Greenhouse Gas Theory Trashed as Dissenters Build Compelling Case

Newly-released emails reveal an intense private debate signalling a sharp shift among scientists away from the discredited greenhouse gas global warming theory.

The hitherto unseen correspondence between leading climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer and former NASA and DuPont engineer, Dr. Pierre R Latour, one of an increasing number of experts now attacking the crumbling science, exposes a key fallacy in the so-called man-made global warming theory.

Dr. Spencer’s essay “Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still” (July 23, 2011), written to support the greenhouse gas effect (GHE) the science behind man-made global warming has sparked increased criticism since publication. Dr. Spencer, without question a leading researcher of great integrity, has since gone on record to concede that he may be wrong and being misled by an ‘assumption bias.’

 It was apparent assumptions in Spencer’s “Yes, Virginia” essay that inspired Dr. Latour, who first made a name for himself working on NASA’s Apollo Space program, to publish a counter-argument to Spencer's essay entitled, “No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still.” [1.]

Thereafter, Dr. Latour made his first email contact with Dr. Spencer on November 4, 2011. The good-natured email discussion was marked by Latour's gracious acknowledgement of Spencer’s achievements in the vanguard of fighting the man-made global warming fraud.

On one issue both men absolutely agree on is that there is now compelling evidence pointing to misconduct, incompetence and endless unlawful cover-ups by a clique of discredited government climate scientists.

But Dr. Latour goes further in his criticism. Semi-retired after a stellar career, Latour is one of many eminent experts now becoming increasingly outspoken and declaring the GHE as “junk science.” His position was summarized in US Senate Reports. [2.& 3.]

Spencer's article lends support to the discredited idea that cold CO2 [carbon dioxide] high in the atmosphere back-radiates to Earth’s warmer surface, heating it more and causing it to radiate to the atmosphere and space with higher intensity than it would without cold CO2 back-radiation. To Latour this contradicted all he saw in his branch of applied science, chemical engineering, and needed to be confronted head on. Engineers must ensure their theories are in harmony with the Second Law of thermodynamics: energy only flows from a hot source to a cold sink, not the other way around. If that law is violated, it can lead to the theory creating energy and driving global warming, a violation of the First Law conservation of energy. That would be a perpetual motion machine, impossible to build. It appears Dr Spencer and the UN IPCC succumbed to this fallacy at the start, as depicted in the famous 1997 Kiehl-Trenberth radiation flow diagram.

Echoing the analysis of another climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball, Latour insists that the apparent errors in atmospheric physics made by climatologists are because they work in a 'generalist' field of science, unlike most ‘hard’ sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, engineering and medicine where detailed and in-depth specialization is essential so that products and services actually work.

 Leaked Climategate 2.0 Emails Show No Research into Greenhouse Effect

Despite congratulating Spencer for so much good science Latour asserts that Spencer’s interpretation of reality in his “Yes, Virginia” essay was readily disproved, not just by observations, but also by two different mathematical proofs that illustrate the fallacy of greenhouse gas warming. The Spencer-Latour emails, found here, stand as an erudite microcosm of the intense broader debate now pervading the blogosphere, with GHE believers looking increasingly in disarray.

To Latour the blatant political advocacy and aversion to traditional scientific processes displayed in the Climategate emails are a major clue as to how and why the generalists of climatology could have gotten the atmospheric physics so wrong for so long.

 Since the release of a second batch of 5,000 new Climategate emails in November 2011 (the first came in November 2009) observers from other sciences are staggered at how climatologists never questioned their own core “assumption bias” of their climate change hypothesis: the greenhouse gas effect. Indeed, despite around $100 billion spent on climate research, none of Climategate emails shows researchers addressing the need to test their hypothesis that increased levels of carbon dioxide would warm the atmosphere. Crazily, government scientists have accepted the GHE hypothesis without question since its inception in the Victorian era (before the advent of radiative and quantum physics).

 Spencer's “Yes, Virginia” article now appears to be an incongruous and muddled defense of the ailing hypothesis creaking under a weight of consistently conflicting satellite data and ground measurements. Above all, scientists are seeing there is no longer any correlation between rising CO2 levels and flat lining surface temperatures. Indeed, the only period in the last century where rises in CO2 levels were in step with rises in Earth's temperature was in the short period from 1975 to 1998.

