Key Climategate Scientist Admits No Global Warming Since 1995

So basically we have global carbon taxes coming down the pipes that are based on the premise that the earth’s climate is warming out of control because of an overabundance of man’s carbon emissions– whether the source of these carbon emissions be industrial smokestacks, SUVs, or a newborn baby’s exhaling breath. The claim is that global warming is so definite that it’s now scientifically unquestionable, questioning the claim is even on the level of blasphemy to some who have taken the idea to an unscientific religious extreme. Yet the global warming science is based on (besides media propaganda) data that doesn’t exist and largely stems from a scientist, Prof. Phil Jones, that acknowledges there hasn’t been any warming for the last 15 years. Is this reason enough for you to give more money and more civil liberties/national sovereignty to international bankers?

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 Daily Mail, Feb. 14, 2009

…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’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Climategate’ professor Phil Jones awarded £13 million in research grants
The professor at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair has successfully received more than £13 million in research funding. Daily Mail, Dec 5th, 2009

The figure is disclosed in a leaked, internal document posted on the internet by climate change sceptics who have seized upon it as evidence of a funding “gravy train” for scientists conducting research into the area.

The grants were awarded following successful applications made by Professor Phil Jones, who headed up the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

…Prof Jones has stood aside as head of the CRU while an independent inquiry investigates thousands of emails and other documents stolen from the university’s computer server and published on the internet.

Climate change sceptics point to an email written by one scientist in November 1999 as evidence of manipulation of the figures to mask falling global temperatures.

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” the email said.

In another email, the death of a leading climate change sceptic is described as “cheering news”.

The emails are being used by climate change sceptics to allege that attempts were made to manipulate data to “prove” the existence of man-made climate change.

…Professor Ross McKitrick, visiting professor of environmental economics at the University of Buckingham and an arch sceptic who was subject of some of the leaked emails, said: “Climate sceptics are always accused of taking money from industry but it is now clear the money is on the other side.

“There is a huge amount of money on the global warming side. Institutions like the CRU have a very large budget but that would disappear if global warming ceased to exist.

“Scientists are enjoying a funding gravy train; there is so much money in climate research. Lots of areas of science are short of money but not climate change.”

The figure is disclosed in a leaked, internal document posted on the internet by climate change sceptics who have seized upon it as evidence of a funding “gravy train” for scientists conducting research into the area.

The grants were awarded following successful applications made by Professor Phil Jones, who headed up the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

Nevermind science, just trust the global warming/carbon trading profiteers

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

…Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Climate change data dumped, Times Online

Groups Positioned to Make Big Money Off of Carbon Credits

Many of the “man-made” global warming crowd like to point out that Exxon has spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions to help fund groups who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. While I’m no defender of Exxon, what these people fail to do is follow the money trail within their own ranks which could easily make Exxon’s few million dollars look like pocket change compared to what Al Gore and the carbon credit trading firms will make.

The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade
Al Gore’s campaign against global warming is shifting into high gear. Reporters and commentators follow his every move and bombard the public with notice of his activities and opinions. But while the mainstream media promote his ideas about the state of planet Earth, they are mostly silent about the dramatic impact his economic proposals would have on America. And journalists routinely ignore evidence that he may personally benefit from his programs. Would the romance fizzle if Gore’s followers realized how much their man stands to gain?

…To resolve the “climate crisis,” Gore wants to put a cap on the production of greenhouse gases. He calls for an immediate freeze on U.S. emissions, a ban on new coal-fired power plants, tough new fuel-economy and energy-efficiency standards, renewable energy mandates, carbon taxes and mandatory targets and timetables for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Those emissions consist mostly of carbon dioxide (CO2), the byproduct of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas, which supply 85% of all U.S. energy. Gore’s blueprint to save the planet moves the United States towards a command economy in which government regulators hold sway over what kinds and amounts of energy will be made available to the private sector. His principal regulatory tool is what’s called carbon-credit trading.

Under a so-called “cap-and-trade” system, government places a ceiling or “cap” on private-sector emissions of CO2 and other “greenhouse gases.” Each sector, industry or business is allocated a fixed quantity of carbon credits that allow it to emit specific quantities of greenhouse gases. As an example, one tradable carbon credit might permit the emission of one ton of CO2. If a business emits more tons of CO2 than its supply of credits allows, it has the option to buy surplus credits from other firms — or it will have to pay a fine in proportion to the amount of the excess emission. By contrast, businesses that emit less than their allocation can sell their excess credits.

