|The Innovation Network Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts|
|Nov 24, 2009 10:20 pm||Climategate||#|
|I hope to see all politicians and investors involved with the money making scheme brought to justice.|
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Climategate: Hoax of all time a global Ponzi scheme
Police in the UK have begun an investigation into the theft and publication on Russian internet servers of private emails, which are thought to prove that global warming theory was fabricated. Alex Jones, the renowned filmmaker and radio host, dubs this scandal as one of the biggest hoaxes and financial frauds in the history of mankind. He says that it appears to be a global 'Ponzi scheme' which allowed bankers to profit from bogus carbon taxes for years.
Watch it now:
Private Reply to Ron Sam
|Nov 24, 2009 10:43 pm||re: Climategate||#|
|It's both amusing and pathetic that the political elites who are promoting global warming are trying to sell the idea that "theft and publication" of the "private emails" is the relevant crime.|
Of course, it is the contents of the "private emails" that is the "smoking gun" evidence of mammoth crimes.
Chris Horner has indicated his intent to file lawsuits against NASA and others:
"Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies' refusal ó for nearly three years ó to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding "ClimateGate" scandal ó revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries' freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate-science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked e-mails, computer codes, and other data from the Climatic Research Unit at the UK's University of East Anglia.
This material, sought for years by CEI, goes to the heart of the scientific claims and campaign underpinning the Kyoto Protocol, its planned successor treaty, "cap-and-trade" legislation, and the EPA's threatened regulatory campaign to impose similar measures through the back door.
CEI seeks the following documents, among others ó NASA's failure to provide which within 30 days will prompt CEI to file suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:
ó internal discussions about NASA's quiet correction of its false historical U.S. temperature records after two Canadian researchers discovered a key statistical error, specifically discussion about whether and why to correct certain records, how to do so, the impact or wisdom or potential (or real) fallout therefrom or reaction to doing so (requested August 2007);
ó internal discussions relating to the emails sent to James Hansen and/or Reto A. Ruedy from Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre calling their attention to the errors in NASA/GISS online temperature data (August 2007);
ó internal discussions relating to the content, importance, or propriety of workday-hour posts or entries by GISS/NASA employee Gavin A. Schmidt on the weblog or "blog" RealClimate, which is owned by the advocacy Environmental Media Services and was started as an effort to defend the debunked "Hockey Stick" that is so central to the CRU files. RealClimate.org is implicated in the leaked files, expressly offered as a tool to be used "in any way you think would be helpful" to a certain advocacy campaign, including an assertion of Schmidt's active involvement in, e.g., delaying and/or screening out unhelpful input by "skeptics" attempting to comment on claims made on the website. This and the related political activism engaged in are inappropriate behavior for a taxpayer-funded employee, particularly on taxpayer time. These documents were requested in January 2007 and NASA/GISS have refused to date to comply with their legal obligation to produce responsive documents."
Private Reply to Thomas Holford
|Nov 25, 2009 2:42 am||Climategate:||#|
Mike Fesler BizHarmony
|Wait a Minute !!!|
M I N U T E !!
First you tell me that Al didnít create the internet?
And now you want me to believe that Al has leading us down a path of misdirection?
Global warming is false?
RIGHT. . . . .
Next you will try to tell me that the North Pole is really just a strip club?
Donít you find it odd that the creator of the internet has been exposed by hackers on the internet?
There is a conspiracy. . . . those far right groups are at the bottom of this. . . . its Bushes fault. . . . ya. . thatís it.
Its Bushes fault.
Private Reply to Mike Fesler BizHarmony
|Nov 25, 2009 3:34 am||re: Climategate:||#|
|> Donít you find it odd that the creator of the internet has been exposed by hackers on the internet?|
Yes, indeed. That would be poetic justice.
HOWEVER. Let us reserve judgement. It is not clear to me that the data was released by "hackers".
It is possible that the data was obtained and released by a "whistleblower".
The global warming quacks will likely obsess on the fact that the data was "illegally" and "unethically" obtained by an evil hacker, working for sinister, right wing forces, undoubtedly, Fox News.
Enlightened people will have to remind the quacks that it is ultimately nature of the information that is relevant. However the information came to light, one cannot put the toothpaste back into the tube. It is still toothpaste.
