tagged w/ Global Warming Hoax
-
Freeman Dyson
Physicist Freeman Dyson has been a giant in his field for decades. But the British-born, Princeton-based professor has gained notoriety for his "heretical" views on climate change. While he does acknowledge the mechanism by which man-made greenhouse gasses can influence the climate, he claims current models are way too simplistic to capture what's really going on in the real world. In March, he was featured in the NYT Magazine for his controversial views.
Bjorn Lomborg
Bjorn Lomborg is a Danish-based scientist, famous for his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. Like Dyson, he's not an outright denier, but rather he thinks the current approach to global warming is misguided and that the costs of drastic, short-term action are too high. Instead, he thinks we should focus on becoming more adaptable, while putting more effort into such real-world tragedies as AIDS and malaria.
Myron Ebell
Myron Ebell may be enemy #1 to the current climate change community. Ebell works for the free-market thinktank Competitive Enterprise Institute and, according to his own bio, has been called a climate "criminal" and a leading pusher of misleading ideas.
Kiminori Itoh
Japanese scientist Kiminori Itoh is the author of Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affair. Like many others, Itoh does not reject the notion of global warming entirely, but instead claims that the causes are far more complex than the anti-carbon crowd would have you believe. You can read an introduction to his views here at Climate Science.
Ivar Giaever
Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, isn't a thought leader, per se, in the climate skeptics scene -- but the mere fact that he has come out as being a skeptic and has a Nobel Prize makes him important. His big beef is that climate change orthodoxy has become a "new religion" for scientists, and that the data isn't nearly as compelling as it should be to get this kind of conformity.
Ian Plimer
Australian professor Ian Plimer is the author of Heaven + Earth, a book that purports to debunk all of the major global warming "myths."
Here's the blurb for his book, laying out his general beliefs:
The Earth is an evolving dynamic system. Current changes in climate, sea level and ice are within variability. Atmospheric CO2 is the lowest for 500 million years. Climate has always been driven by the Sun, the Earth’s orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond. Humans have made their mark on the planet, thrived in warm times and struggled in cool times. The hypothesis tha humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is rejected. A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. Climate change politics is religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change, dogma dominates, sceptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance. When plate tectonics ceases and the world runs out of new rocks, there will be a tipping point and irreversible climate change. Don’t wait up.
Will Happer
Will Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. While he does acknowledge long-term warming, he thinks the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.
In testimony to Congress, he used the following analogy what he means:
The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.
Patrick Michaels
Patrick Michaels is a CATO scholar and a GMU professor who's widely quoted as a global warming skeptic. His basic belief is that we're in a long-term warming trend and that Carbon Dioxoide has got little to do with it, as each additional greenhouse gas molecule has less and less of an effect.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7#patrick-michaels-10#ixzz1guPcrOIeFreeman Dyson
Physicist Freeman Dyson has been a giant in his field for decades.... more
-
-
One of the pivotal studies in the global warming debate has been called out as a fraud… by one of the top members of the team that prepared it. The study purported to show definitive proof that the Earth has been warming since 1950, but in truth the data shows the exact opposite – global temperatures have been almost perfectly flat. No warming, no cooling, no “climate change” at all.
This is gigantic news, isn’t it? In fact, the renegade professor who sounded the B.S. alarms, Professor Judith Curry at the Georgia Institute of Technology, compares it to the blockbuster “Climategate” scandal from two years ago, according to the UK Daily Mail. That would be the Georgia located directly north of Florida, in the United States, but you’ve got to hit the British papers to learn much about Prof. Curry’s critique.
In both cases, we’re talking about the deliberate misrepresentation, or outright falsification, of data to perpetuate the Crime of the Century – an economic and political con job that has cost the developed world hundreds of billions of dollars. You can add up every example of bank malfeasance in the Occupy Wall Street complaints, throw in Bernie Madoff and Enron, and not come anywhere near the price tag of the “global warming” scam.
And yet, the media frantically slapped the snooze alarm throughout Climategate, and they’re pretty much ignoring the new story too. Curious, isn’t it?
