Carbon Dioxide

Dark Green XVIII: The IPCC’s All-Seeing-Eye (2)

By M.K. Styllinski

All_seeing_eye2 © infrakshun

To reiterate, tearing strips off the IPCC is not some exercise in criticising for its own sake but to highlight where science has been politicised and corrupted. Similarly, there is obviously a huge need to care for our environment and everything else in this precious biosphere. We cannot do this until we have climate science firmly outside activism and where ecological conservation has been innoculated against corporatism and Establishment influence.

If we go back to the Climategate 2.0 scandal, we can see that some of the emails relating to the IPCC are quite illuminating on these points. For example, Professor Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona’s Department of Geosciences deciding what shouldn’t go into the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4):

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change.”

Commenting on another section of an IPCC report he states:

“Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?” [1]

Or Professor Phil Jones of East Anglia University searching for a suitable hurricane paper that dovetails into his beliefs and thus the IPCC AR4 report:

“Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on TC [Tropical Cyclone] activity.” [2]

Each of the climate reports (CRs) are weighty, no more so than the 2007 report at 3,000 pages. No one is going to wade through all of that, least of all the sound-bite media. What is more concerning and goes straight to the heart of why science plays so little part in climate change policy, is the IPCC executive summaries which it prepares for the smaller reports that make up the CRs as a whole. Not more than 35 pages in length, this is called “Summary for Policymakers” which gives you an idea how the IPCC wants these summaries to be used, even though the depth of understanding and contextual analysis may be missing.

Scientists are tasked with drafting these documents which are then passed on to those who meticulously pore over each line so that a cleansed and white-washed copy can be presented for inspection by a clueless media and public. So, these will not be scientific documents at all. These “cleansing” meetings are not open to anyone but IPCC staff and suitably vetted observers from environmental groups or organisations. The media are not permitted entry. A core group of IPCC bureaucrats decide what goes into the reports.

A Climategate 2.0 email by Tim Carter of the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) and Climate Change Programme, writing to IPCC authors seems to confirm this fact even within the AGW brethren:

“Regarding the phrase ‘IPCC position’? Would it be wise to check that McCarthy /Watson have the same understanding as we do.”

And the reply:

[TC] You could try, but it has been tricky getting anyone to make statements about anything. It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.” [3]

Governments and organisations like the IPCC are complicit in the cover up and manipulation of scientific facts. Scientists who contribute to the CRs are being played and used for a political agenda and the short-term greed and the MSM has cheer-led this subterfuge from the beginning. A summary document given out as a press release to the world’s media and public has been put through the politician, bureaucrat and diplomat’s PR machine, vetted to make sure that it conforms to the AGW paradigm in secret and without oversight.

Devoid of facts but replete with conjecture, the media simply parrots the information and goes back to sleep. Indeed, regarding the draft reports the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri openly stated that they are altered, stating: “we necessarily have to ensure that the underlying report conforms to the refinements.” [4]This means regardless of the validity (or not) of expert science, the authors are side-lined and what they have written is tweaked to give unanimous support to the political agenda, an agenda that has been crystallized within the IPCC for more than twenty years.

vendetta3IPCC as authoritarian climate science?

Scientists within the IPCC also have misgivings, such as Mike Hulme Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia. Commenting in a Climategate 2.0 email, he states: “I am increasingly unconvinced by the majority of climate impact studies – including some of those I am involved in – and feel we are not really giving the right message to our audiences.” [5]

There’s an understatement to beat them all.

One of the holy grails of climate change science is computer modelling which has been responsible for much of the perceived advances in recent years. As we saw with the Club of Rome, the nature of computer modelling is fraught with assumption yet fully embraced as if the world operated on perfectly plotted principles. Evolution of any system is defined by its creative unpredictability a mathematical complexity of non-linear and often chaotic events far from equilibrium. In climate modelling a virtual world is set up that seems to be insulated from the “flies-in-the ointment” that may appear in long-term predicative analysis. The opinions of modellers then become a new science divorced from the observational inquiry. As LaFramboise asserts, the climate modelling science of opinion: “… is a recipe for tunnel-vision. It is group think waiting to happen,” and yet another example of the “group mind” steamrolling the creative sparks of objective thought which are not only needed in science but are essential to its healthy functioning so that it remains free from a political and belief-driven consensus.

No rigorous evaluation of climate modelling by independent parties has taken place. (This is presumably due to the love affair our culture is undergoing in relation to technology in general). Instead, the IPCC asks the same modellers to evaluate their own work. This is hardly scientific. Lead author roles for modellers is not the way forward, as there is little chance of them coming to the conclusion that climate modelling may be barking up the wrong tree. Since no true cold-blooded analysis of these models has taken place there is no way to know if they are even useful.

LaFramboise has also discovered that sections in the attribution chapter of the IPCC CRs are also written by climate modellers, the most crucial part of the report which decides the direction of global warming and if it is a man-made or natural cycle. Christopher Monckton and Garth W. Paltridge discovered that is wasn’t just the unreliability of climate modelling that is cause for concern but a strange coded bureaucracy that goes with it. The authors point out:

The big danger is that, with the increasing model complexity and cost, the number of truly independent climate models around the world is decreasing. This is because great slabs of the computer code of a model are often exchanged between research groups so as to avoid writing the stuff from scratch. This sort of exchange satisfies a general bureaucratic tendency to abhor what seems to be a duplication of effort. The net result must surely be a natural decrease in the spread of total feedback over the various remaining models and a consequent joy at the apparent tightening of the range of forecast temperature rise – a tightening that may have nothing at all to do with an improvement in the representation of the physics. [6]

Climate modelling does not ensure the validity of human-influenced global warming claims but rather fits neatly into circumscribed beliefs waiting in the wings. That does not mean to say that global warming is not a reality in some form, but to leave it to climate modelling to define all the parameters by which we can make informed decisions is dangerous because the solutions will lean hugely towards the overarching agenda explored previously. After all, even a minor tweak in feedback representations covering temperature rises can drastically alter a given a picture which can stretch from 1 degree celsius to infinity and beyond. That means that only thing we can be sure of is the fact that the much trumpeted “consensus” on global warming remains a myth.


“Climate models are systems of differential equations based on the basic laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry. To ‘run’ a model, scientists divide the planet into a 3-dimensional grid, apply the basic equations, and evaluate the results. Atmospheric models calculate winds, heat transfer, radiation, relative humidity, and surface hydrology within each grid and evaluate interactions with neighboring points.” (wikipedia)

Climate modelling also fails an important test when it comes to CO2 and temperature increase. In the 2007 IPCC report it even admits that the models do not seem to show the extra heat that should be there if we are to believe the theory. But they believe that the models are still correct and somehow the data out there in the real world is at fault. [7]

And here we come to a few important points relating to climate modelling and the temperature rise hysteria that the media and most academic establishments take for granted. Firstly, and very simply: Positive feedback = the reinforcement or magnification of disturbance. Secondly, Negative feedback = disturb the balance – a counteraction occurs. Thirdly, we have the greenhouse gas theory and the doubling of CO2 which might cause some warming of one degree celsius over a century. But there is the assumption that the climate responds to minute changes resulting in amplification of these changes by hundreds of percent. Positive feedback. But negative feedback is the dominant factor in almost every process in nature yet in climate science positive feedback is assumed to the culprit. Law professor Jason Johnston found in his study that: “climate catastrophe is not an “output of climate analysis but an input.” [8] In other words, the science is based on an assumption with no mention of the positive-negative feedback dichotomy anywhere in the reports.

LaFramboise points out the inevitable conclusion that:

“… the only reason climate models tell us we are at risk of eco apocalypse is because the climate modellers believe our climate system behaves in a manner that is opposite to the way most natural systems behave. If the modellers had split themselves into two groups, half programming-in negative feedback and half programming-in positive feedback, the first group of models would predict nothing alarming.” [9]

Yet, when we add this to protective bureaucracy, conflict of interest in both journals, media and activist-scientists in educational institutions and further include those IPCC personnel who “systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties,” in IPCC reports, it is a clarion call for major change. [10]

And major change is the selling point at UN conferences. But rather than practical and preventative solutions emerging from such meetings, there is a lot of talk and a lot of political posturing with non-elected representatives of civil society pushing a consensus that doesn’t exist, except for those with a political agenda. What does happen is the organisation and allocation of mountains of CASH. The UN conferences in this respect are like a vast auction of clamouring NGOs and eco-activist groups seeking a top-up or first time injection for the cause, but it is the green of the dollar bill that informs the climate industry more than anything else.

dollarbillClimate Change is a multi-billion dollar industry

As we have seen, the United Nations and the UNEP are green-dipped in the New Age tank so that the various beliefs stick like parasites to the decision-making process. Not to mention the corruption and sexual abuse scandals which have dogged the UN for years. When you have a vast bureaucracy and a constant stream of money flowing into and out of the body sitting on top a system which has virtually no accountability any issue – no matter how noble – is going to be contaminated by politics, power and greed. It is about as basic a human fable as it gets. Add ponerology to the mix and you have a UN with its charters and declarations which work on paper only.

Like the perpetual rubber-stamping of the IPCC and other agencies, it is a symbiotic relationship of collusion rather than transparency. If you are not the most morally responsible individual and the rules do not apply to you by virtue of your status and you know you can get away with all kinds of back-handers and bribes, the system actively encourages you to maintain that trajectory. This is so often the nexus point for international decisions that determine the fate of nations. If there is no accountability, why should it be any different for UN bureaucrats who juggle the money flow?


We have barely touched the surface regarding the problems within the IPCC. What should be clear by now is that it is not a scientific body but a political one fused with the beliefs of scientist-activists. This was illustrated by a Climategate 2.0 email from Professor Heinz Wanner of the University of Bern. On reporting his National Academy of Sciences panel critique of Michael Mann to the media: “I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.” [11]
In the same way, politicians and environmental activists determine the form, content and outcome of IPCC reports that have been seen as the gospel truth for decades. Political discourse from more than 100 countries determines the direction. After all, it is worth potentially billions with a lot of academic posts, consultancies and companies riding on the AGW slipstream. Sounding the global warming bells in a variety of alarmist ways feeds into multiple agendas which have nothing to do with the truth. Consequently, to speak ill of AGW is to commit the outrageous sin of attacking the religious zeal of green militancy that has had a long and dark history.

wfarmsbirdsBirds flying into a wind turbines. Symbolic of IPCC climate science?

Is there any possibility that the IPCC can promote the same “radical shift” and “New value system” within its own ranks and which it insists society should adopt? Can it clean its own house to become the body of open-minded science that is so desperately needed?

Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer believes thinks the organisation can never be fixed for the simple reason:

“… that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. I know this not only because one of the first IPCC directors told me so, but also because it is the way the IPCC leadership behaves. If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC’s efforts.” [12]

The organisation has embraced the same constructs that every co-opted movement has done in the past, whilst avoiding the opportunity to lead by example and follow the principles it continually demands from society. [13]The inherent danger of science and political ecology is what historian Anna Bramwell calls “a value-saturated creed” which acts like an open door for the movement to become fully ponerised. [14] Science is infused not with objectivity and a quest for truth but with subjective desires peculiar to a historical mind-set of authoritarianism, regardless of the root values present at its inception. This is the story of ponerology.

The legion of World State rulers in waiting would be very happy that a scientific elite is redefining human values for us. The myth that governments respond to the will of the people has never been clearer. The real choices and thus the potential solutions have been denied to us all.  As the Under-Secretary to one time UN Chief Kurt Waldheim, Brian Urquhart declared: “The worst way to make an argument is by reason and good information. You must appeal to emotions and to their fears of being made to appear ridiculous.” [15]Irony aside, so it is with the IPCC and so many other connected bodies inhabited by the same men and women willing to stoop to the lowest common denominator.

The IPCC plays an extremely important role in the disseminating information on the science of climate change. If we cannot place our trust and faith in institutions who set themselves up to discover new solutions to some of the most pressing problems of our time then it means precious resources of creative energy is being wasted and re-directed into collective gutters of non-action and short-term gain. It becomes yet another example of pathological infection striking at the heart of what we consider to be our mentors, protectors and pioneers; expert minds dedicated to improving humanities lot. That means acknowledging the danger that ecology, environmental activism and any scientific discipline exposed to ponerological influences, must come under the same scrutiny.

If a deep love of Nature and the environment can historically sit side by side with the most virulent form of fascism then it behooves us all to guard against its all too easy re-appearance.

Pol Pot, the Cambodian dictator was responsible for the deaths of 21% of his country’s people.  He was also a former geography teacher.


[1] Email #4755 and email #1922 Jonathan Overpeck
[2] Email #0170 Phil Jones
[3] email #3066 Tim Carter.
[4] ‘Food, Water Security threatened by Warming UN Panel says’ by Alex Morales,Bloomberg, February 16, 2011.
[5] email #0419 Mike Hulme.
[6] p.28; The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming by Garth W. Paltridge. Published by Taylor Trade Publishing, 2010. ISBN-10: 1589795482
[7] op. cit. LaFramboise (p.69)
[8] ‘Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination’ by Jason S. Johnston, Law University of Pennsylvania Law School | “Legal scholarship has come to accept as true the various pronouncements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientists who have been active in the movement for greenhouse gas (ghg) emission reductions to combat global warming. The only criticism that legal scholars have had of the story told by this group of activist scientists – what may be called the climate establishment – is that it is too conservative in not paying enough attention to possible catastrophic harm from potentially very high temperature increases.”
“This paper departs from such faith in the climate establishment by comparing the picture of climate science presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other global warming scientist advocates with the peer-edited scientific literature on climate change. A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change. Fundamental open questions include not only the size but the direction of feedback effects that are responsible for the bulk of the temperature increase predicted to result from atmospheric greenhouse gas increases: while climate models all presume that such feedback effects are on balance strongly positive, more and more peer-edited scientific papers seem to suggest that feedback effects may be small or even negative. The cross-examination conducted in this paper reveals many additional areas where the peer-edited literature seems to conflict with the picture painted by establishment climate science, ranging from the magnitude of 20th century surface temperature increases and their relation to past temperatures; the possibility that inherent variability in the earth’s non-linear climate system, and not increases in CO2, may explain observed late 20th century warming; the ability of climate models to actually explain past temperatures; and, finally, substantial doubt about the methodological validity of models used to make highly publicized predictions of global warming impacts such as species loss.
Insofar as establishment climate science has glossed over and minimized such fundamental questions and uncertainties in climate science, it has created widespread misimpressions that have serious consequences for optimal policy design. Such misimpressions uniformly tend to support the case for rapid and costly decarbonization of the American economy, yet they characterize the work of even the most rigorous legal scholars. A more balanced and nuanced view of the existing state of climate science supports much more gradual and easily reversible policies regarding greenhouse gas emission reduction, and also urges a redirection in public funding of climate science away from the continued subsidization of refinements of computer models and toward increased spending on the development of standardized observational datasets against which existing climate models can be tested.”
[9] op.cit La Framboise (p.70)
[10] op. cit. Johnston.
[11] Email #1104 Heinz Wanner
[12] ‘Climategate 2.0: Bias in Scientific Research’ November 23rd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
[13] ‘Western Lifestyle unsustainable says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri’ The Guardian, June 20, 2011.
[14] The Fading of the Greens, by Anna Bramwell, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1994.(p.28)
[15] ‘The UN and Its Discontents’: An Exchange April 26, 1990 Shirley Hazzard, reply by Brian Urquhart The New Yorker March 15, 1990 issue.


Dark Green XVII: The IPCC’s All-Seeing-Eye (1)

By M.K. Styllinski

All_seeing_eye© infrakshun

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave its full blessing to the Al Gore power-point revival as he made his merry way to a carbon trading pot of gold. However, before kneeling down at the altar of the IPCC we must have a peek behind the doors of an institution that has presided over a fiefdom of green belief.

The IPCC has been lauded for over twenty years as the guardian and protector of the planet, a scientific beacon in a dark age of industry and corporate irresponsibility. It has served as the primary reference for ecologists and environmentalists buttressing the religion of anthropocentric climate change. But does this organisation truly merit the global mantle of scientific authority it now enjoys? Or is it a pretender to the throne of open-minded science? A closer examination of the facts shows that the latter is closer to the truth, with serious consequences for climate science and environmental studies worldwide.

Maurice Strong’s United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization(WMO) set up the IPCC in 1988 with a later endorsement from the United Nations General Assemblythrough Resolution 43/53. With 195 members worldwide, the intergovernmental body is currently chaired by Rajendra K. Pachauriwho steers the mission: “… to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.” The IPCC describes itself as a scientific body which “… reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change.” [1] Scientists voluntarily contribute to the work of the body where an “objective” and “complete assessment of current information” takes place. In the IPCC’s view, due to its scientific and intergovernmental status, it embodies: “… a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.” [2]

As a consequence of this so called objectivity and impartial information presented to policy makers, an international acceptance of its claims is now in place and supported by an overall “consensus” (there’s that word again…) from leading climates scientists and participating governments. Further, in recognition of its work, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was shared between the IPCC and Al Gorethe IPCC acting as the source for most of the information found in An Inconvenient Truth. This fact is enough to plant a question in any informed person’s mind about the nature of the science the IPCC advocates. So, let’s see if the self-penned, glowing descriptions of the organisation stand up to scrutiny.

The IPCC reports also known as “The Climate Bible” – which we will call the “CRs” – are produced every year and represent an unassailable doctrine of climate science which cannot be challenged and to do so amounts to a form of heresy. The CRs have had an enormous effect on government policy around the world and are routinely cited as the most authoritative source on Climate change. CO2 emissions as the greatest evil known to man and the reason carbon taxes exist are all down to these reports. It is a climate science lovingly fawned over by the world’s media, much of university and think-tank academia, the same people who believe unquestioningly in Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. The problem is, they believe that all those reports have been toiled over by thousands of experts who are holding hands in a sacred communion of consensus across the world; they believe that the science is water-tight and anyone but a fool would think otherwise.

Rajendra Pachauri has chaired the IPCC since 2002 and in one sense, is the personification of the IPCC in much the same way that Prince Philip was for the WWF. He has fuelled the belief that the IPCC and their CRs are full to the brim with thousands of the best scientists, the finest quality expertise at the cutting edge of climate science which is all parroted ad nauseum by the world’s media. [3] Unfortunately, many scientists and their papers have been ignored. Whether it is hurricane research, tropical diseases or oceanography, unless the scientists tow the official party line of anthropocentric global warming (AGW) then they can expect a cold response indeed to submitted papers.

Pachauri has since been accused of “inappropriate” sexual behaviour by several women who worked at the IPCC and TERI a non-profit, scientific and policy research organisation which Pachauri is Director-General. According to one alleged victim as part of her testimony from 2005: “A sexual harasser 10 years back, a sexual harasser today. He did it to me and others then. He has done it to her and possibly others now … His physical advances and sexual innuendos and acts, often reduced to as ‘inappropriate behaviour’, have been common knowledge and corridor gossip.” [4]

As a result, Pachuari finally stepped down in March 2015.

This appears appropriately symbolic of the IPCC’s place in climate science.

Rajendra-Pachauri_ipccstructureRajendra Pachauri, still going strong as Chairman of the IPCC

With 40 years of experience in tropical diseases Paul Reiter thinks the papers on his specialist subject found in the CRs are full of inaccuracies and incorrect conclusions, made worse by the fact that none of the lead authors had actually penned a research paper. Much of the information in the CRs are not written by experts at all and gave testimony to that fact to the UK House of Lords. [5]

One would think that the IPCC would have been keen to recruit the best experts they could find but it appears they prefer students and the inexperienced rather than the world class scientists spoken of in the mainstream media. The UN seems quite happy that its organisation continues to promulgate lies on this point while peddling unsubstantiated and very biased beliefs instead.

Journalist Donna LaFramboise’s searing indictment of the IPCC highlighted the fact that “the world’s finest scientific minds” have been culled from a reservoir of young and inexperienced students and activists such as 25 year-old Richard Klein, a Master Degree student and Greenpeace campaigner drafted in to serve as IPCC lead author on what was eventually to be six reports, six years prior to the completion of his PhD. [6] Laurens Bouwer served as an IPCC lead author before he had completed his Masters in 2001. To compound the confusion still further, the chapter to which he was given responsibility dealt with financial services whilst his “expertise” was in climate change and water resources. [7] In 2008, Lisa Alexander was a research assistant at Monesh University, Australia and went on to earn her PhD in 2009. Yet from 2001 and 2007 she had been plucked from obscurity by the IPCC to author two reports, one as lead author and the other in a contributory role – all ten years before she had claimed her doctorate. [8] Sari Kovats hadn’t earned her PhD until 2010 yet 16 years previously before any academics papers had been written: “Kovats was one of only 21 people in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter that examined how climate change might affect human health.” Lead author twice and contributing author once, all before the completion of her PhD. [9]Nor are these exceptions to the rule. This has been normal practice for the body since the early 1990s.

So, what’s going on?

LaFramboise describes how the analyses of IPCC policies and procedures were to come under the microscope, but perhaps not in the way it would have liked. In 2010, an international science body called The Inter-Academy Council took the bold step in establishing the first committee to investigate the quality and structure of IPCC research which resulted in an extensive questionnaire on its website to which people were encouraged to respond. Over the last few years a wealth of interesting data totalling over 678 pages has accumulated for the dogged researcher to peruse.

