Global Warming Fraud

[Ben Johnson]

 What should be the biggest news story of the year hasn't been reported at all in Canada.  

On CBC last night an editorial by Rex Murphy gave shit to the CRU about the pseudo-science involved.

The morning on CTV, Canada AM reported the emails like it happenned yesterday, not 2 weeks ago. They followed it with a comment to the effect that while global warming is obvious to any idiot, these idiots have credibility issues. They like to manage news, not report it.

Maybe the assholes reached down and found they had a pair of nuts and decided to put them to use.

[Albert Hidel]

The similarities between the tactics used by the Klempner Klone Kadre and the global warming douchebags is striking.  Attempting to silence dissent, violent fantasies, hidden profit motives, manipulators of data and people, hysteria, hypocrisy, etc.

Obama Cap N Trade built on lies

Friday, December 4, 2009

Just like in the Wizard of Oz, the curtain was torn back and leading proponents of anthropogenic (people caused) global warming have been caught lying

Called Climategate, the scandal exposes the global warming shysters who are conning the public into a massive restructuring of the global economy, while attempting to silence any dissent. But don’t expect to see this in our mainstream media, because they are the spinsters who promote this manipulation of data and propaganda.

With Obama preparing to head to Copenhagen for UN meetings on global warming, expect to see “green” propaganda exponentially increasing.

The scandal all began when an anonymous person accessed the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in England, releasing 61 megabites of confidential files, including 1079 e-mails and 72 documents onto the internet. These files are a wealth of information.

The most damning indictment of proponents of global warming hysteria is a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. The e-mails even included fantasies of violence against those who question anthropogenic global warming. These e-mails show disturbing patterns of “Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more,” says Australian Sun’s, Andrew Bolt.

Man-made global warming hysteria has long been fueled by people using junk science, fear and hyperbole to support an agenda that they personally profit from. As they attempt to lead the world into a green revolution, these propagandists are hiding the truth that the average global temperature has fallen since 1998.

The leading profiteering propagandist is Al Gore. After losing the presidential election in 2000, Al Gore became the leader of the hysteria movement. However, this “Eco-Prophet” has hidden a few inconvenient truths of his own. He just happens to be involved with a venture capital firm that has invested approximately a billion dollars in green companies that stand to make a bundle if Obama's Cap-and-Trade bill becomes law.

Reports state that Gore’s net worth now stands at $100 Million, when it was $2 million when he left politics. He’s laughing all the way to the bank.

Al Gore has a history of playing loose with the facts.

Recently on TV, while discussing Geo-thermal energy, Al Gore made the outrageous claim that “the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees.” However, the actual temperature here on earth is between 5,000 and 9,000 degrees. This is a gaffe that if Sarah Palin had made, the media would ridicule as her stupid.

Speaking of hypocrisy, Al Gore is a living embodiment of it. As he lectures the world on energy use, and lobbies Congress to regulate productive American companies out of business, Gore consumes more than twenty times more energy as the average American, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. This doesn’t count the energy consumption of his jet.

Gore’s Inconvenient Truth is full of instances where he plays loose with the facts. A 2007 British court ruled that Gore's film has nine significant refutable errors. These are examples of Gore’s scare tactics to induce the public to take radical action (to his financial benefit.)

Not only is Gore prone to hyperbole, hypocrisy and blatant distortions, he is also a bully. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, wrote about scientists being "in the crosshairs" of Gore, who "tried to bully" them into changing "their views and supporting his climate alarmism." Lindzen also refers to a failed Gore effort to "enlist Ted Koppel (then a TV host) in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists."

When one side tries to shut another side out of the debate, it is typically because they feel their arguments won’t stand up to scrutiny.

These propagandists use various tactics. A favorite is to make people feel guilty if they don’t jump on the “green” bandwagon, and those who do, feel good are praised for helping the environment. Obama is an expert at this tactic.

Open your eyes to these manipulators of data and people, who while acting like do-gooders, see great (green as in money) gain.

Warm regards,
Floyd Brown

[ham]

Al Gore made the outrageous claim that “the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees.”

