Global warming graphs for use in the articles
Showing posts with label globalwarming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label globalwarming. Show all posts
Monday, March 26, 2012
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Global warming: The science is settled?
Thanks to Peter Maxwell for compiling this list. Until now only the same handful of names were wheeled out when the media wanted an opposing view, deliberately creating the impression no one else disagreed. Well they do.
Following is a sample of some of the scientists and other experts who actually worked for the IPCC as contributors / editors / reviewers and have publicly expressed their scepticism about the IPCC "process."
Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).
Dr. Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."
Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."
Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."
Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."
Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."
Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers."
Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."
Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."
Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: "Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."
Dr Peter Dietze: "Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."
Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."
Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."
Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980's. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false."
Dr Indur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."
Dr Vincent Gray: "The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."
Dr Kenneth Green: "We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority."
Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was "only a few dozen."
Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists."
Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."
Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."
Dr Georg Kaser: "This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude ... It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,"
Dr Aynsley Kellow: "I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be."
Dr Madhav Khandekar: "I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."
Dr Hans Labohm: "The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring."
Dr. Andrew Lacis: "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."
Dr Chris Landsea: "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
Dr Richard Lindzen: "The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance."
Dr Harry Lins: "Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."
Dr Philip Lloyd: "I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said."
Dr Martin Manning: "Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors."
Dr Stephen McIntyre: "The many references in the popular media to a "consensus of thousands of scientists" are both a great exaggeration and also misleading."
Dr Patrick Michaels: "The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled."
Dr Nils-Axel Morner: "If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere."
Dr Johannes Oerlemans: "The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine."
Dr Roger Pielke: "All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system."
Dr Jan Pretel: "It's nonsense to drastically reduce emissions ... predicting about the distant future-100 years can't be predicted due to uncertainties."
Dr Paul Reiter: "As far as the science being 'settled,' I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists."
Dr Murray Salby: "I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the "science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia."
Dr Tom Segalstad: "The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data."
Dr Fred Singer: "Isn't it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites--probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?"
Dr Hajo Smit: "There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change."
Dr Roy Spencer: "The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal."
Dr Richard Tol: "The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices."
Dr Tom Tripp: "There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made."
Dr Robert Watson: "The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened."
Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: "Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis."
Dr David Wojick: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."
Dr Miklos Zagoni: "I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong."
Dr. Eduardo Zorita: "Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines... a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication."
Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).
Dr. Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."
Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."
Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."
Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."
Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."
Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers."
Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."
Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."
Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: "Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."
Dr Peter Dietze: "Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."
Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."
Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."
Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980's. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false."
Dr Indur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."
Dr Vincent Gray: "The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."
Dr Kenneth Green: "We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority."
Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was "only a few dozen."
Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists."
Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."
Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."
Dr Georg Kaser: "This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude ... It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,"
Dr Aynsley Kellow: "I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be."
Dr Madhav Khandekar: "I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."
Dr Hans Labohm: "The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring."
Dr. Andrew Lacis: "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."
Dr Chris Landsea: "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
Dr Richard Lindzen: "The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance."
Dr Harry Lins: "Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."
Dr Philip Lloyd: "I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said."
Dr Martin Manning: "Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors."
Dr Stephen McIntyre: "The many references in the popular media to a "consensus of thousands of scientists" are both a great exaggeration and also misleading."
Dr Patrick Michaels: "The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled."
Dr Nils-Axel Morner: "If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere."
Dr Johannes Oerlemans: "The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine."
Dr Roger Pielke: "All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system."
Dr Jan Pretel: "It's nonsense to drastically reduce emissions ... predicting about the distant future-100 years can't be predicted due to uncertainties."
Dr Paul Reiter: "As far as the science being 'settled,' I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists."
Dr Murray Salby: "I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the "science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia."
Dr Tom Segalstad: "The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data."
Dr Fred Singer: "Isn't it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites--probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?"
Dr Hajo Smit: "There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change."
Dr Roy Spencer: "The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal."
Dr Richard Tol: "The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices."
Dr Tom Tripp: "There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made."
Dr Robert Watson: "The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened."
Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: "Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis."
Dr David Wojick: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."
Dr Miklos Zagoni: "I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong."
Dr. Eduardo Zorita: "Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines... a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication."
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Global warming: The conspiracy.
Al Gore was originally fascinated by his lecturer (while doing an arts degree at Harvard, he was poor at science and only took the course due to the American system of minor subjects) Roger Revelle's personal theory that this may be possible and happening, and like a man falls in love instantly across a crowded room, Al took this to his heart and although the late Mr Revelle changed his mind on retirement and told anyone who would listen that he was wrong, it was too late. Al had fallen, and dismissed Revelle as being senile.
