Barbara Hollingsworth: Who's who on climate fraud

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

In 1912, a respected paleontologist at the British Museum confirmed that bones found in a Piltdown quarry came from the “missing link” between apes and humans. Forty years later, the so-called Piltdown Man was proved to be a hoax. Thanks to purloined e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), global warming is turning out to be the 21st-century equivalent of Piltdown Man.

E-mails between a small group of highly influential climate scientists at the center of the worldwide panic over global warming exposed multiple discussions among them concerning their manipulation of data and using various evasive tactics to avoid releasing the facts behind their ginned-up numbers to the public via Freedom of Information Act requests.

Here’s a rogue’s gallery of five major perpetrators of what’s turning out to be the biggest scientific hoax in modern history:

Geoff Jenkins, chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s first scientific group and self-described “frontman explaining climate change.” Jenkins admitted in 1996 to a “cunning plan” to feed fake temperature information to Nick Nuttall, head of media for the United Nations Environment program. At the time, Jenkins predicted temperatures in London would hit 113 degrees Fahrenheit and the Thames River would rise three feet even though 1996 was, in fact, cooler than 1995.

Phil Jones, director of the CRU, controlled two key databases that are the primary sources underlying claims by the United Nations and others of a global scientific “consensus” that catastrophic consequences will result from man-made global warming unless trillions of dollars are spent now to prevent it.

Jones e-mailed instructions to colleagues to “hide the decline” in temperatures and to pressure editors of academic journals to blackball the work of “climate skeptics.”

After claiming that the original climate data had been destroyed in the 1980s, Jones was caught urging his CRU colleagues to “delete as appropriate” data requested under Britain’s freedom of information laws.

Michael Mann, director of Penn State University’s Earth System Science Center, is one of the lead authors of the U.N.’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change report. Mann was the originator of the “hockey stick” graph that supposedly proved that the Earth’s temperature was at the highest level in recorded history. However, it also appeared to eliminate both the Medieval Warm Period, in which surface temperatures were higher than they are today, and Europe’s “Little Ice Age.”

In 2003, Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre exposed the flawed methodology behind Mann’s hockey stick. The recent e-mail leak led another scientist to quip: “Dr. Mann is in transition from Penn State to State Pen. We can only hope he does a better job with license plates.”

Mann has been a committee chairman for the National Academy of Sciences and a member of multiple NAS panels and committees.

James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whose records were also cited as evidence, second only to the CRU data, of incontrovertible man-made global warming. McIntyre also caught Hansen engaging in the same sort of statistical manipulation in which past temperatures were lowered and recent ones “adjusted” to convey the false impression that the nonexistent warming trend was accelerating. After trying to block McIntyre’s IP address, NASA was forced to back down from its claim that 1998 was the hottest year in U.S. history.

Al Gore, Former Vice President Al Gore is the author of “An Inconvenient Truth,” star of the 2006 Oscar-winning movie of the same name and winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his tireless efforts to limit economic development in industrialized countries with a cap-and-trade scheme. Many experts agree that such a system would increase food and energy prices, while wasting trillions of dollars on alternative energy sources (in which Gore is heavily invested). Gore’s case rests on the now-discredited theory that carbon dioxide emissions (which are increasing) are heating up the Earth’s atmosphere, even though actual global temperatures have been declining for at least a decade.

These five, though far from being the only ones, are among the top perpetrators of the Great Global Warming Hoax. They should never be taken seriously again.

link

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

What's always humorous about this is that some people actually believe humans can cause climate change and humans can fix climate change. Get a grip. We really are not that significant. The earth's climate changed many times before we came along, We don't cause and we can't change it. We may as well pass laws and increase tazes in an attempt to rearrange the position of stars. BUT, they will say, it is chnaging at a faster rate now. Oh Really? We really have no way to track exactly how the climate changed thousands of years ago, rough estimates at best. Abd bow we see that the climate is not changing at the rate predicted a few years ago. It is just ludicrous to take such a tiny amount of accurate data (and now we cannot be sure the data is accurate) and preddict the direction over millenia and then pass laws profoundly affecting people's lives

Which scientist has predicted "cap and tax" will reverse global warming?

