"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill." - Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution (1991), p.115 (source)
It irks me every time i see companies spouting how proud they are of their so-called "green" profile and how they've reduced their "carbon footprint" by utilizing "renewable energy", the latest gush having appeared on the Mojeek blog. Mojeek is an up-and-coming, independent, relatively unbiased search index with ethical values, all of which stand in direct opposition to censorship-happy, data harvesting, criminal giants like Google, thus i would highly recommend checking them out. Knowledge in one area does not necessarily translate to another however.
As we've mentioned before in our 'doing what's right' piece, the green credentials of our data centre were a big motivating factor when it came to selecting it. Having it reasonably close to our team members was also a key factor and also helps to reduce our travel carbon footprint.
Yeah, that's about all i needed to read.
Mojeek's data center is located in the United Kingdom. I don't know how power is generated for that particular facility, but if it isn't hydro-electric, it isn't green.
Much (much=most) of the "green" agenda is a complete farce based on fraudulent and fabricated science, as well as cherry-picked data and hidden agendas that are quickly revealed if one actually looks for them. The "green" agenda is largely driven by politics, greed and eugenics, not by science and certainly not because of a genuine concern for Mother Earth, much less those of us living upon her. While anyone mentioning these easily discoverable facts is subject to being labeled a shill for Big Oil, it is actually Big Oil which is intimately connected to the "carbon neutral" agenda.
Yes, we humans are destroying the Earth, no argument there, however we are NOT doing it through Co2 emissions resulting from cow farts and burning so-called "fossil" fuels, which are actually created near the core of the Earth, not by the decomposition of organic matter near its surface. What this means, if i understand the science correctly, is that .... dare i say it? Oil is essentially a renewable resource which would explain why some oil reservoirs never run dry. The illusion of scarcity through careful control of supply provides for huge profits however. The same is true in the diamond industry. Note that i am certainly not implying that setting oil on fire to supply electricity for those "green", grid dependent electric vehicles, or data centers, or what have you, is a remotely intelligent idea, but neither is burning trees and calling it "green".
Electric cars wait in line to be charged
The electric car market is apparently tanking. Why? Well, dozens of EVs waiting in line for hours on end to have their highly toxic batteries charged for one, or perhaps just bursting into flames, but also the cost of replacing the batteries and the environmental destruction caused by the mining of the materials used to produce lithium batteries.
Are Electric Cars the Future? Are EV's really going to "save the planet"? What is the environmental impact of an electric vehicle? More and more people are questioning the narrative when it comes to EV's... but what is the truth?
While the shift to electric cars reflects ongoing efforts to reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels, the UN warns that the raw materials used to produce electric car batteries are highly concentrated in a small number of countries and their extraction and refinement pose a serious threat to the environment.
While the World Economic Forum fabricates its Global Risk Report, an amateur futurist comes up with his own more realistic list.
Wind turbines are not a "green renewable" energy source and electric vehicles are proving to be a disaster for those championing them.
And how are these "environmentally friendly" EVs charged? By plugging them in to a grid that is likely powered by coal or gas, or perhaps worse, power plants which employ "green" biomass technology. You know, burning trees!
In their sillier moments, wind and solar advocates claim that we'll all soon be driving electric vehicles, lovingly recharged with sunshine and breezes.
In Australia, those seemingly virtuous souls with EVs are really being propelled by coal, because 85% of the electricity passing through its Eastern grid comes from coal-fired plants. It's an irony, to be sure.
While there's nothing wrong in theory about all-Electric Vehicles, if they really were a sensible substitute for petrol or diesel-powered vehicles, they'd already be jumping off the shelves. Except, for some strange reason, they aren't.
In a world-exclusive investigation, Liam Bartlett uncovers the dirty truth behind so-called clean, green electric vehicles and how China is getting away with causing a toxic environmental catastrophe.
The fact that "global warming" has been rebranded as "climate change" (aka "climate catastrophe", "climate crisis", etc.) ought to provide a clue to even the most clueless normie that maybe, just maybe something isn't quite right with the official story. 'Change' is all the climate does, after all, and while the Earth may be experiencing a warming trend (debatable, CRU data leak says it's been cooling for 2 decades), it is not remotely catastrophic, nor even remarkable. Oh, and that 97% of scientists agree thing? Yeah, that's complete horse shit as well.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is "not as good as it should be."
