Climategate Shows There's No Global Warming Consensus

US Senator James Inhofe

A speech by James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

"Call it the global warming crackup, an unfolding proc­ess of contradictory claims about glaciers, weather, and scientists asserting a consensus when none exists. Global warming alarmists can't make up their minds because the entire basis for their energy rationing project has collapsed into a mess of errors, exaggerations, and deceit. Let me explain.

The Obama administration said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the "gold standard" for climate science, yet now the Environmental Protection Agency administrator won't defend it.

The IPCC and Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. Now the IPCC has retracted several false claims concerning, among other things, rain forests shrinking, crops dying, and sea levels rising.

We've been told weather is not to be confused with climate, except when you have heat waves or blizzards. We've been told cap-and-trade would create thousands of green jobs, yet the Congressional Budget Office, Department of Energy, National Black Chamber of Commerce, and others say it would mean a net loss of jobs.

We are told that increasing levels of CO2 will increase temperature, yet the key scientist in the climategate scandal says there's been "no statistically significant warming" in the past 15 years—all while CO2 levels have increased.

We've been told that there is an "indisputable consensus" that human-caused global warming is happening and pushing the planet to certain disaster. Yet that same scientist—Phil Jones, former director of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, the foremost such center—now says that the vast majority of climate scientists don't agree on what the data are telling us.

What's going on here? When thousands of E-mails were released from the Climatic Research Unit in November, we finally were able to pull back the veil of the so-called climate consensus.

As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, I have released a minority staff report that uses these E-mails to show that the world's leading climate scientists apparently discussed manipulating data to fit preconceived conclusions and pressuring journal editors not to publish scientific work contrary to their own. This would violate fundamental ethical principles guiding scientific (and taxpayer-funded) research and, our report points out, may violate federal laws."

To read the rest of Senator Inhofe's speech go to:

http://climatechangefraud.com/editorials/6645-climategate-shows-theres-no-global-warming-consensus?utm_source=feedcom&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GlacierGate+%28Glacier+Gate%29

Climate "Science" Peer Lord Oxburg Has a Conflict of Interest

The Good Lord!

The Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has been accused of manipulating and suppressing data to overstate the dangers from climate change. Professor Phil Jones, its director, has stood down from his post while a separate inquiry takes place into the leaking of e-mails sent by him and his colleagues.

Lord Oxburgh is to chair a scientific assessment panel that will examine the published science of the CRU. Climate sceptics questioned whether Lord Oxburgh, chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables, was truly independent because he led organisations that depended on climate change being seen as an urgent problem.

Lord Oxburgh has said that he believes the need to tackle climate change will make capturing carbon from power plants “a worldwide industry of the same scale as the international oil industry today”.

The Carbon Capture and Storage Association, of which Lord Oxburgh is chairman, has stated that carbon capture could become a “trillion dollar industry” by 2050. In an interview in 2007, Lord Oxburgh said that the threat from global warming was so severe that “it may be that we shall need . . . regulations which impose very severe penalties on people who emit more than specified amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere”.

And this person is going to chair an "independant" enquiry? I don't think so!

See the full story at The Times Online:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7071751.ece

How the WWF Will Make $60 Billion Out of an ETS

Tumucumaque in northern Brazil has been designated a 'carbon sink'

The world’s largest, richest environmental campaigning group, the WWF – formerly the World Wildlife Fund – announced that it was playing a leading role in a scheme to preserve an area of the Amazon rainforest twice the size of Switzerland.

Many people are applauding, thinking this was just the kind of cause the WWF was set up to promote because Tumucumaque in northern Brazil's billions of trees contain the world’s largest land-based store of CO2 – so any serious threat to the forest can be portrayed as a major contributor to global warming.

It then emerged, however, that a hidden agenda of the scheme to preserve this chunk of the forest was to allow the WWF and its partners to share the selling of carbon credits worth $60 billion, to enable firms in the industrial world to carry on emitting CO2 just as before.

The idea is that credits representing the CO2 locked into this particular area of jungle – so remote that it is not under any threat – should be sold on the international market, allowing thousands of companies in the developed world to buy their way out of having to restrict their carbon emissions.

The net effect would simply be to make the WWF and its partners much richer while making no contribution to lowering overall CO2 emissions.

