Global Warming Scam Continues to Unravel

Facebook 0
Twitter
LinkedIn 0
Reddit 0
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon 0
WhatsApp
Email
Print

More evidence that global warming is nothing but a scam:

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.

Go here to read the rest.   Go here to get the details from whistle blower John Bates. A perfect circular feed of junk science, media hysteria and scamming politicians.

More to explorer

The Turkey Pardon

One of the daffier aspects of Thanksgiving in these United States.  Presidents have received formal Thanksgiving turkeys since Harry Truman.  Both Truman

22 Comments

  1. Proceedings, the journal of the Naval Institute, this month has an article by a Coast Guard officer on the disastrous effects global warming his having on coastal communities in Alaska. Global warming is real. While articles like this are useful, we have to be careful that we do not fall into the same illogic that liberals did in the Cold War, when they argued that occasional Pentagon exaggerations of the Soviet threat proved they were not a threat, when in fact they were.

    We should stick to the facts, and use them to argue the following points:

    1) Not all global warming is of human origin, and we need to develop responses that will accommodate this. Policies that are based solely on human caused warming will fail.
    2) We need to develop policies that deliberately avoid statist methods that will reduce liberty and impoverish people. (Point #1 actually reinforces this)

  2. Climate fluctuations are real enough Tom, but I have seen zip evidence to convince me that what we are experiencing now is abnormal or that there is anything Man can do, with current technology, to alter the average global temperature, even if Man possessed the wisdom to determine a proper temperature for this planet.

  3. Don L.

    Your comment is not flippant.

    The real climate change is the heart, cold and frozen for over forty three years, now melting into a receptacle that can hold God’s grace. This climate change is conversion and it is more significant than any changing weather patterns.

    Please pray that this climate change raises the heart above itself, and becomes an beacon of hope for those born and unborn.

  4. Don, I’ve seen enough of the satellite data to convince me it is real. I would not say it is abnormal, since we have had hotter climates in the distant past. On this subject there is no normal.

    “…or that there is anything Man can do, with current technology, to alter the average global temperature, even if Man possessed the wisdom to determine a proper temperature for this planet.”
    Well, Man had better use his God-given talents and develop the technology and the wisdom. A few centuries ago some people felt the same about anesthesia and vaccines and the like. Pain and disease were God’s will, and so should not be manipulated. They had a choice back then, and we have a similar one today: the natural way, or our way. We have to decide, which is God’s way?

  5. BTW, the only way the current situation is a “fluctuation” is if we are about to have another Maunder Minimum, as evidence suggests. If the sunspots shut off within the next 20 years we will be damn glad for our CO2 pollution! Too bad the geniuses in Washington don’t realize this! BTW, this means we are already developing climate control technology, just haphazardly so.
    However, such a minimum is also a “fluctuation” that will last less than a century, and then we will be right back to where we are today.

  6. If humans didn’t cause global warming, there isn’t much we can do to slow, stop or reverse it. And it would be a waste of resources to even try.

    Furthermore, it’s like the man said, “I’ll start believing it’s a crisis when the people telling me there’s a crisis start acting like it.”

  7. If anthropogenic global warming is real, then why don’t the eco-wackoes purporting AGW support non-carbon polluting nuclear. Fact is they don’t. And they never will. This is all about worshiping the creature rather than the Creator. Remember the eco-wacko light show on St Peter’s Basilica on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception in 2015 – four footed beasts and creeping things displayed in satanic glory on a Holy Place in descration of God Himself.

  8. I doubt the Russians and Canadians, who have each added about one million acres per year of arable land due to the minor increase in surface temperature, are too keen about reversing the process. For historical reference, check out farming in Greenland between 1000 and 1250 AD.

  9. “If humans didn’t cause global warming, there isn’t much we can do to slow, stop or reverse it.”
    Not true. Roger Angel at the University of Arizona has done excellent work on this, although to my knowledge he has not addressed the non-human warming timelines.

    “And it would be a waste of resources to even try.”
    Not necessarily true. This becomes one of those classic cost/benefit analyses. Angel estimated the cost as $5 trillion spread over 50 years. The cost of not doing it will only increase in the coming millennia. Improved robotic technology will only bring the cost down.
    A similar study was done on the possible 2029 impact of the asteroid Apophis with the Earth. Preventing the impact would cost 2,000-3,000 the cost of the Apollo program. So, why not let it happen? Apophis is too small to cause global damage, we could just evacuated the possible affected areas and rebuild. It turns our rebuilding would cost 50 times the cost of stopping it.