The Daily Mail sets the stage for our sordid tale of data distortion:
It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.
Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually.
Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.
It was cited uncritically by, among others, reporters and commentators from the BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, The Economist and numerous media outlets in America.
The Washington Post said the BEST study had ‘settled the climate change debate’ and showed that anyone who remained a sceptic was committing a ‘cynical fraud’.
I love the sound of science settling! There’s just one problem, according to Curry:
Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.
In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.
‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’
Here’s the crap the global warming cult tried to sell the world, compared to the real numbers from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures data:
Professor Curry professes herself “horrified” by the conversion of data into propaganda:
‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’
Prof Muller also wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal. It was here, under the headline ‘The case against global warming scepticism’, that he proclaimed ‘there were good reasons for doubt until now’
This, too, went around the world, with The Economist, among many others, stating there was now ‘little room for doubt’.
Such claims left Prof Curry horrified.
‘Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism,’ she said. ‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, “Oh my God”.’
In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously.
Surely global warmist Professor Richard Muller has a sound and reasonable defense for his spectacular, supposedly argument-settling misinterpretation of the data, right? Um, no. No, he doesn’t.
Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.
However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.
‘I am baffled as to what he’s trying to do,’ Prof Curry said.
So, yeah, Muller flagrantly misrepresented the data, but it’s not really a “lie,” because all those gigabytes of raw data were right there in the open on the BEST website, where any layman could analyze them and determine the truth… after investing a few years in obtaining an advanced meteorology degree. It’s your fault for paying attention to all those op-eds blasting through the global media instead of becoming a scientist and checking the numbers yourself, you stupid taxpayers!
Also, now that he’s been caught lying, Muller would like to revise his earlier declaration that “there were good reasons for doubt until now” about global warming to “this might not be statistically significant, although it’s equally possible that it is.” Unless you somehow missed the widely-unreported story that his earlier declaration was fatuous nonsense. In that case, please continue to believe the earlier declaration without question, and be prepared to cough up a few billion more dollars in annual tithe to the global warming religion.
Later in the Daily Mail story, we learn that even though Curry was the second named author in all four of the research papers Muller misrepresented, he never actually consulted her at all, instead spending his time hand-picking friendly journalists to publish his conclusions before the next big United Nations climate conference. That’s how science works, kids!One of the pivotal studies in the global warming debate has been called out as a... more
-
-
Just 22% are in favour of green taxes - compared with 31% a decade ago
The recession is thought to be one of the primary reasons behind the growth in climate change scepticism - with people worried about making ends meet than protecting the environment.
The figures, published in the annual British Social Attitudes report, also suggested Britons are fed up of having green taxes slapped on their utilities bills.
While in 2000 31 per cent supported green levies, in the new study just 22 per cent said they are in favour.Just 22% are in favour of green taxes - compared with 31% a decade ago
The... more
-
-
Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com joins The Corbett Report to talk about the latest from the world of crimatology. We explore Climategate 2.0, the massive release of emails that once again demonstrates the brazenly anti-scientific actions of the scientists at the heart of the IPCC. We also discuss the latest “fun in the sun” climate conference, COP17 in Durban, which Morano will be attending next week.Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com joins The Corbett Report to talk about the latest from... more
-
-
Two years ago this month the Climategate scandal broke.
Now more devastating Climategate e-mails were released today. We’ve covered juicy ones in the posts listed below. More on the way. Read ‘em all. They validate EVERYTHING the skeptics have been saying. Viva les sceptiques!
http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0-is-her
■Jones says media, especially BBC, has alarmist bias
■Wigley knows why paleo-reconstructions are junk science
■Jones says 2-degree C limit ‘plucked out of thin air’
■Alarmists looked to ally with Goldman Sachs
■Climategate 2.0: Phil Jones complains about omnipresent deniers
■Ducking confrontation on ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’
■Alarmist introspection admits dishonesty on hockey stick
■Jones laments blogsites as allowing deniers to find one another/a>
■Systematic deletion of e-mails
■How Phil Jones misleads journalists
■Santer angry over not being able to silence skeptics
■Mann says true temp anomaly not known well
■Silence of the alarmists
■Wigley accuses ‘Mike’, other IPCC-ers of deception, dishonesty
■Spun science isn’t going to end well
■Department of Energy involved in hiding temperature data?