This system, which may sound market-friendly, is something only a bureaucrat could dream up. The twist is that the carbon market exists only because the government’s imposition of a cap creates an artificial scarcity in the right to produce energy. In a cap-and-trade system, buyers will purchase their offsets from a broker or through an electronic trading platform. In Europe, carbon trading is already a reality. Since 2005, carbon offsets have been traded electronically on the European Climate Exchange (ECX).

…Carbon offsets provide even more opportunities to cheat. For example, some aluminum companies claim they deserve credits just because they recycle aluminum for a living — recycling being less energy intensive and thus generally cheaper than making the stuff from scratch. The most popular activity for generating offsets is planting trees. But this method of storing carbon takes years and the long-term results are uncertain. If the trees die and decay, or are burned to clear land for agriculture, there is no net emission reduction. The net carbon reduction from tree planting may not materialize for decades, but the offsets are given out now.

To critics on both the free-market right and the environmentalist left, carbon offsets are no more than a marketing gimmick. Some describe the fanciful device as akin to medieval indulgences that were sold in a cleric-run market to regulate the remission of sin.

…Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. “Generation Investment Management, purchases — but isn’t a provider of — carbon dioxide offsets,” said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.

GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.

…CCX also has “participant members” that develop the carbon-offset projects. They have names like Carbon Farmers and Eco-Nomics Incorporated. Still, other participant member groups facilitate, finance and market carbon-offset projects to “sequester, destroy or displace” greenhouse gases. CCX aspires to be the New York Stock Exchange of carbon-emissions trading.

Along with Gore, the co-founder of GIM is Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson. Last September, Goldman Sachs bought 10% of CCX shares for $23 million. CCX owns half the ECX, so Goldman Sachs has a stake there as well.

GIM’s “founding partners” are studded with officials from Goldman Sachs. They include David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM); Mark Ferguson, former co-head of GSAM pan-European research; and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations. Another founding partner is Peter Knight, who is the designated president of GIM. He was Sen. Al Gore’s chief of staff from 1977-1989 and the campaign manager of the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign.

Like CCX, the ECX has about 80 member companies, including Barclays, BP, Calyon, Endesa, Fortis, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Shell, and ECX has contracted with the European Union to further develop a futures market in carbon trading. What’s in it for the companies? They will benefit either by investing in carbon credits or by receiving subsidies for doing so.

Professor: Big Money Behind Global Warming Propaganda

GREEN ALERT: Hidden Carbon Tax Provisions in Paulson’s Bailout Bill

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Greenpeace Founder: There’s No Proof Global Warming Is Caused By Humans

Princeton Physicist Calls Global Warming Science “Mistaken”

Global warming has ended, global cooling period has begun

Space and Science Research Center
Press Release, Tuesday, July 1, 2008

…SSRC is currently an international leader in the field of climate change study regarding the solar physics of the Earth-Sun relationship and the use of the recently announced Theory of Relational Cycles of Solar Activity” developed by the SSRC. This Relational Cycle Theory or simply the “RC Theory” is a new innovative theory that yields a scientific explanation for the frequent and periodic reversals from global cooling to global warming and back to global cooling that have dominated the Earth’s thermal processes for thousands of years.

The SSRC is the leading research organization in the United States on the science of and planning for the next climate change to a long term cold era.

An important prediction available from the RC theory states that there will be a major drop in the sun’s activity measured by an historic reduction in sunspots and other indicators of the sun’s behavior. Accompaning this lower state of the sun called a ‘solar minimum’ by the solar physics community, will be a prolonged cold era according to the SSRC. This next climate change to many years of a slowly cooling Earth environment, is predicted by the SSRC to begin within the period 2010 to 2021 with lowest temperatures during the bottom around the year 2031. The SSRC refers to this dramatic change in climate as a ‘solar hibernation’ because of the depths of cold that are associated with it based upon many hundreds of years of repeating cycles with similar recorded cold eras, as discovered by the SSRC.