So what?
Planet Earth to little hulksters ...one of the biggest problems for the Obama team was to determine how sexually alluring he might have been for white broads...
These hacks are good enough to read ten line cue cards before going on air after spending six hours in the makeup artist's chair...or uttering alarm cries about bogeymen such as global warming, right wing extremists, hate crimes and other sensational hoaxes.
They know that as clueless as they may be, the idiots watching them are even more...
Americans (but it could be Englishmen or Frenchmen ) have the attention span of a fifteen years old moron on behaviour medications.
In a while they'll be thinking about the next football event, and worrying whether Rufus Neghro the fantastic quarterback is really leaving; or about the new rebate on Macdonald's takeaway meals. For the more sophisticated it may be some patriotic call to arms to defend the great nation against the evil axis of North Korea, Iran and Venezuela...
PFFT!

[Dennis Ruhl]

Still nothing on Inside Higher Ed

http://www.insidehighered.com/news

I imagine they are worried that if the biggest academic fraud ever discovered comes to light, all their little academic frauds might be discovered and the grant money dry up. We might have thousands of cases of "hide the decline" which in climatology terminology means "cash the cheques."

[Don Dresden]

Still nothing on Inside Higher Ed

Hofstra Eliminates Football!  That's news at IHE.  They don't want anyone to notice that the little socialist apple cart just got turned into firewood.

[DR ANATIDAE]

So academics at accredited universities invented global warming and turned non-believers into academic pariahs.  It was all a fraud, apparently done to keep the grant money flowing.  Will they have to repay the grants for the faudulent research?  Will they lose their jobs?  Sounds like academic business as usual.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/21/cr...ow-online/
The bastards tried to destroy the world economy chasing a phantom.  At least they didn't run an unaccredited school.

Here's some very detailed information about this fraud:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...candal.pdf

[Don Dresden]

First peep at IHE:  http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/12/08/johnson

As expected, pure gar-bahj.  E.g., "[T]here is no better source for climate change information than the peer-reviewed literature..."   Somebody missed the point, I think.

Comments from the crowd include these:

Rigorous peer-review?
Posted by Ryan Wisnesky , Graduate Student, Computer Science at Harvard University on December 8, 2009 at 5:15am EST
How rigorous can the peer-review process be if the source code used to analyze the raw data is not also thoroughly reviewed? From looking at the leaked source code comments it appears that even the programmers who wrote the code (over a period of years) were unsure how it actually works. If nothing else, this scandal suggests the ever increasing importance of code review for all scientific disciplines.

Question
Posted by hoosier , physics at IU on December 8, 2009 at 10:00am EST
Is this the first peep from InsideHigherEd on this topic?

Interesting.

Posted by Engineering Grad Student on December 8, 2009 at 11:30am EST
As far as I know, hoosier, this is the first peep from IHE on this topic. It is interesting. What's more interesting is that this column is all about the peer review process in climate science, and it doesn't mention an interesting view of the peer-review process revealed in the e-mails:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"

This is from Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU (who has stepped down from his position while he is under investigation) to Michael Mann, a leading climatologist at Penn State (who is also under investigation by his university).

All that said, I do applaud Kevin for at least acknowledging that this episode is damaging to the public trust in the scientific process. The UK Met Office is one of three sources from which the IPCC draws temperature data, and it makes extensive use of the Hadley CRU data. The Met Office has announced it will be reviewing 160 years if temperature data in light of this episode. Issues of integrity aside, this has resulted in enormous waste of personnel resources

[Don Dresden]

Here's some very detailed information about this fraud:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...candal.pdf

Good stuff, Dr. Anatidae.

[Dennis Ruhl]

First peep at IHE:  http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/12/08/johnson

As expected, pure gar-bahj.  E.g., "[T]here is no better source for climate change information than the peer-reviewed literature..."   Somebody missed the point, I think.

If you wonder why the tone at Inside Higher Ed is decidedly YAWN you need to ask their Views editor Dr. Joe Goebbels. I posted a reasonable comment yesterday and it's nowhere to be seen.

As an experiment why not have everyone post as many comments as they have emails and see how many show up.

I love how people say NASA data also shows temperature increases. Apparently the raw NASA data shows a decrease while the massaged data shows an increase.

Inside Higher Ed has a perfect opportunity to show that much university research is simply so much bullshit with grant money being the primer and results oriented research being the norm. Everyone knows this but why upset the apple cart. As long as results oriented research continues we'll keep being surprised when 3 headed babies are being born to mothers on "safe" drugs. All you have to do is discount the anomales as irrelevent and away you go.

[Ben Johnson]

As an experiment why not have everyone post as many comments as they have emails and see how many show up.

Mine worked.