'Hockey Stick' GraphThe data is crucial to the famous "hockey stick graph" used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Al Gore's "hockey stick" trick, courtesy of Michel E. Mann, is the result of a) only showing a tiny fragment of the entire available data and b) outright fraud, such as NASA and NOAA engaged in when they altered temperature records and cherry-picked data to produce a warming trend where there was none.
One of the many glaring problems with the global warming cult is that science tells us that rises in Co2 levels are preceded by increases in temperature, not the other way around, and the entire 'Co2 causes global warming' baloney depends on the opposite being true. Oops.
Perhaps the self-serving psychopathic globalist lunatics driving the "green" agenda, such as the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, the Club of Rome, etc., can explain how us carbon spewing mammals are managing to affect the climate on the other planets in our solar system. Gee, i wonder if that big yellow fire ball in the sky has something to do with it?
Carbon dioxide is portrayed as the boogeyman, the ultimate pollutant bringing about our collective demise. However, behind all the noise of climate change doom and the end-of-the-world global warming prophecies, lies an overwhelming body of evidence that portends the complete opposite.
A growing number of climate scientists actually favor higher CO2 levels because carbon dioxide has always benefited plant life, thereby supporting all life on the planet.
Co2 levels are dropping to a level that is becoming a bit concerning. It's simple: Co2 = life and with not enough of it, life ends .... therefore the obvious solution is of course to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant, as the corporate connected clowns at the Environmental "Protection" Agency have done, and further reduce Co2 emissions by pretending that humans are entirely responsible for producing the bulk of it, ignoring the fact that the vast majority is produced by the oceans.
Follow the money, as they say, and in this case a cottage industry of gigantic proportions has sprung up around the global warming alarmist cult, part of that being the idea of "punishing" those rotten carbon spewing corporations by taxing them, yet another scam, albeit an extremely lucrative one, the retarded proponents of which would rather you ignore the fact that it's you who's going to be paying more for products in order to pay those taxes while the corporations simply write off the added expense as the cost of doing business.
It isn't at all difficult to recognize the global warming/anti-carbon shit-show for what it is if one does their homework. Unfortunately most people are too dumb, too lazy, or too brainwashed to consider any information which challenges their currently held beliefs and so the charade can and will continue. As they say, you can lead a horse to water...
Karl Popper famously said, "A theory that explains everything explains nothing." So what do you make of the theory that catastrophic manmade CO2-driven "climate change" can account for harsher winters and lighter winters, more snow and less snow, droughts and floods, more hurricanes and less hurricanes, more rain and less rain, more malaria and less malaria, saltier seas and less salty seas, Antarctica ice melting and Antarctic ice gaining and dozens of other contradictions? Popper gave a name to "theories" like this: pseudoscience.
Runbox
Runbox offers a reasonably privacy conscience email service for general use. I currently use Runbox and, as a customer interested in what they had to say, i unfortunately decided at some point to watch their blog feed which contains a lot of posts by Geir Thomas Andersen who i quickly discovered is yet another brainwashed fool who has bought into the whole anthropomorphic warming hysteria, hook, line and sinker. The entire "global warming" crap has absolutely nothing to do with the health of our planet, rather it is entirely about money, power and control. In other words, it is a political endeavor, not a scientific one. Those who still fail to recognize this fact at this late date either have not been paying attention or simply refuse to consider information which challenges their current beliefs. Anderson seems to be a hybrid in that he appears to fall into both groups.
Myth #5. Hurricanes are increasing! US landfalling hurricanes are at their lowest intensity in a century. (Bonus fact: Accumulated Cyclone Energy is at a 30 year low!)
Myth #7. Climategate was hype and it's been debunked. The UK Information Commissioner found the climategate scientists guilty of breaking the law by hiding data from the public.
Myth #8. Models project a temperature increase of over 2 degrees in this century. And these same models overestimated warming over the past 15 years by 400%.
Myth #9. Weather is not climate. Actually, yes. And this is true when it's hot outside, too.