To follow Gore to the present, as he joined the parallel bandwagon around the early 90s or before so became the mouthpiece of the movement worldwide, his main interest in global warming was not the environment, but a financial one. His film 'An Inconvenient Truth' was found to have at least ten 'material errors' (ie lies) in a British civil court, and was only the alarmist advertisement for his financial concerns. Right at the beginning, he worked out there was a vast source of profit from this assertion, and worked with Ken Lay, before the collapse of his Enron company, on how best to go about this route. Enron later collapsed after being found to have invented both profits and products, basically paper energy notes based on the collection of non-existent future profits. This worked long enough to collect millions, and I do not know what happened to these after the trial, but can only presume they were not confiscated so the job was done.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/737753/posts
http://www.blurtdaily.com/2009/04/30/al-gore-and-enron/
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663
"In August 1997, Lay and Browne met with President Bill Clinton and Vice President Gore in the Oval Office to develop administration positions for the Kyoto negotiations that resulted in an international treaty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions."
http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1185475433.pdf
The second limb of the conspiracy is that carbon trading, as opposed to credits, is like car insurance in a growing number of countries. It is not something you risk as a seasoned investor (as did the customers of Bernie Madoff who wasn't sanctioned by the UN) but are forced to do by law if your country legislates for it. A win-win situation for the traders.
Video here http://www.youtube.com/user/satguru?feature=mhee#p/a/f/0/pQAc8RteZT4
Their previous report from the 70s was indeed an extremely sensible one, published as a book, to keep world population stable, and received virtually no publicity and absolutely no policy changes, remaining to this day a framework to manage the world's real elephant in the room which is a definite threat as unlike our temperatures it is already spiralling out of control. But their second try, possibly as there is a huge opportunity for financial gain from it rather than simply conserving the planet, was a raving success. Mikail Gorbachev joined the team on retirement from Soviet affairs, as an expert in such areas of oppressing the masses, and in 1996 restated their position:
"The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key that will unlock the New World Order"
The Wildlands Project http://www.libertymatters.org/ahri-wildlands-rpt.htm
"The environmental issue will bring far more people into the communist movement than peace ever did" Karl Blau, assistant to Mikhail Gorbachev
Of course, if you're going to con the public, you have to find something with all the required criteria. It firstly and most of all must be something they can't see or measure for themselves. Climate is the perfect example. Then add the fear factor- imagine the Sahara Desert, transfer that to Paris or Watford, and the pinch of supernatural to finish it off: In 2100 it could be over 6C higher than it is now. Yes, and it could also be 6C colder, both are almost impossible due to the previous records, but it doesn't matter as none of us will actually be there to ever see it, you must trust us. And they nearly all do.
So it is not 'Why would there be a conspiracy, who would profit?' or 'Show me a conspiracy' but 'Here's the conspiracy'. Just because getting all the pieces of the jigsaw isn't as easy as watching a scary movie, it is both possible and completed. It won't be shown by the BBC or many other outlets however, as the BBC are now working for the enemy. As I suspected long before it was discovered that carbon trading was no 'like Enron' but was Enron, it was pretty obvious, as well as being confirmed by Peter Sissons, Johnny Ball and David Bellamy, who among others fell foul of their one sided policy, breached their charter by acting as a mouthpiece for an organisation set up to spread the message, Globe International. As the BBC are supposed to be balanced and independent, not in theory but by law, acting for a group who have a single agenda is not within their charter, their argument presumably being as long as they are not being paid to do so then it is fine, is hardly convincing. And to tie up another loose end, an officer of Globe International is Lord Roxborough, the very head of the enquiry who found the CRU at East Anglia University not guilty in the climategate enquiry.This is not just a conflict of interests, but as such legally Ultra Vires. That is a decision where there is the chance of a conflict of interests, whether or not it exists, is void ab initio under equity law. So technically as someone on a board specifically to support the work of the CRU, the main supplier of IPCC figures, is not qualified to judge them when they screw up, that exoneration never existed and must have another enquiry with a new head. as if they would.
