Thursday, November 14, 2013

The Ties That Bind...And Obfuscate

Let's begin today's posting with a clip from Anthony Watts's Watts Up With That:

Why and How the IPCC Demonized CO2 with Manufactured Information

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
Elaine Dewar spent several days with Maurice Strong at the UN and concluded in her book The Cloak of Green that, Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda. Strong conjectured about a small group of world leaders who decided the rich countries were the principle risk to the world. These countries refused to reduce their environmental impact. The leaders decided the only hope for the planet was for collapse of the industrialized nations and it was their responsibility to bring that about. Strong knew what to do. Create a false problem with false science and use bureaucrats to bypass politicians to close industry down and make developed countries pay.
Compare the industrialized nation to an internal combustion engine running on fossil fuel. You can stop the engine in two ways; cut off the fuel supply or plug the exhaust. Cutting off fuel supply is a political minefield. People quickly notice as all prices, especially food, increase. It’s easier to show the exhaust is causing irreparable environmental damage. This is why CO2 became the exclusive focus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Process and method were orchestrated to single out CO2 and show it was causing runaway global warming.
In the 1980s I warned Environment Canada employee Henry Hengeveld that convincing a politician of an idea is a problem. Henry’s career involved promoting CO2 as a problem. I explained the bigger problem comes if you convince them and the claim is proved wrong. You either admit your error or hide the truth. Environment Canada and member nations of the IPCC chose to hide or obfuscate the truth.
Continue reading
 Read the rest at the above link...but to get some idea beyond the posting, I've re-posted a link to a review of Elaine Dewar's book, Cloak Of Green. I'll have some comments following.

Cloak of Green Book Review


by Sue Beaulieu
On Wings August 1997

Page 1. Brazil, with the 8th largest economy in the world, applied to the World Bank  for a $500 million loan for its power sector to build dams. The dams would be built on the Xingu River which winds through Kayapo lands and which feeds the Amazon Basin. The Kayapo had not been consulted about this project which would flood over 25 million hectares of rainforest.

With an international debt of $120 billion, Brazil argued that it needed new, cheap hydro power. Environmentalists claimed the dams would destroy the entire Amazon rainforest. Enter: Paulinho Paiakan, a Brazilian Kayapo Indian who was used by the environmentalists to solicit sympathy and donations from thousands of naive people who want to save Mother Earth.

Paiakan was the guest speaker at several fundraisers throughout Canada where he made a plea for help to save his people and their rainforest. In 1988 Elaine Dewar set out to write an upbeat article for Saturday Night about how David Suzuki and groups like the World Wildlife Fund were helping the Kayapo Indians of Brazil defend the rainforest. Though billed at fundraisers as the "Guardians of the Rainforest," in reality, the Kayapo were living off the profits of gold mining and the sale of mahogany and making up to $50,000 per month.

Once Dewar discovered this fact, she spent the next seven years researching and gathering information for the Cloak of Green. (She later discovered that the gold mining process actually pollutes the river systems.)

From these beginnings, Ms. Dewar's investigative reporting led from the Amazon rainforest to the global backrooms of Brazil, Canada, Washington and Geneva. The murky winding trails of money, people, places, political activists and NGOs criss-cross again and again, leading to bizarre and unexpected connections among those who seemed unconnected.

Laundered money, hidden bank accounts, camouflaged ownerships and other complex interrelationships are unearthed and brought to light along the way. She traced the journey of millions of charitable and tax dollars as they moved from business interests to environment and development charities, to activists who shaped the political climate on three continents.

Her monumental research is well documented with over 35 pages of end notes as well as a bibliography, list of archival sources and a complete index. Every fact she discovers only leads to more questions. You will experience her dilemma as she ferrets out the truth from many sources. Little by little, the threads of the story are woven into a tapestry of global proportions and alarming implications.

It is best to take plenty of notes and make diagrams when reading this book. Dewar reveals how the global game of politics is played from the grassroots level right on up to the power elites. The line separating business, politics, environmental NGO's [non-governmental organizations] and charities is thin. In fact, she found that NGO's are really anything but, since governments use them to do business indirectly. Though they appear to the world as if they are independent, they actually take money and policy direction from governments.

The move is on to transfer the rain forests, deserts, jungles and private property to a consortium of foundations, international agencies and councils, all of which have a common agenda. The global economic plan is simple. Why not "debt-swap" wilderness lands which include all the natural resources therein?

The public is being persuaded to accept environmental protection based on a market model. Regulations will be replaced by laws permitting the trading of pollution debits and credits. These, in turn, can be globally traded in a system which has been nicknamed "eco-nomics."

Additionally, in April of this year [1997], the U.S. EPA administrator and the Canadian Prime Minister signed an agreement to control trans-boundary air emissions. The new eco-motto is: "Pollution Knows No Boundaries."

Recent generations have been socially engineered into accepting a global governance agenda which is wrapped in a `cloak of green'. This generation believes in global warming and all the other environmental disasters which have been promoted via massive propaganda.

Elaine Dewar asks, "How do you persuade democracies to give up sovereign national powers to govern themselves, "How do you make them hand over power to supranational institutions like the United Nations which they cannot control? You make it seem as if this will serve their best interests. You terrify them with the grave dangers and convince them their national governments cannot protect them."

The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) works closely with groups such as the World Resources Council, WWF, IUCN and the Sierra Club -- all of which are NGOs. These groups all promote their agenda by using environmental alarmist tactics. Further, there are key players that are involved in many organizations and act as debate shapers. They can represent the government in one cause and attack it on another. They stir up controversy, then provide solutions -- their solutions.