Myth #10. Climate denial is a well-funded conspiracy. Actually, the reverse. The global warming industry has generated over $140 billion in government grants, a $315 billion carbon market and is expected to generate 10s of trillions more in government-sponsored investment in the coming decades.
The fact that "global warming" was swapped out for "climate change" gives the game away in and of itself, for the only thing the climate does is change and given that the fabrication of man-made global warming is starting to crumble, i guess some re-branding was in order.
The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing.
Based on a new mathematical reconfiguration of the false claims that CO2 is affecting the earth's temperature, a call for a "carbon deinvestment campaign" has been made.
By making carbon taxes a global and integral part of the "fee-and-dividend approach", these climate change alarmists want to redistribute wealth from country to country as the globalists at the UN have outlined in various eco-terrorist manifestos.
However, real scientific data from real-world observations, and not the IPCC's falsified computer model projections, are painting a different picture of what is actually happening with our weather and what the true effects of climate change actually are.
I wrote a post on the Runbox forum calling out Andersen and the anthropomorphic warming nonsense and eventually he replied, and reply he did! Following are the main arguments Anderson furnished:
Anderson:
We can understand that communication regarding climate change and CO₂ may feel frustrating, and that there might appear to be exaggeration on both sides of the discussion.
Yes sir, you sure got that right! Now let's find out on which side the bulk of those exaggerations lie...
Anderson:
Atmospheric CO₂ concentrations have risen from about 280 ppm before the industrial era to over 420 ppm today, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, which has caused an average temperature increase of nearly 1.5C.
Oh no, over 420 ppm of CO2!!! Well, let's see what that looks like when we don't cherry-pick the data...
NASA claims that the blade of the hockey stick is settled science, which four different independent agencies (NASA, NOAA, CRU and JMA) agree upon very closely. The agreement is claimed to be within a few hundredths of a degree.
As with everyone else selling the anthropomorphic warming horseshit, Anderson cites data from NASA, NOAA, the IPCC and, yes, even 'The Ministry of Truth', Wikipedia, despite that, as the evidence has revealed again and again, relying on these sources is tantamount to the policeman asking the bank robber whether he robbed the bank and expecting an honest answer in return. That Anderson, or anyone else, isn't aware of the data manipulations by these organizations going back at least as far as the CRU data leak is nearly unfathomable.
As more and more palaeo-temperature data are acquired, the IPCC-endorsed "hockeystick" temperature record of Mann et al. (1999) - which gives little indication of the existence of the MCA and shows recent temperatures towering over those of that earlier time period - is fading slowly into the night, as it is repudiated by ever more real-world data.
Anderson repeatedly ignored the fact that there is no consensus among climate scientists.
Millions of people worldwide are concerned about climate change and believe there is a climate emergency. For decades we have been told by the United Nations that Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activity are causing disastrous climate change. In 2018, a UN IPCC report even warned that 'we have 12 years to save the Earth', thus sending millions of people worldwide into a frenzy.
Thirty-five years ago, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the (World Meteorological Organization) WMO established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide scientific advice on the complex topic of climate change. The panel was asked to prepare, based on available scientific information, a report on all aspects relevant to climate change and its impacts and to formulate realistic response strategies. The first assessment report of the IPCC served as the basis for negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Governments worldwide have signed this convention, thereby, significantly impacting the lives of the people of the world.
However, many scientists dispute with the UN-promoted man-made climate change theory, and many people worldwide are confused by the subject, or are unaware of the full facts. Please allow me to provide some information you may not be aware of.
1. Very few people actually dig into the data, they simply accept the UN IPPC reports. Yet many highly respectable and distinguished scientists have done exactly that and found that the UN-promoted manmade climate change theory is seriously flawed. Are you aware that almost 2,000 of the world's leading climate scientists and professionals in over 30 countries have signed a declaration that there is no climate emergency and have refuted the United Nations claims in relation to man-made climate change?
Experts analysing data in a report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPPC") point to changes in the planet's albedo - the fraction of the Sun's energy reflected by Earth - as the factor driving the rise in global temperatures.
