Global Warming ‘Scientists’ Admit Purging Their Raw Data

This is what a massive scientific hoax looks like.

November 29, 2009
Climate change data dumped
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

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.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. 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.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

“Trust us.”  That’s what it all boils down to.

Silly me, but I thought “science” was supposed to amount to something more than that.

Here’s your bottom line: global warming, climate change, or whatever you want to call it, is a load of nonsense.  And the only anthropogenic or “man-made” problem is the giant sack of lies that an elitist group of pseudo-scientific ideologues  sold us.

One of the emails simply demonstrates what patently bad “science” global warming has been in the first place.  At its core, science is an endeavor which predicts a certain measurable outcome, and then attempts to determine whether that prediction is verified in nature according to a fair, open, and repeatable process.  Global warming isn’t even close to being science by the very standards of science:

At the end of 2008, the scientists at East Anglia predicted that 2009 would be one of the warmest years on record:

On December 30, climate scientists from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4∞C above the 1961-1990 average of 14 ∫ C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate model indicates a rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend, with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009.

We know now that the alarmists’ prediction for 2009 didn’t come true.

But bad science wasn’t all these global warming alarmists were guilty of.  They were also guilty of making skeptics of their bogus man-caused global warming alarmism modern versions of Galileo (I’ve previously written about this chilling development in postmodernized academia to punish politically “incorrect” academics and scientists).  They used the peer-review process as an ideological club to attack and undermine fellow scientists rather than using it as a means to get at the truth:

Dating back to 1996, the emails show that both U.S. and U.K. based scientists referred to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation”,“misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain.

The emails include deliberations amongst the scientists regarding efforts to make sure that reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change include their own research and exclude that of dissenting scientists.

In one of the emails, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

This is a startling quote, given that Jones and Mann as climate scientists have the authority to review papers and determine whether they are eligible to be published by scientific journals.

Mann even discussed how to destroy a journal that had published papers with contrary views, telling his colleagues that he believed it had been “hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board” who had “staged a coup”.

“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” Mann wrote.

One article, entitled, how “The Alarmists Do “Science:” A Case Study,” describes just “one of many exchanges that shed light on the priority that the global warming alarmists give to politics and career advancement over science.”  The author provides a fairly lengthy segment of an email conversation that is frankly chilling.

Another article compiles emails under the title, “When In Doubt, Delete,” that documents a pattern of deceptive behavior by people who called themselves “scientists” and yet were more interested in destroying evidence than producing and preserving it.

There are so many emails to go over no single article can do so, but here’s a few tidbits:

From a Powerline article entitled, “Global Warming Bombshell“:

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized “blip” in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.

I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

This and many other emails convey the impression that these theorists are making the “science” up as they go along, with data being manipulated until it yields the results that have been predetermined by political conviction.

One email from Phil Jones is particularly damning about “scientists” making up their own version of “science” in order to sell an ideology:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

A RealClearPolitics article entitled, “ClimateGate: The Fix Is In” explains what the “trick” is:

Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the “trick” consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature “proxies” from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward “hockey stick” slope.

A “trick” to “hide the decline.”  And these demagogues call US “deniers.”

As loathsome of a collection of frauds as our global warming “scientists” have proven to be, they don’t hold a candle to the mainstream media propagandists who made this colossal hoax possible in the first place – and who are still trying to conceal the fraud even now.

Barack Obama is going to go to Copenhagen to sign some pathologically insane economy-destroying accord because he is a true believer in the religion of liberalism.

And that is what global warming has now been proven to be: a religion.  It is an ideology advanced by religious fanatics.  This latest admission proves they have no raw data; they have no “science”; all they have is a rabid faith commitment that their own self-created narratives must be true because they believe it is true.