I am personally a great fan of Buddhism, although know little about the Dalai Lama assumed he was working both for them and Tibet, until he recently made a speech about global warming being a major threat. Guess who he works for, yes, he's in the Club of Rome. They've even bagged a religious leader. Without a forensic accountant and a warrant I can't state the exact investments of all its members along with Globe International, but public shareholder records are not secret and David Cameron, along with other cabinet members and their families, have all got large investments in the very 'green energy' projects they have legislated to subsidies with our taxes. Not an illegal conflict of interests but still wrong. And remember black Monday, when the British economy lost billions in a single day due to speculation crashing the pound when it joined the ERM? The main player (again, simply playing the system as we all can if have enough to risk on it) was George Soros, who recently joined the campaign and invested vast sums himself in wind and solar power. Just look what happened to his last investment to see the likely results.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/carrie-spurgeon/hows-this-for-conflicts-of-interest-guys-how-both-the-met-and-the-bbc-are-playin/10150624666950262
If drawn as a spider's web going downwards with time, you can see a general birth around 1990, as I can't say exactly who decided the Club of Rome decision (although its members are known and the report is all online as linked here). Don't be diverted by trees in the wood looking for individual motives and actions, they are all the fruit of a single tree, a decision to invent a problem to create a reaction and then offer the pre-written solution we would never have accepted had there not been a problem, much like losing our liberty for security after 9/11, something Benjamin Franklin said over 100 years earlier, whoever does this deserves neither. It's an old trick and one despite being exposed time after time will always succeed as long as people trust those in authority. Once those at the top go bad, it is very difficult for those lower down not to follow or lose their children's school fees. Even the most honest and genuine scientists don't want to go bankrupt as those mortgages have to be paid and won't be if they are ostracised from the profession as a handful such as David Bellamy already claim to have been. The reason 'senile' (to quote Al Gore) ex-professors have always been the most vociferous opponents of global warming is they have nothing to lose. Think about it.
http://www.real-science.com/1855-northwest-passage
To follow Gore to the present, as he joined the parallel bandwagon around the early 90s or before so became the mouthpiece of the movement worldwide, his main interest in global warming was not the environment, but a financial one. His film 'An Inconvenient Truth' was found to have at least ten 'material errors' (ie lies) in a British civil court, and was only the alarmist advertisement for his financial concerns. Right at the beginning, he worked out there was a vast source of profit from this assertion, and worked with Ken Lay, before the collapse of his Enron company, on how best to go about this route. Enron later collapsed after being found to have invented both profits and products, basically paper energy notes based on the collection of non-existent future profits. This worked long enough to collect millions, and I do not know what happened to these after the trial, but can only presume they were not confiscated so the job was done.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/737753/posts
http://www.blurtdaily.com/2009/04/30/al-gore-and-enron/
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663
"In August 1997, Lay and Browne met with President Bill Clinton and Vice President Gore in the Oval Office to develop administration positions for the Kyoto negotiations that resulted in an international treaty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions."
http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1185475433.pdf
http://www.climategate.com/enron-helped-develop-carbon-trading-scheme
Rather than dying with the company, Enron energy credits were reborn, now legally with UN/IPCC assent as carbon credits, buying something that does not belong to the seller, cannot be delivered and conveys no actual benefit. This is the perfect crime. In addition to creating a fictional exchange system Al didn't stop there, but set up his own company, to which he now pays his own massive credits into, as well as collecting from others. This has made him from a millionaire to a billionaire so clearly works. The compliance from the authorities has been to let carbon trading and credits work on voluntary regulation so there is (as in 2011) no contract or guarantee as to where your money goes. I have since discovered Enron itself was set up as a merger between two energy companies, and the individual behind it was the notorious junk bond crook, Michael Milken.
Rather than dying with the company, Enron energy credits were reborn, now legally with UN/IPCC assent as carbon credits, buying something that does not belong to the seller, cannot be delivered and conveys no actual benefit. This is the perfect crime. In addition to creating a fictional exchange system Al didn't stop there, but set up his own company, to which he now pays his own massive credits into, as well as collecting from others. This has made him from a millionaire to a billionaire so clearly works. The compliance from the authorities has been to let carbon trading and credits work on voluntary regulation so there is (as in 2011) no contract or guarantee as to where your money goes. I have since discovered Enron itself was set up as a merger between two energy companies, and the individual behind it was the notorious junk bond crook, Michael Milken.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Enron,_Taliban_&_Warburg:_The_Untold_Story/17154/0/38/38/Y/M.html
The second limb of the conspiracy is that carbon trading, as opposed to credits, is like car insurance in a growing number of countries. It is not something you risk as a seasoned investor (as did the customers of Bernie Madoff who wasn't sanctioned by the UN) but are forced to do by law if your country legislates for it. A win-win situation for the traders.