The legitimacy of the temperature record adjustments has been called into question, with evidence suggesting that the data manipulation may not be scientifically justified. The strong correlation between unadjusted data and temperature trends contrasts with the poor correlation of adjusted data, casting doubt on the methods used by NOAA. The lack of transparency and discrepancies in global temperature data handling has added to the skepticism surrounding the integrity of climate records. This situation underscores the need for transparency and methodological rigor in climate data management.
With a warmer-than-usual winter sparking a new round of climate change fearmongering, Dan O'Donnell runs down 50-plus years of failed doomsday predictions
The apocalypse is tomorrow, and if not, the day after will do. Declarations of the world's demise are a dime a dozen, the fare of dignitaries, politicians, scientists, and celebs: The end is nigh-and getting nigher.
Coupled to the certainty of doomsday is the fall of farming. Hand in hand, Armageddon and agriculture are bedmates. On March 20, 2023, the United Nations warned of humanity's ticking "time-bomb," and released a "report of reports" enumerating a multi-trillion-dollar plan to implement climate policies across the globe. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres proclaimed the report a "survival guide for humanity" and called for the phase-out of fossil fuels: "Dear friends, humanity is on thin ice-and that ice is melting fast."
For years, climate scientists have tried to cause panic in society by predicting Earth's demise. Their predictions have consistently fallen flat. BlazeTV Host Stu Burguiere examines an AEI article listing 18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the first Earth Day in 1970.
Over the past half-century, environmentalists have predicted countless calamities. Their extreme predictions were typically wrong, their draconian countermeasures turned out to be mostly misguided, and we should be grateful we didn't follow their harmful advice. We need to keep this history in mind as we are inundated with stories of climate Armageddon.
One of the scariest scenarios for near-term, disastrous sea-level rise may be off the table for now, according to a new study previewed at a recent scientific conference.
For decades, complex climate-change models have indicated global sea levels to be rising at twice or more the historic level, but until now, no scientists had bothered checking that against actual observed reality.
There's no doubt that the average global sea level has been increasing ever since the world started to warm after the Little Ice Age ended around 1850. But there's no reliable scientific evidence that the rate of rise is accelerating, or that the rise is associated with any human contribution to global warming.
Of course after their idiotic predictions fail to materialize over and over and over again, the warming/CO2 alarmists just move the goal post:
Even if humans stop producing excess carbon dioxide in 2100, the lingering effects of global warming could span the next millennia. The results? By the year 3000, global warming would be more than a hot topic - the West Antarctic ice sheet could collapse, and global sea levels would rise by about 13 feet (4 meters), according to a new study.
Anderson of course did not give an inch! Unrelenting, he came back again and again, often times with the same crap that was already debunked, but sometimes with new crap too!
Anderson: CO2 is not "dropping on average" -- it's rising rapidly, and we can measure it directly
From his own source:
Anderson (multiple claims): Natural drivers cannot explain recent warming // Attribution studies: warming matches observations only when human drivers are included // Ice cores do not disprove CO2-driven warming // "26,000-year cycles" don't explain this warming // We can fingerprint the source of the extra CO2: it's fossil carbon
December 2023 Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences 19:163-173 DOI:10.29169/1927-5129.2023.19.14
Received: October 20, 2023 Accepted: November 14, 2023 Published: November 30, 2023
[...]
10. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study builds on the quantitative record of previous studies starting in 2014 and continuing to early 2023. It builds on the Excel calculations of Reference [1], which result from the measurement of temperature and relative humidity at twenty locations recorded on the 21st of the month for twelve months. The data show water vapor is one thousand to seven thousand times more effective at warming the atmosphere than CO2.
[…]
This study identifies three methods of showing that the warming effect of CO2 is too small to measure: (a) In 1904, the psychrometric model of the atmosphere was invented [4], (b) Then, in April 2023, proven physics and chemistry showed warming by CO2 is too small to measure [1], (c) In September 2023, temperature causes changes in CO2, CO2 does not change temperature [10]. The basis for these is actual measurements in the Troposphere.
The science presented in this study leads directly to the following conclusions:
10.1. This study confirms quantitatively that the warming effect of CO2 is too small to measure, i.e., negligible. In contrast, warming by water vapor is 1,000 to 7,000 times greater than CO2.
