global cooling

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


Climate_Reality_Logo-Globe

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.

polarbearsonice

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.

 

———–

Cool itdocumentary by Bjorn Lomborg

 


Notes

[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 policy.org PDF version: http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf
[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 || http://www.cei.org.
[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 | www.friendsofscience.org/


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 carbon dioxide. 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. There is no evidence for this.

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-corporate views and short-term greed. Coupled with institutionalised science which is as divorced from an ethical discourse as 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. 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, Princess Beatrice of the Netherlands, arch Zio-Con strategist Richard Perle and Bill Gates. Which is why many of us pay attention when attendees and topics for discussion are sometimes leaked from its annual meetings 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 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 creation. 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 have to do with 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 cehrry-picked 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 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 likely 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 cycles 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]

100_5010© infrakshun

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.

In November 2013, a newspaper report quoted Patterson describing his research which involved hours of “scraping off layers of mud 0.5mm thick from a lake in Western Ireland” that 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 – 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]

The frozen Thames 1677 by Abraham Hondius

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 a 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 influences. 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 skepticism 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 a 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.

 


Notes

[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 an 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.

A Primer

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]

A 2000-YEAR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
RECONSTRUCTION BASED ON NON-TREE RING PROXIES

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. (scienceandpublicpolicy.org)

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…

PhilJones_1578026c

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: http://www.Phys.org

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 these 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. More importantly, 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.”

 


Notes

[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’ http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropecentral.phpfor further discussion.
[5] ‘Regular Solar Cycle Could Be Going on Hiatus’ by Nancy Atkinson on June 14, 2011 Universe Today at http://www.universetoday.com/86643/regular-solar-cycle-could-be-going-on-hiatus/#ixzz2HnDWS1eq
[6] http://www.solarspace.co.uk/Sun.php
[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 http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/
[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, http://www.nature.com
[12] ‘Don Easterbrook PhD, Mann Hockey Stick graph not supported by data’ audio=YouTube.com
[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 http://www.norcalblogs.com/commission/archives/2009/11/men-behaving-ba.html
[16] ‘Bishop Hill’s compendium of CRU email issues’ November 22, 2009. | All email data and individual emails can be found on www.http://di2.nu/foia/
[17] http://www.drroyspencer.com/
[18] Ibid. (‘Global Warming’)
[19] ‘Global warming caused by CFCs, not carbon dioxide, new study says’ http://www.Phys Org, May 31, 2013.