Many recurrent gripes which surfaced amongst respondents’ answers was the lack of qualifications from lead authors; decisions being political rather than scientific and undue political correctness regarding gender and multiculturalism at the expense of science. Among these problems follows the deeper more intransigent factor of activism married with science. The IPCC tells the world it is a scientific body tasked with sifting conjecture and assumption to produce as much as is possible, scientific fact. Yet, the institution is infested with activists from top to bottom. How can this be an impartial and politically neutral body offering reputable science when beliefs are colouring the overall picture?

Environmental activist organisations cross-fertilise IPCC conclusions in the CRs and other publications citing each others papers to bolster predetermined results. Rajendra Pachauri routinely writes forewords and editorials for activist groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. As LaFramboise observes: “The IPCC’s role is similar to that of a trial judge. It examines the scientific evidence and decides whether or not human-produced carbon dioxide is guilty of triggering climate change. How much faith would you have in the impartiality of a murder trial if the judge was hearing evidence during the day and partying with the prosecution team during the evening?” [10]

A new breed of “activist scientist” is happiest hanging out in activist groups, universities and agenda-ridden institutions like the IPCC. Objectivity regarding scientific results is the first casualty. Scientific judgement is wide open to abuse from emotionally-driven views which consciously or unconsciously select the data that reinforces their beliefs. They often have access to a wide cross-section of interested parties from government to an annual influx of university students. Scientific credentials merely serve to reinforce beliefs and fit the data with a mind already made up. If it doesn’t fit, then it is made to fit through mental gymnastics and cherry-picking the data. Of course, this can work both ways. However, whereas many groups who do not follow the AGW line and do not have links to the fossil fuel agenda state their case with proven scientific data and expertise, the same cannot be said for the IPCC which sets itself up as an impartial arbiter when it is nothing of the kind. It is clearly AGW-biased, hiding behind the bogus claims of rigorous and objective research supported by “world class scientists.”

Michael Oppenheimer is one such example. A Director of Science, Tech. Environmental Policy, at Princeton University; Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Prior to the above posts and 20 years as Chief Scientist to Environmental Defence Fund (EDF). He is a lead author IPCC report 2007 and a Senior Author of the IPCC report in  2011. Remember his words when speaking on behalf of the EDF? “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” Regardless whether one agrees or disagrees with this statement it is hardly the position required of a scientist let alone one who contributes regularly to the IPCC. He is an activist-scientist and thus seriously biased.

A sample of other activists working for the IPCC include:

  • Bill Hare – Greenpeace spokesperson 1992; Chief climate negotiator 2007 / Key member of Greenpeace International Climate team; Lead author IPCC reports 2007 Expert reviewer 2007.
  • Malte Meinhausen – Key member of Greenpeace International Climate team; Greenpeace spokesman 2002-2003; Co-author Kyoto Protocol Analysis; contributing author of IPCC reports 2007.
  • Ove Hoegh-Guldberg – Marine Biologis, Reef expert Greenpeace funded reports on coral reefs and climate change 1994-2000 WWF funded reports; Contributing author 2007; Coordinating author 2011.
  • Richard Moss – One time WWF vice-president; IPCC senior personnel.
  • Jennifer Morgan – WWF chief spokesperson; WWF Kyoto Protocol Delegation; WWF Global Climate Change Program; Climate Action Network; Director of Climate program World Resources Institute. IPCC report 2010.

The process by which CR authors are selected – for an organisation who claims to be transparent and open – is highly secretive. No one seems to know how top decisions are actually made. The Inter-Academy Council questionnaire makes interesting reading in this respect, with some of the respondents giving answers such as: “Selection of lead authors in my view is the most important decision in the IPCC process, and it is not transparent,” or: “After being [a lead author or contributing author] several times, I still have no idea how I was selected. This is unacceptable.” Another participant states: “It has always been unclear how this has been undertaken.” [11]Not a huge crime for any other low-level institution but the IPCC isn’t just anybody. It has told us that it is open, transparent and scientifically credible and wields enormous influence because of it.


The United Nations, UNEP, WHO and the IPPC are all closely related, as are their worldviews.

The IPCC receives nominations from governments but does not make it public the names of the nominees; it does not explain the selection criteria and when successful nominees are announced only the country of origin is mentioned, qualifications and credentials are nowhere to be seen. Based on past evidence one can see why they would want the secrecy to remain in place. Apparently, we are meant to guess that the candidates are experts and trust the IPCC’s word.

What makes matters worse is the organisation’s history of refusing to help journalists, researchers and academics in their quests to scrutinize sources, reports and data. Moreover, when problems have been raised with the report content, such as out-of-date source papers, incorrect citations or quoting from papers yet to be published, the shutters came down with a the rigidity of a spoilt child folding its arms and pouting. If you begin to rock the boat too much then you are stone-walled or threatened with expulsion. [12]

Yet, according to John Holdren, President Barack Obama’s science advisor the IPCC is: “… an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world’s leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.” [13]Holdren has been told some porkies. In reality, the IPCC does none of the above and has no quality control procedures at all. Or, as one IPCC respondent states on page 384 of the public questionnaire: “Quality assurance and error identification is non-existent…” [14]  Which means when the body claims it uses peer-reviewed literature we find this is also incorrect. [15]The amount of peer-reviewed sources to support the findings in the IPCC reports is very low indeed; yet, people continue to believe it is true because it operates on the same belief as Al Gore. [16]IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri: “… has a history of systematically misrepresenting the process by which his organization produces reports. His declaration that the IPCC does not settle for anything less than peer-reviewed sources is wrong. Nor is it wrong by a trivial amount. When 21 out of 44 chapters have so few peer-reviewed references they score an F, a serious disjuncture exists between the facts and the IPCC’s fiction.” [17]

Nor is peer-review a fail-safe mechanism for detecting research misconduct and malpractice. The only way to safe-guard such problems is fully independent, scientific review where an assumption of the reliability of research papers before they have even appeared in print is not seen as the norm. Peer-reviewed science is only as good as the structure upon which it sits. If that is rotten then you have nothing. If Al Gore published papers for peer-review it would matter little that his credibility is zero because his talents lie in the performance designed to create maximum emotional response. Facts are secondary.

When trusts, foundations and institutions presenting themselves as scientific bodies dedicated to objective scientific analysis merge with the beliefs of green activism, however laudable, it produces a dangerous politicisation. Organising communication between professions and the media then becomes an exercise in maintaining the demands of lobbying. When substantial amounts of money are involved then science is just another tool for exploitation. Just as high quality journalism should inform activism so too science must act as the primary foundation to issues with science at their core. Without objective knowledge of the highest quality charges of passion without reason and the effects they induce cannot be countered.

LaFramboise, with an enormous network of voluntary assistance, found that 30 percent of the IPCC 2007 report was non-peer-reviewed. The sources which were included comprised of “… newspaper and magazine articles, unpublished masters and doctoral theses, Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund documents and yes, press releases.” The journalist highlights several points that should make us all think twice about the proclamations of unimpeachable sources and credentials when the media, UN and governments wax lyrical about the IPCC’s standing.

LaFramboise further observes:

Climate sceptics are frequently asked why they imagine their own judgment to be more reliable than the judgment of such esteemed bodies. The answer to that question is this: No science academy noticed that one in three references in the 2007 Climate Bible is actually to grey literature. [unpublished papers] If these academies are so well-informed why did it take a group of Internet-linked volunteers to bring this to the world’s attention? Why didn’t even one of these science academies subject chairman Pachauri’s rhetoric to rudimentary fact-checking? [18]

Could it be that IPCC personnel simply don’t care enough to have a hand in changing the direction of this behemoth and are quite comfortable with the way things are?

Not content with preaching to the rest of us on impeccable standards in climate research to which we must all adhere, the IPCC’s treatment of its voluntary army of expert reviewers falls very short of fair. The 2007 report invited reviewers to offer comments which were responded to by IPCC authors. Yet, unsurprisingly, they are at liberty to ignore most, if not all of the comments that don’t fit with their “group-think.” The body freely inserts new material in reports, rejects reviewer opinions and essentially undermines the whole review process which was designed to prove the rigorous and objective nature of the CR science.

Group think rises up through the ranks of academic journals which instead of being independent and thus offering valuable critiques, appear to be chosen for reviews, citations and source material because an IPCC insider is Editor-in-Chief. As LaFramboise comments on the late founding editor of Climatic Change Stephen Schneider and Club of Rome member: “The fact that Schneider, a senior figure at the IPCC, was routinely deciding what would – and would not – make it into the same scientific literature the IPCC would later cite as evidence doesn’t appear to have caused anyone concern.” [19]

Nor is this an isolated incident. In the next post, we’ll see why.



[2] Ibid.(organisation)
[3] ‘The Science is absolutely first rate’ June 5 2007, The Rediff Interview with Rajendra K. Pachauri | ‘The Rajendra Pachauri Interview’ by Amitabh Pal, The Progressive, May 2009 issue.
[4] ‘Harasser’ who lifts staff like little girls’ The Telegraph, Calcutta, India, Ananya Sengupta and G.S. Mudur, February 22 , 2015.
[5] Select Committee on Economic Affairs Written Evidence – Memorandum by Professor Paul Reiter, Institut Pasteur; Paris THE IPCC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION. EXAMPLE: IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH
[6] p.8; The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert by Donna Laframboise. Published by Createspace, 2011.
[7] Ibid. (p.9)
[8] Ibid. (p.10)
[9] Ibid. (p.11)
[10] Ibid. (p.18)
[11] Ibid. (pp. 185, 180 and p.28) | Review of the IPCC InterAcademy Council
[12] Ibid Chapter 8: “Clear as mud” See example 1: Steve McIntyre of p.30-35 correspondance between Susan Solomon.
[13] Ibid. (p.34)
[15] Ibid. (p.43) – Richard Tol found that in the Climate Bible (CRs) 2007 “IPCC authors had ignored the findings of peer-reviewed studies and had instead cited non-peer-reviewed material to make the opposite case.”
[16] Ibid. (pp.43 -50: “The Peer Review Fairy-Tale”)
[17] Ibid. (p.48)
[18] ‘Book excerpt: Conspiracy of silence Special to Financial Post, By Donna La Framboise, Oct 22, 2011.|
[19] Ibid. (p.62)

Dark Green XVI: I’ve been Gored!

By M.K. Styllinski

“… the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it but every penny that I have made I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.”

– Al Gore


Logo of The Climate Reality Project founded by Al Gore | Source (WP:NFCC#4) (wikipedia)

With hedge funds popping up like bad sores in readiness for the carbon credit bubble it is these financial marauders who will benefit most rather than the environment or third world nations’ climate change projects. What we can be sure of is a substantial hike in the cost of living generally with special attention to electricity and manufacturing. All the while the imposition of caps is guaranteed to contribute precious little to limit carbon emissions, should the science on CO2 even be true.