Private Reply to Thomas Holford
|Nov 25, 2009 3:51 pm||re: re: Climategate:||#|
Ed and Yvonne Servis
|And one can't put the bs back in the bull. It is still bs.|
Has anyone noticed that when people starting doubting the Gorites that the changed the term Global Warming to climate change. This allows any change in the weather at any place and anytime to be blamed on Global Warming aka Climate Change.
Private Reply to Ed and Yvonne Servis
|Dec 01, 2009 4:14 am||re: re: re: Climategate: Has ClimateGate Changed Obama's Global Warming Strategy?||#|
Has ClimateGate Changed Obama's Global Warming Strategy?
Stephanopoulos: ClimateGate Complicates Copenhagen for Obama
Private Reply to Ron Sam
|Dec 01, 2009 5:22 am||re: re: re: re: Climategate: Has ClimateGate Changed Obama's Global Warming Strategy?||#|
|The New York Times has finally given the lamestream media permission to talk about Climategate:|
It looks to me like they have finally concluded that "nobody did nuthin' wrong" is even too ridiculous for the New York Times.
They are now using the term "Groupthink" (bad) in place of the term they used to use, "Scientific consensus" (good).
Private Reply to Thomas Holford
|Dec 01, 2009 7:35 am|| re: re: Climategate: Obama's Science Czar John Holdren involved Climategate||#|
Obama's Science Czar John Holdren involved in
Obama deal with anyone clean? Has he ever interacted with anyone who
was not radical, crooked, corrupt, racist, anti-American? Just asking.
And America has no mechanism to legally fight these
usurpers? America has lost her way. So not what she was.
Obama's Science Czar
John Holdren involved in unwinding "Climategate" scandal
Canada Free Press
Lift up a rock
and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of
East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding
Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU's unfolding
Climategate scandal.† In fact, according to files released by
a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free
Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms "a truculent and
nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of
understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and
"The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time
t o put it all in context," says Ball.† "However, enough is
already known to underscore their explosive nature.† It is
already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated
material and is therefore completely compromised.
"The fallout will be extensive as material continues to
emerge.† Reputations of the scientists involved are already
destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and
their reputations destroyed or sullied."
cont on link
Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding "Climategate" scandal
Private Reply to Ron Sam
|Dec 01, 2009 8:00 am|| re: Climategate: Climategate: Follow the Money||#|
2009, 7:43 P.M. ET
Climate change researchers must
believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe
in the existence of God.
year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy
institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and
Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the
Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two
conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what
until recently was called--without irony--the climate change "consensus."
To read some of the press accounts of
these gifts--amounting to about 0.0027% of Exxon's 2008 profits of $45
billion--you might think you'd hit upon the scandal of the age. But
thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the
real scandal lies elsewhere.
Climategate, as readers of these pages
know, concerns some of the world's leading climate scientists working
in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball
dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure,
destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data--facts that were laid
bare by last week's disclosure of thousands of emails from the
University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, or CRU.
But the deeper question is why the
scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science
behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer
the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods
right back at them.
Consider the case of Phil Jones, the
director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According
to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006
Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth
of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in
did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept
ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who
better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest
Thus, the European Commission's most
recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion,
and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the
U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate
efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the
National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the
action, with California--apparently not feeling bankrupt enough--devoting
$600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists
have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.
And all this is only a fraction of the
$94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year
on what it calls "green stimulus"--largely ethanol and other alternative
energy schemes--of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at
Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.
Supply, as we know, creates its own
demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or
the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable
Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their
various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to
these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not
just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone
Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change
Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California
Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the
receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must
believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming
just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.
None of these outfits are per se
corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something
other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently
corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their
livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof,
everything they represent--including the thousands of jobs they
provide--vanishes. This is what's known as a vested interest, and vested
interests are an enemy of sound science.
Which brings us back to the
climategate scientists, the keepers of the keys to the global warming
cathedral. In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a
computer programmer writes of the CRU's temperature database: "I am
very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in
nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly
is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by
including a load of garbage!"
This is not the sound of settled
science, but of a cracking empirical foundation. And however many
billion-dollar edifices may be built on it, sooner or later it is bound
Write to email@example.com
Private Reply to Ron Sam
|Dec 01, 2009 8:59 am||re: Climategate: Obama's Science Czar John Holdren involved in Climategate||#|
From 36 years ago ...