 New Science Paper Proves Climate Has Sensitivity Lower than Expected

 Coincidence is a wondrous thing and Latour has gained a supportive assessment from an unlikely source: the mainstream journal Science. That has now published what may be the first of many backtracking papers conceding, “Results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.” [4.]

 With even bandwagon climatologists now conceding that climate sensitivity to CO2 is less than previously believed, fears over CO2 warming are looking ever-more scientifically ridiculous. As a consequence, the collapse of man-made global warming alarmism is underway in earnest.

Also, in recent months more scientists are joining with engineers with highly specialist knowledge of thermodynamics to point out that a key feature of the GHE, the hot re-radiation of cold absorbed radiation would violate the Second Law of thermodynamics, leading to the creation of energy, violating the First Law of thermodynamics. Thus greenhouse gas theorists appear to have unquestioningly relied on a fanciful perpetual motion machine effect in their numbers to sustain global warming.

Latour Joins Ranks of New Climate Think Tank

 Latour has let it be known he has read and been most impressed with Slaying the Sky Dragon (published: November 2010), the world’s first full-volume refutation of the GHE. As a consequence he has now joined the 'Slayers' think tank as an advisor and contributor. Latour is now eyeing up a proposed second edition to the ground-breaking book. As such he plans to draw increasing attention to the wealth of chemical engineering that tells us there can be no “trapped heat” due to the so-called “back-radiation” of the trace gas, CO2, which emits energy just as fast and as efficiently as it absorbs it.

 Always a stickler for thoroughness as a Chemical Process Control Systems Engineer, Latour had long worked at the sharp end of applied science. His special aptitude earned him his place in the Apollo Space program, where life and death decisions meant that when the theory contradicted reality you changed the theory. In 1997 he analysed the atmosphere as a chemical process system and proved any thermostat adjusting fossil fuel combustion was un-measurable, unobservable and uncontrollable; it would never work. Control systems engineers use these mathematical criteria, developed in 1970s, before embarking on building control systems. He finds engineering is denied involvement in UN IPCC, government and college research on AGW. Europe is paying dearly in 2011 for failing to check the engineering validity of CO2 Cap & Trade schemes.

 Latour is hopeful he will win over Spencer so he, too, becomes yet another convert to the GHE 'Slayers' and by publishing their emails it is hoped that others will recognise a paradigm shift in climate science is very much underway. Links to the articles plus the email correspondence between these two distinguished experts are all readily accessed from here.

References:

[1.] Latour corrected a math typo in this complete version of November 9, 2011.

[2.] U S Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims; Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009, March 16, 2009, page 87.

[3.] Update, U S Senate Minority Report: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims; Scientists Continue to Debunk Fading “Consensus” in 2008, 2009 & 2010, December 8, 2010, page 153. 

[4.] Schmittner, A., et al. ‘Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum,’ Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1203513

Desperate Climate Campaigner Stoops to Criminality to Smear Skeptics

In a week when skeptics of the predicted man-made climate catastrophe are having their computers seized by police, a more patently criminal campaign of harassment is now underway in the blogosphere. But is an ironic twist in store?

It appears faked and defamatory web pages are currently being created and disseminated around the Internet by green crusader, Andrew Skolnick, a former Associate Editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) fired from his post for misconduct.

A disgruntled Mr. Skolnick has been hard at work hoping to salvage his shattered reputation and forlorn dreams of Big Green Global Government. Now reduced to scraping a meager income as a pet photographer an embittered Andrew Skolnick seems to be pursuing a hate campaign against those conducting honest skeptical scientific inquiry into the man-made global warming narrative.

Fired Photo Journalist Caught Faking Photos?

It seems Mr. Skolnick has been using his ample spare time to create anti-skeptic malicious counterfeit web pages for his nefarious use and distributing them to prominent participants on both sides of the ongoing climate debate. Mr. Skolnick has been exceedingly downcast since the British Columbia Law Society threw out his complaint against me in my capacity as consultant to prominent skeptic climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball. More on that in my article, Canada Bar Association Rules ‘No Misconduct’ by Tim Ball’s Legal Team.

