes, Fred could be right. Not to worry, folks, from decomposition comes new life. And as our environmentalist friends will tell us, that helps to recycle the finite matter that occupies physical space in the biome. Forlorn Fred submits thusly to his dwindling flock:
“Claims based on email soundbites are demonstrably false – there is manifestly no evidence of clandestine data manipulation.”
How pathetic, how sad. Fred says ‘no evidence’ because Jones destroyed it. I just wish mainstream journalists would start to give their readers the real news. Jones committed evidence destruction and manipulation. He destroyed evidence of the crime and that in itself, is a crime. He is still liable. The criminal law is very adept at snagging criminal fraudsters who try to hide their crimes – its par for the course. The Establishment are currently engaged in stage-managing ‘Plan A’ of crisis prevention and the press is letting them get away with it. But being that Britain is on the cusp of a general election speaks volumes:
Thankfully, there are currently under way in the U.S courts 16 ‘Endangerment’ lawsuits filed against the EPA.
I have read the litigants’ briefs and they cite the fact that the ICO affirms data fraud crimes were committed in the UK. Working closely with other skeptic legal associates I have written an article detailing how ordinary citizens can mount legal challenges against these purveyors of an ill-founded one world, un-elected socialist green government.
Such lawsuits will succeed because the data has been destroyed and the defendants in the action, without proof, cannot mount a vigorous defense. Once this scam is busted in the civil U.S. courts the global warming game is over. International governments will give up the ghost on pursuing junk science based cap and trade socialist agendas. The scientists at the hub of this fraud will become sacrificial lambs to a baying public that will demand that heads must roll. I would not want to be in Phil Jones’s, Michael Mann’s, Fred Pearce’s or the Guardian’s green sandals when that day dawns.