New Study Published In ‘Nature Geoscience’ Shows Global Warming Models All Wrong

Let’s begin with the study:

Nature Geoscience
Published online: 13 July 2009 | doi:10.1038/ngeo578

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming

Richard E. Zeebe¹, James C. Zachos² & Gerald R. Dickens³

Top of pageThe Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 Myr ago) represents a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks^{1, 2}. The key feature of this event is the release of a large mass of ¹³C-depleted carbon into the carbon reservoirs at the Earth’s surface, although the source remains an open issue^{3, 4}. Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5–9 ^°C within a few thousand years^{5, 6, 7, 8, 9}. Here we use published palaeorecords of deep-sea carbonate dissolution^{10, 11, 12, 13, 14} and stable carbon isotope composition^{10, 15, 16, 17} along with a carbon cycle model to constrain the initial carbon pulse to a magnitude of 3,000 Pg C or less, with an isotopic composition lighter than -50. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO₂ concentration¹, this rise in CO₂ can explain only between 1 and 3.5 ^°C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO₂ forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.

---

1. School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, Department of Oceanography, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1000 Pope Road, MSB 504, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA
2. Earth and Planetary Sciences Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA
3. Department of Earth Sciences, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, USA

This isn’t just telling us that those stupid dinosaurs didn’t send themselves into extinction by driving too many SUVs and failing to implement global warming legislation to deal with carbon dioxide.  It is saying that carbon dioxide was only a tiny, tiny little fraction of the global warming that the planet experienced 55 million years ago.

This is always one of the most amazing and incomprehensible things to me: we have HAD cycles of global warming and global cooling over and over and over again throughout the entire history of the planet.  And yet that is forgotten over and over again by people who have the educations to know better.  It is a form of willful blindness and deliberate stupidity that is simply shocking (It hearkens to Romans 1, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…”).  And it is done in order to advance a political and in fact socialist agenda to redistribute wealth.

A pair of articles you should read:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

A Fox News Special Report story had this to say:

West Virginia, where coal is the heart of the economy.  Coal mining produces both power and revenue.  So Obama’s plan to fight climate change by taxing carbon pollution with a cap and trade system is a serious threat.  And even ardent Obama backers like Gov. Joe Manchin says, “It’s far reaching, and I think it has detrimental effects to our economy – not just West Virginia; I think the United States of America’s economy –  cannot take that shock of artificially increasing the price much higher than what we compete.”  Both senators from W. Virginia Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller oppose the plan.

American Electrical Power CEO Mike Morris says cap and trade will raise everyone’s power cost.  “As an electric consumer and a consumer of any product you’re going to pay more for it.  This is a societal decision to deal with the issue of global warming, and you can’t do it for free.  This is not an inexpensive move.”

Support industries like heavy industries such as Caterpillar would be seriously affected too.  Caterpillar has a $50 million payroll in W.Virginia.  And about 75% of their revenues comes from the coal industry, says Rolger Lilly of Walker Caterpillar.

Burning coal creates nearly half the nation’s electricity.  It is far cheaper than alternative energies (solar $.20 per kilowatt hour; wind $.14 per kilowatt hour; vs. coal at only $.03 per kilowatt hour).

And of course you know Obama has said his plan would cause energy prices to “necessary skyrocket.”

This is a plan that will literally result in Americans starving in the dark and cold unless they stand up for sanity.

Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring and necessary gas.  Without it life on earth would be impossible.  Liberals like to call it “carbon” to make you think of something black and sooty and icky; but it is odorless and colorless.  It is no bogeyman; liberals are your bogeymen.

The fact of the matter is this: when we consider all global warming gasses, “anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.”

The evidence is abundantly clear, yet we are on the verge of crushing our economic output, and killing jobs in the process, to fight a problem which either doesn’t even exist in the first place or which we can do nothing to stop.

Meanwhile, we’ve got the Obama administration actively working to suppress the science that proves that global warming is bogus.  And we’ve got expert economists saying that the fact that China and India aren’t similarly curtailing THEIR emissions will do result in nothing more than America shooting itself in the foot.

Global Warming alarmists have called people like me “global warming deniers” to impugn me as tantamount to a Holocaust denier.  I respond by calling such people “reality deniers.”

Californians Reject TWO Alternative Energy Props; Will Dems Pay Attention?

The People’s Republic of California – which voted for Barack Obama over John McCain by a margin of 24 points – did something else that should send an even louder message: the “green,” “global warming,” “alternative energy” initiatives got utterly annihilated.   Proposition 7 – which would have required utilities to generate 40 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025 – went down 65% to 35%.  And Proposition 10 – which would have created $5 billion in general obligation bonds to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology – went down 60% to 40%.