If it weren't so serious it would be funny/ This release of emails will lead to more disclosures abd will, at the very least, slow down the pasage of stupid laws, maybe long enough to expose the rest of the hoax. I really don't care if you wish to believe in fairy tales, it is certainly your right, but when you try to force your faith based beliefs on other people, that is where we need to draw the line. Hopefully, this recent disclosure will allow us to do that.

But it does give cluex into the politicians minds that want to control everything and try to convince you NEED them to.

[NickD 203]

Cap and trade is tantamount to shipping our polluting industries to Asian countries mostly caused to how stupid our EPA policies are resulting in financial collapse of our country. A preferred method would be to have an EPA that can solve these pollution problems with advanced technology, not to fine them out of the country.

We are still driving vehicles with a 10-15% efficiency, at terrible waste of energy that we seem to have to fight foreign wars to obtain plus producing a lot of pollution in the process. The existing internal combustion engine has not changed in the last 120 years, but does have a lot of garbage added to it so you no longer can repair it and it's purchased and maintenance price has increased drastically over the years only second to health care cost, another disaster in this country.

Not all of the carbon in hydrocarbon based fuels is emitted out of the exhaust pipe, a lot of it is left behind as the major cause of engine damage, it's a filthy fuel with only meager attempts to correct it. Has to be a better way regardless of whether it's causing global warming or not.

We do have problems that should be solved, but sure in the hell doesn't help to have government leaders that only know how to deal with problems with taxation. Or to put it in another way, we have a bunch of stupid a$$holes running this country. And that is not about to change with our two party system where the only candidates we can vote for are the best BSers. With them, it's all about winning, so much about democracy. And only this congress can change this, and that is also not about to happen without a major revolution that this country was once noted for.

[Danno 1,228]

If there is any justice, those people who knowingly misrepresented data should be charged and convicted ,,,,, people have been hurt and if this hoax had been pulled off, many many more would have been hurt.

I hope the "faithful" to Manmade Global warming don't assume reasonable people can not separate the, real environmental threat of pollution from this hoax.

Some seem to be hanging on to GW simply because they feel it was a vehical to "Go green".

[Peikko 1,575]

Man can and does change his environment. Sometimes making it better, but mostly making it worse, from the perspective of the rest of the living creatures that live with us on this planet. To assume humans are 'insignificant' in environmental terms is to have one's head firmly planted into the sand.

There is no 'hoax' on global warming. The met office will be publishing 150 years of raw data next week, have at it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Who is Barbara Hollingsworth? And more importantly, how much is Barbara Hollingsworth?

[Danno 1,228]

Man can and does change his environment. Sometimes making it better, but mostly making it worse, from the perspective of the rest of the living creatures that live with us on this planet. To assume humans are 'insignificant' in environmental terms is to have one's head firmly planted into the sand.

There is no 'hoax' on global warming. The met office will be publishing 150 years of raw data next week, have at it.

I think we are talking about "climate".

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Put up or shut up, you tools...

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members.Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies.Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression isincorrect.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Put up or shut up, you tools...

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

Geoff Jenkins, chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s first scientific group and self-described “frontman explaining climate change.” Jenkins admitted in 1996 to a “cunning plan” to feed fake temperature information to Nick Nuttall, head of media for the United Nations Environment program. At the time, Jenkins predicted temperatures in London would hit 113 degrees Fahrenheit and the Thames River would rise three feet even though 1996 was, in fact, cooler than 1995.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"Deprogramming the masses since 1547"

Mission Statement

For centuries, mankind knew all there was to know about the shape of the Earth. It was a flat planet, shaped roughly like a circle, with lots of pointy things hanging down from the underside. On the comparatively smooth topside, Europe sat in the middle of the circle, with the other continents scattered about the fringes, and parts of Africa hanging over the edge. The oceans lapped against the sides of the Earth, and in places ran over, creating currents that would pull over the edge ships that ventured too far out to sea. The space beyond the edge of the world was a dark realm inhabited by all sorts of unholy beasts. Fire and brimstone billowed up from the very depths of hell itself and curled 'round the cliffs whose infinite length jutted straight down to the darkest depths . . . .