  10. During the reign of Hadrian, the Romans had vineyards in Britain and Rome had
    a seaport at Ostia. Now, it’s too cold to grow grapes in the UK, and Ostia is
    two miles inland. These changes happened over almost two thousand years, but
    it would be ludicrous to try to attribute the overall cooling we’ve experienced since
    then to anything mankind has done.

    Climate has always fluctuated. Instead of pretending that it doesn’t, or pretending
    that we can somehow freeze it in its present state, why not accept that climate
    changes, albeit slowly, and factor that in to our long-term planning?

  11. I don’t and won’t buy into man’s idea that God didn’t know what He was doing when He created all life based on Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide. I will and do buy into the facts that man fudged computer data to create this false idea they originally called “Global Cooling,” which they changed to “Global Warming,” which they changed again to “Climate Change.” They’ve also lied about the numbers and percentage of so-called scientist who believe in their man-made “climate catastrophe” which amounts to only 67 people all of whom have grants to produce this bogus “science.” Interesting that their projected date for destruction of the planet also changes with the name changes. First it was within 20 years, then it became 10 years, now it’s somewhere between 65 to 300 years.

    How many of you believe God didn’t know what He was doing when He created all of life on CO2 and O2?

  12. God knew what he was doing when He created us with free will so that we could follow His on our own volition. To ensure the existence of creatures with free will the universe and possibly the multiverse needed to be structured in a way much like what we see. Photons and quarks and dark matter and energy needed to behave much as we observe. Something like oxygen would be needed to transport energy within living organisms. The exact details of how oxygen ‘works’ do not show that God ‘knew’ what He was doing, any more that the ‘design’ of the prostate gland shows Divine ‘intelligence’. These things are ‘structured’ these ways not because they are physically optimal for us – they are not – but because they are spiritually optimal. What else really matters?

  13. We seem susceptible to dire, but speculative warnings. Bird flu might mutate and kill millions of people. SARS might become a pandemic disaster. An asteroid might destroy the planet. We might be running out of oil, water, air, and according to Al Gore, we’re about to be fricasseed by global warming. Politicized scientists, such as those sponsored by the U.N., blame human activity for global warming. They warn us that our modern industrial world is bringing on an ecological disaster. We must accept that warning as an incontestable fact and tremble in the face of impending doom. We must submit to draconian measures that will eviscerate our economy or Earth’s coastal plains will disappear beneath the sea like Atlantis. The sky is falling.

    Global warming has occurred many times, even in the recorded ancient past, and often with a far greater intensity of warming than in our time. The ancient Romans recorded viniculture in Britain. The Vikings were encouraged by warm summers on the southern part of Greenland, to establish a settlement there. A cooling climate eventually doomed their settlement. The climate warmed so much, thousands of years ago, that the Celts left central Asia and migrated to Western Europe in order to survive. Here is something from an interesting little book about the ancient Celts:

    “For the period 2,300 -2,000 BC a series of extremely hot summers is attested.” This started the migration which stamped the Celtic influence on the face of Europe. “In the second half of the fifteenth century BC the whole world experienced a series of disasters such as has never since been recorded. It began with a fall in the water table to seven meters, with the result that springs dried up, rivers became trickles, bogs stopped growing”. 2

    Credentialed climatologists say that there have been about six hundred periods of global warming during the last one million years; that carbon dioxide plays a rather minimal role in climate change; and that other factors, such as variations in the Sun’s radiation are more credibly associated with global warming. There is a solid case to be made that global warming and cooling is primarily, a natural process and that it has been quite severe in the past. Has it occurred to you that Arabia, now a desert, is full of oil from the decomposition of enormous volumes of vegetation which flourished there during different climatic conditions?
    I think the most serious potential problem facing humanity is the one looming due to the combined effect of the radical environmentalist movement and the global governance conspiracy.

    An unholy trinity of radicals, media, and politicians has been successful in disseminating the deception of anthropogenic global warming on a worldwide scale. This myth declares that “manmade” carbon dioxide is the principle greenhouse gas and primary culprit in the current manifestation of global warming.

    Water vapor, however, is the major component at 95 % of the greenhouse gases that, thank God, keep us from freezing to death when the sun goes down. Carbon dioxide comprises 3.6 % of the remaining 5 % of greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide resulting from human activity is only 3.2 % of that or 0.12 % of all greenhouse gases in total. That CO2 augments plant growth and the production of oxygen is notable.
    If we were to eliminate all of the CO2 generated by processes related to the Industrial Revolution, it might theoretically reduce the average temperature by 0.12% but what then of seven billion people who dependent on the current state of development? There were only one billion people on the planet prior to the Industrial Revolution. Oh yes! That’s where Global Governance comes in. Abortion, contraceptive drugs in the water supply, “Death with Dignity” and a host of other things not spoken about at large. God forbid!