Noel Sheppard wrote it up with the title, “Green Initiatives Get Slaughtered in California, Will Media Notice?”  Answer: no way, Jose.

Sheppard asks, “Will global warming-obsessed media share this news with the citizenry? Shouldn’t this be HUGE news given President-elect Obama’s green sympathies and his desire to enact a carbon cap and trade scheme to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?”  Not when the media is thoroughly corrupt, and proponents of anthropogenic global warming are demagogues.

I’ve written about the fraud that is known as “anthropogenic global warming”:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

A question should be raised for all to hear that is never raised because the media is corrupt and produces little more than outright propaganda:

According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that?

And one thing is certain: the Democrats you elected to run your lives certainly aren’t going to raise it, either.

Californians rejected both measures because they came to realize that they would have cost an already overstressed economy $15 billion dollars.  Are Californians liberal?  Big time.  Democrats are now in nearly total control of the state.  Are Californians socialist nuts?  Oh, yeah.  As one example among many, Californians in Berkeley passed two resolutions calling the Marines “uninvited and unwelcome intruders in the city.”  Are they suicidal loons who will go right off the cliff with their ideology?  Incredibly, as it turns out, not quite yet.

But what you don’t realize, America, is that you are going to have an alternative energy boondoggle that makes both California propositions look like a drop in the bucket forced onto your economy.  There isn’t a federal proposition system such that voters get to decide whether polar bears should be considered more important than your kids.  You already voted for it, whether you knew it or not.

You voted to give Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid near complete dominion over the Senate.  He lectured us:

“The one thing we fail to talk about is those costs that you don’t see on the bottom line. That is coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick; it’s global warming. It’s ruining our country, it’s ruining our world. We’ve got to stop using fossil fuel.”

And – like it or not, ready or not – you WILL stop using fossil fuels.  The fact that there is nothing to replace them with is irrelevant (did you know that 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels?  Did you know that alternative energy sources can’t even begin to replace fossil fuels?).

You voted to give House Speaker Nancy Pelosi TOTAL domination in the House of Representatives.  In her frankly unhinged spiel on global warming, she ranted:

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”

Democrats finally blinked on oil drilling after decades of obstruction.  They did so only after it was long past obvious that Americans overwhelmingly wanted them to harness our domestic oil supply.  But now that they have total power, and the price of oil has gone back down due to the coming recession, you can count on them to go back on whatever they said they would do.

And Barack Obama was recently discovered to have said of vital fossil fuel coal – which supplies 49% of the nation’s electricity:

“So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

And what would be the effect of that?  Obama wanted to make sure his San Francisco audience knew that he was going to implement his intentions with his eyes wide open:

The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

Get ready, America: you voted to have your economy destroyed by foolish ideological agendas, and you are going to get it.

The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, but we’re going to abandon it.  No matter how much it costs us; no matter how harmful it is going to be on our economy; no matter how hard it is for millions of American families.  And we’re not going to drill for domestic oil, no matter how much it would help.  The people we elected don’t want oil.  They think it’s icky.  Same with nuclear energy.  They might occasionally talk about “being willing to consider” these energy sources.  But they aren’t; and you can know that because they never have been.

That’s why I earlier called Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama “The Three Stooges Of American Energy Policy.”  But the real stooges are the Americans who voted for them.

Ultimately, the joke will be on the nation that put these radical ideologues with their radical agenda in power.

Global Warming: When The Pseudo-Science Fails, Send In The Psychologists

Alternative title: Send in the Psycho-babblers.

The so called “science” of global warming is increasingly being revealed for the straw man it always has been (see my articles: “What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming“, and “What You Never Hear About Global Warming“, as examples). Yet the more evidence that discredits the theory of anthropogenic global warming, the more hysterical its proponents become.

NASA nutjob James Hansen, (who used to be a leading proponent of “global cooling,” by the way) is a classic example of the WAY over-the-top hysteria:

The global warming debate, a top NASA scientist says, is over. Now, he adds, the issue has turned urgent.

