Can The Tea Party Lead Obama’s Climate Gate Out Of The Valley of Evil?

Dr Petr Chylek is a prominent Atmospheric Physicist. He calls for the IPCC to be discontinued. Hear, hear! He says “We cannot blame Climategate on a few irresponsible individuals. The entire esteemed research community has to take responsibility.” (Climate Depot,). He is right, because they allowed it to happen.

Dr Chylek is a highly experienced and respected scientist who has published well over 100 peer-reviewed papers. To read his full letter, go to the Climate Depot site.

Climate Claims – a Betrayal of Science

To summarise, Dr Chylek believes the climate research community has “betrayed that mighty goal in science. They have substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view. Yes, there have been cases of misbehaviour and direct fraud committed by scientists in other fields… However, it was misbehaviour of individuals, not of a considerable part of the scientific community.” This is a very damning statement, but it is true.

He continues: “The damage has been done. The public trust in climate science has been eroded… The entire… climate research community has to take responsibility.”

Furthermore, “Let us stop making unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future, even if editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them…. Let us drastically modify or temporarily discontinue the IPCC.”  Excellent call. Indeed, now is the time for all genuine scientists to stand and be counted, before they, too, are branded frauds and liars. They must publicly denounce what is happening and accuse where accusations are necessary.

Don’t Blame Humans!

Dr Chylek goes on to say that to blame humans for rise in temperature, it was necessary to ‘prove’ global temperature is higher now than before. “Some people were so eager to prove this point, that it became more important than scientific integrity… The next step was to show that this ‘unprecedented high current temperature’ has to be the result of the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.” Of course, looking at it purely from the point of view of the scientific method, such a fixed and definite correlation is impossible to prove.

He says computerised models are “not yet good enough to capture natural climate variability…. Let us encourage students to think their own thoughts, instead of forcing them to parrot the IPCC conclusions… Let us open the doors of universities (etc)… to faculty members and researchers who might disagree with the current paradigm of carbon dioxide. Only open discussion and intense searching of all possibilities will let us regain the public’s trust and move forward.”

Well said, Petr. You are a man after my own heart! Let research prove or disprove the science, not mere guesswork and personal green preferences! But, greens aren’t interested, because it’s about politics, not science.

Is Gore Warming to Cold?

No warming for about 12 years. Recent weather so cold as to freeze the monkeys off their pole. Bad weather everywhere, and 21cm snow in Denmark. How inconvenient for Summit folks! Is Gore coming around to the possibility that there is no warming, after over a decade of cooling? Doubt it – he’s still got plenty of cash to milk from his sacred cow! gives us a very funny photo of Gore – take a look. The site reminds us that James Hansen used to hold important climate meetings with influential backers on the hottest days in summer. Clever marketing! Better than that, he admitted that he got the large air conditioning unit to be switched off during his seminar. Clever, but fraudulent. Like Hansen, Gore perpetuates myths. Not by switching off air units but by simply lying his head off.

But, to put them under pressure, arctic ice began to accumulate instead of dissipate. Polar bear numbers increased dramatically. Weather just did not play ball. The ‘Gore effect’ is that when Gore goes anywhere to sell his snake-oil, the weather invariably gets worse. Even so, I don’t think Gore would admit to things getting colder, even if his aunty’s tongue got stuck to a metal street lamp in summer.

The Copenhagen Counter-Summit

The Summit was not graced by the presence of Al Gore: he was hiding somewhere, away from Climate-believer souvenir hunters looking for his autograph and Climategate realists looking for his blood. Maybe he’s on a Pacific island, hoping it won’t sink until he gets his tan.

Nevertheless, climate skeptics at least tried to do something in Copenhagen. After unfreezing the locks with a blow-torch, they finally got into the second-floor gallery where they held their counter-Summit. (New York Times, 9th Dec). Of course, weasel-members of the media didn’t look kindly on them and wouldn’t report on their activities.

There were only about 60 present; but hey, at least they weren’t bowing low to Gore or fawning over Mann. One speaker was Ian Plimer – respected and famed. Another was even more famed: Fred Singer, hated by all warmists for speaking the truth. He put it bluntly: “They have no evidence. None.” And there was a real consensus about the supposed ‘hacker’: they called him a whistle-blower, not a hacker, and said he would eventually be celebrated as a hero. So said Lord Monckton, and I agree with him.