And of course it comes as no surprise the investors are many of the very politicians who set it up and make their profits from compulsory taxes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Gore dealt with, there is a collective conspiracy not even needing a hacker to discover as with Climategate, although there is a connection between the two I will mention soon. The 1991 report The First Global Revolution, of the Club of Rome, an international policy group manned by some of the most powerful people in the world, openly stated:
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
"Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the CoR describes itself as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity." It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe."
http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13088153/Club-of-Rome-The-First-Global-Revolution
Here are some more quotes from the above link:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Gore dealt with, there is a collective conspiracy not even needing a hacker to discover as with Climategate, although there is a connection between the two I will mention soon. The 1991 report The First Global Revolution, of the Club of Rome, an international policy group manned by some of the most powerful people in the world, openly stated:
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
"Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the CoR describes itself as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity." It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe."
http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13088153/Club-of-Rome-The-First-Global-Revolution
Here are some more quotes from the above link:
“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
- Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."
- Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
The names here met back in 1971 to set this up, James Lovelock John Holdren, Stephen Schneider and other familiar names to those who have read the history of the development and whenever I find a meeting planning the details another turns up even earlier. Maybe another will now before these.
1971 conference Limits To Growth; 1975 the “Endangered Atmosphere”
Video here http://www.youtube.com/user/satguru?feature=mhee#p/a/f/0/pQAc8RteZT4
Their previous report from the 70s was indeed an extremely sensible one, published as a book, to keep world population stable, and received virtually no publicity and absolutely no policy changes, remaining to this day a framework to manage the world's real elephant in the room which is a definite threat as unlike our temperatures it is already spiralling out of control. But their second try, possibly as there is a huge opportunity for financial gain from it rather than simply conserving the planet, was a raving success. Mikail Gorbachev joined the team on retirement from Soviet affairs, as an expert in such areas of oppressing the masses, and in 1996 restated their position:
"The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key that will unlock the New World Order"
The Wildlands Project http://www.libertymatters.org/ahri-wildlands-rpt.htm
"The environmental issue will bring far more people into the communist movement than peace ever did" Karl Blau, assistant to Mikhail Gorbachev
Of course, if you're going to con the public, you have to find something with all the required criteria. It firstly and most of all must be something they can't see or measure for themselves. Climate is the perfect example. Then add the fear factor- imagine the Sahara Desert, transfer that to Paris or Watford, and the pinch of supernatural to finish it off: In 2100 it could be over 6C higher than it is now. Yes, and it could also be 6C colder, both are almost impossible due to the previous records, but it doesn't matter as none of us will actually be there to ever see it, you must trust us. And they nearly all do.
So it is not 'Why would there be a conspiracy, who would profit?' or 'Show me a conspiracy' but 'Here's the conspiracy'. Just because getting all the pieces of the jigsaw isn't as easy as watching a scary movie, it is both possible and completed. It won't be shown by the BBC or many other outlets however, as the BBC are now working for the enemy. As I suspected long before it was discovered that carbon trading was no 'like Enron' but was Enron, it was pretty obvious, as well as being confirmed by Peter Sissons, Johnny Ball and David Bellamy, who among others fell foul of their one sided policy, breached their charter by acting as a mouthpiece for an organisation set up to spread the message, Globe International. As the BBC are supposed to be balanced and independent, not in theory but by law, acting for a group who have a single agenda is not within their charter, their argument presumably being as long as they are not being paid to do so then it is fine, is hardly convincing. And to tie up another loose end, an officer of Globe International is Lord Roxborough, the very head of the enquiry who found the CRU at East Anglia University not guilty in the climategate enquiry.This is not just a conflict of interests, but as such legally Ultra Vires. That is a decision where there is the chance of a conflict of interests, whether or not it exists, is void ab initio under equity law. So technically as someone on a board specifically to support the work of the CRU, the main supplier of IPCC figures, is not qualified to judge them when they screw up, that exoneration never existed and must have another enquiry with a new head. as if they would.