The Nobel prize-winning Al Gore has been very busy playing at eco-activism and evangelising the message of AGW for many years. He has become smoothly effective as the political vanguard of environmentalism. Gore’s legendary capitalism masquerading as left-leaning liberalism is never more clearly seen when it comes to green corporatism, his favourite plaything. Gore was one of the first to implement the corporate structure of “public-private partnerships,” where the decision-making process was quietly shifted away from the people and transferred to unelected international corporations. And what we are seeing now is how effective such structural conversions can be when married to distorted environmental fears. Al Gore has excelled at being the guru of green-back sensationalism. He is a master of the slight-of-hand. However, it is difficult to say whether he is a “useful idiot,” desperately naïve (doubtful) or an opportunist of the very worst kind. Perhaps it is a mix of all three.

The Climate Reality Project founded by Gore in 2011 is another attempt to launch a frontal attack against so-called climate deniers (when all it does is cover up good science). “Join reality” “effect change”. You can also sign on to become a “Climate Reality Leader” within the Climate Reality Leadership Corp. and bludgeon everyone into becoming like Al Gore. Gore is creating an army of the faithful to do what? To reach net zero carbon emissions” which is apparently “… the key to our collective prosperity and well-being for all.”

Unfortunately, that probably isn’t the key. Not even close.

This is all about objective reality it seems…  Yet, the “The facts” page reads like a catalogue of supposition assumption where blaming nasty old fossil fuel folks for it all appears to mask barely concealed zealotry. That’s not to say that corporatism isn’t having a ripe old time stirring the propaganda pot with equal vigour. And that is also not to say greenhouse gases aren’t causing havoc and yes, we must try to reduce our pollution. But the overall campaign and impetus is that human beings are responsible for the overall climate change which are very probably the result of complex natural cycles and even vast cosmic processes. As my hamster Ernie belts around his plastic wheel the sheer power of his little cardiac footprint is not liable to produce massive climatic weather patterns.  (I don’t have a hamster but you get the analogy).

The whole idea that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused Earth’s temperatures over the past 50 years appears erroneous. BUT that doesn’t mean greenhouse gases are benign. It doesn’t mean they do not pose a problem such as ozone depletion. The real problem is how AGW science has obfuscated the subtle connections going on between a whole host of complex factors which have been reduced down to the level of Al Gore and his slide show hotly followed by the IPCC. And that does not provide a good basis upon which to inform the public.

You CANNOT change a natural cycle. And no amount of hectoring, deception and phoney science it going to alter that fact.  It amounts to an enormous hijacking of energy that could be better used in prevention against cataclysmic change that will come regardless of whether we have paid our carbon-free credits.  But by now, if you have been reading the previous posts on this blog you either think I am a deluded devil incarnate or one of the many who are seeing behind all the noise. Perhaps I am teetering between the two.

That said, let’s continue and find out a bit more about our Al and whether he’s one arctic roll short of an ice-cap.

gorepromoAl Gore (left) and promotional material for the DVD launch for An Inconvenient Truth: “the most terrifying film you will ever see.”

Gore has written over a dozen books on society, politics and environmentalism, most notably Earth in the Balance: Forging a New Common Purpose. (1992) The Assault on Reason. (2007) and An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. (2006) which accompanied a film of the same name which won an Academy Award for Best Documentary. The film was directed by Davis Guggenheim, who stated that after the release of the film, “Everywhere I go with him, they treat him like a rock star.” It couldn’t have been more apropos for the likes of the Club of Rome who saw in Gore the popular appeal of their designs made manifest. The message is fear, catastrophe and guilt wrapped up in emergency environmental “education.” The science didn’t matter the message was all that counted.

Having already achieved humble martyrdom in running against the villainous Bush, he was as well placed to transfer this new found sainthood into the cause of climate change and make considerable amounts of money in the process. An Inconvenient Truth was designed to educate millions of citizens about the perils of global warming using Gore as messenger who would give an in-depth slide show presentation to a rapt audience interspersed with relevant footage. It premiered at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and opened in New York City and Los Angeles on May 24, of the same year. It became a critical and box-office success, garnering two Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song. It was also commercially successful earning $49 million internationally and becoming one of the highest grossing US documentary films of all time. [1]

Let’s turn our attention to two aspects of Gore’s journey, that of the science in the film and the financial aspects of Gore’s AGW platform. Firstly, the science.

In May 2007, a lawsuit was launched by a group of global warming sceptics over the UK government’s distribution of the film in UK schools. Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills heard the bid for an injunction preventing the screening of the film in English schools, on the premise that the film was imbalanced, impartial and political.

On 10 October 2007, High Court Judge Mr Justice Burton did not ban the film finding that it was largely drawn from scientific fact and research even though it was also politically motivated. He ruled that An Inconvenient Truth contained “nine key scientific errors” and could only be shown in British schools with explanatory notes on the errors “to prevent political indoctrination.” The judge said that showing the film without the explanations of error would be a violation of education laws. Judge Burton also stated that errors had arisen “in the context of alarmism and exaggeration” driven by Gore’s belief in AGW. [2]

In the synopsis of the film given by Paramount studios, the distributor gives a flavour of the content of the film which the judge ruled amounted to an “apocalyptic vision.” In a breathless example of sensationalism it implored: “If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.” [3] The judge ruled that An Inconvenient Truth was “politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.” It was, he ruled: “a political film.” [4]

Marketed as “… the most terrifying film you will ever see,” by online trailers, with commentary claiming audiences have been “shocked everywhere,” the dramatic images of global environmental destruction bombard the viewer with terrifying storms and even a nuclear explosion. This sets the tone for a mass-dumping of fear and danger in the younger generations and creates the antithesis of reason and constructive dialogue. Politics, alarmism and “apocalyptic visions” do little to educate children, especially when Agenda 21 is overshadowing the proceedings. While they may compel a sense of urgency and activism in the cause of “saving the planet,” if it is sourced from bad science and emotional reflex then this will play straight into the politics and the social frameworks recently discussed. It will have very little effect on the real, preventative climate change issues which could be addressed given the correct guidance. Exaggeration and alarmism merely helps to create fear and insecurity in the minds of children who are already having great difficulty processing the future. Neuroses in the young anxious about climate change, is becoming increasingly common.

Climate science journalist Björn Lomborg reviewed some startling results on this issue where “… a new survey of 500 American pre-teens, … found that one in three children, aged between six and 11, feared that the earth would not exist when they reach adulthood because of global warming and other environmental threats. An unbelievable one-third of our children believe that they don’t have a future because of scary global warming stories.” The same pattern exists in the UK with “half of young children aged between seven and 11 [whom] are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern.” [5]

To draw out those fears and increase the likelihood of cash injection into the climate change industry we have Gore’s slick Hollywood production which uses emotive photos of cutsie animals and advanced animations taken out of context alongside endless replays of environmental destruction to illicit guilt and alarm. For example, smoke pouring forth from chimneys and cooling towers implying extreme CO2 production when in reality CO2 is invisible and benign. The message here is not scientific solutions but emotional manipulation.

Gore has yet to modify any of his statements made in film and print, the most obvious examples being the internationally discredited hockey stick temperature graph and his clinging to CO2 global temperature increases, despite the data that showed temperatures rose 400-800 years before CO2 and drove higher CO2 levels, a fact which had been confirmed for at least two years prior to Gore’s film. [6]But this was only the beginning. The following nine errors as outlined by Judge Burton include:

ERROR 1: Sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. [Judge] agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water – ‘but only after, and over, millennia’. The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”

ERROR 2: The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls ‘are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming’ but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

ERROR 3: The documentary speaks of global warming ‘shutting down the Ocean Conveyor’ – the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was ‘very unlikely’ that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.

ERROR 4: Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in CO2 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed ‘an exact fit’. The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, ‘the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts’.

ERROR 5: Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.

ERROR 6: The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that ‘it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.’

ERROR 7: Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was “insufficient evidence to show that”.

ERROR 8: Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from ‘swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice’ The judge said: ‘The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.’ That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued – ‘but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description’.

ERROR 9: Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult. [7]

Rather than just nine errors the Judge mentioned, there are so many serious errors in AIT that becomes much more of a concern about the film-makers understanding of the issues involved and certainly where Al Gore’s true perceptions lie. Former British MP Christopher Monckton and founding member of the Science and Public Policy Institute based in the UK found plenty more. All of the following have proven to be grossly exaggerated or simply false:

  • Thermohaline circulation “stopping”
  • 100 ppmv of CO2 “melting mile-thick ice”
  • Hurricane Caterina “manmade”
  • Japanese typhoons “a new record”
  • Hurricanes “getting stronger”
  • Big storm insurances losses “increasing”
  • Mumbai “flooding”
  • Severe tornadoes “more frequent”
  • The sun “heats the Arctic ocean”
  • Arctic “warming fastest”
  • Greenland ice sheet “unstable”
  • Himalayan glacial melt waters “failing”
  • Peruvian glaciers “disappearing”
  • Mountain glaciers worldwide “disappearing”
  • Sahara desert “drying”
  • West Antarctic ice sheet “unstable”
  • Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves “breaking up”
  • Larsen B Ice Shelf “broke up because of ‘global warming’”
  • Mosquitoes “climbing to higher altitudes”
  • Many tropical diseases “spread through ‘global warming’”
  • West Nile virus in the US “spread through ‘global warming’”
  • Carbon dioxide is “pollution”
  • The European heat wave of 2003 “killed 35,000”
  • Gore’s bogus pictures and film footage
  • The Thames Barrier “closing more frequently”
  • “No fact…in dispute by anybody.” [8]

In A Sceptic’s Guide to Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ (2007) senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) Marlo Lewis PhD, provides a meticulous analysis of the Al Gore’s book version of the film. Lewis’ Congressional Working Paper contains 324 references with extensive links to web sites for fact checking, a practice Gore would do well to emulate. Lewis’ conclusions on the book revealed:

  • Wrong statements, false statements—19;
  • Misleading statements—17;
  • Exaggerated statements—10;
  • One sided statements—25; and
  • Speculative statements—28. [9]

Environmentalists have drawn our attention to the fact that Marlo Lewis is a friend of the fossil fuel lobby and is a corporate lackey with a clear agenda. Be that as it may, the facts he provides are correct. It is unfortunate that facts have to surface from two extremes rather than a simple quest for truth.


This photo was widely used to promote the idea that polar bears were stranded due to global warming induced ice melt. In actual fact, it was faked. See HERE for more details.

