A good summary of the Great Global Warming Fraud

The Global Warming Fraud is one of the great scandals ever, using faked science to generate a worldwide political power grab, massive tax increases and job destruction and earning billions of dollars for its proponents — all with no exit strategy.  Not surprisingly, pro-abortion groups wanted in on the game to fund abortions around the world.

Via The Great Global Warming Fraud – Erick’s blog – RedState, here is what the GW proponents did, as revealed in their emails:

  1. Prominent environmental scientists organize a boycott of scientific journals if those journals publish scholarly material from global warming dissidents.
  2. The scientists then orchestrate attacks on the dissidents because of their lack of scholarly material published in scientific journals.
  3. The scientists block from the UN’s report on global warming evidence that is harmful to the anthropogenic global warming consensus.
  4. The scientists, when faced with a freedom of information act request for their correspondence and data, delete the correspondence and data lest it be used against them.
  5. The scientists fabricate data when their data fails to prove the earth is warming. In fact, in more than one case, scientists engaged in lengthy emails on how to insert additional made up data that would in turn cause their claims to stand out as legitimate.

The liars were caught lying.  And aren’t these the folks who had the nerve to say we were as bad as holocaust deniers?  Where is the mainstream media?!  Why isn’t this front page, non-stop news?

Shocking: The NY Times won’t publish the emails.

0 thoughts on “A good summary of the Great Global Warming Fraud”

  1. Scientist #1: “Global warming is real. If we do not radically change our lives we face doom!”

    Scientist #2: “What do you mean the Theory of evolution is unproven? The science is settled. Species ADAPT to changing conditions.”

    Pro Choice activist: “We can help prevent global warming by insuring abortions are available.”

    RADICAL Animal Rights activist: The problem is this panet has too many people! We must reduce world population from almost 7 billion down to a sustainable 2-3 billion. Of course, since I see the solution clearly, I must be one of those who lives. We can then share the world with our animal friends.”

    AL Gore: “We face doom! Pay me and I will tell you more.”

    President Obama “Let’s see, worse employment since the depression, my health care plan is facing major obstacles, my trip to China was a bust. Yep, I think I need to jet over to that climate conference and join all those other people flying there increasing their carbon footprint so we can all discuss the global warming crisis.”


    If species adapt to change, why is this a crisis?

    If warming is the worst crisis facing us, why not video conference?

    How long will President Obama take to make a decision on climate policy changes needed following this conference? Will he take as long as he took to make a decision on the recommendation to increase troops in Afghanistan? After all, this is the most important issue we as a planet face! Surely he will take at least that long to review options.

    If oil companies are evil for putting greed above humanity by not redirecting all profits to help prevent the global warming doom we face, why does not the same standard apply to Al Gore who STILL charges for lectures despite already making millions from Global warming alarmism? He only invests his money when he can make a pofit instead of giving it away to support this crisis. At what point do you say, Al, you are as just as greedy as the oil ompanies. You just want to get rich!


    1. If species adapt to change, why is this a crisis?

      Species take hundreds or thousands of generations to adapt to new temperatures. That’s is why the species with the shortest generation cycles are able to adapt to major changes like ice ages. But you don’t believe that they adapt, so we might have a bit of a problem.


  2. More on the computer code issue:


    Including this little comment:

    “IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this ‘decline’ has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures.”

    They were artificially removing evidence in an ad-hoc basis to produce the conclusions they wanted.

    This isn’t the scientific method I thought I knew.


  3. “But you don’t believe that they adapt, so we might have a bit of a problem.”

    Actually, what I believe is God is control and what happens here is only the smallest glimpse of something far greater that He has in mind for us.

    My point was the position of evolutionists (change is natural) and climate alarmists (we must prevent the change from happening) are in direct opposition. It is not my conflict to resolve. It is the climate alarmists to reconcile the two positions. If they believe in evolution than why is change bad? Species have died and will continue to die. What difference does it make on what caused it to happen. Man is part of nature therefore any actions taken by man that change nature should be considered NATURAL.

    I believe in good stwardship of nature. That is because that is what I am commanded to do. That means conserving and preserving. But it does not mean we must maintain static temperatures as they are today when nature has previously been both hotter and colder in the past. I believe in natural cycles between warming and cooling. And I am not arrogent enough to believe we know enough about how our climate works to control it.


    1. You’ve brought up a very interesting point in your middle paragraph. To what extent can we attribute our actions to be part of nature? We tend to look at ourselves as being apart from nature, probably because we possess the unique ability among animals to impact upon it for better or worse. For example, we are the only animals, besides elephants, who are capable of felling trees. This is because we’re intelligent enough to make axes and chainsaws.

      The difficulty comes in deciding what is really the good or the bad that goes with this ability. This is a debate that’s been around for years. Is it better to live with pollution, but enjoy the benefits of industrialisation, or is it better to perhaps live in poverty, but with clean air? And what gives any of us the right to decide which is better? Why shouldn’t we give countries such as India their shot at the good life? Or is it really such a good life? These are questions that don’t have clear right or wrong answers, and I don’t think the Bible is much help here either.


      1. Good questions. The Bible gives principles about being good stewards but not a lot of details. I try to avoid too much hand-wringing, though. One hundred years ago it wasn’t like everything was shiny and pretty. Oil lamps could make houses filthy and cause health problems. Dead horses and horse manure everywhere were issues. And on and on.

        Yes, we have problems and need to make trade-offs. Do you allow pesticides that have an ever-so-slight chance of killing a few people with cancer but will make fruits and veggies affordable for countless poor people and improve their health?

        Moore’s Law and other technological advances can work wonders if we would get gov’t out of the way of businesses and innovation. Let’s just say that you would never end up with an iPhone if it was up to the gov’t.

        Hopefully we all agree that just getting rid of a few billion people to put things in balance isn’t the answer 😉 .


      2. we are the only animals, besides elephants, who are capable of felling trees.

        As a Canadian, I must stand up for our noble beaver, for whom felling trees of almost any size is child’s play.

        Carry on.


  4. It gets even worse:


    A great quote:

    n two other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the “correction” is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the “adjustment” routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he or she wasn’t kidding. Now IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I’m familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.

    Here’s the “fudge factor” (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):



    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor [/blockquote]

    The programs and models being used don’t just arbitrarily change the data, they even call it the “fudge factor” in the programing notes.

    Stick a fork in it. Global warming is done.

    This isn’t the scientific method I thought I knew.


  5. Perhaps you are not aware of the new scientific method.

    According to an article in the Indianapolis Star the person in charge of science for the Indiana Department of Education (I don’t remember the exact job title) defines the scientific method as follows.

    1. Develpe a hypothesis.

    2. Design an experiment to prove the hypothesis.

    3. The hypothesis then becomes a theory.

    4. Any data which does not conform to an accepted theory cannot be considered science.

    OK, I know this sounds a bit tongue in cheek to those of us of the old school. But his lady was quite serious and she is in charge of the science education programs in my state.

    I don’t think she is the only one who uses this method.

    By the way, Ryan, during corn harvest this fall we found a remote area of one of our fields flooded. We discovered the most elaborate beaver complex I have ever seen. They had a pirmary dam, a backup dam, and they had even built a spillway to divert excess water into an old mill race to protect their dams.


    1. Very cool about the beavers. They are so cool. They deserve their spot on our nickel.

      Nobody who thinks that step 4 is part of the scientific process deserves to be employed by any educational institute. Any data that does not conform to the theory means the theory is false, full stop.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s