Click to get your own widget

Wednesday, December 09, 2009


This is from a recent Wall Street Journal article. Note that I still have not found anybody on the alarmist side who can name 2 members of the alleged consensus who are not paid by government or alarmist lobbyists who have said they believe in catastrophic global warming. Let me extend this invitation to any supporter of the claim anywhere in the world (a copy is also going to parties supporting alarmism). Subject to somebody producing some genuine examples I think we can say that, with the largest single expression of scientists being the 31,000 who said CO2 rise is a good thing, the claims that there is or ever has been a scientific consensus is a total & deliberate lie. It is a libel against real scientists told by wholly corrupt lying fascist politicians & journalists:

Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change "consensus."

To read some of the press accounts of these gifts—amounting to about 0.0027% of Exxon's 2008 profits of $45 billion—you might think you'd hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere. Hanson said Executives doing this should be imprisoned & even Britain's, government funded, Royal society said such research shouldn't be funded

Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world's leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week's disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, or CRU.

But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them.

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents leaked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 (£13.7 million) million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.

Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?

Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. American states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. (total $2.6 billion in USA) In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely...

None of these outfits are per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what's known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.

Which brings us back to the climategate scientists, the keepers of the keys to the global warming cathedral. In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU's temperature database: "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"

This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical foundation. And however many billion-dollar edifices may be built on it, sooner or later it is bound to crumble.

Assuming the EU member countries have individually matched the central money that comes to $8.6 billion (£5.2 billion) given annually purely to those few former scientists who have been willing to push this lie. Normal grant levels, or something close, have been maintained for those who say nothing either way & immense efforts have been made not only not to fund any real research but to browbeat private donors, even with threats of imprisonment to prevent any research which might find contrary results. If they thought it were true they would not need to suppress sceptical funding. It is thus absolutely proven that the "catastrophic global warming" campaign is not an accidental instance of public hysteria but a careful government campaign across Europe & North America, deliberately & enormously funded for the purpose of promoting a lie so that the totally corrupt rulers can use this scare story to establish fascist controls on our lives & prevent the common people enjoying the wealth the rulers do.

Dear Labour,/Green,/LibDem/SNP/Conservative Party,

I have published the undernoted blog in which I use the fact that nobody on the alarmist side has been able to name 2 prominent scientists who form part of the alleged consensus who have actually said catastrophic global warming is happening & are not paid by government or alarmist lobbyists, as evidence that it is not only a fraud but a particularly well well funded fraud designed for the purpose of letting you fascists control us. In the circumstances I am certain that if you can disprove this allegation by producing some such scientists you will be eager to do so.

Labels: , ,

When I first read Bjorn Lomborg ten years ago, I thought AGW was just the usual lefties getting the wrong end of the stick and being credulous but you are right, its metamorphosed into a fantastic control mechanism for the proles that requires no debate.

Did you see the farcical story on the Beeb the day Copenhagen opened that climate change was "twice as bad"

No analysis, no questions, no explanation, not twice as bad as what exactly just "twice as bad"

I don't remember that particular phrase which is indeed obvious nonsense, but that is the general BBC line. Much of this idea comes from Michael Crichton's State of Fear which, like yours, uses fiction to tell political truths. In particular chapters October 13: 9AM & 9.33AM consist of a lecture on how the media foster false scare stories. I thoroughly reccomend the book & its bibliography.
This maybe older (though it's certainly more prevalent today) than we think. HL Mencken years ago called for a national bathtub day to commemorate the invention of the bathtub and made up a pseudo-medical sounding body to endorse it.

He received letters backing the idea, it was the subject of much newspaper debate and was even mentioned on the floor of congress AFTER he admitted it was made up!
My admiration for Mencken is unlimited as can be seen from the blog heading.
All you need to do is read the science to understand the reasons for and the implications of global warming. Obviously you have not done this but are posturing with lame arguments because you are too ignorant or lazy to review the science supporting anthropogenic global warming and its impacts. Like the "flat earthers" before you, you are arguing against clear consensus in the scientific community. Good luck and good riddance.
Well that's me tellt.

What a pity Mr Mous didn't feel able to give any facts to support his assertions but eco-fascists don't need no steenkin' facts.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.