“We have reached a critical point,” NASA scientist James Hansen said Tuesday in an interview. “If we don’t get on a different path within the next several years, then we’re going to pass tipping points in the climate system with large consequences that will be felt especially by our children and grandchildren.”

The head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen was in St. Paul with Arctic explorer Will Steger to participate in several forums Monday at the Science Museum of Minnesota. He was one of the first scientists to issue warnings about global warming more than two decades ago.

Already, the Earth’s surface temperature is 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was a century ago. Many climate scientists predict it will rise many more degrees in the next century, melting glaciers, raising sea levels and leading to other ecological changes.

So here we are: an incredibly weak scientific case for what amounts to an enormously costly socialistic redistribution program, and global warming advocates becoming increasingly over-the-top in their rhetoric. What comes next?

Dennis Prager has said that he majored in Soviet studies to learn how the other side thought. And he has said that his studies of Soviet totalitarian communism revealed numerous parallels with the mindset of the American liberal.

So how did the Soviets deal with their dissidents?

They put them in gulags and treated them as mentally ill.

Well, in the global warming debate, enter the white-coated psychobabblers.

A frankly incredible article begins as follows:

Psychologists determine what it means to think ‘green’

By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY
Those who make human behavior their business aim to make living “green” your business.

Armed with new research into what makes some people environmentally conscious and others less so, the 148,000-member American Psychological Association is stepping up efforts to foster a broader sense of eco-sensitivity that the group believes will translate into more public action to protect the planet.

“We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do,” says Yale University psychologist Alan Kazdin, association president. “We know what messages will work and what will not.”

During a four-day meeting that begins today in Boston, an expected 16,000 attendees will hear presentations, including studies that explore how people experience the environment, their attitudes about climate change and what social barriers prevent conservation of resources.

Now, you might dismiss these statements, “We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do.” You might even ridicule them (Remember KAOS villain Siegfried from Get Smart? In one show he said to a pigeon, “Fly UP!” And when the bird sat there he leaned over and said, “So, you will not fly. We have ways of making you fly. Do you have any relatives in the park?“). But when white-coated “professionals” – who literally have the power to have people committed, take such a radical stand about an issue completely outside of their field and come to such conclusions about people who don’t happen to believe in global warming, it should be alarming.

If that isn’t freaky enough, one passage in the middle of the article reads:

• News stories that provided a balanced view of climate change reduced people’s beliefs that humans are at fault and also reduced the number of people who thought climate change would be bad, according to research by Stanford social psychologist Jon Krosnick.

His presentation will detail a decade of American attitudes about climate change. His new experiment, conducted in May, illustrates what he says is a public misperception about global warming. He says there is scientific consensus among experts that climate change is occurring, but the nationwide online poll of 2,600 adults asked whether they believe scientists agree or disagree about it.

By editing CNN and PBS news stories so that some saw a skeptic included in the report, others saw a story in which the skeptic was edited out and another group saw no video, Krosnick found that adding 45 seconds of a skeptic to one news story caused 11% of Americans to shift their opinions about the scientific consensus. Rather than 58% believing a perceived scientific agreement, inclusion of the skeptic caused the perceived amount of agreement to drop to 47%.

American Psychological Association leaders say they want to launch a national initiative specifically targeting behavior changes, including developing media messages that will help people reduce their carbon footprint and pay more attention to ways they can conserve. They want to work with other organizations and enlist congressional support to help fund the effort.

In other words, just a relative few seconds’ worth of skeptical treatment opposing the doctrine of man-caused global warming sufficiently innoculated viewers such that well under half continued to buy the garbage they were being fed.

This is beyond disturbing. The long-politically correct American Psychological Association has essentially determined that only the mentally ill don’t accept man-caused global warming, and that any exposure to alternative views increases the “sickness.”

This is right out of Stalinism. Even worse, it’s right out of 1984 with “Big Brother” controlling the not only the lives but the very thoughts of everyone. The essence of totalitarianism is megalomania: the need to have absolute control over everyone and everything. And anyone who came to think differently from the official doctrine of Big Brother was subjected to “treatment” until he was capable of believing that “two and two made five.”

Lev Trotsky wrote in Literature and Revolution:

“The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training … Man will make it his goal…to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will.”