■Jones advises e-mail deletion to avoid FOIA
■Mann says Curry not helping ‘the cause’
■‘All models wrong’
■IPCC models not worth a darn
■Hulme hired to be the hand of God
■Praying for the ‘Day After Tomorrow’ to work
■Catholicism an ‘extreme’ religion?
■Mann a dead-ender
■Mann paper slammed by colleague as ‘pathetic’
■‘Hockey stick’ debunking confirmed
■Hide the dissent
■Feelings more important than truth
■Kjellén has a better name for global warming
■Jones bans dissent on extreme weather
■Medieval Warm Period tough to erase
■Mann said skeptics ‘losing’
■Climategate 2.0?Two years ago this month the Climategate scandal broke.
Now more devastating... more
-
-
Huge swathes of the north-eastern United States have been hit by a rare October snow storm that struck across the region from Virginia all the way to Maine.
Dubbed "Snowtober" by news organisations covering the unusually early winter storm, the massive weather formation dumped up to 30cm (one foot) of snow in parts of the country that rarely see it this early in the year. Some estimates put the number of people affected by the unseasonal weather at around 60 million.
The freezing weather also represented a challenge to the anti-Wall Street protesters camped in Zuccotti Park in downtown Manhattan: last week New York police and fire department officials arrived at the camp to remove all their electrical power generators and fuel supplies, citing them as a fire hazard. The protesters are already legally banned from erected tents.
However, organisers have long been prepared for the onset of cold weather, though few expected it to arrive this early.
"Occupy snow!" read a jokey message from the Occupy Wall Street official Twitter account as the weather hit. A planned rally on Saturday with local union groups and civil rights organisations outside New York's City Hall, as well as a protest over foreclosed homes in the outer borough of Queens, were still set to go ahead.Huge swathes of the north-eastern United States have been hit by a rare October snow... more
-
-
A wacky Victorian idea concocted by global warmists and climate changlings- of a 1 kilometer-long giant hose pipe attached to a blimp, has been delayed because more time and money is needed for ‘consultation’. Time to catch your breath.
This week, self-styled climate scientists from Bristol University were hoping to launch their big new toy in Norfolk, England. Their mad plan, which entails launching a helium-filled blimp, tethered by a 1 km long hosepipe which will spray reflective particles into the air, is part of a growing movement of bored scientists, known as geoengineering. By simulating this new man-made “volcanic eruption”, this team of career-academic climate hacks are hoping to save humanity from certain doom.
The new crack-team of climate engineers is led by the likes of David Whelan, “a man who spent years in the US defence department working on the stealth bomber”. Apparently, he’s Boeing’s chief scientist, a man who spends his days working on “ways to find new solutions to world’s most challenging problems”.
Whelan is supposed to be top dog in a Specially Convened Taskforce, touted by climatists as “the cream of the emerging science and military”.
Joining him is Stanford University atmosphere scientist Ken Caldeira from the National laboratory at Livermore, CA , home to Reagan’s pricey “star wars” failure. Low and behold, he also manages billionaire Bill Gates’s Geoengineering Research Budget.
The team of Victorian-style climate inventors is rounded out by David Keith, a Canadian who has a company developing a machine… that sucks CO2 out of the air. No joke (well, it’s not meant to be anyway).
This is definitely the ‘A Team’ of climate crazies.
http://www.infowars.com/here-come-the-new-climate-crazies-hoping-to-geoengineer-our-planet/A wacky Victorian idea concocted by global warmists and climate changlings- of a 1... more
-
-
Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears.
Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation. Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS:
“Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’
Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group’s belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS:
“In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’”
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/marc-morano/nobel-laureate-resigns-society-because-its-global-warming-fear-mongeringNobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the... more
-
-
By AL GORE
JUNE 22, 2011 7:45 AM ET
The first time I remember hearing the question "is it real?" was when I went as a young boy to see a traveling show put on by "professional wrestlers" one summer evening in the gym of the Forks River Elementary School in Elmwood, Tennessee.