I am personally a great fan of Buddhism, although know little about the Dalai Lama assumed he was working both for them and Tibet, until he recently made a speech about global warming being a major threat. Guess who he works for, yes, he's in the Club of Rome. They've even bagged a religious leader. Without a forensic accountant and a warrant I can't state the exact investments of all its members along with Globe International, but public shareholder records are not secret and David Cameron, along with other cabinet members and their families, have all got large investments in the very 'green energy' projects they have legislated to subsidies with our taxes. Not an illegal conflict of interests but still wrong. And remember black Monday, when the British economy lost billions in a single day due to speculation crashing the pound when it joined the ERM? The main player (again, simply playing the system as we all can if have enough to risk on it) was George Soros, who recently joined the campaign and invested vast sums himself in wind and solar power. Just look what happened to his last investment to see the likely results.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/carrie-spurgeon/hows-this-for-conflicts-of-interest-guys-how-both-the-met-and-the-bbc-are-playin/10150624666950262
And it now turns out climate change has become an official international business, the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change is managed by Peter Dunscombe and does exactly what it says on the tin, makes people rich from climate change. Get rid of the story and the money goes away with it. Our money that is. http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/the-times-cant-see-the-dead-wood-for-the-trees/
----------------------------------------------------------------
Despite open and less open statements and acts being revealed, I still find a blank response by believers who would rather trust data than the people who generated it, in an interview just before the Cancun Summit in 2010, a top IPCC officer, Ottmar Edenhofer, was interviewed and simply stated:
"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."
Despite this being able to stand alone, the background and history is essential to see to show Edenhofer is not speaking as a rogue individual (despite representing one of the most powerful groups on earth) but simply stating what has always been. Why he chose to 'come out' as he did remains uncertain, but around a year later can say this was not read beyond the internet, and there was absolutely no reaction among the believers, just as if Santa had dropped his beard and shown to be your father yet you still put the stocking out every following year. That is a human failing rather than a failing of the evidence, as pride and kudos will blind most people to actual facts, especially combined with the most powerful evil of all, fear, and not just for yourself (as we'll be ok) but your unborn grandchildren. But remove the mist of emotion and greed and these are the facts, take them or leave them.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Despite open and less open statements and acts being revealed, I still find a blank response by believers who would rather trust data than the people who generated it, in an interview just before the Cancun Summit in 2010, a top IPCC officer, Ottmar Edenhofer, was interviewed and simply stated:
"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."
Despite this being able to stand alone, the background and history is essential to see to show Edenhofer is not speaking as a rogue individual (despite representing one of the most powerful groups on earth) but simply stating what has always been. Why he chose to 'come out' as he did remains uncertain, but around a year later can say this was not read beyond the internet, and there was absolutely no reaction among the believers, just as if Santa had dropped his beard and shown to be your father yet you still put the stocking out every following year. That is a human failing rather than a failing of the evidence, as pride and kudos will blind most people to actual facts, especially combined with the most powerful evil of all, fear, and not just for yourself (as we'll be ok) but your unborn grandchildren. But remove the mist of emotion and greed and these are the facts, take them or leave them.
There is also, along with the long planned world government, the associated world currency. But who would accept that? A few extremists and crooks who know how to fix or milk a market, but tell them it's to save the planet and they cave in. Carbon credits are not for business, that is the trial period, the plan is to be for everyone. Energy rationing first, followed by currency rationing. Wealth will disappear overnight, as unlike conventional currency, carbon credits will (and already do) last a year. So even if you start getting ten times more than average, at the end of the year they expire. And who decides what you get the following years? Search me. They don't actually care, they will give you what they want to at the time.
Another group arose recently, one I'd previously never come across and had a sole website dating to 1998. The Club of Isles is an organisation loosely managed around the international royal family and related aristocracy (there is only one big family as they keep the bloodline throughout history by intermarriage) and it's nominal head is no other than Prince Philip, who set up the World Wildlife fund as a vehicle for carrying out its agenda, roughly reducing the population of the world to 1 billion. How they intend to do this is debatable, but the terms 'useless eaters', the non-aristocrats and plebs, and the view humans are a cancer on the earth, much promoted since by James Lovelock and George Monbiot, and the driving force behind Greenpeace appears to have its routes right there.
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/fallhous.htm
"Going green" is nothing more than an excuse to destroy civilization and depopulate the planet because they consider us all a bunch of "useless eaters."
"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview
"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King
If drawn as a spider's web going downwards with time, you can see a general birth around 1990, as I can't say exactly who decided the Club of Rome decision (although its members are known and the report is all online as linked here). Don't be diverted by trees in the wood looking for individual motives and actions, they are all the fruit of a single tree, a decision to invent a problem to create a reaction and then offer the pre-written solution we would never have accepted had there not been a problem, much like losing our liberty for security after 9/11, something Benjamin Franklin said over 100 years earlier, whoever does this deserves neither. It's an old trick and one despite being exposed time after time will always succeed as long as people trust those in authority. Once those at the top go bad, it is very difficult for those lower down not to follow or lose their children's school fees. Even the most honest and genuine scientists don't want to go bankrupt as those mortgages have to be paid and won't be if they are ostracised from the profession as a handful such as David Bellamy already claim to have been. The reason 'senile' (to quote Al Gore) ex-professors have always been the most vociferous opponents of global warming is they have nothing to lose. Think about it.
