Thursday, January 28, 2010

Global Warming profiteers place their guys in all the right jobs in UK, dissenters simply frozen out

  • Who needs guns? By controlling outlets of information, no one will know about opposing views.
"He (Lord Nigel Lawson) created the Global Warming Policy Foundation as a public vehicle to confront and debate the issue with the entrenched
  • GW (Global Warming) establishment –
who control just about every other institution in Britain:
  • BBC Radio,
  • BBC Television and BBC Online – all strongly PRO AGW,
  • the Royal Society,
  • the MET Office,
  • ALL the universities,
  • the RSPB,
  • WWF (World Wildlife Fund),
  • English Nature,
  • Scottish Natural Heritage,
  • ALL the Wildlife Trusts,
It is a staggeringly UN-Sceptical establishment and it has not been achieved without massive effort on the part of the AGW lobby
  • to place their men in all the right jobs.
To go up against all that is a very, very brave thing to do! Lawson will be blackballed from just about every gathering of the establishment – and I have never seen him on the BBC since he ran his colours up the mast. Another prominent sceptic – the famous botanist – David Bellamy
The UK feels more and more like the old East Germany – certainly as far as the imposition of the ‘Party Line’ is concerned -
  • which is promulgated by the BBC all day, every day.
Lawson deserves a medal; maybe the Nobel Prize for 2011?...Lord Nigel Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer during Margaret Thatcher’s government; here in the UK, the role of Chancellor is only second in importance to the Prime Minister – as the controller of all economic policy in the UK. Lawson always came across as a highly intelligent man and a highly honourable man – even to those on the opposite side of the political fence.
  • He has been exemplary in being the only member of the British parliamentary establishment to speak out about the Global Warming scam."...
  • Borderer, 10:51:44 1/29/10, commenter to WUWT post, "Lord Lawson calls for CRU inquiry to be held in Public

Sunday, January 24, 2010

D'oh!#* Nobel Prize winning UN Climate Report used unverified data from lobby group

Andrew Bolt: "Yet more evidence that the IPCC cooked the books. Here’s its 2007 claim that global warming could devastate African agriculture:

In other [African] countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include

greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period,

and reductions in crop growth period…

In fact, that claim comes from a non-peer-reviewed and non-scientific paper which looked at just three African countries, and was produced

  • by a sustainable development lobby group. How did this end up as IPCC gospel?
Call in the auditors. Now."

Saturday, January 16, 2010

United Nations Climate Czars make own rules

Because the United States' has had 20 years of weak leadership, people like UN climate chief Rajendra Pachauri think they can bully us. Pachauri's IPCC chairmanship is "unpaid," (although he has a travel and expense account) so he is free to make various associations, and is exempt from having to report where he derives any of his income (UK Telegraph, below). And he has no education in climate science (economics and industrial engineering).
  • April 2002 ClimateGate emails say the UN climate chief job is political more than anything else. So here is an admittedly political job, billions of dollars riding on his every word, yet he technically doesn't have to tell anyone how he is paid from his countless advisory jobs. In the UK, millions of pounds have been contracted to a firm from which he draws a salary, prompting an inquiry:
1/16/10 "The grant comes amid question marks over the finances of The Energy and Resources Institute's (TERI) London operation. Last week its UK head called in independent accountants after admitting 'anomalies' – described as 'unintentional' – in its accounts that have prompted demands for the Charity Commission to investigate....
  • Dr Pachauri, TERI's director-general, has built up a worldwide network of business interests since his appointment as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2002. The post, argue critics, has given him huge prestige and influence as the world's most powerful climate official....
Because Dr Pachauri's role at the IPCC is unpaid – although he does receive tens of thousands of pounds in travel expenses – he is exempt along with other panel members from declaring outside interests with the UN.
  • But he is paid an undisclosed salary by TERI while the institute has also received payments from a number of organisations and businesses he has advised in recent years including 100,000 euros (£88,400) from Deutcshe bank, $80,000 (£49,000) from Toyota Motors, and $580,000 (£357,000) from Yale University, where he serves as head of its new Climate and Energy Institute. ...
Ritu Kumar, who runs TERI Europe, said in response to inquiries by this newspaper she had called in independent accountants Mazars.
  • Dr Kumar wrote: "As a result of this, Mazars has advised us that there are anomalies in the accounts filed with the Charity Commission.

As soon as we learned of these anomalies, which were unintentional on our part, we informed the Charity Commission and immediately asked the accountant to prepare revised accounts, which will apply the correct accounting treatment.""...

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Campbell Soup registers as a climate change lobbyist in 2009

12/28/2009, "Five Climate Lobbyists for Every Member of Congress--from Soup to Nuts," from The Cutting Edge by Marianno Lavelle and M.B. Pell, 12/28/09, adapted from Center for Public Integrity

Even companies that don't use much energy will be forced to bid at auction:

12/28/09: "Take the concerns raised by the world's largest maker of soup, Camden, N.J.-based Campbell Soup Company, one of a slew of grocery producers (including Kellogg Company, Del Monte Foods, and the Alliance of Food Associations) registered to lobby on climate change for the first time in the July-September quarter.
  • "It wasn't until we analyzed what was going on in the House (of Representatives) that we thought, 'Oh, gosh, we are being affected by this,'" said Kelly Johnston, Campbell Soup's vice president for public affairs, in an interview.
At issue are the free "allowances," or carbon dioxide pollution permits that the House-passed climate bill would give to manufacturers that use a lot of energy to produce internationally traded products, like steel and aluminum.
  • Those energy-intensive industries fighting international competitors successfully lobbied for protection from loss of jobs to China and other cheap-energy countries
  • if the United States unilaterally enacted a carbon reduction program that would make coal-burning more expensive here.
But the House bill's approach means manufacturers that don't use as much energy—like Campbell—would have to bid at auction for carbon emissions allowances from the federal government.
  • Johnston argues that Campbell should either be exempt from that process or provided some freebies, too. "I think it's clear from our view that we're not being treated as fairly as carbon-intensive industries," Johnston said.
"There needs to be some recognition of the role the food industry plays in our economy.""...