The latest matter is subject to an internal investigation by the providers of the popular networking website for professionals, Linkedin, whose system and identity may have been misappropriated in the scam. As such we may yet see criminal charges, under New York’s Penal Code, against Mr.Skolnick (NY resident) pursued by this author (also possessing NY residence).

As background to this story, Mr. Skolnick has made repeated accusations that I have been criminally portraying myself as a licensed attorney. But I have never made any such claims and he's not offered any verifiable proof of it. Pointedly, in the six months since “investigative journalist” Skolnick first made his wild assertions I've yet to hear from the police, let alone be indicted for false representation. That speaks volumes as does the dismissal of the formal complaint Skolnick made against me with the British Columbia Law Society. [1.]

Embittered, Defeated and Forlorn

At the root of it all is that the ex-JAMA bad boy is irked that I have successfully assisted Dr. Tim Ball in his ongoing defense against the vexatious libel suit of Dr. Michael Mann. Mann took exception when Ball opined that Mann belonged, “in the State Pen, not Penn. State” for allegedly faking his infamous ‘hokey stick’ graph. It's such a pivotal lawsuit in the entire global warming controversy and one I'm so convinced Dr. Ball is right about that I've provided his attorney with a legally binding undertaking and formally "bet the farm" on him beating Mann.

Undeterred by such moral conviction, our intrepid “investigator” wasn’t going to give up so easily in his smear campaign. This week Skolnick says he just happened to be browsing the Linkedin professional networking website when he stumbled upon a web page called “John O.” He claims that upon examining the page he found it was mine and used by me for the purposes of defaming him; all an utter pack of lies.

Now our petulant pet photographer’s dastardly plan is fast unraveling because the eagle eyes of others spotted critical flaws in what Skolnick claims is his genuine "screenshot" of this mythical “John O” Linkedin profile. I say ‘mythical’ because no such profile appears to have ever existed (except, perhaps, in the photo editing software on Mr. S’s computer!).

Skolnick Skullduggery Deliciously Exposed

Below I submit for reader examination Skolnick’s “John O” evidence so that it may be seen it is a counterfeit by comparing the page formatting, text, color and layout with my actual Linkedin profile page.

Skolnick’s “John O” fabrication is on the left, on the right is a bona fide screenshot of my actual Linkedin profile that anyone can verify as genuine by visiting the Linkedin website here.

As can readily be seen from the images, the web pages appear to have dissimilar font sizes; Skolnick’s has additional text lines, altered line spacing, plus a darker toned background compared with my genuine Linkedin profile page.

For fuller affect Mr. Skolnick emailed this “evidence” to me and 29 other recipients prominent in the ongoing climate debate. Evidently, the ruse was to persuade the 29 to roundly condemn me and convey words of sympathy and comfort to the injured Mr. Skolnick.

But so damning for Skolnick is that Linkedin may soon confirm there is no such profile currently on their server because the bogus  “John O”  never did exist to begin with. So where did it originate? NY Police may soon have the answers if Linkedin can confirm grounds for “probable cause.” They can then execute a search warrant on Mr. Skolnick and seize his computer for forensic analysis. Now that’s a REAL reason for a police raid in these climate capers.

[1.] Pursuant to the LSBC investigation I submitted proof of my law degree and evidence that I attended the law school of the University of Surrey (1979-82). 

John O’Sullivan is a science writer and legal analyst, coordinator of the ‘Slayers’ and founder member of Principia Scientific International (PSI).

 

Eight Questions to kill the Kyoto Climate Protocol in 2012

As Canada becomes the first major nation to cut and run from the UN’s global warming scam a prominent environmentalist now plunges another deadly dagger into the soft underbelly of junk climate science.

 Geologist and radio and TV broadcaster Leighton Steward succinctly points to eight crucial unanswered questions to slay the mythical climate dragon. The questions Steward poses should now be thrust to the fore as nations scramble for excuses to pull the plug on the Kyoto Protocol’s life support after the abject failure of the UN’s COP17 talks in Durban.

 It’s these eight glaring anomalies in the science that Peter Kent, Canada's environment minister, can add to those 14 billion other reasons (those dollars saved in unpaid UN penalties) why his nation was right to bail out of the biggest scam in history.