And in its article on “the new Soviet man,” Wikipedia says:

The three major changes postulated to be indispensable for the building of the communist society were economical and political changes, accompanied with the changes in the human personality.

The Soviet man was to be selfless, learned, healthy and enthusiastic in spreading the socialist Revolution. Adherence to Marxism-Leninism, and individual behaviour consistent with that philosophy’s prescriptions, were among the crucial traits expected of the New Soviet man.

Author and philosopher Bernard Byhovsky, Ph.D. writes: “The new man is endowed, first of all, with a new ethical outlook.”

Among the major traits of a new Soviet man was selfless collectivism.

Thus the parallels between the aims of the American Psychological Association (the concept of the “construction of the new man” angle becomes quite clear in the article) and the aims of the “new Soviet man” become clear. And the logical implications between the potential tactics of global warming alarmists and the historical tacts of the gulags become clear as well.

These people are genuinely scary. All they lack to transform society in a terrifying way is the power to fully implement their ideas.

Global Warming? Al Gore and the Crisis of Global Stupidity

Call me a Global Stupidity theorist.

I have come to believe that one of the greatest crises that mankind faces today is due to anthropogenic global stupidity.

Runaway global warming alarmism has pushed pseudo-science superheated emissions to dangerous levels much faster than previously estimated and, instead of reaching the threshold within a decade, it was actually crossed two years ago. Anthropogenic global stupidity may have pushed earth past the tipping point, according to one study.

I’m ridiculing these idiots, obviously. But you have to laugh at such paranoid nonsense.

Al Gore, the “patron saint” of global warming alarmism is more of a “patent stooge.”

Al Bore showed up on NBC’s Meet the Press on July 20, 2008 and had this to say:

VICE PRES. GORE: Well, I, I mean, I think there’s a consensus now that it’s happening even more rapidly than the scientists were telling us years ago. We’re seeing record high temperatures. Nine of the 10 hottest years ever recorded have, have been in the last couple of decades. We’re seeing the stronger storms. We’re seeing the damage that, that people–and our national security experts–the military intelligence, the Pentagon, the National Intelligence Defense Council–they have warned us about the national security threats from potentially hundreds of millions of climate refugees caused by the climate crisis. This is really–just this, this past week, the EPA said the American way of life is threatened.

Shortly after the rambling hypocrite left the state to presumably go back to his mansion that uses twenty times more energy than anyone else’s, Tom Brokaw said this of Bore:

MR. BROKAW: Chuck Todd, David Gregory, welcome to both of you. Let’s begin with Al Gore.

He’s tan, rested, but apparently not ready to go back into government, Chuck. Let me just offer a proposition. No one is better informed on this issue of energy conservation and global climate change than he is, no one is more passionate about it. But this issue breaks along party lines as you go across the country. Do you think it is, in part, because in the eyes of Republicans and those on the right, he is still very much a radioactive political figure, and he would be better off if he appeared on stage

Well, under the theory that “No one is better informed on this issue of energy conservation and global climate change than Al Gore is,” you’d at least expect him to get his pertinent facts somewhat correct.

But nope. Al spouts off debunked idiocy the way Jesus spouted off universal wisdom. His claim that “We’re seeing record high temperatures. Nine of the 10 hottest years ever recorded have, have been in the last couple of decades”? Just plain NOT.

NASA was forced to revise its rankings for the hottest years on record after a blogger – A BLOGGER – discovered serious mathematical errors in the process that the agency so advanced it sends rockets to Mars had relied upon to advance the global warming myth.

The new figures are available at this official NASA/GISS site. The higher the positive annual mean figure, the warmer the year was.

According to NASA’s revised data, the hottest 10 years on record, beginning with the hottest, actually are:

1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939

Five of the top ten occur prior to 1940, before mainstream scientists believe humans had any discernible impact on temperatures, and six of the top ten hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century occurred.

That doesn’t sound nearly as good as “Nine of the 10 hottest years on record,” though. Al Gore is a firm believer in the old pseudo-scientific adage, “If the facts get in the way of my theory, so much the worse for the facts.”

I’ve got a better “Nine out of 10” sort of figure for you.