  14. Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit offered some time ago that the emails from the University of East Anglia suggested that the Climate Research Unit had ‘lost control of their data’ – which is to say they had inadequate documentation as to how it had been processed over the years and really little idea as a consequence of what it was telling them.

    Then you have Lonnie Thompson, who goes to the ends of the Earth to collect ice cores which then sit in a warehouse unanalyzed.

    What TomD I think is missing about the reception of reports on ‘global warming’ is that we’ve lived through this before – twice before – first at the hands of Paul Ehrlich and then at the hands of Carl Sagan and others. It may be it’s more persistent this time because better verified (or it may be that there are a great many careers and large flows of grant money riding on it). The abuse of dissidents by academic promoters of global warming (and by their stenographers in the science press) leads a prudent man to believe there’s something wrong here. Ehrlich (and the creep who had been employed as BO’s ‘science adviser’) were all about central compulsion inspired by (and often directed by) persons such as themselves. You need to treat people pushing that with some reserve. (And, yes, Ehrlich wasn’t above scamming around with the general public).

  15. “What TomD I think is missing about the reception of reports on ‘global warming’ is that we’ve lived through this before – twice before – first at the hands of Paul Ehrlich and then at the hands of Carl Sagan and others.”
    I would disagree. Paul Ehrlich said nothing to my knowledge in his early career about global warming – he was all about resource depletion. He just jumped on the bandwagon later. Sagan, on the other hand, was on the intellectual continuum that led to today’s science. His problem was that at the time there was very little evidence and so Sagan’s views were simply hypotheticals, but still were valuable to the development of scientific thought.
    One point that I need to make is that I seem to create confusion when stick my nose into this subject, because my focus is on the natural processes and cycles that are on longer timeframes than human global warming. This creates an “apples and oranges” situation with regards to climate causes and effects. My position is that public policy has to take into account both views, and that the current focus on the human side of the equation is wrong for many reasons, not only because there is an outside chance it is overstated.

    “It may be it’s more persistent this time because better verified”
    Yes it is.

    “Ehrlich (and the creep who had been employed as BO’s ‘science adviser’) were all about central compulsion inspired by (and often directed by) persons such as themselves.”
    Very true

    “And, yes, Ehrlich wasn’t above scamming around with the general public”
    Now THAT is an understatement.

  16. “The abuse of dissidents by academic promoters of global warming (and by their stenographers in the science press) leads a prudent man to believe there’s something wrong here.”
    Yes, Art, I agree, especially since I’ve received some of that abuse myself. I’m grateful that my employer allows me to say what I believe.

  17. I would disagree. Paul Ehrlich said nothing to my knowledge in his early career about global warming – he was all about resource depletion. He just jumped on the bandwagon later. Sagan, on the other hand, was on the intellectual continuum that led to today’s science. His problem was that at the time there was very little evidence and so Sagan’s views were simply hypotheticals, but still were valuable to the development of scientific thought.

    [drums fingers] Ehrlich was a promoter of demographic disaster scenarios. I’m sure he had his hand in other sorts of environmental eschatology, but that was his principal inventory. The people promoting disaster scenarios derived from resource depletion were the characters hired by the Club of Rome (which the Club of Rome later repudiated). The 3d echelon Carter Administration officials who produced the Global 2000 Report were of this kidney. Carl Sagan was promoting global cooling scenarios. Yes, some his work was peer reviewed and it was published in Science, a plum you receive only when the editors employed by the AAAS want to give your thesis maximum distribution.

  18. “Carl Sagan was promoting global cooling scenarios.”
    Yes, in the early 1980’s, particularly with the “nuclear winter” idea. His global warming speculations came in the late 1960’s and were derived from his early 1960’s work on Venus.

  19. Someone else who was certain of “resource depletion” was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.

    Oh, you know, that great thinker/lawyer turned economics expert, “VI Lenin”.

  20. Yes, in the early 1980’s, particularly with the “nuclear winter” idea.

    No, the nuclear winter discourse was derived from a different set of controversies. Sagan was nothing if not fashionable, and he was on journalists rolodexes big time, in addition to being welcome at outlets like the New York Review of Books. His article in Science on global cooling was a professional-academic publication and it antedated discussion of nuclear winter by about 4 years. “Nuclear winter”, “nuclear freeze”, The Day After, blah blah was all the rage in 1982-83.

Comments are closed.