WWF, which already earns $400 million yearly, much of it contributed by governments and taxpayers, has long been at the centre of efforts to talk up the threat to the Amazon rainforest – as shown recently by the furore over a much-publicised passage in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The IPCC’s claim that 40 per cent of the forest is threatened by global warming, it turned out, was not based on any scientific evidence, but simply on WWF propaganda, which had wholly distorted the findings of an earlier study on the threat posed to the forest, not by climate change but by logging.

See the full r(ep)ort from Christopher Booker at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7488629/WWF-hopes-to-find-60-billion-growing-on-trees.html

Climategate: Two More Bricks Fall Out of the IPCC Wall of Deceit

Oops! There go another two bricks, rainforests and polar bears, tumbling out of the IPCC wall of deceit on man-made global warming.

There is not a lot left now; even the Berlin Wall (to which the AGW construct is ideologically allied) has survived better. Unhappily for Al, Phil, Michael, George and the rest of the scare-mongers, these two discredited components are among the most totemic in the AGW religion.

Firstly, a new study, funded by Nasa (which may be feeling the need to rehabilitate itself post-Climategate) has revealed that the ridiculous claim in the notorious IPCC 2007 report that up to 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest could be drastically affected by even a small reduction in rainfall caused by climate change, so that the trees would be replaced by tropical grassland, is utter nonsense.

Now Dr Jose Marengo, a climate scientist with the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research and himself a member of the IPCC, says: “The way the WWF report calculated this 40 per cent was totally wrong."

An even bigger tear-jerker was the plight of polar bears, bolstered by carefully cropped photographs of lonely bears stranded on fast-melting icebergs, doomed to extinction. That is the second brick that has fallen out of the IPCC wall.

The bottom line is the actual statistics, conceded even by warmists: since 1970 the world’s polar bear population has “declined” from 5,000 to 25,000!

Warmists claim the polar bear population of the Chukchi Sea is declining. When questioned at some depth though they concede illegal hunting by Russians is a prime cause.

Hell! If you are going to get a couple of million dollars for "scientific research" then you can't let statistics get in the way! Or truth for that matter.

See the full article by Gerald Warner at telegraph.co.uk. See link below:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100030204/climategate-two-more-bricks-fall-out-of-the-ipcc-wall-of-deceit-rainforests-and-polar-bears/

ClimateGate: What Will Television Do With All Their Scare-Programming?

An interesting thing happened on the way to a global conspiracy. Reality killed it. Funny how that happens!

Not long ago people like Al Gore were jetting around the globe taking in vast speaking fees, winning awards, telling everyone that they must give up the things they enjoy to save the planet meanwhile living in huge McMansions that consumed ten times the energy of the average household!

These doomsayers all told us we were stupid if we doubted them. They knew better, you see. These stooges claimed all “real” scientists agreed that mankind was destroying the planet with global warming. That we humans were at fault and the only way to save ourselves is bend over to a world government, pay lots of taxes and give up our cars, our electricity, air travel, light bulbs, blah blah blah!

There was a vast left wing conspiracy in other words. One designed to scare people into giving more power and wealth to statist bureaucrats who were employing the oldest trick in the book. Using fear and guilt to manufacture consent just as H L Mencken said in 1918:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

These fraudsters began by locking down major institutions like NASA and Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU). Then they got the media on board, the science magazines, the cable networks. They started churning out articles and documentaries supporting the global warming meme.

Millions were spent selling the idea, because many of these groups knew that fear, like sex, sells.

There are two main motivations that human beings have. The desire to have something and the fear of losing something. They used both to pitch the notion that we could create a “green utopia” by changing the way we did things, and in doing so we would prevent the end of the world. Who doesn’t want to be a hero? Who doesn’t love the environment? How can you argue with that?

Its not that they needed our money. They have all the money they will ever need.

They wanted our souls!

But two things happened last year that shot an arrow in the heart of the beast; one of the worst Northern Hemisphere winters on record and Climategate. And the hits keep on coming.

Now it turns out that NASA, who claimed for years that their data proves Global Warming is real, was actually just using CRU data all along. And the CRU couldn’t back up any of its data. In fact, they “lost the records” when they were forced to produce them. Oops!

So now these news channels who’ve been trumpeting the story as fact, spending millions on documentaries hyping it, all those TV shows hawking green as the in color; they all look like fools.