 Canada, the new climate realist at the party, joins Japan and Russia in steadfastly refusing any new Kyoto-style climate commitments. The CO2-limiting treaty, signed by various world governments in 1997 expires in December 2012 with little if any prospect of a replacement in sight before 2020. But joy of joys, Kyoto is increasingly exposed for being premised on the discredited hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would precipitate runaway global warming.

 Inconvenient Questions Routinely Dodged by Alarmist Advocates

 In his analysis ‘The climate-change con artists’ for WorldNetDaily (December 9, 2011) Steward lists his eight straightforward key questions that climate science dodged for decades and which must be addressed before cash-strapped governments ever again vote to fatten UN coffers:

 

• Why can't warming alarmists produce a single legitimate example of empirical evidence to support the manmade global-warming hypothesis?

• Why has Earth been warming for 300 years when man has only emitted measurable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for the last 150 years?

• Why did Earth cool for 500 years before the recent 300-year warming and warm for several hundred years before that when even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says CO2 levels did not change?

• Why was the Medieval Warm Period, a thousand years ago, warmer than today even though the CO2 level was 38 percent lower than today?

• Why did many of Earth's major glaciers in the Alps. Asia, New Zealand and Patagonia begin to retreat nearly half a century before the Industrial Revolution and man's CO2 emissions?

• Of the last five interglacials, going back 400,000 years, why is our current interglacial the coolest of the five even though Earth's CO2 level is about 35 percent higher?

• Why has our current 10,000-year-long Holocene epoch been warmer than today for 50 percent of the time when CO2 levels were about 35 percent lower than today?

• Why are correlations of Earth's temperature with natural factors such as sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths, solar magnetic variations and changes in major ocean currents all better than the correlation of Earth's temperature with CO2 levels?

Why are such inconvenient yet crucial questions still left unanswered? What turns mere incompetence into wilful fraud is that these 'researchers' were also intentionally ignoring all evidence that disproved their hypothesis.

 Governments and voters may now fairly infer that for the last 30 years a clique of government climate scientists in English-speaking nations deliberately wasted millions toying with unfeasible toy models hoping (but failing) to concoct a causal link between carbon and climate.

Two Degrees Celsius Drop in Temperatures ‘Plucked out of Thin Air’

 The evidence for fraud gets more compelling when we add to the mix the leaked Climategate 2.0 emails of November 2011. Our conscientious friendly whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, England (UEA) shows us that government climatologists secretly concede the science to back Kyoto is paper thin.

 A main requirement is that the treaty demands a two degree Celsius drop in global temperatures. But top UEA climate scientist, Professor Jones, admits that no scientific basis was ever established for the “2 degrees Celsius” benchmark. Jones admits:

 “The 2 deg C limit is talked about by a lot within Europe. It is never defined though what it means…. I know you don’t know the answer, but I don’t either! I think it is plucked out of thin air.”

[Phil Jones email to C. Kremer; Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:40 PM]

 Thus opinion trumps hard evidence in the topsy-turvy world of climate science as further substantiated by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). Buried deep in the 2007 IPCC Report is the disturbing fact that climatologists admit to “low” or “very low” understanding of 13 of the 15 factors that drive climate. [1.]

 No wonder Professor Jones chose to break the law and refuse to honor Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests from independent researchers. There was so little evidence to back all those doomsaying climate claims and Jones didn't want to be caught giving policymakers mere opinions (dressed as 'fact'). He and his co-conspirators needed to keep milking that research cash cow. All the while, gleeful that their scientists were giving them ammunition to concoct apocalyptic scenarios to scare the public into paying ever higher taxes, the politicians went along with the scam. Just follow the money, as they say.

 As Icecap reports, Penn State University, a hub of climate alarm, alone acquired $470,000,000 in federal grants and contracts between 2010 and 2011. After the Sandusky child sex scandal the world now sees just how Penn State values profit over principle.

 The US government alone spent over $106 billion on climate research money between 2003 and 2010. Such munificence can buy a lot of ‘consensus’ in university laboratories. Opinionated and ill-informed faux climate science was thus used to justify a $100-billion-a-year “climate change reparation and mitigation” fund for poor nations.

 That hotchpotch treaty, designed to severely restrict human emissions of an essential life-giving gas (CO2), offered nothing for the planet while impoverishing humanity by crippling industrial development.