A British judge who was asked to rule on whether Al Bore’s Inconvenient Truth movie could be distributed throughout the nation’s schools ruled that there were nine glaring scientific errors in the film, and that Al Gore was using “alarmism” and “exaggeration.”

Reason Magazine ripped Al Gore’s credibility to shreds.

That didn’t stop Gore from garnering a Nobel Prize. Apparently, Joseph Goebbels-like propaganda tactics are now perfectly acceptable in today’s postmodern version of “science.” If your ideology is suitably politically correct, it no longer matters if all your “facts” are actually wrong. It is downright scary.

Al Gore is just as wrong about his continued propaganda myth of “scientific consensus.”

And he’s making scientifically indefensible and, yes, alarmist and exaggerated claims regarding storms as well. It is the number of people living along coastal areas, rather than global warming, that is the most worrisome trend taking place.

And to debunk the last claim in his quote, describing “hundreds of millions of climate refugees caused by the climate crisis,” realize that one of the nine documented “alarmist and exaggerated” claims referred to an Al Gore claim that “low lying Pacific atolls have already been evacuated.” It’s simply false. The man doesn’t need facts when hysterical claims suit his agenda better.

The discovery of a tropical heat vent that computer climate models do not take into account could reduce the threat of global warming to meaninglessness. The journal Science published a seventeen year study of Greenland’s ice sheet that flatly contradicts the hysterical reports and bogus claims from nutjobs like Al Bore. And World Climate Report has an article titled “Antarctic Ice: A Global Warming Snow Job?” that similarly shows the bogus hyper-alarmism surrounding that region. Another study just released shows that Greenland’s ice – in contradiction to alarmist theories – has easily survived previous global warmings and very likely will survive many more.

I’ve written previous articles detailing some of the vast research that has proven that “global warming” is NOT caused by man, but rather is a cyclical natural phenomena occurring roughly every 1,500 years. And I’ve written about the problem of ideology taking the place of genuine science, and the fact that scientists are literally being persecuted for debunking outright academic fraud and self-serving scientific errors.

“Global warming” is very likely not a serious problem for mankind (believe me, it’s a LOT better than an ice age!), but the real and growing threat of “global stupidity” looms larger than ever. And there seems to be no answer to this crisis.

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

Most people are only being allowed to hear part of the story when it comes to global warming.

Global warming skeptics have been compared with holocaust deniers, and media reports routinely present the issue as “settled.” Those opposed to the global warming agenda are being openly mocked and attacked – but they are being mocked and attacked based on a straw-man misrepresentation of their position.

Most global warming skeptics readily acknoweldge that the planet is warming. What they deny is that man is causing that warming (anthropogenic global warming), or that man can do anything that would have more than a trivial impact on the warming that is occuring. And they question whether the warming that is occuring is even bad for the planet or for humanity.

There is clear evidence of a persistant natural global warming cycle that has dominated Earth’s temperatures for the past 10,000 years and extends back through several ice ages and warm interglacials for at least 1 million years. The evidence shows this cycle is responsible for most of Earth’s warming since 1850. The scientific evidence is found in more than 200 peer-reviewed papers published in professional journals representing the conclusions of more than 500 scientific experts. But that information is simply ignored by a frankly biased and leftist media, compressed into sounbites and buried in the back pages of newspapers, or spun by being “put into context.”

For example, it was front-page news when the 2007 UN Intergovernmental Panal on Climate Change (IPCC) report proclaimed near-certainty that the cause of global warming was human; but how much coverage did the 2006 US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) report get that presented clear evidence to the contrary?

Similarly, the statement in the IPCC Climate Change 1995 report claiming that scientists had found a “human fingerprint” in the current global warming received a great deal of attention. But the fact that that statement had been inserted into the report for political, not scientific, reasons, and that the accompanying “science volume” had been edited to remove five different statements by the scientific panel specifically saying that no such human fingerprint had been found, received very little attention. The author of that IPCC science chapter – a US government employee – had to publicly admit that he had inserted the scientifically indefensible language because of “back room” pressure from top US government officials (see Frederick Seitz, former president, National Academy of Sciences, “A Major Deception on Global Warming” in the 12 June 1996 Wall Street Journal; see also S. Fred Singer, Climate Policy from Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000 and Beyond (Palo Alto: Hoover Institution, Standford University 2000, p.19).