One query put to the panel was: if sea levels aren’t rising, why are some villages in India and Bangladesh being slowly swallowed by the sea? The answer was far more simple than Gore tries to be: there was “zero rise in sea level”, but “plenty of erosion”. The person answering, Nils-Axel Morner, is an expert in sea level measurements in South Asia. I think he knows a bit more about it than the one who asked the question – John Vidal, environment editor for The Guardian. I think I am right in assuming the newspaper is not based on the banks of an Indian village, nor is Mr Vidal all that acquainted with sea levels! So, maybe Mr Morner might have been right.

Politicised Met Office

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), led by Dr Benny Peiser, issued criticism today (11th Dec) to both the World Meteorological Organisation and the UK’s Met Office, for “their political intervention… in Copenhagen”. Dr Peiser said “We are very concerned that both agencies have overstepped their scientific remits, which are supposed to provide governments with balanced advice and empirical data, and not to lobby politically.”

Really, this is a clue to real intentions, when a funded organisation starts its own propaganda in favour of the fund-giver, when the fund-giver is governmental. It smacks of political interference, which it is, but it is also repugnant, when the same funded organisation is a major suppressor of free information from opposing camps and it agrees to fake claims.

Interestingly, I had an email from SH, who said the Met Office mentioned at the Summit a 1700 signature petition signed in favour of the UEA and IPCC. SH looked at the signatures and he said what was more interesting was who didn’t sign! He looked at those who signed at the University of Royal Holloway and gave excellent information: that in the Geography department only six signed the petition pro-IPCC – 32 did NOT sign. In the department of Earth Science, only the professor signed – the 27 other members did not.  One lab technician signed – the other six did not. A researcher in the Geography department signed, but 13 did not. “In most departments nobody bothered to sign at all.”

I thank SH for his insider info! It shows just how skewed the Met Office is, and how willing it is – like all other greens – to force their opinions as through they were proven facts.

Carbon Fraud

EU negotiators who attend the Copenhagen Summit specifically to push their idea to make carbon offsetting widespread, were embarrassed today by a crime report that says carbon-trading accounts for 90% of all fraud in the EU! (The Daily Telegraph, 10th Dec). What else can we expect from a fraudulent money scheme based on a fraudulent and mythical carbon problem?

Criminals have already stolen £4.5 BILLION so far… more fool those who subscribe to carbon trading in the first place. On the other hand, carbon trading is a fast-growing financial sector, and all the big boys are falling over themselves for a piece of the action. What they are doing is pushing up the costs, which eventuate as higher costs for ordinary folks, who do not get a share of their rising fortunes. Indeed, currently, all green ventures are being heavily invested in by big-time investors.

Interpol/Europol warn that this carbon fraud will soon expand to the energy market of electricity and gas, which will push up our domestic costs for running a home even higher, on top of intended industry rises. The simple answer is – don’t buy carbon offsets! They are useless and meaningless anyway.

Cracks Widen

Meanwhile, back at the funny farm where various EU leaders pretend all is well and that the EU is genuine, there are clashes already about who should pay what in the coming massive pay-out to the Third World. (The Independent, 11th Dec). Remember that the Third World Summit attendees were shocked to discover they were being marginalized and dictated to by richer countries. Hopefully, the Summit will end in even more chaos than it is already experiencing!

The UK’s House of Lords, too, is troubled by climate claims. Lord Turnbull said on 8th December, that he was very impressed by the most recent Committee on Climate Change Report. But, then, he said, he “dug deeper” and “the more I dug the more troubled I became.” He sees “serious questions about the foundations on which it has been constructed.” He includes the scientific basis.

Martin Cohen takes doubts to the Times Higher Education publication (10th Dec). This is good, because children are special targets of climate fraud by government. Though the HE is aimed at colleges, I hope schools will take note, too. Cohen says the claimed “consensus is less a triumph of science and rationality, than of PR and fear-mongering.”

He asks if this is an example of the “madness of crowds” first described by Charles Mackay in 1841? This is when a widely-held prejudice was turned into an irresistible ‘authority’. “Could it,” he asks, “indeed represent the final triumph of irrationality?” It certainly seems that way!

Cohen continues with a query I have myself made: “After all, how rational is it to pass laws banning one kind of light-bulb (and insisting on their replacement by ones filled with poisonous mercury vapour) in order to ‘save electricity’, while ploughing money into schemes to run cars on… electricity?” Very good question! But there’s more…

“How rational is it to pay the Russians once for fossil fuels, and a second time for permission (via carbon credits) to burn them? And how rational is it to suppose that the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere take between 200 and 1000 years to be felt, but that solutions can take effect almost immediately?” Go for it, Cohen – show up the stupidity of greens.