As an ex-senator, businessman, journalist, lawyer and highly articulate orator and raconteur it seems bizarre that Gore has not only chosen to ignore his “errors” but continue to perpetuate them. Even worse, he has also repeatedly refused to debate publicly on the issue and will not participate in conferences, interviews or public forums with those who take the opposing view on AGW. This is bad for science and bad for open, rational discourse which is so desperately needed.[10] Not least, it is bad for Gore’s credibility as he clearly prefers hyperbole and rhetoric rather than scientific rigour. If he is correct and he has spent most of his life genuinely seeking to redress the balance for the Earth’s ecology then one would think he would have at least a basic understanding of the principals involved, given his position and responsibility. Yet, while he may have a nose for communication he doesn’t seem to have the first clue about truth – inconvenient or otherwise. Gore’s research has been drawn primarily from the IPCC, which offers even more cause for concern, as we shall see presently.

What of Gore’s financial interests in climate change and carbon credits? He is a partner in two hedge funds, Generation Investment Management (GIM) and Capricorn Investment Group LLC, set up to trade carbon credits. Remember the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain? GIM exerts substantial influence over these firms in the following way: Having expended considerable amounts of cash to test the viability of carbon credits back in 2000, CCX has some of our well known players secreted within its membership. One begins to wonder if he has cloned himself to appear in all places and in all times but sure enough, Maurice Strong sits on the board of directors and has long since been considered as an Elder-guru to Gore. Other members who had undertaken to reduce their emissions by 2010 (some did some didn’t) are Amtrak, Ford Motor Company, Dow Corning, International Paper, Motorola, DuPont, American Electric Power and an assortment of other corporations and universities. Carbon-offset projects are also underway via “participant members.” ECX also has around 80 member companies, including Shell, Barclays, BP, Fortis, Calyon, Endesa, Morgan Stanley and … Goldman Sachs.

And here’s where come full circle back to the Goldman cartel once more.

GIM was founded by both Al Gore and Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs and financial criminal CEO, Hank Paulson. We already know that Goldman Sachs virtually owns the carbon credit markets including 10 percent of CCX shares and a stake in ECX. This is due, in part, to the fact that GIM is riddled with Goldmanites: Mark Ferguson, former co-head of GSAM pan-European research; David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM) and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations. Peter S. Knight, who is the designated president of GIM with strong ties to Al Gore and Bill Clinton serving under them respectively.

World Economic Forum in Davos

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore speaks next to rapper Pharrell Williams during a panel session on the first day of the 45th Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Jan. 21, 2015. | TIME magazine. |The World Economic Forum? Really? This is straight out of the Live Aid programming manual (It’s all right, just be happy…)

In 2008, Gore’s venture capital firm loaned $75m to Silver Spring Networks, a small Californian firm wishing to develop energy-saving technology. The company’s main production efforts go into hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. And in 2009, the US Energy Department announced a $3.4 billion boost in SMART grid grants more than $560 million going to utilities under contract to Silver Spring. [11]

To say that this would provide Gore with substantial profits would be an understatement. With an estimated $70 million he received for a 20 percent stake in the 2013 sale of the Current TV network, a slice of a $500 million pie paid out by Qatari-owned al-Jazeera Satellite Network, and a steady $1.2 million a year in salary and bonuses, he stands to make millions more in the long-term. Hence the media cry: “Will Gore be our first carbon billionaire?” Gore disputes this and is happy to be “putting his money where his mouth is.” A “one off investment” and “transformation of our energy infrastructure” towards energy that is free forever” is what’s needed according to Gore. He sees no hypocrisy radiating from his  green-messiah activism and Goldman Sachs plundering.

He goes on to say somewhat defensively: “Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” … “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.” [12]

Goldman Sachs would certainly agree.



[1] “Documentary 1982–present (film rankings by lifetime gross)”. Box Office Mojo.
[2] Stuart Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills”. England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions. 2007-10-10.
[3] ‘Al Gore’s ‘nine Inconvenient Untruths’ By Sally Peck, Telegraph, 11 Oct 2007.
[4] Ibid.
[5] ‘Scared silly over climate change’ by Bjorn Lomborg, The Guardian, 15 June 2009.
[6] ‘Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming’ by Catherine Brahic and Michael Le Page. New Scientist, 16 May, 2007.
[7] op. cit. Peck.
[8] ‘35 Inconvenient Truths – The errors in Al Gore’s movie’ By Christopher Monckton, http://www.scienceandpublic PDF version:
[9] ‘Al Gore’s Science Fiction: A Sceptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth’ Congressional Working Paper By Marlo Lewis. 01/22/07 — Competitive Enterprise Institute ||
[10] ‘Al Gore Refuses To Dignify Debate: “It’s Not A Matter Of Theory”’ Huffington Post, April 5 2009.
[11] ‘Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire’ Telegraph, November 3, 2009.
[12] Ibid.

Dark Green XIV: Global Cooling, Bilderberg and the Oceanic Wild-Card

By M.K. Styllinski

“In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are: 1)  ‘None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.’ 2) ‘No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes.’  To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

– Professor C. R DeFreitas |

With the precautionary principle being happily brushed aside yet again via the introduction of geo-engineering into the public arena, the craziness from our so-called “leaders” has reached stratospheric levels of lunacy as the stakes get higher. Nonetheless, let’s get back to meteorologist Dr. Roy Spencer and his take on Pacific Decadal Oscillation which, in his view and an increasing number of scientists: “… is critical to our understanding of global warming.”

He reiterates the point that small changes can have enormous impact over time, especially regarding the presence of global cloud cover and states: “… clouds represent the single largest internal control on global temperatures (through their ability to reflect sunlight), [therefore] a change in cloudiness associated with the PDO might explain most of the climate change we’ve seen in the last 100 years or more.” Not forgetting the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) – another variable natural cycle of around 60-80 years which occurs in the North Atlantic Ocean. It seems we are just starting a cool phase on that cycle too. [1] Both of these circulation patterns in our oceans have been occurring for about one thousand years.

Another theory contributing to the idea of global cooling is water vapour concentrations in the stratosphere which have decreased by about 10% after the year 2000, showing stratospheric water vapour is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change – rather than CO2. Factor in low solar activity and the continuing lack of global warming for 18 years – despite CO2 concentrations – there isn’t much of climate science which is pointing to the exclusivity of global warming. Most of the recent climate models have been entirely wrong in their predictions, yet climate activists and many scientists cling to excess CO2 levels as the main driver of climate change.

As discussed previously, the scientific facts can be spun from either side of the divide and argued into eternity until we see who benefits from the politicising. Clearly, the global warming camp and its traditional left-liberal leanings work in concert with corporate sponsorship and elite ideology which has much to gain as we shall see in the next post. Similarly, the fossil fuel industry is only too happy to jump aboard with those resisting AGW advocates simply because it fits in with their conservative views and short-term greed. Coupled with institutionalised science which is divorced from an ethical discourse as much any other activity we have a very heady brew of confusion that sends the public’s collective head spinning.

2013-01-15 15.10.15 Ice Age on the way? | © infrakshun

One obvious factoid which has rarely if ever been placed under the microscope next to climate science is the Bilderberg group’s connection. at the international level. It is not simply a glorified talking shop but a place where present and future leaders determine which direction international politics should go. Such (perceived) dignitaries included Henry Kissinger, Prince Beatrice of the Netherlands, Richard Perle and Bill Gates. Which is why when attendees and topics for discussion are sometimes leaked from its annual meetings, many of us pay attention as they are often indicators as to how domestic and geopolitical policy is going to play out in the coming months and years.

At the 58th Bilderberg Meeting of June 2010 in Stiges, Spain tucked away in a list of conference subjects under discussion was the mention of “global cooling.” After all the hullabaloo in media and scientific journals decrying climate deniers and establishing the truth of a scientific consensus on global warming, it is more than a little curious that global cooling was even on the conference agenda, especially when the AGW-led Carbon Tax is a much loved and looming policy of the very kinds of Elite present at the meeting. It is more probable that knowledge of AGW as a social engineering project is generally known by many members, some of whom were responsible for its inception. Therefore, it becomes less surprising that global cooling was given top billing since it may represent a more authentic picture of climate change in the not so distant future. What does this do to the picture of global decarbonisation and Carbon Tax? If CO2 is not the villain of the story – by accident or decree – and it’s a lot more complicated than the Establishment thought then it will require some substantial tweaking of the AGW script.

Back in 2006, glaciologists were able to show data from tropical ice cores that indicated two abrupt global climate shifts. By comparing ancient climate records trapped in ice cores from the South American Andes and the Asian Himalayas a huge shift from a warm climate to a cooler regime was discovered. This occurred over 5,000 years ago along with a more recent reversal to a much warmer world within the last 50 years. It seems the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of 1,000 years warmed parts of the globe and was swiftly followed by the Little Ice Age (LIA) and a sudden onset of much colder temperatures the vanguard of which was the advance of glaciers in Europe. It seems the rise of a warm climate followed by an abrupt descent of an Ice Age has been happening as a natural cycle not only here on earth but on other planets so it seems even more unlikely that the microscopic activities of us humans are affecting the climate in the way that AGW advocates suggest.

Furthermore, instead of the much trumpeted media images of ice melting and polar bears stranded on floating boats of ice, the reverse seems to be true, at least in part. Antarctica’s land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate but sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. These are two separate phenomena. A recent paper from Bristol University on the Greenland ice sheet (not ‘arctic ice’) shows that changes to the ice sheet mass indicates weather influences (shifting pressure systems in the North Atlantic, or El Niño and La Niña events) rather than anthropogenic climate changes.

Oceanography is another field very poorly understood in relation to climate change. In the 2013, August 7 edition of Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten a two part article included academic research on solar influence as well as the mystery of the oceans which it stated: “… are generally regarded as the big wildcard in the climate discussion.The journal quotes Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark to illustrate why this is so. He explains: “How should ocean water under 700 meters be warmed up without a warming in the upper part? … In the period 1990-2000 you could see a rise in the ocean temperatures, which fit with the greenhouse effect. But it hasn’t been seen for the last 10 years. Temperatures don’t rise without the heat content in the sea increasing. Several thousand buoys put into the sea to measure temperature haven’t registered any rise in sea temperatures.”

The IPCC and its legion of computer modellers have assumed that AGW is an obvious fact with further increases of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100 with CO2 as the cause. Yet, at the time of writing eighteen years have passed with no temperature increase and with record levels of cold being recorded over the last few years. Rather than simply a glitch in the global warming trend the decrease in temperature may indicate the underlying cause of climate change is one of cycles of global warming and cooling stretching back thousands of years.

