CO2 demonisation without evidence was used by Rothschild to establish the GEF bank then the globalists' UNEP and its IPCC took up the dogma promotion. Biased funding not least from the EC, a UNEP collaborator ensured the research went in the right direction but even after 2 decades and many tens of billions funding worldwide it has produced no credible evidence that CO2 additions are in any way significant to the climate temperature.
The corruption in the dogma was evident before politicians, business, financial interests, biased science funding and rent seeking scientists pushed it to its limits. It seems to be rooted in globalist Rockefeller's Club of Rome. (See green-agenda.com for more gen.)
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?
The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) continues raising serious concerns for policy makers and the public as to whether the “adjustments” that government-funded employees continue making to raw surface and ocean temperature data sets can be trusted.
In a new collaborative paper, Is The Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?, Dr. Dave Evans has gathered substantial evidence that corruption has become endemic within government-sponsored climate units.
Dr. Evans finds that, “The Western Climate Establishment has allowed egregious mistakes, major errors and obvious biases to accumulate - each factor on its own might be hard to pin down, but the pattern is undeniable.” Evans asks, “How many excuses does it take?”
Continues Dr. Evans, “These photos speak for themselves. The corruption of climate science has become so blatant, so obvious, that even non-scientists can no longer throw their hands in the air, and say ‘I don’t know’. You don’t need a PhD to know it is cheating to place thermometers near artificial heat sources and call it ‘global warming’.”
Key findings of the paper include:
* Official thermometers are overwhelmingly in warm localities such as near air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, asphalt, and even fermenting vats of warm sludge.
* Officials hide the modern ARGO data which shows the world’s oceans are cooling.
* They ignore hundreds of thousands of weather balloon results that show the climate models overestimate future warming by at least 300%.
* Officials frequently point to the last 130 years of global warming. But almost never mention the full story: that the planet started the current global warming trend before 1700, over a century before humans started pumping out meaningful amounts of CO2.
* Leading authors publish a crucial graph with a deceptive colour scheme designed to imitate the results they wish they’d got. Why did a leading journal publish such a naked and childish attempt at cheating?
* Their adjustments blatantly transform the original raw data from thermometers, often creating rising trends. They also selectively ignore thousands of other thermometers.
* Researchers repeatedly go out of their way to hide their records, and dodge FOIs.
* The Russian, Chinese and Indian climate establishments, which are financially independent of the western financial establishment, are all skeptical. As are scientists from other branches of science, as well as many older or retired climate scientists (who have nothing to lose by speaking their minds).
Concludes Dr. Evans, “Once one or two major news outlets start printing these photos of official thermometers near artificial heating sources, and points out the deception, the rush will be on for our elected representatives to abandon the Global Warming Crusade. No one would want to be seen to be taken in by half-truths and shameless deception. Who wants to look gullible because they didn’t ask the obvious burning questions? Those who support conclusions based on corrupt behaviour will be seen as negligent for not having considered the serious evidence here.”
Observes SPPI President, Robert Ferguson, “For years, non-government scientists and researchers have expressed the urgent need to have the validity of government temperature adjustments audited. Dr. Evans’ findings exhibit ongoing revelations surrounding the shoddy, often enigmatic science and data handling practices at government funded institutions like the CRU, GISS, NOAA and the IPCC. A growing body of such findings only enhances the urgency for unbiased Congressional oversight investigations. The policy implications are far too dire to allow government scientists to persist in stonewalling a full investigative audit into their surface and ocean temperature data handling practices and computer programs.”
Dr David Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering.
The full report can be read here.
Prior to this publication, Joanne Nova posted a series asking the question. Links as follows:
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? How many excuses does it take?
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part I: Thermometer Placement Tricks
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 2: Air Temperatures
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 3: Ocean Temperatures
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 4: Past Temperatures
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 5: CO2 Emissions Versus Temperature
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 6: The Hockey Stick
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 7: Other Climate Establishments Disagree
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 8: Do Most Western Climate Scientists Believe Global Warming is Man-Made?
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 9: The Heart of the Matter and the Coloring-In Trick
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 10: Gore Orwell
The last link brings us to Jo's introduction of the PDF.
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? The public might not understand the science, but they do understand cheating
An uncommonly civil exchange
I’m writing in response to your recent article in the Times, which was passed to me by our Secretary of State. Reading your article, I enjoyed and fully supported your insistence that science should be transparent, and that decision making should be based on a calm assessment of credible science. Providing honest advice based on robust science is a key responsibility in my role at DECC. I have lots of time for scepticism, because I’m a scientist, and scepticism is the bread and butter of science.