The evidence that it was real was palpable: "They're really hurting each other! That's real blood! Look a'there! They can't fake that!" On the other hand, there was clearly a script (or in today's language, a "narrative"), with good guys to cheer and bad guys to boo.
But the most unusual and in some ways most interesting character in these dramas was the referee: Whenever the bad guy committed a gross and obvious violation of the "rules" — such as they were — like using a metal folding chair to smack the good guy in the head, the referee always seemed to be preoccupied with one of the cornermen, or looking the other way. Yet whenever the good guy — after absorbing more abuse and unfairness than any reasonable person could tolerate — committed the slightest infraction, the referee was all over him. The answer to the question "Is it real?" seemed connected to the question of whether the referee was somehow confused about his role: Was he too an entertainer?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622By AL GORE
JUNE 22, 2011 7:45 AM ET
The first time I remember hearing the question... more
-
-
-
The record cold, sleet and snow over much of the United States and Europe this winter has made it hard for people to continue believing in Global Warming.
Read the whole story, watch the video and check out the latest evidence supporting that its all just annother big lie, at ConspiracyWatch.net.
I'm watching out for you, too.The record cold, sleet and snow over much of the United States and Europe this winter... more
-
-
-
Australia was told to prepare for droughts as a result of climate change, and let down its guard against flooding, writes Christopher Booker.
Ever more alarming facts are emerging to show how Brisbane’s floods were made infinitely worse by cockeyed decisions inspired by the obsession of the Australian authorities with global warming. Inevitably, the country’s warmist lobby has been voluble in claiming that such a “freak weather event” (as the BBC called it) is a consequence of man-made climate change. But far from being an unprecedented “freak event”, the latest flood was nearly a foot below the level of one in 1974 and 10 feet below the record set in 1893.
For years, Australia’s warmists have been advising the authorities that the danger posed to the country by global warming is not floods but droughts: not too much rain but too little. One result, in Brisbane, was a relaxation of planning rules, to allow building on areas vulnerable to flooding in the past. As long ago as 1999, this was seen as potentially disastrous by an expert Brisbane River Flood Study (which was ignored and for years kept secret). Instead of investing in its flood defences, Australia spent $13 billion on desalination plants. (Queensland’s was recently mothballed because of the excess of rain.)
Last week’s most disturbing revelation, however, was the contribution to Brisbane’s flooding by the South East Queensland Water company’s massive release of water from its Wivenhoe dam upstream from the city (for details see “Brisbane’s Man-Made Flood Peak” on the Regionalstates blog). Instead of controlled releases through the previous week, the company allowed the level to rise to within a few inches of the top of the dam before releasing a vast volume of water, with devastating consequences for Brisbane 36 hours later.
Last spring, Queensland’s prime minister, the drought- and warming-obsessed Anna Bligh, ordered the water company not to allow any releases from the dam because water was such a “precious resource” that none must be wasted.
Unsurprisingly, on Friday, the city’s Lord Mayor asked for a full judicial review of what had happened. But it is time our Australian cousins carried out a very much more wide-ranging inquiry into all the other decisions made by their gullible politicians in recent years, under the spell of a pseudo-scientific ideology which now looks utterly discredited.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8262064/What-was-the-role-of-warmists-in-the-Queensland-flood-disaster.htmlAustralia was told to prepare for droughts as a result of climate change, and let down... more
-
-
CHICAGO — Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing humanity is not global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age.
What we live in now is known as an interglacial, a relatively brief period between long ice ages. Unfortunately for us, most interglacial periods last only about ten thousand years, and that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended.
How much longer do we have before the ice begins to spread across the Earth’s surface? Less than a hundred years or several hundred? We simply don’t know.
Even if all the temperature increase over the last century is attributable to human activities, the rise has been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit — an increase well within natural variations over the last few thousand years.