Professor Don J. Easterbrook of Department of Geology, Western Washington University is one of an increasing number of scientists who think that the evidence is pointing in the direction of a global cooling trend and the onset of the “Little Ice Age.” Indeed, Professor Easterbook’s research summarised in his 2008 paper shows that: “Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years.” Comparing over ten global climate changes in the last 15,000 years it is clear that: “….global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant.” The professor is certain that human CO2 input is not a factor during these ancient global climate changes since anthropogenic CO2 emissions simply weren’t on the scene during these climatic upheavals. What is more likely is that the cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was … the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.”[2]

Easterbrook spent decades studying alpine glacier fluctuations in the North Cascade Range (the Glacial Decadal Oscillation, (GDO) which showed a pattern of glacial advances and retreats that correlated with climate records. Furthermore, the warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation curve) also correlated with glacial fluctuations. The GDA and PDO data matched global temperature records suggesting a clear relationship. This had implications for the assumption that CO2 was the arch-culprit in anthropogenic global warming due to the fact that all but the latest 30 years of changes occurred prior to significant CO2 emissions. In truth, the tiny increase in anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) is not the cause of the warming, but a symptom of the natural cycles which have ebbed and flowed over the past 500 years.

The professor believes the significance of the correlation between the GDO, PDO, and the influence of sun-spot activity on global temperature is dramatic. He states: “… once this connection has been made, climatic changes during the past century can be understood, and the pattern of glacial and climatic fluctuations over the past millennia can be reconstructed. These patterns can then be used to project climatic changes in the future.” Unlike the climate modelling of the IPCC using the climate pattern which had been established for several hundred years, in 1998 Easterbrook created a temperature curve based on past natural cycle which would predict changes from this century into the next and which suggested: “… global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090.” [3]

His research has so far been vindicated since it is clear that the IPCC forecast of global climate warming of 1° F was wrong so too the measures suggested to curb AGW in the form of carbon taxes and CO2-based reduction schemes. From 2007-2008 there was a marked cooling and a continuing decrease in global temperatures with: “… NASA satellite imagery confirming that the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggests that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC.” [4]

If the cooling is severe this could lead us into aforementioned Little Ice Age, something which has not only happened before but is likely to happen much, MUCH faster than we imagine. According to findings from a 2009 study led by UK geological sciences professor William Patterson, the earth’s climate can flip from warm to cold extraordinarily quickly.

100_5010© infrakshun

In November 2013, a newspaper report quoted Patterson describing his research where hours of “scraping off layers of mud 0.5mm thick from a lake in Western Ireland” yielded surprising results. The report went on: “Each layer represented three months of sediment deposition, so he could measure changes in temperature over very short periods. He found that temperatures had plummeted, with the lake’s plants and animals rapidly dying over just a few months. The subsequent mini Ice Age lasted for 1,300 years.” Patterson likened the speed of the arriving Ice Age as: “… the equivalent of taking Britain and moving it to the Arctic over the space of a few months.” The article goes on to make the point that while this is a ‘mini’ ice age in geological terms but 1,300 years is roughly 61 generations. That’s a considerable time and something which humanity may be facing. [5]

As 2013 was the coldest year for 200 years, Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, of the St Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory went on record in a UK report to warn about the validity Ice Ages.  The last big freeze, or “Little Ice Age” was between 1650 and 1850 the return of which Abdussamatov is convinced we are presently on an: “unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.” He further commented: “Humanity has always been prospering during the warm periods and suffering during the cold ones. The climate has never been and will never be stable.”  [6]

Predictions by scientists backed by the IPCC have included sea level increases between 26 to 81 centimetres by the end of the century. This in turn, may cause expansion of the oceans and the melting of global ice formations. Despite feverish computer modelling churning out the worst case scenarios tied strictly to anthropocentric global warming and feeding into the public belief that it is fact, the embarrassing reality for AGW experts and the IPCC is that most of the dire warnings of horror and mayhem have not come to fruition. Embarrassing that is, if you have let well-intentioned passion succumb to ill-intentioned social engineers. For example, AGW advocates offer a flurry of explanations as to why the IPCC’s projections on global temperature rises have not been met. Warming has continued but the heat has been absorbed by the oceans, for instance. Those opposed to AGW believe there is not the slightest evidence for this and represents more computer modelling based on wishful thinking rather than concrete observational data.

Since minds and money were not brought to bear thirty years ago to initiate preventative measures and mitigate the effects of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere it seems we are literally between the devil and the deep blue sea. This doesn’t mean that global cooling scenario alleviates the possibility of catastrophic change. Massive implications remain for agriculture, the total breakdown of the social fabric and city infrastructure, ecological destruction and species die-off, the signs of which are already appearing – with or without an ice age. A global warming scenario compared to a new ice age might actually be preferable. It prompted US climate change scientist Franklin Hadley to say in a 2009 article for MIT: “Given how catastrophic another ice age could be, one might be tempted to ask whether a human-caused increase in atmospheric and ocean temperatures will actually be a boon.” [7]

So, what is the central issue that we need to be aware of in amongst the mire of politicised science?

Simply this: that preventative measures are being lost in favour of fake solutions which benefit only those who intend to cream off one last big financial bonanza before the globe goes belly up.

It is horrendous truth to contemplate that there really are people out there that willingly use civilian casualties and environmental destruction to bolster their stock options at boardroom get-togethers. But it should be no surprise that massive scientific fraud and naive activism is similarly used to make big money. The Bilderbergers and other elite outfits are certainly aware of the ramifications of climate change since it is their business to analyse and predict socio-economic trends in order to load the dice toward the own plans. What is more compelling for many scientists and researchers is the reality that the weather is infinitely more complex than we ever realised and that’s without including more anomalous Earth changes and cosmological effects. There are factors that loom much larger than the idea that human beings can affect the outcome of meteorological phenomena on a scale which has been suggested.

I suspect the cosmos would laugh at such an idea…

What does appear to be true is that greenhouse gases, fossil fuels and terra firma destruction in general may have exacerbated and added to the naturally occurring cycle of climate change. In this sense, human beings are culpable. Sensible scepticism about the magnitude of greenhouses gases is necessary rather than claiming there is no validity to any of the climate theories. No one can argue that we are not collectively responsible for despoiling our planet and allowing psychopaths to rape the ecology of our minds, thus our external environment. However, once again, we must understand that science is not exempt from pathogenic infection and the ease to which the best of intentions can be subverted toward their cause. We know there is Climate Change. We should know that there is more than a strong case that AGW and CO2 as the primary cause has been massively hyped. We also know that greenhouse gases and the ozone layer, the sun and natural cycles are all playing a crucial part. More importantly, the green spin tells us that if we adopt a host of new global economic and social laws and infrastructure changes then it will inevitably solve the problem.

It will not.

Excluding the purposeful design of control that is behind, UN Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, SMART society and global warming fraud, if we ushered in an Ecotopia overnight it would not change the vast processes of cyclic change of which we are a part. This is much bigger than us. Therefore, the correct preparation and preventative measures would be welcome in the face of either global warming or global cooling based on reality and away from elite centralisation.

Sadly, it is unlikely we will be able to see the wood for the trees when the very heart of the debate is compromised.



[1]‘The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO): Key to the Global Warming Debate?’ By Roy Spencer, 2008.
[2] ‘Global Cooling is Here: Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades’ By Daniel Easterbrook, Global Research, October 2008.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] ‘Ice Age took just SIX months arrive 10-years’ Daily Mail.
[6]‘Scientist predicts earth is heading for another Ice Age.’ Daily Express.
[7] ‘Global Warming vs. the Next Ice Age,By Franklin Hadley Cocks ’63, SM ’64, ScD ’65 ‘MIT News Magazine December 21, 2009.

Dark Green XII: Climate Change: Divide and Conquer all over again…(2)

By M.K. Styllinski

… the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS [American Physical Society] before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. … I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion.”

– Hal Lewis, Professor Emeritus UCSB

Jumping into the climate change debate is like voluntarily submerging yourself in the quicksand of dogma and propaganda. Once you are in, it can be difficult to find your way out; the more you struggle to maintain a grasp of current scientific principles the more easy it is to be sucked under. A helping hand can come from one camp or another, only to realise they’re actually trying to push you further down into the mire. Such is the murky world of climate science and commentary.

Despite all that, it is possible to extricate ourselves from all the obfuscation, politicisation and horrible academic egos on show. Not easy, but possible. What needs to be born in mind is Cui Bono? Who benefits from all this confusion and suppression of information? The global warming industry and the panic, urgency and fear promoted by outfits like the ICLEI serve to embolden UN Agenda 21 and its various tributaries. It doesn’t matter that some form of climate change is real, it is the overall engineering of the crisis to support and agenda that has nothing to do with climate science itself – that is the key point to remember.

Climate science is informed by the same principles of our official culture, which means it undoubtedly suffers from the exact same self-serving beliefs, and overarching agendas we found in UN Agenda 21 and politics in general. When human nature is immersed in such endemic pathology then we have to be extremely suspicious of any science which is given the wholesale support of the Establishment and their bull-horning lackeys. The same can be said of the fossil fuel industry, yet this is all part of the Divide and Rule formula.

Climate change science and the influences that contributed to the evolution of Anthropocentric Global Warming (AGW) can be traced back to the early 1800’s and the First Industrial Revolution. This radical change resulted in a large increase in green-house gas emissions and a spike in population growth due to better agriculture and sanitation. The traditional view of a stable system, self-regulated by natural feedback dominated. By the end of the 19th Century a handful of scientists had suggested that a change in the level of carbon dioxide gas might cause an ice age or global warming, but most believed such theories were impossible.

By the 1930’s, enough data had been accumulated to suggest that the planet was undergoing a warming trend. As the 1960’s approached, meteorologists found the opposite: that this trend had now changed to a marked cooling in just a couple of decades. Climate change began to be seen as infinitely complicated with some scientists preferring the warming model and others predicting a continuance of the cooling model. Now, this is where it gets interesting …

During the early 1970s and all the environmental hullabaloo which arrived on the squeaky, donkey-driven cart of Club of Rome science, the green-house gas issue was enough to push most scientists over to the idea that continued warming would prevail. The larger natural cycle of cooling was displaced in favour of the apparent evidence in ice flows, tree rings and other natural phenomena to support that the world was indeed warming. In fact, the summary of warming-cooling oscillations appeared in 30 year trends dated as follows:

  • 1882 – 1910 Cooling
  • 1910 – 1944 Warming
  • 1944 – 1975 Cooling
  • 1975 – 2001 Warming.

