I reserved making any comments on the events of the past week because I wanted to weigh both sides of the story before forming an opinion. For those who haven't been watching the news, on November 17th, a whistleblower released over 200 (unzipped) megabytes of private e-mails, documents, computer code, and source data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia to the public domain. The CRU is the internationally agreed keepers of paleoclimate data and the instrument record for our world's climate. The CRU is were most scientists interested in climate studies get their data.
To say the least, the contents of the released documents were damning and exposed the reprehensible behavior of the inner circle of scientists who literally forged the global warming narrative. These documents exposed the activities of some of the world's leading scientists, computer modelers, and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agenda they are serving. On Anthony Watt's blog "Watts Up With That", he organizes a good synopsis of what the documents revealed:
1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He’s just not very good at securing his web site.
2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be “predictable”.
3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2.
4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favorable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favorable online communities.
I personally obtained the full set of documents and spent quite a bit of time analyzing the computer code, programmer's comments, and perusing many of the related documents. I was horrified the most at how "inconvenient" data was removed from the climate data using programming tricks, manual adjustments, and data substitution. Equally horrifying was how the scientific peer review process was under tight control of the scientists to the extent that they reviewed their own papers and cited each other's work (circular citations) and had the leading scientific journals in their pocket such that any scientist wanting to publish a paper that didn't meet their agenda would be summarily rejected and publicly ridiculed.
But it gets worse. As a medical researcher and co-author to a number of peer reviewed papers published in leading journals, I have a good working knowledge of how the peer review process works. In our studies, any and all data and methodologies (formulas, data queries, inclusion criteria, and more) must be made available to the peer reviewers and any other scientists who wish to reproduce and verify our work. Apparently that is not how it works in climate science, or at least not for the leading scientists concerned with man made global warming. There were deliberate (and apparently successful) acts of destroying climate data that made up their papers, deleting of public documents, and clear violations of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) where these scientists colluded to prevent their data from falling into the hands of anyone who might have the skills to expose their bogus science. In other words, there clear ethical violations of the scientific process of open disclosure of the
data and methodologies such that their work could not be refuted or falsified.
This is a most serious issue. A basic scientific rule is a hypothesis that cannot be falsified is itself false. The hypothesis of global warming was intentionally made unfalsafiable by these scientists by willfully withholding and destroying the data necessary for other scientists to confirm their work. In doing so, they violated this basic rule and themselves made the global warming hypothesis falsified. Yes, many scientists lodged complaints of not having access to the data but those complaints resulted in coordinated assaults on the scientist's reputation and work at the hands of the elite scientists who are now keepers of the gate for climate data, reviews, and reputations. Before long, all dissenting scientists were ridiculed, defamed, and relegated to obscurity, serving as public examples of what happens to one's career for others who might dare challenge the agenda. Of course, if you are one of the elite good old boys, you could get anything through peer review and published
in a leading science journal by offering to bring a case of beer to the review party.
So, what's the bottom line here? The science of global warming is corrupt and tightly controlled by a small handful of prominent scientists who's allegiance is not to science but to the New World Order (NWO) agenda of the U.N. Okay, you're thinking I'm making this up or blowing it out of proportion. Read the following excerpt from private e-mails from these scientists and make up your own mind. In an October 10, 2000 e-mail sent from Paul Horsman, a leading figure in the Greenpeace International Climate Campaign, to Mick Kelly of the the CRU wrote:
Hi Mick,
It was good to see you again yesterday - if briefly. One particular thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?
My second question is that I am invovled in a working group organising a climate justice summit in the Hague and I wondered if you had any contacts, ngos or individuals, with whom you have worked especially from the small island States or similar areas, who could be invited as a voice either to help on the working group and/or to invite to speak?
All the best,
Paul
So, what's this globalization agenda espoused by the IPCC that CRU's Mick Kelly shared with Paul Horsman when they last met? And what's this climate justice stuff Paul Horsman is organizing? Well, in brief, the globalization agenda is the agenda undertaken by the WTO (World Trade Organization), the trade arm of the U.N. and soon-to-be government branch of New World Order (NWO) government that will, according to plan, be unveiled in Copenhagen next month - the meeting President Obama will be attending to give the United States' endorsement. It is the successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol wherein signatory nations will cede their sovereignty to the newly organized world government. It was Obama's intention to obtain Senate approval for signing the Copenhagen treaty but the approval is presently stalled in congress with Health Care Reform and Cap and Trade needing to be approved first. It looks like the most Obama can give away on his upcoming trip is token support of the treaty. Look for new legislation to hit congress next year
to approve the signing of the treaty which, in a very real effect, will cede our national sovereignty to the U.N. (by constitution, international treaties ratified by Congress supersede our own laws and grant legal powers under the terms of the treaty).
The Hague Climate Justice Summit is the beginning framework of the vision of an international court where crimes against the climate will be judiciously prosecuted. It may well become a piece of the judicial branch of the NWO.
Okay, time to wrap this up. Connect the dots and what picture do you get? Elite and prominent scientists funded by the IPCC and their governments to control (and withhold) all climate data to whit they internally manufacture a climate crises that only a world government (of the U.N.'s creation) can solve - a crisis so grave that everyone will be willing to fork trillions of dollars over to the NWO and cede their national sovereignty to avoid burning up in the impending thermogeddon these scientists predict. It's science corrupted for money and power, pure and simple. If you're unconvinced, just Google "Climategate," or download the e-mails and documents and read them yourself and form your own opinion. I highly recommend you visit Anthony Watt's website "Watts Up With That" for breaking science and commentary on this still developing global warming scandal.
Closing thought:
These e-mails and documents coming to light do indeed prove that global warming is man-made. Global warming was made by Phil Jones (Director of the CRU), Michael Mann (creator of the now famous "Hockey Stick" study that showed drastic global warming and sea level rise that would drown New York, London, and cover most of Florida in the next few decades), Gavin Schmidt (NASA computer modeler and scientist who created many of the models which predict the impending thermogeddon), John Holdren (Obama's Science Czar), Andrew Revkin (journalist with the New York Times), Al Gore (Nobel prize winner and creator of the "An Inconvenient Truth" climate scare movie), and a host of corrupt players in the U.N. and its IPCC organization.