10.2. The warming effect of CO2 is linear with concentration, i.e., the number of molecules per cubic meter. In contrast, the warming effect of water vapor with concentration is curved.
10.3. The ratio of water molecules to CO2 molecules is 0.0010 from the top of the Troposphere through the Stratosphere and Mesosphere to the top of the atmosphere. This amount is too small to affect the flow of energy to space significantly.
10.4. The radiation profile at the top of the atmosphere is essentially the same as at the top of the Troposphere.
10.5. Separating water vapor’s warming effect from CO2 by radiation profiles is nearly impossible.
10.6. Comparison of three radiation profiles with the ratio of water molecules to CO2 molecules shows the warming effect of CO2 is negligible.
10.7. The Sun is the primary energy source and its variation controls the Earth’s temperature. The Sun determines the Earth’s temperature, it is currently in a solar minimum.
10.8. The Hunga Tonga eruption pushed the global temperature past the Paris Accord target of 1.5oC, but this will be a temporary spike. There appear to be no credible negative effects.
Anderson: No fabrication of warming trends
Wow, i guess getting caught manipulating data and breaking the law by deleting data after receiving a FOIA request for said data doesn’t count in Anderson's alternate reality.
“If congress is willing to pay you to find evidence of global warming, by golly, as a scientist, we’re gonna go find evidence of it because that’s what we’re being paid to do. And guess what, if you don’t find evidence, or say the evidence suggests it’s not a problem, your funding ends. This totally corrupts the way we look at the science.” – Dr. Roy Spencer, U.S. Science Team leader, NASA’s Aqua Satellite (source)
The truth that Anderson carefully avoids is that NASA, NOAA, the CRU, the IPCC, the EPA, etc., have all been caught lying and manipulating their data in order to bolster the human-induced climate warming agenda for reasons that Rosa Koire so carefully explained.
Welcome to Rosa Koire's special presentation to the NH Legislature. It took place in the Legislative Office Building just behind the Capital in Concord on June 25, 2012. She shared with concerned legislators what she has learned about the true nature of Sustainable Development. The her new book. Behind the Green Mask, United Nations Agenda 21, provides all the information needed to understand what is happening at our government at the federal level as well as the state level, why it's happening, who is behind it, and what you can do to stop it. As she states: "Awareness is the first step in the Resistance." Rosa Koire, ASA is a forensic commercial real estate appraiser specializing in eminent domain valuation. Her nearly thirty years of experience analyzing land use and property value enabled her to recognize the planning revolution sweeping the nation. While fighting to stop a huge redevelopment project in her city she researched the corporate, political and financial interests behind it and found UN Agenda 21. Rosa speaks across the nation and is a regular blogger on her web site Democrats Against UN agenda 21.com
If you've been wanting an interesting, clearly written, how-to-manual for identifying and fighting UN Agenda 21, here it is. Agenda 21--All the information you need to understand what is happening in your town, why it's happening, who is behind it, and what you can do to stop it. BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: U.N. Agenda 21 is 172 pages of truth. Part history, part current events, part hand-to-hand combat, and part blueprint for keeping your freedom, this is one book that you'll put to work immediately. Boots on the ground and all hands on deck is the order of the day. Awareness is the first step in the Resistance.
In summary, the adjustments to the US temperature record made by NOAA are more than double the ones they have admitted to. Furthermore, they have not been making proper allowance for UHI.
The US temperature record presented by NOAA and GISS is little more than a political construct.
Scientists are co-opted and corrupted by politicians and bureaucracies invested in advancing the narrative of "climate change" in order to further centralize political power and control, explained Moore.
Moore noted how "green" companies parasitize taxpayers via favorable regulations and subsidies ostensibly justified by the aforementioned narrative's claimed threats, all while enjoying propagandistic protection across news media"
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was "only a few dozen experts," he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged the man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.
I've been warning for months that NOAA was going to claim that 2012 was the hottest year ever, regardless of the actual temperatures. They did it today.
The year 2012 was the warmest on record for the contiguous United States, beating the previous record by a full degree in temperature, a government climate agency said on Tuesday. Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the average temperature in 2012 in the contiguous United States was 55.3 degrees Fahrenheit (12.94 degrees Celsius), 3.2 degrees above the average recorded during the 20th century and 1.0 degree above 1998, until now the hottest on record.