More confessions: Direct from the CRU, used in the graphs sent to the IPCC to make world policy.
"plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."
" Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid the decline"
"-- Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)"
" Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"
James Hansen, the one who gave the speech to US congress back in 1988 which led to the creation of the IPCC, has been caught tweaking so much data (with no consequences) that he now deserves a growing column here to himself. After filling in missing temperature data where there were no measurements around the world with red instead of the average temperature which is the only (and I mean only) way to do it, he actually created 75% of the result by making it up as the real data was only a quarter of that in the total. He has now gone a step further not by adding wrong figures but removing them. This is arguably worse as if the world is now cooling then by pretending it isn't the policies will continue unabated, despite the fact the real figures are now diverging further and further from the models. How long can it take before some independent authorities are able to call the data into question and put him in front of a court to explain himself. If these allegations are correct he is not just lying to the world but putting his whole profession in jeopardy both by collusion (the peer review process is clearly absent here as everyone in the know can see exactly what he's done on both occasions (and how many more?) yet sat on their hands and whistled. That shows a degree of agreement which has to go way above the climate community and to the very top of the tree.
http://www.real-science.com/hansen-tampering-data-planet ie Hansen is probably not doing this for his own reasons, but as he is being ordered to. Clearly that is not done for nothing, so must be a secondary gain, but a scientist of his standing to openly flout the law on more than one occasion and gain full immunity from consequences is clearly a 'made man', one who has risen so high he is free to make the rules for himself. In a civilised society there is no place for made men. They are from the mafia and we do not want them to spread into our governments and academic institutions.
http://www.real-science.com/hansen-tampering-data-planet ie Hansen is probably not doing this for his own reasons, but as he is being ordered to. Clearly that is not done for nothing, so must be a secondary gain, but a scientist of his standing to openly flout the law on more than one occasion and gain full immunity from consequences is clearly a 'made man', one who has risen so high he is free to make the rules for himself. In a civilised society there is no place for made men. They are from the mafia and we do not want them to spread into our governments and academic institutions.
There's a constant stream of claims about losing summer ice in the Arctic (10% or so of the world's total), and quote the opening of the northwest passage in recent years. What they failed to mention (ie clear evidence of a deliberate attempt to mislead) is this happens every so often going back to at least 1855.
Attempting to cover up history, as with the 1995 IPCC graph of the medieval warm period suddenly vanishing, is negligent to the extreme as the original data always remains and will expose them as frauds when surfaces.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The big oil myth
Anyone who says big oil funds skeptical propaganda doesn't know economics. Restricting supply raises prices plus free carbon credits are giving them subsidised windfalls. They also invest and develop alternatives- wind, solar and biofuel, as they are also subsidised so again give them our tax money as guaranteed profits. So all green measures help the fossil fuel industry as it doesn't stop them selling it but allows them to at higher prices, and they are quite free to diversify as they always have. In fact I just discovered the CRU, the global warming engine of propaganda, is funded by many of the biggest names in said industry. They don't invest a single penny in a losing cause.
"The UN panel’s members include billionaire globalist George Soros, who has been calling for a carbon tax for years. Soros has $811 million of his own money invested in Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company."
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order)
British Council,
British Petroleum,
Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre,
Central Electricity Generating Board,
Centre for Environment,
Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS),
Commercial Union,
Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU),
Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC),
Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA),
Department of Health,
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI),
Eastern Electricity,
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC),
Environment Agency,
Forestry Commission,
Greenpeace International,
International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED),
Irish Electricity Supply Board,
KFA Germany,
Leverhulme Trust (Trust was originally endowed with a shareholding in Lever Brothers, which subsequently became part of Unilever.)
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF),
National Power,
National Rivers Authority,
Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC),
Norwich Union,
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate,
Overseas Development Administration (ODA),
Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates,
Royal Society,
Scientific Consultants, (?)
Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC),
Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research,
Shell,
Stockholm Environment Agency,
Tate and Lyle,
UK Met. Office,
UK Nirex Ltd., (UK based ‘independent’ ‘radioactive waste’ management consultants.)
United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP),
United States Department of Energy,
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Wolfson Foundation and the
World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