While an enduring temperature rise of the same size over the next century would cause humanity to make some changes, it would undoubtedly be within our ability to adapt.
Entering a new ice age, however, would be catastrophic for the continuation of modern civilization.
http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59549_621.htmCHICAGO — Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing... more
-
-
In that issue Der Spiegel described a series of ”weather extremes” occurring all over the world, claiming they were unmistakable signs of a climate change to cooling: deluges of rain in West Germany, severe thunderstorms that uprooted trees and blew off roofs in Berlin, the worst storm in 100 years devastating much of Lower Saxony, hurricane Agnes inflicting 3 billion dollars in damage, floods in Japan and Peru, temperatures in Argentina, India and South Africa dropping to their lowest levels in 300 years.
Back in 1974, in its introduction, Der Spiegel wrote:
"Is a new ice age coming? Not right away, but the rainy summers in northern Europe, scientists fear, were only a part of the worldwide shift in weather — a preview of cooler and wetter times ahead."
It’s the same type of stuff we’re hearing today from the hysterical media. As Der Spiegel wrote, there were signs of climate change happening everywhere, and the world was seriously threatened. Scientists and experts were forecasting widespread global suffering and that billions could die. Today, thirty six years later, we see they were all wrong.In that issue Der Spiegel described a series of ”weather extremes”... more
-
-
Ultra elitist environmental group The Royal Society has published a series of papers to coincide with the latest round of UN climate talks, in which influential scientists suggest that politicians should force the population of the developed world to adhere to a system of rationing in order to stave off rising global temperatures.
The papers suggest that 1930s and 40s style crisis rationing should be implemented by Western governments in order to reduce carbon emissions. Such a move would see “limits on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.” the London Telegraph Reports.
“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” one Royal Society affiliated professor states.
Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, added that in his view, economic growth in the developed world should be completely halted within the next two decades if the planet is to avoid mass upheaval in the form of rising sea levels, floods, droughts and mass migration.
“I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.”
Ironically, Anderson’s point here reveals a fundamental flaw in the theory of anthropogenic warming, namely that CO2 emissions have increased, yet temperature rise is slowing. By all accounts, the warming trend observed predominantly throughout the 1980s and 90s stopped just over a decade ago.
Even the Royal Society itself was forced to admit this fact in a recently published guide, titled ‘Climate change: a summary of the science’ which was altered following multiple complaints from 43 of the Royal Society’s own members that “knowledgeable people” were seeing through brazenly alarmist climate change rhetoric.
The Met office concurs that global warming has been slowing for some time, and the admission was also recently noted by Professor Phil Jones, the figure at the head of the Climategate scandal.
It is hardly surprising to see the Royal Society still pushing a de-industrialization agenda, however, given it’s history and cadre of members and patrons.
The Royal Society, a 350 year old establishment outfit, has traditionally been the most vocal proponent for the hypothesis of AGW.
It was the former president of The Royal Society, Lord May, who made the infamous statement “The debate on climate change is over.”
When he was head of the Society, May told government advisors: “On one hand, you have the entire scientific community and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots.”
The Royal Society has thrown its full weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and drastically reduce living standards everywhere.
It has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.
Not surprising then that The Royal Society was also intimately tied to efforts to Whitewash the Climategate emails scandal.
The society has also conducted extensive research into geoengineering the planet, and continually lobbies the government to divert funding into it. A recently published lengthy UK Government report drew heavily upon the Society’s research and concluded that a global body such as the UN should be appointed to exclusively regulate world wide geoengineering of the planet in order to stave off man made global warming.
This information becomes even more disturbing when you consider the mindset of those who make up the membership of the Society. It is riddled with renowned eco-fascists, open eugenicists and depopulation fanatics.
One notable member is James Lovelock, an eco-fascist who advocates ending democracy and instituting an authoritative elite to oversee global climate management and a radical stemming of the human population in order to combat climate change. He is also a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population, which it refers to as “primates” or “animals”, to what it sees as a “sustainable” level.