I will do a more complete analysis later, but for now I want you to focus on the bold sentence above, which claims that 1998 used to be the hottest year in the US.
In an article which NASA published in 1999, Hansen showed that 1998 was only the fifth warmest year, after 1934, 1921, 1931 and 1953. In fact, 1998 was 0.6C cooler than 1934.
NASA's top climatologist said that the US had been cooling
Whither U.S. Climate?
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato - August 1999
Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.
in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases - in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country
The IPCC has released its latest assessment of the state of climate science, and this time it's even more dire than their 2007 assessment. Global warming is "unequivocal" and humans are the "dominant cause" to a certainty of 95%. But how are these uncertainties calculated? And how does the IPCC process work anyway? Join us this week on The Corbett Report as we dissect the latest IPCC hype and examine the organizations processes and conclusions.
MIT Professor Emeritus of Meteorology Richard Lindzen talks about the inextricably intertwined link between the body politic and climate scientists with respect to promoting the climate alarmist narrative, arguing "I don't think any field survives this degree of corruption without losing if nothing else its self-respect," during an in-depth interview for The New Criterion by Ben Weingarten, commentator and Founder & CEO of ChangeUp Media.
The tax-payer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has become mired in fresh global warming data scandal involving numbers for the Great Lakes region that substantially ramp up averages.
A beleaguered federal agency appears to be implicated in the most blatant and extreme case of climate data fraud yet seen. Official records have been confirmed as evidence that a handful of temperature records for the Great Lakes region have been hiked up by literally hundreds of degrees to substantially inflate the average temperature range for the northeastern United States.
The release of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia at the end of last year provoked a global controversy that is still raging today. Allegations that senior climatologists had manipulated results, flouted Freedom of Information laws and prevented critics from being published in the academic literature have swept the media and divided opinion among scientists, policy makers and the lay public around the world. Lawsuits about the legality of some of the events surrounding the e-mail affair are pending in the USA. It is possible that more will follow.
The principal allegations concerned:
whether the scientists had attempted to prevent sceptical views from appearing in the scientific literature or had misrepresented or ignored critical work in the IPCC reports
whether scientists had deleted email and other data in order to avoid compliance with the Freedom of Information legislation
whether scientists had failed to make their data and computer code available to critics in order to prevent it being examined and challenged
whether the picture of the state of climate science presented by scientists in the IPCC reports was consistent with their own papers as they appeared in the scientific literature and also with their privately expressed views.
Few have read the 2005 email from Climategate ringleader and CRU head Phil Jones to John Christy where he states "The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant." Or where he concludes: "As you know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish."
Or the email where he broke the law by asking Michael Mann of "hockey stick" fame to delete a series of emails related to a Freedom of Information request he had just received.
Or the email where he wrote: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."
Or the other emails where these men of science say they will re-define the peer review process itself in order to keep differing view points out of the scientific literature, or where they discuss ousting a suspected skeptic out of his editorial position in a key scientific journal, or where they fret about how to hide the divergence in temperature proxy records from observed temperatures, or where they openly discuss the complete lack of warming over the last decade or any of the thousands of other emails and documents exposing a laundry list of gross scientific and academic abuses.
The Times January 30, 2010 * The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.
Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.
From: Michael Mann mann@meteo.psu.edu To: Phil Jones p.jones@uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400 Reply-to: mann@psu.edu
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
On July 31, 2009, the purge of public data at CRU reached levels “unprecedented” in its recorded history. Climate Audit reader Super-Grover said that the data purge was “worse” than we expected.
It’s just not the IPCC’s month. Now, on top of Pachaurigate and Glaciergate, the original Climategate scandal has finally exploded underneath the crimatologists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. In a shocking rebuke of the key scientsts behind the IPCC ‘peer-reviewed’ assessment of the dangers of manmade climate change, the UK Information Commissioner ruled yesterday that the group of scientists known as ‘the hockey team’ had broken Freedom of Information laws by conspiring to ignore legitimate requests for information and even conspiring to delete key emails and correspondence so they could never be assessed.
