Climate Change Credit: The Global Warming Hoax

Climate Change Credit

An Independent examination of the evidence against global warming available in the published, peer-reviewed literature, examined without bias or selectivity.

Click HERE to read the 40 page report
Give me the short summary of the report

"When former skeptics cite melting habitat as the reason polar bears are now threatened, you know the global warming debate is over."
- Sen. Joe Lieberman

Is it indeed?

"CLIMATEGATE:" THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX

Summary:

November 24, 2009: The Truth is coming out. Human-Caused Global Warming is confirmed to be a HOAX. Private e-mails from numerous global warming "consensus" scientists (which were posted on a publicly accessable server) clearly reveal fraud, data manipulation, and downright conspiracy to cover up the truth. This cover-up includes much of the traditional media at the time of this writing. And the truth is that our models of climate change are not correct. They have not predicted the global cooling of recent years. They don't predict or explain why it was so warm that the Vikings settled Greenland in the 10th century when there was no industrialization-associated human-produced CO2. So claims that human produced CO2 is causing global warming that will destroy the planet are just not plausible.

It is unclear how the e-mail files were leaked. One theory postulates that a malicious hacker slipped into East Anglia's network and snatched thousands of documents. Another suggests that the files had already been assembled in response to a British Freedom of Information request and, immediately after it was denied, a whistleblower decided to disclose them. Lending credence to the second theory is the fact that "no personal e-mail messages unrelated to climate change appear to have been leaked".

The most damaging revelations contained in the e-mails are those confirming the way "global warmer" scientists manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their fraudulent cause:

Manipulation of evidence
Private (but suppressed) doubts about whether the world is actually heating up
Suppression and destruction of evidence
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the existence of a Medieval Warm Period (MWP)
a long series of communications discussing how best to eliminate dissenting scientists from of the peer review process, creating a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW is eliminated from the public scientific forum. This including the hijacking of respected scientific journals assuring that no dissenting voices would be heard.

Why are are the British Newspapers, Fox News, and conservative talk radio the only media covering this story? It is not because the story of fraud perpetrated by the Global Warming and Cap and Trade crowd is false. It is evident that there is active suppression of "an inconvenient truth" for the perceived better good of the environment.

Here is a snippet:

This scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails - supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) School of Environmental Sciences in Norwitch, UK who were pushing global warming theory - suggest: Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

The CRU is one of the world's premier research and scientific centers on climate change, and the top source of temperature data worldwide. The CRU played a key role in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared half of the Nobel peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore). It is important to note that the Fourth Assessment Report is the scientific base of policy negotiations at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2009. The IPCC fourth Assessment Report provides support for policy to mitigate global warming and for a further implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Proposals for a new Copenhagen Climate Treaty including new regulations and the much disputed Global Emissions Trading scheme costing taxpayers trillions of dollars worldwide were based on the IPCC's claimed research results.

The CRU did initially confirm that the following e-mail was legitimate, but could not be taken out of context (including interesting explanations for the works "trick" and "hide" contained therein):

"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 from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct +is 0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998."

Another e-mail message, from Phil Jones the Director of the CRU, references the U.K.'s Freedom of Information Act when Dr. Jones asks another researcher to delete correspondence that might be disclosed in response to the public records law:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.

Such deletion of the records to avoid presenting them in response to a Freedom of Information request would be a criminal act in the U.K. Another e-mail, also written by Jones stated that: global warming skeptics

...have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

This too apparently was taken out of context....

Although CRU and the University of East Anglica are U.K. instutions, they were supported by U.S. tax dollars. E-mail messages included in the "leak" included several discussing grants from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (N.O.A.A., a division of the U.S. Commerce Department) which were made to East Anglia. One e-mail stated:

We need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn't make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven't spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.

Later, Phil Jones did confirm that all of the leaked emails that had provoked heated debate appeared to be "genuine".

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site),

Because of U.S. taxpayer support of the British institution, the U.S. congress is now investigating the Climate Research Unit (CRU) researchers who were exposed in these e-mails as having "cherry-picked" data in order to support the patently false claim of CRU that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium.

The world is currently cooling; and voters are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills.

The run to Copenhagen, which will present an opportunity to move toward a one world governing authority, and has been accompanied by hysterical alarmist stories in the Mainstream Media in a campaign to garner public support.

Regarding claims of this Copenhagen treaty leading to one World Govennment: "At the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December, a treaty will be signed," according to Lord Monckton, former science advisor to English Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Monckton warned that President Obama supports the treaty and is ready to sign on the dotted line. "Your president will sign it," Monckton said. "Most of the Third World countries will sign it, because they think they're going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes from the European Union will rubber-stamp it. Virtually nobody won't sign it. I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word 'government' actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity."

Monckton warned the proposal would cede U.S. sovereignty, mandate a massive wealth transfer from the United States to pay reparations for "climate debt" to Third World countries. and create a new "world government" to enforce the treaty's provisions.

Here is the proposed Copenhagen Climate Treaty

The treaty draft (see link to draft, above) provides for the establishment of an unelected governing body, (an international government), that would have unprecedented powers according to the language presently in the draft treaty. If this treaty is ratified by a two-thirds majority in Congress (a distinct possibility with the current Democratic control of Congress), this treaty would supercede the United States Constitution.

Page 5, Anex I, paragraph# 2; and page 13, paragraph# 26: This treaty is based on the findings of the IPCC, (which based their findings on fradulent data, faulty research, and discredited computer models).

Page 18, paragraph# 38: This treaty establishes a government which will be ruled by the nations represented at the Copenhagen convention (the COP, or conference of parties) of which the USA is but one nation:

"The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following: (a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate".

Page 39, paragraph #33.

The USA will be responsible for financially supporting "developing countries" adherence, while being penalized for it's own non-adherence to the treaty. This amounts to compounding taxes upon taxes.

"By 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be in the range of USD 70-140 billion per year. ...and will be needed to scale-up adaptation activities at the country level in developing country Parties".

Page 52, paragraph #G, IV.

Compensation payments (Penalties against the USA) will be transferred to 3rd world countries:

"The Conference of Parties (COP) to the Copenhagen Convention shall "Recommend to the Board appropriate financial compensation payments once climate risk factor thresholds have been exceeded."