Lovelock is also an ardent advocate of geoengineering. In 2007 Lovelock proposed laying vast swathes of pipes under the world’s oceans in order to pump water from the bottom of the seas – rich in nutrients, but mostly dead – to the top. The idea being that the action would encourage algae to breed, absorb more carbon and release more dimethyl sulphide into the atmosphere, a chemical known to seed sunlight reflecting clouds. Such methods are also covered in the Commons report.
Another member is Jonathon Porritt, former chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, one of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, who has stated that Britain’s population must be cut in half from around 60 million to 30 million if it is to build a sustainable society.
Porritt, also a member of the Optimum Population Trust, a connection that caused raised eyebrows when it was announced that Porritt was to be a part of a forthcoming Royal Society“Objective” Global Population Study.
Also on the Royal Society’s working group for their global population study is another of their patrons, and another OPT member, BBC darling wildlife broadcaster and film-maker Sir David Attenborough. Attenborough has called for a one child policy like that of Communist China to be implemented in Britain. The proposal is one of the OPT’s main initiatives. Again, how is this man’s influence going to result in an “objective” study on population?
Another member of that working group is Cambridge economist Sir Partha Dasgupta, also a fellow of the OPT.
Professor Malcolm Potts, another member of the working group was the first male doctor at the Marie Stopes Abortion Clinic in London, he also advised on the UK’s 1967 Abortion Act.
Marie Stopes was a prominent campaigner for the implementation of eugenicspolicies. In Radiant Motherhood (1920) she called for the “sterilisation of those totally unfit for parenthood [to] be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.” That group, according to her, included non-whites and the poor.
Stopes, an anti-Semite Nazi sympathizer, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.
Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.
Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.
Read More: http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2010/11/ultra-elitist-environmental-group-halt.htmlUltra elitist environmental group The Royal Society has published a series of papers... more
-
-
Nobel Peace Prize winner and champion climate campaigner Al Gore outlined the doom the world is awaiting because of climate change and expressed disappointment at world leaders failing to clinch a treaty to fight the new global terror. Terming the logjam in climate negotiations as a “startling paradox”, the man, whose documentary, The Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar said the year 2010 had seen worst of climate change.
“There was severe drought in Russia and extreme flooding in Pakistan. What more evidence is required for action,” he said at HT Leadership Summit.
His worst fear was that after failure of Copenhagen climate summit the talks where heading towards another “zombie” like the Doha process on World Trade Organisation negotiations. Gore’s solution for the problem was taking the issue back to the grassroots and creating a political storm to compel the leaders to react to climate change.
The former president blamed his own country United States – world second biggest carbon emitter -- for failing to legislate a carbon law to curb emissions, resulting in failure of Copenhagen.
“There are six anti-climate lobbyists for every member of the Senate," he said, adding that such interest groups backed by billions of dollars by polluting companies in US were making an organised attempt to change the public opinion on climate change.
"They believe that by deceiving people and creating false doubts climate science, they can delay the legislation," the Nobel Peace Prize winner for year 2007 with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said.
He like many leaders at the HT Summit had said that a solution to climate crises is not possible without involving business. For this, he recommended a price on carbon, which could be a carbon tax or a price for emissions higher than a particular level for each sector.
Al Gore had a lot of hope for India to take a lead in fighting climate change.
Read More:Nobel Peace Prize winner and champion climate campaigner Al Gore outlined the doom the... more
-
-
TRANSCRIPT: This week marks the one year anniversary of the release of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that we now know as Climategate.
Sitting here now, one year later, it’s becoming difficult to remember the importance of that release of information, or even what information was actually released. Many were only introduced to the scandal through commentary in the blogosphere and many more came to know about it only weeks later, after the establishment media had a chance to assess the damage and fine tune the spin that would help allay their audience’s concern that something important had just happened. Very few have actually bothered to read the emails and documents for themselves.
Few have browsed the “Harry Read Me” file, the electronic notes of a harried programmer trying to make sense of the CRU’s databases. They have never read for themselves how temperatures in the database were “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” or the “hundreds if not thousands of dummy stations” which somehow ended up in the database, or how the exasperated programmer resorts to expletives before admitting he made up key data on weather stations because it was impossible to tell what data was coming from what sources.
