Climate Bills and a Green Economy

IPCC ‘Global Warming’ Science Designed for Propaganda Purposes

February 5, 2010

Canada Free Press - ... The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was specifically designed by Maurice Strong as a political vehicle to further his objective of crippling the industrial nations.

An acknowledged master of bureaucratic systems, Strong set up every segment of the organization for the maximum public relations effect. This meant emphasis on emotional impact, especially by exploiting fear.

The first need was to direct and control the science. It was achieved at the 1985 meeting in Villach Austria chaired by Canadian bureaucrat Gordon McBean with Phil Jones and Tom Wigley from CRU in attendance. The second need was for maximizing the fear factor to force political action.

Early stories from the leaked emails identified the obvious illegal and unacceptable activities that do not require understanding of climate science. These related to the work of the CRU members who effectively controlled the chapters on atmospheric chemistry, paleoclimatic reconstruction of past climate conditions, the computer models, and the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

Their objective was to prove their hypothesis that human CO2 was causing global warming and subsequently climate change. Apart from the SPM, all of their work was concentrated in Working Group I (WGI) to produce the Physical Science Basis Report.

This Report is then accepted, without question, by Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation and Variability) and Working Group III (Mitigation of Climate Change) and becomes the basis of their research.

Working Group II is the Report that has the greatest number of works that are now being exposed as non peer-reviewed and in some instances unpublished. They assume warming is going to occur and the rate will increase. This means that all the studies are focused in a single direction and taken to extremes. Glaciers will melt rapidly. Sea level will rise quickly. Drought will increase in intensity.

This last argument is an example of how wrong these reports are. Increasing droughts is counterintuitive because with warming evaporation increases putting more moisture in the atmosphere and increasing the precipitation potential.

There are several problems with the articles cited, especially in the WGII Reports. First the IPCC pushed the peer review issue to extremes by claiming they only used such articles, then peer reviewing each other’s work. They used the issue to divert skeptics by telling them to get peer reviewed publications, knowing they could control it. When one article by-passed their guard and was published by Geophysical Research Letters, they got the editor fired.

Now we discover they used a multitude of non-reviewed articles often from very biased sources such as the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace as references. Second, they used these articles to apply political pressure, yet the entire process claims to be unbiased and apolitical. IPCC Chair Pachauri gave this as the reason for including the false Himalayan ice-melting reports. Pachauri is now in defense of his actions, but the extent of his involvement is so bad that even Greenpeace are calling for his dismissal ...

The leaks in the dam they built at CRU and the IPCC get bigger and bigger. Only a fraction of the dirty water has escaped but will continue to emerge. Meanwhile the cover-up has begun.

The University of Pennsylvania has a whitewash with an internal review committee. They also announce they are conveniently not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. They did not interview major players in the fiasco including Steve McIntyre who discovered Michael Mann’s hockey stick fraud.

In England the temporary director of the CRU says Jones will be completely vindicated and reinstated. The person appointed to do the English investigation has a history of total commitment to the global warming alarmists view. Some of the IPCC affiliates, such as Andrew Weaver are climbing out of the lake and running for the trees.

The mainstream media continues to ignore the issue, but the millions of eyes and minds on the Internet are exposing the cracks in the dam and the sewage that is emerging.

IPCC and CRU are the Same Corrupt Organization

February 8, 2010

Canada Free Press - Cost of the corruption of climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) is likely a trillion dollars already, and there is no measure of the lives lost because of unnecessary reactions like biofuels affecting food supplies.

Stories appear about the corruption at the IPCC and others about the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most people, including the media, don’t seem to realize the IPCC is the CRU. Some articles mention both but don’t make the connection. A recent article in the Globe and Mail is a good example. The article is a small shift because the Globe has consistently promoted human-caused warming and attacked skeptics. However, failure to make the connection allows people involved to develop defenses, withdraw from associations, or go into hiding.

Universities and governments are already whitewashing the behavior of prominent individuals like Phil Jones and Michael Mann. Nobody else involved with the scandal is facing even biased internal investigation. Many are not mentioned in the limited media reports on the scandal. People like Mike Hulme, Tom Wigley, Benjamin Santer, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa, Malcolm Hughes, Raymond Bradley, John Holdren, Jonathan Overpeck, Caspar Amman, Michael Oppenheimer, Tom Crowley, Gavin Schmidt, William Connolley, Tim Osborn, Thomas Karl, Andrew Weaver, Eric Steig, and all names on the CRU emails require investigation. They had to know what was going on, partly because they all used the same vehicles of attack and deception.

By investigating only two individuals the collective culpability of the CRU and the IPCC goes unchallenged. Investigation of two individuals underscores the false claim there are one or two “bad apples” but the overall science is unaffected. The IPCC received a Nobel Prize collectively; they must bear the blame collectively.

There are also those in government who acted in extremely questionable ways. Chief among these are members of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO), including John Mitchell. He was review editor of the IPCC and initially denied access to information then claimed it was erased. The UKMO later said the information existed but said it was protected information. The Telegraph newspaper said of this:

Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal that the Met Office’s stonewalling was part of a co-ordinated, legally questionable strategy by climate change academics linked with the IPCC to block access to outsiders. What was the role of government officials who selected their country’s representatives to prevent skeptics participating?

Such was apparently the case in Canada, the UK and likely the US. UK Science advisor John Beddington has already said failure to include skeptics was a mistake.

“I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.”

The problem is exacerbated when it is still an active policy of government. Work for the next IPCC Report is underway and there’s no apparent change in participants or procedures. CRU people were involved from the start and triggered the first problems ...