 Canada Saves Taxpayer Billions in Moment of Climate Realism

 In short, Kyoto was never about climate change but more probably a nefarious UN vehicle for global population control and wealth redistribution – a veritable gravy train for corrupt and opinionated ideologues. No wonder Peter Kent, Canada's environment minister, denounced Kyoto as one of Canada’s “biggest” policy errors. At the earliest opportunity (Monday 12, December 2011) the Canadian government sensibly invoked its legal rights and withdrew from the Kyoto agreement.

 By bailing out of the UN’s climate Ponzi scheme Canada will now save itself having to pay $US14 billion ($A13.94 billion) in needless penalties for not achieving its Kyoto targets. Mike Hudema of Greenpeace Canada reacted to the news with the expected doomsayer hyperbole: "The Harper government has imposed a death sentence on many of the world's most vulnerable populations by pulling out of Kyoto.”

Yet Canada’s environment minister aptly summed up the lunacy of the extreme cost of climate legislation, as it would be:

“the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agriculture sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada.”

Thus by consideration of the aforesaid paucity of hard evidence and Leighton Steward’s Eight Unanswered Questions the Kyoto Protocol deserves to be tossed into the trash can of history. Rest assured, Canada will be just the first of a glut of nations abandoning pointless and moribund UN ‘emissions targets’ that do more harm than good.

 Taxpayers have a right to demand this secretive, corrupt and wasteful culture in government science be swept away. It urgently needs replacing with a new era of principled, open and objective science.

 [1.] IPCC: Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis; 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing.

 John O’Sullivan is a science writer and legal analyst, coordinator of the ‘Slayers’ and founder member of Principia Scientific International (PSI).

Scandal and insanity at Penn State, Durban and the IPCC

The following is published with the author's permission (Paul Driessen). Climate fraud proves insanity of extending Kyoto, renewable subsidies and economic mayhem In a repeat of Copenhagen, on the eve of the Durban climate change gabfest, someone released another horde of emails from alarmist climate researchers, including Dr. Michael Mann, whose infamous “hockey stick” was headlined in the 2001 IPCC report to justify the Kyoto agreement and demands that nations slash fossil fuel use and economic growth.

Meanwhile, back on Dr. Mann’s campus, Pennsylvania State University was confronting the sordid Jerry Sandusky affair. Sports Illustrated summarized the Augean Stables task in an article titled “Missteps at every turn: Efforts to clean up Penn State reveal how deep the institutional problems lie.”

As SI noted, a key judge in the case, Pennsylvania’s governor, Penn State’s new athletic director and even the attorney appointed to head up a “full and complete” internal investigation all have deep and longstanding ties to the university and/or its big-money football team. Noting these and other “blatant conflicts of interest,” the magazine quoted new PSU president Rodney Erickson as saying, “Penn State is committed to transparency to the fullest extent possible” [emphasis added] – in view of relevant financial, personal and other considerations, and special exemptions that Penn State enjoys from disclosure laws.

SI ended the article by asking, “Is Penn State cleaning house? Or simply rearranging the furniture?”

The same question applies to Dr. Mann. In the wake of Climategate 2009, Penn State hurriedly exonerated him and his department of any wrongdoing, as did NOAA and the National Science Foundation. The blatant whitewashes reflect the desperation of organizations intent on preserving their money train and perpetuating the Hollywood façade of manmade catastrophic climate change.

All three organizations are at the forefront of fraudulent climate alarmism and its agenda of “radically transforming” the energy and economic foundations of modern nations. As IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri has said, climate change is “just a part of” the effort “to bring about major structural changes” in “unsustainable” economic growth, development and lifestyles.

The agenda involves slashing carbon dioxide levels to 80% below 1990 levels. That would carry the United States back to emission levels last seen during the American Civil War – devastating the economy.

Together these institutions receive billions of dollars in annual government grants that foster one line of thinking on “global climate disruption” – another term concocted to spin weather and climate events as unprecedented disasters resulting from hydrocarbon energy use. Delegates from all three institutions get to attend annual climate confabs at exotic 5-star resorts, to promote “the cause” of ending mankind’s “addiction” to fossil fuels and establishing “global governance” under UN auspices.

