Billions of Dollars - Fudged Data - Corrupt Scientists
Greedy Green Corporations - Trillion Dollar Prize
No Warming For Two decades - Illiterate Media
Bought and Paid For Organizations
5000 Years Of Climate Change From Greenland Ice Cores
Some quotes from Jim Hansen’s former superior at NASA: He was never muzzled ... He thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988.. ...some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results... They have resisted making their work transparent ... Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy...
1. Al Gore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem.Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...Al Gore in Grist, 09 May 2006, bold added. A British court found a number of inaccuracies in Gore’s film (“over-representation of factual presentations”?) Washington Post: U.K. Judge Rules Gore's Climate Film Has 9 Errors Al Gore Used Fictional Video to Illustrate ‘Inconvenient Truth’ Even Al Gore’s college mentor has changed his mind Inconvenient Truth is full of mistakes 2. Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research described the scientists' dilemma this way: "On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but-which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but; human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.DISCOVER OCTOBER 1989, Page 47, Bold Added (Steven Schneider is now Editor of Climate Change Journal) 3. Jim Hansen:(He controls NASA’s historical climate records): Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.(bold added)
Climate Change --They Think It’s OK to Lie to Us!
we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make
little mention of any doubts we might have
it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations
Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time
he thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence
clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins,
all of them imaginary." — Henry Louis Mencken
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come
to believe it.”
There are no peer reviewed paper opposing global warming. See above.
All credible scientists agree. See above.
CO2 is the major greenhouse gas.No water vapor is. . . . the maximum supportable
number for the importance of water vapour alone is about 60-70% and for water plus
clouds 80-90% of the present day greenhouse effect. (Of course, using the same approach,
the maximum supportable number for CO2 is 20-30%,
CO2 causes the temperature to rise. Actually temperature rises cause CO2 to increase:
At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about
800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations.
These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages
that happen every 100,000 years or so. ... All that the lag shows is that CO2 did
not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200
years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from
this ice core data.(Notice “could in fact have been”? That means that they don’t
Historic temperature were stable until recently. Here is what Dr. Wegman, past president
of the statistics division of the National Academy of Sciences says about the temperature
chart the AL Gore uses. (MBH98 and MBH99 are the scientific papers that created Al
Gore’s chart; MM03/05a/05b are the scientific papers that pointed out the errors
in MBH98 and MBH99):
In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete ... Normally,
one would try to select a calibration dataset that is representative of the entire
dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not fully appropriate for calibration and leads to
a misuse in principal component analysis. (From: 07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf, page
The criticism in MM03/05a/05b pointed out a number of flaws such as:
You can take red noise and put it into the algorithm used in MBH98 and get the famous
You can remove the bristle cone pines from the data set and the hockey stick disappears.
If you use the correct data centering methodology, the hockey stick disappears.
The whole field of climate prediction is fatally flawed because
most of the field uses the same data and methods - they are not independent.
Wegman: page 4: Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area
of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus “independent studies” may
not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. (From: 07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf,
“The Civil Heretic” was a perfect example of what Freeman Dyson disagrees with: blatant
and unfounded exaggeration. Dyson is not a “global-warming heretic”; he does not
dispute the science. He simply says, and rightfully so, that the science is both
uncertain and very much exaggerated. It is no secret that a lot of climate-change
research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the
signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is,
only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’
— and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in
today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more
federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.
Peter Gleick lied, but was it justified by the wider good? James Garvey , guardian.co.uk, Monday 27 February 2012 (Bold added): What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action. Was Gleick right to lie to expose Heartland and maybe stop it from causing further delay to action on climate change? If his lie has good effects overall – if those who take Heartland's money to push scepticism are dismissed as shills, if donors pull funding after being exposed in the press – then perhaps on balance he did the right thing. It could go the other way too – maybe he's undermined confidence in climate scientists. It depends on how this plays out. [Read the whole article at the above link]
Peer Reviewed paper in
American Journal of Agricultural Economics Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements
It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency
to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article
provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental
Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation
has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in
an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective,
however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation
in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.
Fraud Allegation Against Key Foundation of Warming Data Accuracy
Allegations of fraud at Albany - the Wang case
Professor Wei-Chyung Wang is a star scientist in the Atmospheric Sciences Research
Center at the University at Albany, New York. He is a key player in the climate change
debate (see his self-description here). Wang has been accused of scientific fraud.