And from around 2009-2010 indications are that the planet has started to cool again, and will probably continue to do so until about 2030. If these fluctuations are correct, then it merely confirms what has been happening for a long time. [1]

If we go back to what is known as the Medieval Warm Period beginning at AD 1000 – 1300 it was virtually a Mediterranean climate in Europe as well as other regions around the world which were experiencing a significant rise in temperature.[2]By the time we reached the beginning of the 1400s we were fighting freezing temperatures of what is called the “Little Ice Age” which lasted to the end of the 1700’s. Since then temperatures have been rising steadily at 0.5°C per century since about 1750, as a process of recovery from that mini ice age. [3]Once these effects have passed, the evidence suggests that the temperature will return to the Medieval Warm Period, continuing a natural cycle which had been repeated during what is called the Roman Optimum and in the Holocene optimum. [4]

The Maunder Minimum is the term used for the period beginning 1645 to 1715 when sunspots became extremely rare. The period happened to land right in the middle and coldest part of the Little Ice Age giving plenty of evidence that there is a strong causal relationship between low sunspot activity and the rise of cold, hard winters. [5]Solar UV output is also much more variable over the duration of a solar cycle than was previously thought linking terrestrial climate effects such as cold or warm winters according to that data. The effects of that vast ball of unimaginably white-hot fire the sun, has been strangely overlooked in much of mainstream climate science. As the Sun’s core is so hot that a piece of it the size of a pinhead would give off enough heat to kill a person 160 kilometres away, one would think perhaps it plays a small if not highly significant part in climate change science and in ways which may not fit conveniently into the current paradigm. [6]There is still much to be learned about the influence of the sun on climate change along with a host of other factors including cosmic rays.

sun_jove_earth_size_compareSource: Ethan Siegal Remember How Tiny We All Are

You think, just maybe … the Sun has more to do with Climate Change than we think?

Since the spectre of acid rain didn’t cut the mustard in the 1980s, carbon dioxide emissions has taken over as the stimulant to AGW hysteria, though there is still no compelling evidence that an increase in human produced CO2 levels is the main culprit of global warming. But one example, in a sea of refutation, critique and counter-critique is the discovery of “spurious bias” in satellite and modelling evidence as a result of “exaggerated estimates” and “faulty assumptions,” where it was found that: “… the new sensitivity estimate also suggests that warming over the last century cannot be explained by human greenhouse gas emissions alone, but instead might require a mostly natural explanation.” [7]

Another paper studied the IPCC’s projections for the mean global temperature anomaly and found the measurements to be incorrect, with global temperatures “even less than the projections with emission commitment held constant at year 2000”. As the Professor stated at the end of his findings: “It is crucial that public policy be based on facts. CO2 driven global warming is not supported by the data.” [8] As we shall see later on, the IPCC is about as far away from facts and impartiality as it is possible to be. Yet, this is the temple to which most climate scientists bow down in unquestioning homage.

Human caused CO2 emission levels did appear on the scene before about 1850 and were entirely insignificant when compared to current levels until after 1945. So, why the insistence that humans have contributed to a significant degree in destabilising the world’s climate?

One of the biggest examples of climate science controversy was the temperature graph given the nickname of the ‘’hockey stick,’ apparently showing a stable temperature from the year 1000 AD until the 20th century after which it began climb dramatically. The flat part of the line reminded people of the handle of an ice-hockey, while the upstick resembled the blade. It was appropriated by the IPCC and liberally used in its 2001 reports. It also featured heavily in Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

hocketst1The ‘hockey stick.’ (IPCC)

The problem with the climate activist viewpoint is that the studies carried out to check the veracity of the hockey stick data were carried out by the same small clique of researchers, using similarly flawed statistical techniques, and/or relying on the same dubious sources of data, something which happens quite often. It is therefore not a surprise that data is sought to reinforce beliefs rather than to find the truth. [9] The Hockey Stick revelation was made by a young American geophysicist named Michael Mann who had just been granted his PhD. Canadian mathematician Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick published a paper questioning the statistical methods used in the Mann et al. paper showing that the shape of the graph was determined mainly by faulty tree-ring data. Indeed, it was even discovered that the computer algorithm Mann used was so inaccurate and biased that hockey sticks could be produced from random noise! Their criticisms were upheld in 2006 by two expert committees: a US congressional panel headed by statistician Edward Wegman and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Both parties heavily criticised the science behind the Hockey stick data yet it was still being used in IPCC’s 2007 climate reports with carefully “cherry-picked” data all of which were produced by Mann’s colleagues. [10]


With 95% confidence intervals (in red) shows a non-tree-ring temperature reconstruction published by Craig Loehle and Hu McCulloch in 2008, show a Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. The last point on the graph represents 1935. The temperature today is still below that during the MWP. (

Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, Hans von Storch also offered substantial contribution to the critical storm, though the former authors have remained the more commonly quoted amongst climate sceptics. [11]

The way Michael Mann was given superstar status was bizarre to say the least. He was suddenly clasped to the bureaucratic bosom of the IPCC and the recipient of grants which fell like pennies from heaven. This was despite the fact that the institution never bothered to check the data, presumably because he fit so well into the preconceived beliefs rather than objective science the IPCC claimed to espouse. Consequently, Mann became  a new source of propaganda-fuelled cash injection.

Or in other words:

“If you look in GeoRef, which is the bibliography for publications in geology, you will find 485 papers on the Medieval Warm Period and you’ll find 1,413 on the Little Ice Age. So the total number of papers in the geologic literature is 1,900. And we’re expected to believe that one curve [based on] tree rings is going to overturn all of those 1,900 papers? I don’t think so.” [12]

So said Don Easterbrook, a professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University, with B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Washington and who has studied global climate change for five decades. He has written many books, published more than 185 papers in professional journals, and presented 30 research papers at international meetings in 15 countries. He seems qualified to comment on the hockey stick temperature graph, which presented a totally new view of the temperature record, counter to the one long accepted by scholars. Not that this is necessarily indicative of skulduggery at this stage, nor should unorthodox contributions ever be dismissed, but it should give rise to caution at the very least. When coupled with the political interests within the climate change industry as a whole, it becomes highly suspicious. Indeed, as it stands, any departure from the Green Establishment line of AGW merits a tenacious orthodoxy which isn’t about to budge.

Former President of the Czech Republic, Václav Klaus describes the set of beliefs which make up the AGW, global warming “consensus” as “… an ideology, if not a religion.” He further states: “It lives independently on the science of climatology. Its disputes are not about temperature, but are part of the ‘conflict of ideologies’. Temperature is used and misused in these disputes. The politicians, the media and the public – misled by the very aggressive propaganda produced by the adherents of the global warming doctrine – do not see this. It is our task to help them to distinguish between what is science and what is ideology.” [13]

Which will be a tall order since science is about as far as it can be from being impartial and objective thanks to AGW supporters compromising much of the internet sources of information. Anyone perusing climate science articles on internet encyclopaedia Wikipedia would be forgiven for thinking that there is a scientific consensus on global warming.

Then there is the issue of “Climategate” which had climate activists scurrying around applying damage limitation editorials left, right and centre. It’s not difficult to see why.  In November 2009 The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) server was hacked at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by persons unknown. Possibly looking for maximum media coverage just prior to the Copenhagen Summit on climate change, over 4,000 emails and computer files were copied and uploaded to various locations on the Internet. Over 5,000 emails were hacked again in 2011 by a possible whistleblower calling himself “FOIA” and posted on his website. This was called “Climategate 2.0,” apparently timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the original Climategate leak and with the United Nations Climate Summit in Durban, South Africa.

The correspondence included a host of characters but most notably Professors Phil Jones and Dr. Mick Kelly. Jones happens to be a prominent contributor to the IPCC and has worked on temperature records of the last 1000 years with Michael Mann, of hockey stick fame. The unit has received research grants totalling £2,725,000.00 since 1990. Other emails included frequent appearances by Tom Wigley, a climate scientist for the University Corporation of Atmospheric Research (UCAR) and a major contributor to climate and carbon-cycle models; Kevin E. Trenberth head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research and lead author for IPCC reports for 1995, 2001 and 2007; Thomas R. Karl Director of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Centre; James Hansen Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Gavin Schmidt founder of the RealClimate website and contributor to ocean and climate models. There were many other scientists also involved in the scandal.

It was a gift for climate sceptics and no doubt those in the fossil fuel lobby happy to ride on the confusion and noise created. Though this did not disprove the theory of AGW, for many climate sceptics this was cast-iron proof that there was indeed a conspiracy to manipulate and cover up data. This was a serious blow however, to the credibility of AGW research and a vindication from many other scientists that the field was compromised by politics. Unsurprisingly, the CRU rejected the accusations and tried desperately to cultivate a business-as-usual approach. Clinging to their academic life-jackets like survivors of the Titanic, the CRU and climate activists insisted that all the comments were taken out of context and “merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.” [14]Yet, within that honest exchange lay blatant dishonesty, if not downright fraud which can only harm science in general.

Lon Glazer, a Chicago blogger at “Commission Impossible” gave a fine summary of the behaviour of those involved in the scandal the implications of which were being brushed under the carpet. He reveals that:

1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He’s just not very good at securing his web site.

2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be “predictable”.

3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2.

4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favourable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favourable online communities.

What the emails/files don’t do is completely destroy the possibility that global climate change is real. They don’t preclude many studies from being accurate, on either side of the discussion. And they should not be seen as discrediting all science. [15] [Emphasis mine]

The latter paragraph in italics is important to remember. This is about valuing good science and discarding politics of belief and large egos. The above is an example of the pervasive spectre of “group-think” rather than free thought which needs to be countered vigorously whenever it raises its ugly head – which is often.

To give the reader a taste of what Glazer has summarised let me offer some of the verbatim quotes from the scientists themselves.

>Phil Jones reveals how he made his data show warming:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Mick Kelly, Professor of Climate Change at East Anglia University, on covering up recent cooling:

“Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.”

Prof. Phil Jones’ view on the sharing of scientific data:

“PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

Dr. Mick Kelly confirms what we already knew:

Told Paul Horsman of Greenpeace “The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalization agenda driven by organizations like the WTO [World Trade Organization].”

Prof. Michael E. Mann on “cleaning up” code:

“I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.”

Tom Wigley on global warming:

“We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming – and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.”

Thomas R Karl on data requests:

“I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues.”

A CRU programming code for dealing with tree-ring data:

“Uses corrected MXD but shouldn’t usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.”

Adam Markham to the CRU:

“… are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible.”

Phil Jones’ true colours:

“I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”

From Phil Jones to Australian Tom Wigley regarding the Medieval Warm Period:

“Bottom line – there is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years … this is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and variability.”

More evidence of Phil Jones covering up and deleting data. He warns Michael Mann about Steve McIntyre and Prof Ross McKitrick, the first individuals to comprehensively debunk the “hockey stick”, and who wish to look at CRU data:

“If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone … We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

Phil Jones to staff:

“PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

After FOI request from David Holland Phil Jones asks Michael Mann:

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise … Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?”