Beale pled guilty in September to bilking the government out of nearly $1 million in salary and other benefits over a decade. He perpetrated his fraud largely by failing to show up at the EPA for months at a time, including one 18-month stretch starting in June 2011 when he did "absolutely no work," as his lawyer acknowledged in a sentencing memo filed last week.
Received: September 26, 2025 Accepted: November 03, 2025 Published: November 10, 2025
Abstract:
Some countries are concerned about increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) causing dangerous warming of the Earth, as promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is a mistake by the IPCC because the warming by CO2 is too small to measure. This study identifies six serious errors by applying critical thinking and the scientific method. For example, doubling the level of CO2, i.e., the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), does not measurably affect the Earth’s temperature because the warming effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) is too small to measure. Thus, the plot of the warming effect of CO2 against the level, whether or not it is a straight line or logarithmic, is irrelevant. The Sun’s energy is the primary control of Earth’s temperature. However, there is some energy input from the ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation). Thus, the Earth’s temperature drops when the Sun’s energy output falls, as it is currently doing. The IPCC overestimates the warming impact of methane and nitrous oxide, both of which have a negligible warming effect. The Earth’s energy balance is incorrect because it is based on averages, and the amount of energy to evaporate water must equal the amount sent to space. It is recommended that people and their governments know about these errors and take appropriate action.
“Now that Dr. Bates has confirmed that there were heated disagreements within NOAA about the quality and transparency of the data before publication, we know why NOAA fought transparency and oversight at every turn. Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along - that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study. The Committee thanks Dr. Bates, a Department of Commerce Gold Medal winner for creating and implementing a standard to produce and preserve climate data, for exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.”
It’s happened again with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recent report declaring “Code Red for Humanity,” hitting the headlines this week to much fanfare and even more alarmism, including hyperbolic claims that man-made CO2 is somehow causing sea levels to accelerate uncontrollably. The only problem with this (as well as the other wildly exaggerated claims found in their report) is it is simply not true. In fact, real tidal gauge data shows that sea level rise rates have not accelerated at all.
The United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny - and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report’s own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.
Anderson (multiple claims): [...] let's clarify why the scientific community generally concludes that recent climate change cannot be explained by natural variation alone // A hard-to-fake physical fingerprint: warming below, cooling above // Satellites directly observe reduced outgoing infrared radiation
No one is arguing definitively that human activity has no impact upon climate whatsoever. Beyond industry, weather manipulation has been taking place since at least the Vietnam era and this has ramped up steeply since then. What effect this has upon climate is, to my knowledge, unknown, but i think it's safe to assume it might have some effect.
What is the purpose of these aerosols?
Are they reflecting, or retaining heat?
Those not aware of the particulate aerosol programs taking place throughout much of the world, or at least the NATO countries, should look into how these particulates, including aluminum, barium and strontium, may affect climate.
Weather manipulation aside, in the context of anthropomorphic warming, the relevant question is whether or not human activity is having a substantial impact (“substantial” because that’s what they imply) and the creditable data, unlike the garbage Anderson relies upon, obviously suggests we do not. Even if we relax the criteria and consider whether human activity is having any impact, the jury is still out. The only “consensus” is the manufactured one foisted upon the public which is born solely out of politics, greed and population control and how anyone can possibly fail to recognize this is beyond me.
Anderson: Atmospheric CO2 has risen from about 280 ppm pre-industrial to over 420 ppm today, measured directly and continuously.
Sure, when you cherry-pick the data. Furthermore, changes in CO2 are preceded by changes in temperature and this alone destroys the entire anthropomorphic warming nonsense.
As discussed at the end of this post, consideration of the geochemical cycles of CO2 and CH4 in ice, permafrost, terrestrial and oceanic biospheres and in deep ocean water during freeze - thaw glacial cycles suggests that it is inevitable that CO2 and CH4 are going to correlate with temperature in a general way. This correlation shows that CO2 and CH4 are controlled by temperature and so provides no evidence for CO2 or CH4 amplifying temperature signals that are linked to orbital cycles.