Few have read the 2005 email from Climategate ringleader and CRU head Phil Jones to John Christy where he states “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” Or where he concludes: “As you know, I’m not political. If anything, 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.”
Or the email where he broke the law by asking Michael Mann of “hockey stick” fame to delete a series of emails related to a Freedom of Information request he had just received.
Or the email where he wrote: “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.”
Or the other emails where these men of science say they will re-define the peer review process itself in order to keep differing view points out of the scientific literature, or where they discussousting a suspected skeptic out of his editorial position in a key scientific journal, or where theyfret about how to hide the divergence in temperature proxy records from observed temperatures, or where they openly discuss the complete lack of warming over the last decade or any of the thousands of other emails and documents exposing a laundry list of gross scientific and academic abuses.
Of course, the alarmists continue to argue–as they have ever since they first began to acknowledge the scandalÑthat climategate is insignificant. Without addressing any of the issues or specific emails, they simply point to the “independent investigations” that they say have vindicated the climategate scientists.
Like the UK parliamentary committee, which issued a report claiming that Phil Jones and the CRU’s scientific credibility remained intact after a rigorous one day hearing which featured no testimony from any skeptic or dissenting voice. After the release of the report, the committee stressed that the report did not address all of the issues raised by climategate and Phil Willis, the committee chairman admitted that the committee had rushed to put out a report before the British election.
Or the Oxburgh inquiry, chaired by Lord Ron Oxburgh, the UK Vice Chair of Globe International, an NGO-funded climate change legislation lobby group. The Oxburgh inquiry released a five page report after having reviewed 11 scientific papers unrelated to the climategate scandal that had been hand-picked by Phil Jones himself. It heard no testimony or evidence from anyone critical of the CRU. Unsurprisingly, it found the climategaters not guilty of academic misconduct.
Regardless of what one thinks of the veracity or independence of these so-called investigations into the climategate scandal itself, what has followed has been a catastrophic meltdown of the supposedly united front of scientific opinion that manmade CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming.
In late November of 2009, just days after the initial release of the climategate emails, the University of East Anglia was in the hotseat again. The CRU was forced to admit they hadthrown away most of the raw data that their global temperature calculations were based upon, meaning their work was not reproducible by any outside scientists.
In December of that year, the UN’s Copenhagen climate talks broke down when a negotiating document was leaked showing that–contrary to all prÑit would be the third world nations bearing the brunt of a new international climate treaty, with punishing restrictions on carbon emissions that would prevent them from ever industrializing. The document, written by industrialized nations, allowed the first world to emit twice as much carbon per person as the third world, and was widely seen as an implementation of a eugenical austerity program under a “green” cover. This agenda was further exposed by the influential Optimum Population Trust in the UK, which began arguing that same month that rich westerners offset their carbon footprints by funding programs to stop black people from breeding.
In January 2010, the United Nations’ much-lauded Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change began to fall apart as error after error began to emerge in this supposedly unassailable peer-reviewed, scientific document asserting human causation of catastrophic climate change. That month it was revealed that a passing comment to a journalist from an Indian climatologist that the Himalayan glaciers could melt within 40 years found its way into the much-touted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth report on climate change via a World Wildlife Fund fundraising pamphlet. When IPCC defenders tried to pass the universally derided prediction off as a legitimate mistake, the coordinating lead author of that section of the report admitted that the IPCC knew that the report was based on baseless speculation in a non-peer reviewed work, but included it because “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”
Later that month, doubt was cast on another claim in the IPCC report, this one that 40% of the Amazon rainforest was in danger of disappearing due to manmade global warming. These doubts were confirmed in July when the claim was sourced back to pure, unverified speculation on the now-defunct website of a Brazilian environmental advocacy group. Just this month, the exact opposite of the original claim was shown to be the case when a new study appeared in Science demonstrating that forests in past warming periods were not decimated but in fact blooming with life, experiencing a “rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates.”