For all these institutions, full-blown independent investigations – with adverse witnesses, cross-examination, and access to data and records denied to previous investigators – could result in lost income, prestige, and power over public policy decisions. Honest, replicable, truly peer-reviewed, robustly debated science into the causes, effects and extent of climate change would do likewise.

For Penn State, global warming represents a significant cash cow. As meteorologist Art Horn has noted, the university received a whopping $470,000,000 in federal grants and contracts between 2010 and 2011. Neither Mann nor Penn State is saying how much went to climate research. But since the US government spent over $106 billion on climate research money between 2003 and 2010, PSU undoubtedly received a hefty portion for promoting the official alarmist viewpoint.

No wonder they refused to turn over raw data and computer codes to other scientists, IPCC reviewers and even investigators – claiming these were private property, even though taxpayers paid for them and the results generated are being used to justify endless energy, job and economy-killing public policies.

At the tip of the policy iceberg are EPA’s (postponed) CO2 “endangerment” regulations, its boiler and refinery rules, its reams of restrictions on coal-fired power plants, the agency’s opposition to hydraulic shale fracturing and the Keystone XL pipeline, and its new automobile mileage rules, which will raise the cost of cars, reduce crash-worthiness and result in thousands of additional deaths in accidents. Mann’s deceptive models and hockey sticks are also being used to justify a $100-billion-a-year “climate change reparation and mitigation” fund for poor nations, to be financed directly by FRCs (formerly rich countries) or via “climate taxes” imposed on international air travel and imported and exported products.

Also benefitting from the corrupt Climate Armageddon research machine are crony capitalists and climate profiteers too numerous to count: the renewable energy and carbon trading firms that depend on climate scares to maintain renewable energy, “green job,” carbon trading, and similar mandates and schemes.

As Competitive Enterprise Institute analyst Bill Frezza has observed, the US Department of Energy invested $529 million in taxpayer-subsidized loan guarantees to build North America’s largest lithium ion automotive battery plant … to supply a Finnish electric car manufacturer backed by Al Gore’s venture capital fund … to ship 40 (!) cars to the USA to date … so that they can be purchased by “environment-motivated” millionaires like Leonardo DeCaprio, who receive $7,500 tax credits for buying the cars.

Add in billions for wind turbines and solar panels … billions to persuade the poorest nations on Planet Earth to endure “sustainable” lifestyles, rather than modernize through reliable, affordable and, yes, hydrocarbon energy … and billions for IPCC and other UN bureaucrats, who insist that drought and flood, cold and heat, storm and sea level events are no longer due to natural forces, but to mankind’s use of fossil fuels – and we’re talking serious money.

Global warming alarmism could ultimately cause the global economy trillions of dollars.

Meanwhile, what about average workers and families? They get none of these perks, sinecures, subsidies and handouts. Instead, they get to pay taxes to support the bureaucrats, pseudo scientists and activists. They get to pay soaring energy bills that subsidize wind, solar and climate schemes, while driving families into fuel poverty. They get to lose their jobs, as companies faced with skyrocketing energy bills lay people off, close their doors or ship jobs off to overseas factories that have cheap energy and cheap labor, because China, India, et cetera do not and will not operate under Kyoto-style restrictions.

What about families in destitute African countries, where 90% of the people still don’t have electricity – because radical environmentalists, IPCC and World Bank operatives, and Obama Administration bureaucrats collude to delay or prevent the construction of coal and even gas-fired power plants?

It’s remotely possible that we face a genuine manmade climate crisis. It’s highly likely that mankind will continue to confront natural climate changes that compel adaptation through ingenuity and technology.

However, Climategate 1 and 2, The Delinquent Teenager and other exposés make it clear that the climate crisis cabal deliberately altered data, misrepresented and withheld crucial information, squelched inquiry and debate, and presented a one-sided narrative, so as to protect their revenues and reputations, and drive an anti-hydrocarbon agenda. Until truly convincing evidence is presented, vetted and fully debated – that fossil fuels are causing catastrophic warming and climate disruption – Kyoto and its proposed successors should be terminated, and the frenzied rush to kill fossil fuels and embrace renewables should be ended.

Penn State needs to conduct a real investigation, by honest independent analysts who have no ties to the university or the climate crisis consortium. Its trustees took bold, decisive action on the Sandusky scandal. They need to do the same thing with Professor Mann, his department and colleagues.