"A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment
in North America and to de-develop the United States. ... Resources and energy
must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to
filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries. This effort must be largely
- John Holdren, Anne Ehrlich, and Paul Ehrlich, Human Ecology: Problems and
Solutions (San Francisco; W.H. Freeman and Company, 1973), p. 279.
Private Reply to James Booth
|Dec 01, 2009 4:57 pm||re: re: Climategate: Obama's Science Czar John Holdren involved in Climategate||#|
|James Booth sayeth:|
> From 36 years ago ...
This is the reality of the people that Obama associates with, and are now populating his administration. They are scary nihilistic solipsists in the most precise meaning of the words.
I have been trying to buy that book for several months. I think the Obama "Men in Black" have scooped up all copies and had them burned.
Private Reply to Thomas Holford
|Dec 01, 2009 10:50 pm||re: re: re: Climategate: UK climate scientist to temporarily step down||#|
|UK climate scientist to temporarily step down|
Dec 1 01:29 PM US/Eastern AP
LONDON (AP) - Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.
The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.
The allegations were made after more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists were posted to the Web following the security breach last month.
The e-mails were seized upon by some skeptics of man-made climate change as proof that scientists are manipulating the data about its extent.
Private Reply to Ron Sam
|Dec 02, 2009 9:29 am||re: re: re: Climategate: Obama's Science Czar John Holdren involved in Climategate||#|
At least as scary is realizing how many books by John Holdren aimed at our kids are out there in print waiting for them.
"This is the reality of the people that Obama associates with, and are now populating
A reality we need to come to terms with is that this "reality" is not new - that it has been at work since the Club of Rome executed it in 1973 at the same time the term "useless eaters" was put into the population control agenda, at the same meetings in which the U. S. was targeted for *zero industrial growth* which has been successfully achieved.
Private Reply to James Booth
|Dec 15, 2009 5:14 am||re: re: re: re: Climategate: The New Big Lie: Climategate Emails Are Not Significant||#|
Click on title if
graphics are missing †
Dr. Tim Ball
Monday, Dec 14th, 2009
Charles Dickens wrote, "I have known a vast
quantity of nonsense
talked about bad men not looking you in the face. Don't trust that
conventional idea. Dishonesty will stare honesty out of countenance,
any day in the week, if there is anything to be got by it."
The criminals at the
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in England
brazenly defend the indefensible. It is stunning to watch Michael Mann
and Gavin Schmidt, who even look alike, staring directly at the camera
and denying the significance of their emails.
It works because they used it to deceive the world. They
won't understand the emails. The Associate Press (AP) has already
As with Revkin at the New York Times the journalist Seth
of AP has no journalistic integrity. Here is his email to the gang. On
July 23, 2009 he wrote, "Kevin, Gavin, Mike, It's Seth again.
Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano is hyping
It's in a legit journal. Watchya think?" "Again" means there
previous communication. A journalist talking to scientists is
legitimate, but like the email's tone and subjective comments are
Out of Context
They claim they're taken out of context. In context the
fullness of their criminality is exposed. I
already described the nature of the Climatic Research Unit
and the rogue scientists therein.†
Then there are the ones those who
did the dirty work.
They claim there's nothing of consequence in the emails,
a litany of manipulation of, the data, the process, publications, peer
review, and personal attacks. Understanding requires knowledge of the
science and the history of events.
The primary issue is the data. Science requires data and
of the climate record was always a problem. Climatology recognizes
three distinct periods: The very recent instrumental period; the
historical period to 3000 years, and the geologic/ biologic for the
rest. They manipulated data in all three but the first is critical
because it is the source of material for the computer models, the
vehicle of their deception.
There are few long continuous reliable stations (Figure
are on land and there are fewer now than in 1960 (Figure 1b). Figure 2
shows there are virtually no records for the oceans and much of the
land. The density looks solid but the large dots are on a very small
world map. It is a very sparse inadequate network especially as the
basis for construction of the computer models.
Figure 1: Station information determined by NASA
Figure 2 Weather stations distribution with vast
The data is questionable because the Global Historical Climatology
Network (GHCN) manipulates the data prior to its use by others; they
call it homogenizing. The public rarely sees the raw data and CRU
'lost' theirs. Users like CRU, who produce global annual average
temperatures, select stations that create the results they want, then
'adjust' the data again for their purposes. As Warwick Hughes notes, "As
an oddity, Phil Jones claimed to have taken out San Juan (PR), that it
somehow failed their 1986 tests.†† Well it sure is in
their list of
stations USED in gridding. It is a classic story, the inclusion of UHI
(Urban Heat Island) warming biased trends which dominate the rural data
where the more accurate regional trends are†recorded - albeit
false warming record exists because of the growth of urban areas. Jones
chose them over rural stations that don't show "warming".