Tom Wigley on ousting the editor of Geophysical Research Letters (which was achieved):

“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse sceptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”

Phil Jones to Michael Mann on two sceptics’ papers:

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Michael Mann on removing the editor of Climate Science [This was achieved]:

“How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that anti-greenhouse science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on).”

From Phil Jones to Michael Mann, on the death of Australian sceptic John Daly:

“In an odd way this is cheering news!”

IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth privately tells colleagues that global warming is absent from the data and counter to climate model predictions:

“… where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. … The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” [16]

So, why so much emphasis on AGW? Is it just because the science says so?

When you read through the mountains of data you realise very quickly that underneath the teetering columns of graphs and pie-charts, references and citations there is still a whole lot of assumption and inconclusive data. No one really knows but so many want to know and are willing to jump to erroneous conclusions and blame humans for the whole kit and caboodle as a result. After all, it follows in a grand tradition does it not? And humans ARE destroying ecological systems and their wildlife at a terrific rate. Ergo…


Professor Phil Jones from the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia

‘University of East Anglia refused to share information on global warming’  |”The university at the centre of the ‘climategate’ scandal behaved in a “reprehensible” manner by refusing to release research behind the science of global warming, according to MPs.”

Roy Spencer, PhD was the Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001; Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Centre; NASA U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He is a scientist well qualified to comment on the nature of global warming. Awarded NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for global temperature monitoring work with satellites with Dr. John Christy, he continues to provide congressional testimony on the subject of global warming. As he mentions on his website: “He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.” [16]

Dr. Spencer explains the logic which appeals to so many singing the AGW tune:

Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40 percent to 45 percent higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.

It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.

The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.

Spencer explains that the well-worn word: “consensus” sees the Earth’s sensitivity as high (about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C) and warming every ten years as long as the use of fossil fuels continues as our main source of energy. The climate sensitivity is very high and thus the limiting of fossil fuels and CO2 production is the primary pillar of AGW beliefs. He thinks that knowledge on ‘climate sensitivity’ has been difficult to accrue and believes they are missing a vital point:

How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming are critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ’sceptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate. Climate change — it happens, with or without our help. [17]

[Emphasis mine]

The climate change industry is hugely influenced by the idea that carbon dioxide emissions have been fingered as the evil villain of anything from freak tornadoes to flash floods and future sea-level rises where islands will cease to exist. Though human activity does indeed have a lot to answer for – certainly in terms of ozone depletion and rainforest destruction, to name but two examples – placing non-linear weather patterns and their effects at humanity’s door is both unrealistic and prescriptive, though it has provided a thriving industry of computer modelling and carbon credit companies. Without this much-touted “scientific consensus” climate change would be a very different beast indeed.

CFCs Climate Change

The graph shows the predicted path of global temperatures is set to continue their decline as a result of depletion of CFC’s in the atmosphere. Credit: Qing-Bin Lu, University of Waterloo Source:

One of the most recent studies from the University of Waterloo in Canada published in the International Journal of Modern Physics confirmed that Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide. An “in-depth statistical analysis” shows that: “CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change.” Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo’s Faculty of Science state”: “Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong,” he said. “In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming.” [18]

A correlation perhaps, but one certainly a whole lot more watertight than the present evidence for CO2.

Indeed, in a recent article by Paul Driessen he highlights the problems with the AGW climate change which clearly seems to have been going on throughout history reiterating the fact that: “… it is costly policies imposed in the name of preventing change: policies that too often destroy jobs, perpetuate poverty and kill people.”

He states further:

“Those perceptions are reinforced by recent studies that found climate researchers have systematically revised actual measured temperatures upward to fit a global warming narrative for Australia, Paraguay, the Arctic and elsewhere. Another study, ‘Why models run hot: Results from an irreducibly simple climate model,’ concluded that, once discrepancies in IPCC computer models are taken into account, the impact of CO2-driven manmade global warming over the next century (and beyond) is likely to be ‘no more than one-third to one-half of the IPCC’s current projections’ – that is, just 1-2 degrees C (2-4 deg F) by 2100! That’s akin to the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and would be beneficial, not harmful.” [19] 

It doesn’t stop there. Steven Goddard’s Real Science blog also provides some interesting information direct from the National Climate Data Center. His comments follow each graph reproduced here:

There is only one piece of US climate data which correlates with CO2 –  the amount of data tampering NCDC is applying to US temperature.

ScreenHunter_3233 Oct. 01 22.59

All of the other relevant metrics show either no correlation, or negative correlation vs. CO2.  The whole thing is a 100% scam – from top to bottom.

Hot days show no correlation vs. CO2

ScreenHunter_3341 Oct. 05 06.14Severe tornadoes have declined as CO2 has increased

ScreenHunter_3337 Oct. 05 05.58

Measured (untampered) US temperatures show no correlation with CO2

ScreenHunter_3332 Oct. 05 05.19US hurricane strikes have declined as CO2 has increased

ScreenHunter_3328 Oct. 05 04.41US heavy rainfall events show no correlation with CO2

ScreenHunter_3315 Oct. 04 14.20East Coast sea level rise shows no correlation with CO2

ScreenHunter_3311 Oct. 04 11.20

Once again, if anything is going to have a drastic effect on temperature change and any possibility of warming trend it is the Sun, rather than CO2.


Clearly, there is much more to this subject than is possible to summarise, even in a whole book. The point to remember is that science is working for social engineering programs which incorporate both conscious and unconscious agents which are always determined by their psychological profile. This is true for all societal domains where psychopathy has a foothold and its psychological footprint has gained ground. The exact same indications of ponerisation appear in climate science as it does in all other spheres of official culture. The organising principle is one of confusion and disinformation which is propagated by large egos and beliefs. These latter attributes manage to create obstruction and stagnation quite nicely without any radical influence from agents on high. The ultimate agenda is to create so much hysteria, fear and co-opted scientific inquiry so that the real creative solutions are left by the wayside.

There is global warming but not of the type presented by most scientists and their media lackeys. Such a phenomenon may exist cyclically and precede global cooling, substantial earth changes ending with an Ice Age. If the World State ideologues knew very well about this epochal changes but wished to retain control when much of the population had been wiped out, do you think they would reveal such information to the public at large and risk the eventual dilution of their powerbase?  **

Blaming humans for what are very possibly complex cosmic processes far beyond the physical influences of humanity feeds into the same disinformation and ignorance we have been exploring in the last series of posts. What is more important, is that it once again distracts from the theories of cyclic catastrophes which have visited this planet over and over again, strangely enough, at the exact moment when Global Pathocracies are reaching their zenith.

Perhaps it is this knowledge that is really being concealed by the climate change debate?


* Reading Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion will bring the reader up-to-date on every aspect of the famous temperature graph and which reveals the same story of financial and ideological fraud running rampant in climate change science.

** I strongly urge readers to read Earth Changes and the Cosmic-Human Connection by Pierre Lascaudron which goes into the complex forces at work from the electric universe to cometary bombardment. From the book description:

“Jet Stream meanderings, Gulf Stream slow-downs, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, meteor fireballs, tornadoes, deluges, sinkholes, and noctilucent clouds have been on the rise since the turn of the century. Have proponents of man-made global warming been proven correct, or is something else, something much bigger, happening on our planet?

While mainstream science depicts these Earth changes as unrelated, Pierre Lescaudron applies findings from the Electric Universe paradigm and plasma physics to suggest that they might in fact be intimately related, and stem from a single common cause: the close approach of our Sun’s ‘twin’ and an accompanying cometary swarm.

Citing historical records, the author reveals a strong correlation between periods of authoritarian oppression with catastrophic and cosmically-induced natural disasters. Referencing metaphysical research and information theory, Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection is a ground-breaking attempt to re-connect modern science with the ancient understanding that the human mind and states of collective human experience can influence cosmic and earthly phenomena.”



[1] ‘Global Warming: A Classic Case of Alarmism’ by Dr. David Evans, Science and Public Policy Institute, SPPI Commentary & Essay Series, April 2, 2009. (PDF)
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] “The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P.. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal.” (Wikipedia).
“Climate alarmists contend that the degree of global warmth over the latter part of the 20th century was greater than it has been at any other time over the past one to two millennia, because this contention helps support their claim that what they call the “unprecedented” temperatures of the past few decades were CO2-induced. Hence, they cannot stomach the thought that the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago could have been just as warm as, or even warmer than, it has been recently, especially since there was so much less CO2 in the air a thousand years ago than there is now. Likewise, they are equally loath to admit that temperatures of the Roman Warm Period of two thousand years ago may also have rivaled, or exceeded, those of the recent past, since atmospheric CO2 concentrations at that time were also much lower than they are today. As a result, climate alarmists rarely even mention the Roman Warm Period, as they are happy to let sleeping dogs lie. In addition, they refuse to acknowledge that these two prior warm periods were global in extent, claiming instead that they were local phenomenon restricted to lands surrounding the North Atlantic Ocean. In another part of our Subject Index we explore these contentions as they apply to the Medieval Warm Period. In this Summary, we explore them as they pertain to the Roman Warm Period, beginning with Central Europe.” […] See: ‘Roman Warm Period (Europe – Central) – Summary’ further discussion.
[5] ‘Regular Solar Cycle Could Be Going on Hiatus’ by Nancy Atkinson on June 14, 2011 Universe Today at
[7] ‘Global Warming: Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found? ‘ by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. updated 7:00 a.m. CDT, June 30, 2008 Including a simplified version of a paper entitled “Chaotic Radiative Forcing, Feedback Stripes, and the Overestimation of Climate Sensitivity” June 25, 2008 for publication in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
[8] Ibid.
[9] The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) by Andrew Montford. Published by Stacey International, 2010. ISBN-10: 1906768358.
[10] Climate Audit by Steve McKntyre at
[11] ‘Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series’ published in Energy & Environment 2003.Mcintyre, S. and R. McKitrick | Also see: “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance”. Geophysical Research Letters 32 (3): L03710. Bibcode 2005GeoRL..3203710M. 2005 | ‘The decay of the hockey stick’ by Hans Von Storch, May 3, 2007,
[12] ‘Don Easterbrook PhD, Mann Hockey Stick graph not supported by data’
[13] Václav Klaus, Magistral Lecture at the International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies, organized by the World Federation of Scientists, Erice, Sicily, Italy, 20 August 2012. (For full transcript see Appendix 15, Vol. III).
[14] ‘Sceptics publish climate e-mails ‘stolen from East Anglia University’ by Ben Webster, The Times (London). November 21, 2009.
[15] ‘Commission Impossible: ‘Men Behaving badly’ by Lon Glazer at
[16] ‘Bishop Hill’s compendium of CRU email issues’ November 22, 2009. | All email data and individual emails can be found on www.
[18] Ibid. (‘Global Warming’)
[19] ‘Global warming caused by CFCs, not carbon dioxide, new study says’ http://www.Phys Org, May 31, 2013.