Far too much is at stake – for the university, United States and world at large – to permit Penn State (or the IPCC and White House) to merely rearrange the furniture.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

 

Official: I Just Bet My House on the Outcome of Science Trial of the Century

No truer headline will you read. Yesterday this author literally wagered his home, life savings, and all his possessions on the outcome of a crucial global warming lawsuit currently ongoing in Canada.

 
So what is it that drove me to such apparent recklessness endangering not only my own well-being but that of my family? Well, to me this pivotal lawsuit encapsulates the archetypal 'good versus evil' battle no conscientious parent can ignore. Facing each other is Plaintiff, Dr. Michael Mann (he of ‘hockey stick’ graph infamy) representing so-called UN ‘consensus’ climate science. Mann claims his work proves humans are dangerously warming the planet. Defendant, retired Canadian climatologist, Dr. Timothy Ball believes Mann was a key player in the Climategate scandal and has hidden his dodgy tree-ring data for over 13 years to cover up fakery in the numbers. Mann and his ilk are not only responsible for scaring the bejesus out of our kids but are being used as part of a bigger plot involving population control and wealth re-distribution; none of which is good for your family or mine.

 

Dr. Mann, Director of Earth System Science at Penn. State, the university currently embroiled in the Jerry Sandusky child sex cover up scandal, has enjoyed a lucrative career on the back of his fantastic claims. Dr. Ball famously declared that his adversary belongs “in the state pen, not Penn State.” For that Ball was summarily hit with a libel suit and Ball's legal fees could exceed $300,000. But defiantly, the septuagenarian says, “if you think education is expensive – try ignorance.”

I recently drew attention to the remarkable similarities in the cover-up processes performed for the benefit of Mann and Sandusky  at Penn. State. At their root, both cases share the same stench of self-serving financial sleaze.

So persuasive is the evidence to me that last night I signed a contract in favor of Dr. Ball to forsake my worldly goods in the event the B.C. court ruled in favor of his adversary, Dr. Michael Mann .

 An honest jury will see from Ball's evidence that Mann perpetrated a cynical and heinous crime by secretly doctoring proxy climate data from a handful of tree rings he took from a corner of California that was then claimed to represent a 1,000-year temperature record for the globe. The Mann graph typifies all that is wrong with post-normal science now practiced in our universities.

 As the two bitterly opposed climatologists battle it out toe-to-toe the stakes aren’t just high for me they are high for you, too. But with your support, I'm more than quietly confident of success.

 With billions of dollars of climate taxes resting on the outcome, it’s no flannel to label the Mann-v-Ball trial in the British Columbia Supreme Court as the ‘science trial of the century,’ the most profound of its kind since the Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’ of 1925.

 Ball, a 72-year-old retiree has already used up his meager life savings but has made some headway with his escalating legal costs thanks to a fighting fund that is now past the $100,000 mark. But there’s a lot of lawyerly manouvering to go yet before Ball can be assured of victory.

The sickening level of corruption that is now pervading our universities is making many honest folk realize they need to stand shoulder to shoulder with principled scientists like Dr. Ball. In recent months I’ve worked hard to help promote Tim Ball’s Legal Defense Fund. But my efforts also made me a target for Michael Mann’s attorney, Roger McConchie, who didn’t hesitate in naming me as an accessory in his lawsuit. So as a yardstick of commitment to the case, yesterday I signed a binding legal agreement providing my full financial indemnity to Tim in case Mann wins his claim.

I had little reason to hesitate. My conscience was reassured after reading more of the fresh crop of Climategate 2.0 emails that are so damning of Mann’s ‘science.’ I urge readers to examine for themselves Steve Milloy's selection of those emails and see how caustic Mann’s colleagues were privately about his “crap” tree ring graph. The striking difference between those scientists and Dr. Ball is that only Ball had the courage to speak out publicly.

Without experts as principled as Dr. Ball it is very unlikely the general public would be any the wiser about the grotesque billion-dollar fraud called man-made global warming. So please donate what money you can and become part of this force for good.

(Note: Ball’s law firm, Pearlman Lindholm are entrusted to administer the account. Donors contributing $10,000 or more will be reimbursed dependent on a favorable court ruling).