A detailed analysis of temperature, CO2 and methane variations from the Vostok ice core is presented for the time interval 137,383 to 102,052 years ago. This captures the termination of the glaciation that preceded the Eemian interglacial and the inception of the last great glaciation that succeeded the Eemian. At the termination, CO2 follows dT exactly, but at the inception CO2 does not follow temperature down for 14,218 years. Full glacial conditions came into being without falling CO2 providing any of the climate forcing. This falsifies the traditional narrative that dCO2 amplified weak orbital forcing effects. It is quite clear from the data that CO2 follows temperature with highly variable time lags depending upon whether the climate is warming or cooling.
And so what if CO2 is on the rise? The climate does one thing and one thing only and that is change. Up to a point, higher CO2 levels mean a healthier, greener planet and we are no where near the upper limit, so where’s the problem?
More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarised. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.
Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of Nobel Prize level distinction. Following Callendar (1938), modern climatologists have generally ignored the historic determinations of CO2, despite the techniques being standard text book procedures in several different disciplines. Chemical methods were discredited as unreliable choosing only few which fit the assumption of a climate CO2 connection.
For those that missed the key statement: “changes in CO2 track changes in temperature”.
From the same paper…
The close relationship between temperature change and CO2 level exhibited by these results is consistent with a cause-effect relationship, but does not of itself indicate which of the two parameters is the cause and which the effect. The greenhouse hypothesis of IPCC argues for CO2 being the cause (through radiative feedback) of the temperature rise. My results are equally if not more consistent with temperature being the forcing that controls the level of CO2 in the atmospheric system. In support of this causality, ice-core data consistently shows that over climatic time scales, changes in temperature precede their parallel changes in carbon dioxide by several hundred to more than a thousand years [91].
The phase relations (leads/lags) among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume are key to understanding the causes of glacial-interglacial (G-IG) climate transitions. Comparing the CO2 record with other proxy variables from the Vostok ice core and stacked marine oxygen isotope records, allows the phase relations among these variables, over the last four G-IG cycles, to be estimated. Lagged, generalized least-squares regression provides an efficient and precise technique for this estimation. Bootstrap resampling allows account to be taken of measurement and timescale errors. Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3±1.0ka, and lead over global ice-volume variations by 2.7±1.3ka. However, significant short-term changes in the lag of CO2 relative to temperature, subsequent to Terminations II and III, are also detected.
Gee, that kinda kills the whole man-made global warming BS, doesn't it? But let's not stop there...
Les Hatton Climatology and social forces Cybershed 07-Feb-2024
Much has been made in the past of the original hockey-stick curve of Mann and collaborators and various attempts to either support or denigrate this work. Here, I do neither. Multiple proxied data reaching back only 1,000 years ago is a poor substitute for the fact that we have 800,000 years of consistent measurement data in the Vostok Ice Cores. Here, I look at the claim that the modern 40% rise in CO2 levels in the last 100 years is a factor in the increasing temperature and how significant a factor it might be. I then go on to compare the interglacial onset of the current interglacial and the last interglacial as they marched out of their preceding Ice Ages. The data presented is taken straight from the Vostok Ice Cores and has not been processed in any way other than to perform conventional statistical analyses.
Perhaps the most important conclusion which I hope people will take time to verify is that the 1.1C rise in the last 100 years is not unusual in this interglacial, although it may have been in previous interglacials.
On Feb. 2, 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) again uttered its mantra of catastrophe about man-made global warming. After weeks of noisy propaganda, a 21-page "Summary for Policymakers" of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, was presented in grandiose style in Paris to a crowd of politicians and media, accom- panied by a blackout of the Eiffel Tower to show that electric energy is bad. The event induced a tsunami of hysteria that ran around the world. This was probably the main aim of this clearly political paper, prepared by governmental and United Nations bureaucrats, and published more than three months before the IPCC's 1,600-page scien- tific report, which is to be released in May. In the words of the IPCC, this delay is needed for adjust- ment of the main text, so that "Changes . . . [could be] made to ensure consistency with the 'Summary for Policymakers.' " Not a single word in these 1,600 pages is to be in conflict with what politicians said beforehand in the summary!
Those gosh-darned “scientific” climate/rising sea/doomsday predictions just never quite seem to hit their target dates, therefore the obvious answer is to do the same as they have been doing for ~35 years and kick the can down the road, yet again…