I’m not a climate scientist. But I have spent quite a lot of time in seminar rooms with real climate scientists over the last few years, and I have to say that my impression of that scientific community is that it is in a healthy state, quite unlike the caricatures in some of the media and blogs (which allege they are secretive, dishonest data-manipulators, etc). The community seems healthy in the sense that the scientists are open; they are critical of their own community’s work; they highlight weaknesses in colleagues’ presentations and models and papers; and they criticise everyone - the IPCC, Al Gore, and Nigel Lawson alike - for inaccuracies or simplifications in any direction. In particular I have always noticed that the climate science community knows how big the uncertainties in climate science still are. Sadly, some science communicators and policy people seem to find it difficult to communicate this aspect of the science. The media machine seems to prefer to turn the normal scientific process of slow and iterative development of understanding into a series of ‘headline new findings’, which focus on disagreement. For example, if one group of scientists report that
‘sea level could rise by 0.3-1.3 m this century’,
this can lead to a headline of ‘sea level to rise 1.3 m shock!’. (Note the omission of the uncertainty.) And, if the following week another group of scientists describe results suggesting that
‘sea level could rise by 0.28–1.28 m this century’,
it’s easy to imagine a headline of ‘sea level rise has been exaggerated, new report says it will be as little as 0.28 m’. I mention this issue of uncertainty-reporting because I think the failure to ensure the public discussions of climate change have included the uncertainty, and the failure to express decision-making in terms of risk-management, have contributed to the current climate-policy congestion.
Some weeks ago I wrote an article for The Times about why I no longer find persuasive the IPCC's arguments that today's climate change is unprecedented, fast and dangerous.
I was delighted to receive a long and courteous letter from David MacKay, the chief scientific advisor to Britain's Department of Energy and Climate Change. With his permission I am publishing my reply to that letter. The remarkable thing about this exchange is that far from weakening my doubts about the IPCC case, it has strengthened them. The letter explains why. Essentially, I have realised that almost the only weapons left in the alarm locker are the retreat of the Arctic sea ice and an event that happened 55m years ago and was probably not caused by CO2 at all. Everything else -- the CO2-temperature correlation in the Antarctic ice core, the hockey stick, storm frequency, phenology, etc etc -- no longer supports the argument that something unprecedented in magnitude or rate is happening. Remarkable.
Here is my letter:
I am honoured that you liked my book and I liked yours very much indeed: a brilliant and necessary contribution to the debate. Though it arrived late in my writing process, I managed to squeeze in several references to it in the penultimate chapter of mine.
Thank you for taking the trouble to give such a detailed reply to my Times article – much longer than the constraints of the Times op-ed page allowed for me! I shall now indulge in a longer reply. It is certainly nice that the political `climate’ (sic) now allows articles like mine to receive serious replies, rather than accusations of heresy or sin or threats of prosecution as a criminal against humanity. I appreciate that very much. I surmise from your covering note that perhaps your letter is circulated more widely among DECC colleagues and I would be glad for you to circulate this reply, not least to the secretary of state who showed you my article. I shall post this letter on my blog.
I am surprised to find that I agree with much of your letter, but it changes almost none of my conclusions. How can this be? The gap between the science and how it has been presented is huge. This is as much the fault of bodies like the Royal Society, which should have been a brake on politically inspired extreme statements but was not, as it is of the media. You say scientists know how big the uncertainties are and that the failure to ensure that uncertainties are reported has contributed to the problem. I agree and I wish that the science establishment had paid this issue more attention. They allowed and encouraged their spokesmen to peddle the very opposite impression. /more
On Cap-and-Trade: They Lost, We Won
“Greens Desperate to Avoid Blame” was the headline on Darren Samuelsohn and Robin Bravender’s story in Politico on Wednesday. Environmental pressure groups moved quickly to spin the election results as having nothing to do with them. In particular, they claimed that passage in the House of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill did not cause Democrats to lose. On the contrary, the reality is that Waxman-Markey did contribute to the defeat of a number of Democrats, as I argue [see under] in Politico’s Energy Arena. /continues
From the Energy Arena:
The passage of the Waxman-Markey bill on June 26, 2009 and the way it was passed played a powerful role in returning House Democrats to the minority. Those who argue otherwise are ignoring the history of the 111th Congress. It will be recalled that a 1,200-page bill was introduced late at night on June 22 and that 300 more pages were released in the early hours of Friday the 26th. The bill was then rammed through the House with only one day of debate and with only one Republican amendment permitted.
This extraordinary short-circuiting of the legislative process was necessary because that was the only way to get the bill through the House. If there had been a floor debate of a week or two, as is normal with major legislation, the bill would have been exposed as a monstrous collection of payoffs to special interests paid for by a colossal increase in energy prices.
The funny thing is that even trying to sneak the bill through didn't work. The American people figured out that cap-and-trade was code for higher energy prices and reacted with righteous fury when House Members went home after the vote for the Fourth of July recess. After hearing the outcry, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to postpone Senate debate on cap-and-trade and instead take up health care reform, which enjoyed much more public support. House passage of cap-and-trade was, therefore, a critical step on the way to public enlightenment. Voters began to realize that the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress were trying to extend federal authority over their lives while undermining the economy. /more
Public's Priorities for 2010: Economy, Jobs, Terrorism
Energy Concerns Fall, Deficit Concerns Rise (Summary of Findings here)