Also in January, the UK Information Commissioner ruled that researchers at the CRU had broken the law by refusing to comply with Freedom of Information requests, but that no criminal prosecution would follow because of a statute of limitations on prosecuting the illegal activity.
READ MORE: http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2010/11/climategate-is-still-issue.htmlTRANSCRIPT: This week marks the one year anniversary of the release of emails and... more
-
-
One of the first tasks of the new Republican-controlled House of Congress will be to launch a full investigation into the man-made global warming fraud, as the climate change con that threatens to tax and regulate the American middle class out of existence is exposed to what could prove terminal scrutiny.
“The GOP plans to hold high profile hearings examining the alleged “scientific fraud” behind global warming, a sleeper issue in this election that motivated the base quite a bit,” writes the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder.
As Politico’s Darren Samuelsohn and Robin Bravender reported yesterday, Barack Obama can count of substantially less allies in his effort to push through his cap and tax agenda, because over two dozen of them were defeated in the mid-term elections, being replaced by Republicans who on the whole are increasingly skeptical towards man-made climate change.
“Come January, Obama will be working with a Congress that will have little appetite for the types of sweeping energy reform he sought over the last two years. With the House in Republican hands, some of the climate issue’s most vocal advocates have been dislodged from their powerful perches, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman,” states the article.
Any proper investigation into global warming is likely to turn up a plethora of evidence of fraud and scientific manipulation.
As the Climategate fiasco and the many other scandals that followed in its wakehighlighted,
Read More: http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-republican-house-promises.htmlOne of the first tasks of the new Republican-controlled House of Congress will be to... more
-
-
Google CEO Eric Schmidt and film director James Cameron recently concurred that people who question the science of anthropogenic global warming are, in their opinions, "criminal".
The two made the comments during a recent on stage conversation at a private event in Silicon Valley.
"If that continues, business as usual as our leaders in Washington say is OK for us to do, we will have extincted 70% of the species on the planet by the end of the century." Cameron responded to Schmidt's line of discussion on global warming.
During the same conversation Schmidt stated, "There are people who in my view criminally doubt some of the science."
"I agree, criminally, I agree with that." Cameron interjected.
"People, we need to evolve mentally and philosophically to something that has never existed before." the Avatar director continued.
"We need to become techno-indigenous people of an entire Earth, not of a nation, not of a state, but of a planet."
So, according to these two high priests of the scientific community, if you point out that the warming trend observed predominantly throughout the 1980s and 90s stopped over a decade ago, as admitted recently by both Professor Phil Jones, the figure at the head of the Climategate scandal, as well as one of the most prominent AGW advocate groups in existence, The Royal Society, you should be locked up.
Presumably the two would want to see thousands and thousands of scientists have their rights taken away and their freedoms eliminated, for merely expressing disagreement or dissent with the much lauded, rarely present "consensus".
After all, questioning hypotheses and presenting counter-evidence and alternative theories has nothing at all to do with science - no no no, that's the behaviour of morally corrupt criminals.
Cameron is of course, another green celebrity hypocrite. The man owns three large houses in Malibu, totaling 24,000 square feet - ten times the average US home. He also owns a 100 acre ranch in Santa Barbara and numerous private luxuries such as helicopters, Harley motorbikes, super cars, a yacht, and even a fleet of submarines. Nevertheless he demands that we all "live with less" because it is us that are responsible for killing the planet.
Earlier this year, Cameron said he wanted to debate the "deniers", but then pulled out at the last minute even after the "criminals" agreed to endless dubious stipulations he kept demanding, such as no recording of the debate and no media coverage.
Cameron has also just given $1m to help defeat California’s Prop23 which will overturn the Global Warming Bill, legislation that critics have argued would cause unemployment to sky rocket, effectively killing dead the already crippled economy.
One wonders what punishments Cameron and Schmidt have in mind for global warming denying criminals? Perhaps execution, in line with the recent 10/10 propaganda campaign.
http://infowars.net/articles/october2010/291010Cameron.htmGoogle CEO Eric Schmidt and film director James Cameron recently concurred that people... more
-