Lack Of Data Means Computer Models Can't Work
Figure 3 is a schematic of a climate model. CRU
described them as follows; "GCM's
are complex, three-dimensional computer-based models of the atmospheric
circulation. Uncertainties in our understanding of climate processes,
the natural variability of the climate, and limitations of the GCMs
mean that their results are not definite predictions of future
Figure 3: Schematic of the structure of a global
Source: Briggs Smithson and Ball, Fundamentals of Physical Geography
Superimpose the surface of the grid in Figure 3 on the
map in Figure
2 and you have a majority of squares with no data. It's worse above the
surface. CRU emails talk of attempts to hide, ignore, or avoid the
problem. Jones used the record for 'gridding', which is the basic
method used to produce the computer models. When you have a grid with
no data you have to 'infill' with estimates using the nearest data. But
in most cases the nearest data is inadequate or in a different
On the 28 October 2002 email Phil Jones explains to Tom
had to 'move' some stations to be on model land to get better
comparisons. Islands that are not in the model have poor comparisons."
"Model land" means the problem of a square that is half on land and
half on water and designated 'land'. As recently as November 6, 2009
Wigley wrote to Jones about the larger problem. "We probably
to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the
ocean warming--and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban
warming is real and important." You're darn right it's
important because you've chosen mostly urban records. They knew, as
this email indicates.† "CRU
temperature data - not the latest version, but the one you used in
MBH98 !!(The hockey stick) We added lots of data in for the region this
person says has Urban Warming! So easy review to do."
version" is telling - they adjusted, as errors were noticed, not to
improve the accuracy but to counteract criticism. The last sentence
means "easy" for the questions they choose to rebuff. They ignored
tough ones .†
Then there's the problem of squares with no data. Jones
to Wigley 13 December 2005 notes, "There isn't any data at
the N. Pole."† It is an understatement as this map
(Figure 4) from the Arctic Impact Assessment report used by the IPCC
Figure 4: Lack of data area covers most of Arctic
Source: CRU East Anglia.
It is not much better at the other Pole. Tim Osborne's
email to the group says, "Even
if you do something to sort out the problem at the S. Pole, how about
the isolated boxes around the coast of Antarctica, which will be given
much less weight than an isolated box in the tropics which might also
have only 1 station in." The problem is South Pole
declined over the period of record. They produced another shameless
"peer reviewed" paper to falsely show Antarctica was warming; another example
of statistical manipulation.
Hiding Data †
Manipulations mean GISS have different results for
annual temperatures than CRU. It invited this probing email from Yousif
Kharaka of the US Geological Survey via Judith Lean to Mann. "I
have been puzzled as to why global temperature data from the British
Hadley Centre are different from those reported by NASA GISS,
especially in the last 10 years."†
Mann replies on 15 October 2008; "My
understanding is that the differences arise largely from how missing
data are dealt with". Jones adds, "The
GISS group average surface T data into 80 equal area boxes across the
world. The UK group (CRU/MOHC) grid the data into 5 by 5 degree
lat/long boxes, as does NCDC." So the data in each box is
different but always less than adequate. No wonder models fail all
validation tests that measure their ability to recreate past
conditions. Another problem arose as this email indicates. "Also
it would seem odd to validate any model in a region where there is no
data in a region that had to be infilled." You can't
validate what doesn't exist.
Denying access or manipulating the data to falsify the
models pervades the emails. Jones wrote to Mann on Feb 26 2004. "Most
of the data series in most of the plots have just appeared on the CRU
web site. Go to data then to paleoclimate. Did this to stop getting
hassled by the skeptics for the data series. Mike Mann refuses to talk
to these people and I can understand why. They are just trying to find
if we've done anything wrong." Jones to Mann, Bradley and
Hughes on Feb 21 2005. "I'm
getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
Freedom of Information Act!"
These are not innocent comments. What was there to hide? Answer how
they falsified the data as the emails expose when you put them in
This video runs about 11 minutes
and seems to summarize the events.
Private Reply to Ron Sam