This coming solar minimum has now been confirmed by direct observations of the sun’s behavior and has been announced separately by other leading scientists and NASA (though on a differing schedule).

CO2, “Devil Gas”or Life Sustaining Necessity?

Remember the “Weekly Reader” from your days in grade school? Saw this article today, looks like more twisted, manipulative RAND corporation propaganda for the young minds to absorb:

Feeling The Heat: A New Report Says Humans Are the Likely Cause of
Climate Change Weekly Reader

The heat is on! And people are to blame. That’s what a group of more than 2,500 scientists from 113 countries recently agreed. A report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that human activities are “very likely” the cause of global warming, or the gradual rise in Earth’s average temperature.

The report is “sort of a report card on everything we’ve learned about climate change,” explains Robert Lempert, senior scientist at the RAND Corporation (a nonprofit research and analysis institution).

…Turning Down the Heat
Though the report’s findings are bleak, it gives some scientists hope that people can lessen the effects of global warming. “If you see the extent to which human activities are influencing the climate system, the options for [reducing] greenhouse gas emissions appear in a different light, because you can see what the costs of inaction are,” said IPCC chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri.

Weekly Reader then links to:
EPA’s “kids site” —shows a video with bulldozers cutting down trees and causing global warming, this is ironic considering that now some people want to cut down trees to stop global warming, and also considering that trees are being wiped out due to the ethanol craze.

>> Story Continues Below… Click here to

Tactics Change as Acceptance of Global Warming Demise Becomes Reality

Skeptics Global Warming.com

While many on the environmental left continue to sing the praises of Al Gore and his global warming hoax, those of higher intellect have abandoned the myth. As with many great left-leaning government tax-and-control schemes, even though the supposed crisis is over, supporters still feel the need to continue pushing legislation to fight global warming. After all, it’s about control and greed. Here are some of the ideas I’ve gathered from liberal hubs around the internet after accepting that global warming is a myth:

1. Pollution is still bad. Yes, pollution is bad and I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a liberal or a conservative that would disagree with you. And while programs are already in place to cut pollution, such as more efficient combustion engines, recycling programs and even nuclear energy, the economic impact of global warming legislation would be detrimental to our planet.

2. We must get off oil-based fuel before supply runs out. There’s plenty of supply. It’s the environmentalists that won’t let us get to it. The United States hasn’t built a refinery in 30 years. We haven’t built new nuclear facilities because of unfounded fears of a Chernobyl-like event. And even those same environmentalists have stopped clean wind farms from being built off the coast of Nantucket (I’m looking at you, Senator Kennedy). How can we possibly move forward as a country when the environmentalists stop us as every turn?

3. The price of gas still needs to be high to curb usage and create less dependency on foreign oil. So you want to raise the price of a commodity that affects everyone to get off foreign oil? What about the poor you supposedly protect? Even if they don’t have cars, public transportation costs are going to rise and home heating bills will as well. All you’re doing is hurting the same people that you’ve made dependent on the government for decades.

Read more…

Belief In Global Warming Hoax Slips

This is just…terribly unfortunate. Better spend hundreds of millions of dollars on more wasted resources expending hours upon hours of carbon dioxide to step up the PR effort.

The proportion of Americans who say that the earth is getting warmer has decreased since January 2007, mostly because of a decline among Republicans, according to the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

Overall, 71 percent of Americans say there is solid evidence of higher global temperatures, compared with 77 percent at the beginning of last year.

Republicans in particular are increasingly skeptical – just 49 percent of Republicans say there is evidence that the earth’s average temperature has been rising, down 13 points since January 2007.

Roughly half of Americans (47%) say the earth is warming because of human activity.

Groups are working hard to raise awareness about global warming. The Alliance for Climate Protection will spend $300 million over the next three years on a global warming marketing campaign.

No evidence Canadian gas prices have dampened consumer thirst in carbon tax

Overwhelming Majority of Americans Oppose Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Carbon Tax Proposal

New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling

Probably just another crazy “unscientific” NASA thing right?

Canada Free Press
By Dennis Avery Thursday, May 1, 2008

Now it’s not just the sunspots that predict a 23-year global cooling. The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a “cool” La Nina year—but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so.