"The Science" says, Nature abhors a vacuum. In 20+ years absent American leadership, in walked Maurice Strong, George Soros, and a host of weak, greedy politicians... George Bush was the nail in the coffin. His biggest fault was remaining silent while allowing sick and diseased people from around the world to dominate public consciousness via television and other media....

Monday, January 4, 2010

ClimateGate: $creaming failure of blind and bia$ed media

Who's watching the 'watchdogs'? It's helpful to remember media people are often looking for their next job. Experts say (no pun intended against Seth Borenstein) the best way to get a new job is via networking, building on one's associations. This has been my experience in and observation of persons in media over time. It may explain in part the united front of climate propagandists. There's something about mobs. Though they need no help given the billions riding on this scam.
  • From the article: The key has been exploiting the fact that the average person has been unaware how much the climate changes NATURALLY.* (graph at end of this post). That, for example, palm trees once grew in the Arctic and the planet has been at times completely ice-free.
1/4/10: "It’s beyond belief that the mainstream media can’t see the devastating importance of the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) known as Climategate. The blindness cancels the claim they’re society’s watchdog. Left wing journalist Amy Goodman said when writing about the Bush administration, You know governments are going to lie, but not the media.” Now, with a new administration she is silent, proving there are lies of commission and omission.
  • Most haven’t read the emails or summarily dismiss them because of political bias.

Journalist Clive Crook illustrated an open mind, albeit on second look. “In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend

The mainstream media willfully ignore the massive deception just as they have the political exploitation of climate science. In fact, most led or joined attacks on scientists who dared to point out the problems. They’re still doing it directly or by their silence.

  • There’s no excuse for missing the biggest story in history. It proves the adage that there are none so blind as those who will not see....

Michael Mann, the most aggressive, bullying and deceptive member of the CRU gang, claims without embarrassment there’s nothing significant in the emails. As Keith Briffa wrote,

  • It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.”

He even scared his fellow CRU conspirators as one noted on October 26 2003, “Anyway, there’s going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann’s very thin skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from the past….” A psychologist can probably identify these behavior characteristics.

In a Washington Post article Mann said the content “doesn’t alter evidence for climate change.” It’s the confidence trick they’ve always used

  • As a result they can report natural change as unnatural and

The real issue is the cause of climate change. Now we know how the CRU gang used deception to falsely prove it was human produced CO2.

  • But the mainstream media brush it off, ignore it, or deliberately play along with the CRU gang denials. ...

The Stink is Unavoidable

Evidence of wrongdoing in the emails doesn’t require understanding of the science.

  • Any objective reading quickly dispels the claim they are normal banter between colleagues.

On 22 November 1996 from Geoff Jenkins (UK Met Office) to Phil Jones, Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.”“We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls (IPCC lead author and Australian Met Bureau employee.)??”

  • They’re talking about releasing an annual global temperature a month before the year is over. Hardly scientific or responsible bureaucratic behavior, but they think deceiving the public is “fun”.

On March 11, 2003 Mann acknowledges they silenced skeptics by criticizing them for not having peer-reviewed publications.

  • They could do this because they believed they controlled peer review of climate change papers. Mann writes,

This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”

  • On 24 April 2003 Wigley upset about Hans von Storch’s editorial role proposes to mislead the publishers,

“One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since

  • whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about—it is how the journal is seen
  • by the community that counts.”

Is this normal discourse between academics?

  • On 21 Jan 2005 Jones writes to Wigley about requests under the Freedom of Information Act, Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

Why would he need to hide?

  • On 8 July 2004 Jones to Mann, 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!

Even if the malfeasance wasn’t obvious a check of the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to review all literature would disclose it.

“They”are McIntyre and McKitrick (MM) names already familiar in the mainstream media.

On 29 April 2007 Briffa to Mann; a red flag is waved by the comment, I tried hard to balance

  • which were not always the same.”

The only need for science is accuracy and openness, which means

  • the IPCC is not about science. That alone should trigger further investigative journalism.

Unbelievable Ignorance

Those involved in the original deception now present ludicrous arguments. The journal “Nature"used in the corruption of the peer-review process and biased throughout says,

  • “If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts.

Absolute rubbish! They should read their guidelines, which say in part, An inherent principle of publication is that

Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols promptly available to readers without preconditions. (Their emphasis).

  • The ability to reproduce results is fundamental to science.

Jim Hoggan, Chairman of the Board of the Suzuki Foundation and founder of the sleazy, squalid, web site Desmogblog, says the real issue is the

  • agenda of the people who stole the files.

It’s an agenda Hoggan, a professional spinner, and the biased mainstream media would not recognize or understand;

  • a desire for openness and the truth."
"Climategate: Failure of a blind and biased mainstream media," Canada Free Press, by Dr. Tim Ball, 1/4/10 ****************

*graph showing glacial retreat since 1850 from Climate Sceptic

Long-time Hurricane chief outraged at ClimateGate emails

  • Of the bullies and tools who aim to take what little remains of America's economy away from its citizens. With a 20 year absence of leadership in the White House and a 24/7 complicit media, they almost succeeded.
Neil Frank: "Climategate reveals how predetermined
  • political agendas shaped science
  • rather than the other way around. It is high time
and to bring skeptics" (realists) "back into the public debate."...
"Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008."