The truth of the matter is that scientists from around the world are having to gather to discuss academic misconduct – the falsification or misrepresentation of research data – which is described as an “open sore” in scientific research. But the media does not seem to be interested in anything that would undermine their narrative of a crisis caused by global warming.

History professor Naomi Oreskes’ 2004 paper purporting to show “a unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming” garnered a great deal of media exposure. However, Dr. Benny Peiser’s devastating refutation [update, August 21, 2011 – that link is now access-restricted; please see here] of that paper by revealing its terrible methodology was largely shunned. Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte provided another refutation of Oreskes’ work. No matter: Oreskes paper is accepted as gospel by global warming advocates and by the media. Thus a history professor with an obviously biased and flawed methodology declares a scientific consensus on man-caused global warming, and that view has become the gospel-truth with the media which disregards the truth in favor of a footnote that supports their agenda.

Dr. Benny Peiser went on to present an 18 April 2007 paper titled EDITORIAL BIAS AND THE PREDICTION OF CLIMATE DISASTER: THE CRISIS OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION at the conference “Climate Change: Evaluating Appropriate Responses” before the European Parliament. He said:

Over the last 10 years, the editors of the world’s leading science journals such as Science and Nature as well as popular science magazines such as Scientific American and New Scientist have publicly advocated drastic policies to curb CO2 emissions. At the same time, they have publicly attacked scientists skeptical of the climate consensus. The key message science editors have thus been sending out is brazen and simple: “The science of climate change is settled. The scientific debate is over. It’s time to take political action.”

Instead of serving as an honest and open-minded broker of scientific controversy, science editors have opted to take a rigid stance on the science and politics of climate change. In so doing, they have in effect sealed the doors for any critical assessment of the prevailing consensus which their journals officially sponsor. Consequently, their public endorsement undoubtedly deters critics from submitting falsification attempts for publication. Such critiques, not surprisingly, are simply non-existing in the mainstream science media.

Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, has decried the myth of “scientific consensus,” and pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists. He has also pointed out that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of GHG-induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed. But he has largely been ignored by the media. Other scientists, such as Dr. Richard S. Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have similarly come out to declare their scientific skepticism of global warming alarmism. “I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of the recent National Research Council’s report on adapting to global change.”

Such views are not only dismissed, but are all-too often being ferociously attacked by every means possible with tactics that could legitimately be called Stalinist.

Dr. Lindzen – the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the leading scientific university in the world – wrote an article titled, “Climate of Fear” detailing the Orwellian tactics routinely used by the global warming alarmism industry to stifle or outright destroy skeptical scientists. He says, “there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”

In one troubling case, a revered hurricane expert and global warming skeptic is being released from Colorado State University. Dr. William Gray, whose dean has publicly acknowledged that “He’s a great faculty member,” is being forced out of his position – not due to any allegations of incompetency or misconduct – but simply because “handling media inquiries for Dr. Gray’s work requires too much time and detracts from efforts to promote the work of other professors.” Question: are scientists who believe in anthropogenic global warming being fired because of media inquirees regarding their position? Universities generally like it when their faculty receive media exposure because it translates in increased student applications. Dr Gray rightly says, “This is obviously a flimsy excuse and seems to be a cover for the department’s capitulation to the desires of some who want to rein in my global warming and global warming-hurricane predictions.”

And if anything, the real “dirty secret” is that the “industry stooges” are actually working on the side of the global warming alarmist industry, such as the Pew Foundation, according to an article by climatologist Dr. Patrick J. Michaels.

A blatant example of this is Goddard Institute of Space Studies’ Dr. James Hansen. Hansen wrote his first alarmist climate model – which showed the world was about to experience severe global cooling – in 1971. NASA colleagues used it to warn the world that immediate action was needed to prevent the catastrophe of global cooling. Now his models just as stridently hype global warming catastrophe. He has appeared on numerous friendly media formats decrying “the politicization of science,” when he himself has politicized science more than anyone. He has received millions of dollars in funding from liberal activist sources such as George Soros and the Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. He also served as a paid consultant to Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and has personally promoted the film.