Or worse, they look like they were in on what will go down as one of the biggest scams in human history.

The so called "investigative reporters" did the reporting but not the investigating because, if you report what you are told not to report, two things happen. The story is killed and you are sacked, never to work in the media in Australia again.

What would you do if you were in their position? It’s not hard to understand why they’re carrying on like Climategate never happened. The Americans have a president in the White House as clueless as they are, pushing the Cap and Trade agenda as if those darn glaciers are just about melted and the last Polar Bear just karked it.

We have a Prim Monster in this country slavishly following the agenda he has been told to follow and introduce a similar "scheme".

Can you imagine the schmozzle of an ETS?

Just like the Home Insulation fiasco and now the Education Spending debacle where assembly halls are costing twice to three times what they should cost.

This billion dollar spend on assembly halls will not lift the education standards of Australian students one iota!

The hidden agenda of Australian politics since Whitlam, and probably before, has been to dumb down Australians. Little Johhny Howard didn't hide the same agenda, he did it out in the open.

Telling people they need to cut back is like rubbing salt in their wounds. Promising them “green jobs” as they close coal fired power stations is like telling a 40 year old Santa Claus is coming to town.

Australian of the Year? I Don't Know Why!

Who is Patrick McGorry and What Does he Promote?

He’s a psychiatrist just named Australian of the Year for his work in “youth mental health reform.”

What does that reform consist of?

What he calls a “new form of climate change.” It sure is.

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International reports on Australian of the Year Patrick McGorry as follows:

"McGorry promotes youths being put on antipsychotics and antidepressants, cited by international drug regulatory agencies as causing hallucinations, hostility, personality change, life-threatening diabetes, strokes, suicide and death.

McGorry goes a giant step further—drug them before they’ve even developed a “psychiatric” disorder.

The Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AHRPP) likens such concepts to “performing mastectomies on women who are at risk of—but do not have—breast cancer.”

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed “serious concerns” about child drugging and Senate investigations in the United States have found high profile psychiatrists who were pharmaceutically funded and using fraudulent research being among the heaviest promoters of psychiatric drug use on children.

While the rest of the world is experiencing serious alarm at the rampant use of deadly psychiatric drugs on children, McGorry pushes full steam ahead to increase the amount of children being needlessly subjected to psychiatry’s most powerful drugs—antidepressants and antipsychotics.

What was the first thing McGorry did to capitalize on his winning his “Australian of the Year” award? He demanded the Australian government hand over another $200 million to fund more of his centers where he can drug more children.

Worse still, the government is entertaining the idea.

Yet, for who ever nominated him—apparently an “anonymous supporter”—due diligence wasn’t done on what McGorry advocates.

A cursory look at his research shows that while behavioral symptoms are evaluated and, on a hunch, drugged to see if they “prevent” the onset of a “mental” disorder, there’s no mention of the teens being given full and searching physical exams to first rule out undiagnosed and untreated medical conditions that may be causing it.

McGorry has received unrestricted research grant support from Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Bristol Myer Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Novartis.

These companies manufacture antipsychotic drugs!

He is also a paid consultant for, and has received speaker’s fees from all or most of these companies."

See the full text of the report from The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International at:

http://www.cchrint.org/2010/03/15/pharma-backed-australian-of-the-year-psychiatrist-wants-millions-in-government-funding-for-brave-new-world-of-%E2%80%9Cpre-drugging%E2%80%9D-kids/

There are no research monies available from drug companies to prove that children with behavioural problems DO NOT need psychotic drugs.

However there ARE shiploads available for those who propose that psychotic drugs are necessary for children with behavioural problems. There is probably a lot more available to a researcher who advocates psychotic drugs for children before there is a diagnosed problem.

I am no fan of the Church of Scientology, a strange mob with many cult like features, but maybe, just maybe, they are onto something with their drive against psychiatry.

Oh My God! Getta Load of This!

This is the latest load of garbage from England's Energy Secretary Ed Milibrand, a deadbeat climate change shill in the British Govt.

Can you believe the depths these richard craniums will sink to?

The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) ruled the adverts – which attracted 939 complaints - made exaggerated claims which went beyond mainstream scientific consensus. The watchdog stated the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) should not publish the adverts again,

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257847/Milibands-global-warming-nursery-rhyme-ads-banned-overstating-risks.html#ixzz0iJ3iqLlB