Orthodoxy Based on Myth and Lies

The pile of rotting flesh called climate change orthodoxy, begs for serious questions to be asked. Are scientists who push it sane? Or are they just plain greedy and power-hungry? They are certainly fascist, in their hellish refusal to allow any opposition to surface before they sign agreements that bind the world forever to crippling laws.

There are still fakes and frauds who insist that global warming is so obvious it cannot be denied! I cannot deny a brick landing on my head. But, I can certainly deny something that has yet to be proved to exist! It is an axiom of logic that where at least two alternatives arise, there can be no fixed conclusion. All alternatives must be properly and equally examined before a conclusion can be reached – if at all. This is why science should rely on both falsification and verification; they help prove the case (maybe). But, green scientists refuse to use proper procedures, so their credibility is down to zero. It is not good enough to make claims, unless the claims can be proved to be ‘true’ (or at least close to it). There is a particular nonsense when greens claim verification when they ought to refer to falsification!

It might be thought that every scientist uses his own intellectual discretion when he is faced with theories. Not so! Most are just as prejudiced as ordinary citizens, especially when the topic is outside their immediate expertise. They will follow the herd. And that is why so many scientists today appear to believe in climate change via human CO2. I say ‘appear’ because they have no real idea what they are talking about, but feel it necessary to side with their colleagues, no matter how stupid or unscientific their claims may be.

The sneaky UK government, socialist to the core, has imposed a sudden green tax levy on industries. Where once they allowed a tax advantage for turning to green forms of energy use, now industries have done so, the tax discount has been slashed without warning, so industries now face a massive 75% increase in their energy bills! This is how the UK government works. It drew companies along their fake road until they were hooked, and then they hit hard with their true intentions. This is a picture of what is going to happen everywhere in the world once greens and politicians get their way, perhaps at the Summit.

Latest From Copenhagen

Of course, being government lackeys, the BBC refuse to mention anything against the Summit or green claims. But, it has reported spin from the meeting. In a week that should have given us continuous and glorious news from the ‘greatest show on earth’, we have heard almost nothing! This is because there is pandemonium. But, the BBC doggedly reports only what they wish to report.
Today, they say richer countries have been asked to increase the pledges to tackle climate change (or, ‘The Canute Complex’). Frighteningly, despite fraud and bad-science, the Summit wants to finalise this draft deal next week! If readers still can’t see the hand of Marxism in this, I’ll eat my hand-made, ethnically-designed, all-wool hat!

The already ridiculous demands for CO2 cuts have now changed to 25%-45% by 2020. It is not wrong to say the Summit has, from day one, moved the goalposts to bring about permanent world changes. Before the Summit they got pledges of up to 18%. The newer demand would immediately cripple countries financially. But, as the aim is to reduce all countries to the same level of poverty, that’s okay. Small island states, as I said yesterday, are calling for the temperature rise to be a maximum of 1.5 degrees C. I burst out laughing every time I see figures like that – no man can reduce, stop, or raise, earth’s temperature! CO2 emissions have nothing to do with it.

The BBC hints that the document is only a draft. Yet, it says Brown and other leaders want it to be finalised by the end of next week. That is, from mere idea to a potentially legally binding document in just a few days! That’s not how to make law, nor is it how to come to agreements that will affect the whole world! Suffice to say that what was on the agenda before the Summit has been drastically altered. This is nothing but political bullying and deception.

The billions agreed by the EU to help poorer countries get to a carbon-free future have also been doubled to 7.2 Billion Euros. (Latest: Brown and half the countries actually agreed to the deal today, after an all-night session: this proves how arrogant and fictitious the deal is. No genuine deal overlooks proper objections).

The Meeting meanwhile is awash with varying disputes about reduction of temperature. The BBC does not, though, itemise these disputes, nor does it give cause for alarm. It can’t, because it must adhere to official folk-lore and present an upbeat picture. Sounds more and more Marxist by the day! And as Gordon Brown struggles to be top of the pile, he comes out with even more garbage dressed as riches… at least for himself. His representation of climate deals is not about science or even politics – it’s about his career. For that, he is willing to stifle industries and starve his own people, just as Blair did.