I personally never had any axe to grind on “global warming” until a one-sided version of it was repeatedly imposed upon me. If there truly was a problem, I would have wanted to take steps toward a solution (I drive the speed limit to reduce my fuel consumption, carefully watch my water consumption, avidly recycle, and routinely pick up other people’s trash). But I became very suspicious way back in 1995 when UN officials began to call for draconian steps on the part of wealthy Western European economies, yet imposed nothing upon Russia, China, India, and the devoloping world. We were either facing a genuine global crisis – in which case coal burning developing countries needed to stop their coal burning and developing along with everyone else – or it was not. I began to suspect that the effort to combat global warming was far more a radical socialist redistribution campaign rather than a legitimate effort to truly combat an actual global crisis. And I have never seen anything that has ever revealed this view to be incorrect since.

I see the overwhelming evidence for constant warming and cooling climate cycles throughout the planet’s history simply dismissed as though it is utterly irrelevant to the question of current global warming, even as the global warming establishment categorically states that global warming is anthropocentric based on the flimsiest of evidence largely based on theoretical computer climate models.

I see the “experts” arbitrarily deciding to fixate on the 3.2 percent of carbon dioxide that is caused by humans and ignoring the 96.8% that is completely natural and out of human control. I see the claim that the United States must totally alter its entire way of life to reduce anthropogenic CO2 when anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

I see Al Gore receiving a Nobel Prize for science when his work is filled with one alarmist and exaggerated claim after another. Giving such an award to a man whose tactics represent those of Joeseph Goebbels more than those of objective science demonstrates what an ideological mockery the scientific project is increasingly becoming.

I see the theoretical future threat to polar bears as grounds for sweeping powers being granted to the Environmental Protection Agency despite the fact that the bear population has clearly doubled in the past thirty years. If global warming is truly having such a terrible impact on our environment, then advocates ought to have the ability to provide species whose population is truly being impacted.

I see the media hyping the melting northern ice caps and simultaneously ignoring the fact that the Antarctic ice levels have hit record highs.

I see the best available observations showing a global warming pattern (in latitude and altitude) that differ dramatically from the pattern calculated by computer greenhouse models being ignored. It doesn’t seem to matter that the observed and theoretical fingerprints simply do not match.

I see global warming alarmists continuing to point at severe weather as being caused by global warming when the science says otherwise. One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming causes hurricane activity to intensify has recently reversed his position, with little fanfare. Hurricane expert Kerry Emanuel of MIT now says that hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise over the next two centuries.

I see (and laugh!) one global warming conference hyping catastrophe after another having to be canceled every single year due to cold weather. I see (and laugh at!) the hypocrisy of UN “global warming experts” flying to Bali to have a conference saying the very thing they’re doing is destroying the planet!!! I see Al Gore’s home creating a carbon footprint that is 20 times larger than anyone else’s while he’s out telling people to ride their bikes everywhere to save the planet.

I see liberals advocating “carbon credits” the way the Catholic church at its worst sold indulgences to bribe God to ignore their sins. Apparently, if a pedophile molests a kid but gives money to an anti-child-molesting organization, his net molestation is zero. Carbon credits give wealthy global warming alarmists the ability to pay their way out of being forced to live the way they want to force everyone else to live.

I see liberals and environmental activists routinely using every means to block any effort to resolve our energy crisis by exploiting our abundant domestic oil resources, even as they constantly demagogue those who have been proposing how to increase the energy supply and reduce the increasingly shockingly-high price tag of energy that is essential to our economy. If your car will run on wind, then by all means let’s build more windmills. But otherwise, by all means, please let us increase our oil supply.

I see all this and more, and am therefore very skeptical as to why I need to support the most massive socialist redistribution program in world history and the complete undermining of the American economy in order to fight a theoretical threat – when all human history has shown that global warming is actually good for humans and it is ice ages that are bad. Civilizations such as the Roman and Mayan empires thrived during warming that is hotter than it is today; and it was during the cooling that occurred during the so-called Dark Ages that human civilization struggled to survive.

Also see my article, “What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming.”