Then, in the year of our Lord fourteen-hundred and ninety-two, it all changed. For decades a small band of self-proclaimed "enlightened" individuals had been spouting their heretical nonsense that the Earth was in fact round. Citing "proof" based on nothing more than assumptions, half-truths and blind guesses, they dazzled the populace with their " . . . undeniable mathematical and scientific evidence . . . that the world is shaped not like a pancake, but an orange!"

Rightly wishing to dispel notions regarding the alleged citrus-like shape of our planet, the Church was able to either silence or execute nearly all the fanatics. But a small handful remained, continuing to spread their blasphemous speeches and to promote their heretical ideals involving the very center of the universe. One of their number, who called himself Grigori Efimovich, would later be known to the rest of the world as Christopher Columbus. Using an elaborate setup involving hundreds of mirrors and a few burlap sacks, he was able to create an illusion so convincing that it was actually believed he had sailed around the entire planet and landed in the West Indies. As we now know, he did not. What Efimovich actually did was sail across the Atlantic Ocean to a previously undiscovered continent, North America, and even then only to a small island off the coast. It took him several years more even to "discover" his blunder and claim it as a " . . . new world". But the damage had already been done, and mankind entered into what we now call its "Dark Ages" . . . .

Enter the Flat Earth Society. For over five hundred years humanity has believed the "round Earth" teachings of Efimovich and his followers. But all hope is not lost. For through all that time, a small but diligent band of individuals have preserved the knowledge of our planet's true shape. And now, after centuries in the Dark Ages, we believe that mankind as a whole is once again ready to embrace the truth that has forever been the Flat Earth Society. Using whatever means are deemed necessary and relying heavily on a callous disregard for the lives and well-being of our members, we have slowly but steadily been spreading the news.

But why? Why do we say the Earth is flat, when the vast majority says otherwise? Because we know the truth.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskop...arthsociety.htm

Edited December 5, 2009 by Galt's gallstones

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[Danno 1,228]

Steve, your "flat earth" chant is kinda weak.

THe only reason people assumed the world was flat was because..... well, there was no evidence to prove other wise.

We are at the same place with Global warming ( or is it "climate change") the evidence is not conclusive to prove anything and much of this "evidence" or data is suspect.

Truth is.... if anyone is akin to the flat earth concept, it might be you, you are hanging onto a theory that seems to be further discredited by the week.

At some point in time you will have to let go of old theory and embrace where the science takes us.

You might start with the simple truth; The earth has COOLED in the last ten years, not grown warmer.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steve, your "flat earth" chant is kinda weak.

THe only reason people assumed the world was flat was because..... well, there was no evidence to prove other wise.

We are at the same place with Global warming ( or is it "climate change") the evidence is not conclusive to prove anything and much of this "evidence" or data is suspect.

Truth is.... if anyone is akin to the flat earth concept, it might be you, you are hanging onto a theory that seems to be further discredited by the week.

At some point in time you will have to let go of old theory and embrace where the science takes us.

You might start with the simple truth; The earth has COOLED in the last ten years, not grown warmer.

You've got some really compelling scientific arguments there, Danno. I'm just wondering how a guy like you could figure the science out while all these bodies of science who spend their lives studying climate couldn't? Have you thought about joining the American Meterological Society, or the American Geophysical Union? Surely these landmark bodies of science could use your keen eye for the truth. You could lead them out of the Dark Ages that we are currently under. What's stopping you? No science degree? Don't worry, I'm sure you could buy one off the internet. Ask Orly Taitz how to do that.