UNEP's global computer system, called Infoterra , permits direct computer information exchanges between governments and environmental NGOs. Electronic coverage of the Rio Summit and all the following Earth Summits have been broadcast through this system. WEB, a Canadian network of 1,400 green organizations, was started by Ontario Environmental Network with money received from Environment Canada. Similar U.S. networks are the PeaceNet and EcoNet which were organized by the Institute for Global Communications.

All in all there were (at the time of this book's release) 11 sub- systems connected worldwide web. Computer networking was instrumental in organizing people and materials for the 1992 Rio Summit.

Ted Turner founded the Better World Society and it focused on global issues. Barbara Pyle, environment editor of CNN and head of the TBS documentary unit, made films about Paiakan and helped raise money for him.

Though the BWS is a registered U.S. charity, it had politicians such as Gro Harlem Brundtland (prime minister of Norway and head of U.N. Commission on Environmental Development), Maurice Strong, Jimmy Carter, and many others on its Board. Television and the news media are very important tools. If people hear something often enough, they will believe it.

In Brazil, Roberto Marinho owned Globo TV and he was called "the true president of Brazil" for he held the power to promote (or discredit) any political group or candidate he chose.

World leaders can and do manipulate and control stock markets, commodities trading, computer systems, data bases and gold supplies. Cloak of Green is a comprehensive, fact-filled, information-packed book that illustrates how the powerful and influential green movement is shaping and being used to shape a one world government. This book tells it as it is.

Here are just a few of the questions which are raised in Cloak of Green:

Why would the Canadian government match every dollar of charitable funds raised for Brazil with $3 of taxpayer money?

Why would a U.S. based non-profit NGO funnel money through its Canadian counterpart which appeared to be a dormant account? How and why was this same non-profit U.S. group involved in Brazil nut commodities for profit?

How was the Body Shop, which makes large profits from selling environmentally sound cosmetic products, involved with this "non-profit" group?

Canada holds a powerful World Bank board position and could vote against the development loan which Brazil requested. However, Brazil stopped paying its debt to the Canadian Wheat Board when it became self-sufficient in wheat. Canada continued to buy coffee and oranges from Brazil. In fact, Brazil became one of Canada's competitors and suppliers. Why did Canada go deeper in debt subsidizing Brazilian agriculture, such as soybeans, for which there were fewer and fewer markets?

Why did Brazil have the audacity to ask CIDA (the Canadian International Development Agency) to fund its agricultural projects?

What would happen if Brazil could obtain minerals and other resources without all of the regulatory requirements which North American business was subject to?

What would happen to Canada's lumber and mining industries if the Amazon was open to full development?

Why were foreign NGOs and non-profit charities involved in Brazilian politics?

To discover the answers to these questions and many more, you must read this book.

Cloak of Green details networks of people, businesses and environmental groups. These networks are all connected to those who are globally influential and powerful.

For instance, let's trace the business and political connections to just one Canadian. Paul Desmarais is chairman of the Canadian Power Corporation. John Rae was the executive V.P. of Power Corporation and Paul Desmarais's right hand man. Bob Rae is John's brother and was the ex-Socialist premier of Ontario who appointed Maurice Strong to the chairmanship of Ontario Hydro (which is the largest government- owned utility in North America.) Paul Martin became the federal Finance Minister after rising to power through the ranks of the Power Corporation.

Jean Chretien is the current Prime Minister. His daughter, France, is married to Andre Desmarais, son of Paul Desmarais. Chretien's advisor, counselor and strategist for 30 years has been Mitchell Sharp. Sharp has been Vice¬Chairman of North America for David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission since 1981. Daniel Johnson is the present Liberal and Opposition leader in Quebec - - - and he rose through the ranks of Power Corporation.

Brian Mulroney is the ex- Conservative Prime Minister who is now a lawyer and lobbyist for Power Corporation which together with Ontario Hydro and Hydro Quebec has founded the Hong- Kong based Asia Power Corporation. The conservative party Mulroney and the liberal party via Chretien and the NDP/Socialists via Rae are all tightly connected to Paul Desmarais and Power Corporation. So are the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister's key aide.

Whenever the subject of power and politics is discussed, the Rockefeller name must be mentioned. The Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA) is controlled by the Rockefeller Family Fund. The EGA is an umbrella organization with 138 foundations which provide hundreds of millions of foundation dollars to environmental groups each year. Tax- free foundation money often doesn't show up on balance sheets because it's funneled through the parent environmental organization to a front group that carries out work on a local level.

The Rockefeller Foundation was largely responsible for creating the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) as well as the Natural Defense Fund (which in turn was responsible for pressuring the EPA into making the unnecessary ban on DDT).

The Earthwatch Institute played a leading role in the Earth Summit and was created with tax- free money from the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation also provided a $50 million grant to its Global Environmental Program, and has funded the World Resources Institute as well as other similar programs in order to implement and enforce international environmental treaties. It is obvious the Rockefeller family has played a major role in promoting and funding the local, national and global environmental agenda.

David Rockefeller is also the director of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) -- a shadow governmental group - - and, he is the founder of the Tri¬Lateral Commission, a globalist organization. His key associates are the Club of Rome and the Bilderbergers of Europe. Rockefeller was even a member of the Lucis Trust which is closely related to the Theosophical Society.

A man who counts Mr. Rockefeller one of his friends is Maurice Strong. Mr. Strong is a central figure in this book and in world politics. Maurice Strong is a Canadian multimillionaire and is currently the chairman of Ontario Hydro. Strong is an employee of the United Nations and an employee of trusts and projects for Rockefeller and Rothschild. (Mr. Rothchild sets the global gold standard.)

Strong is also director of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies . He was former deputy secretary general of the U.N., helped create the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and co-chairs the powerful World Economic Forum. At 25, he was VP of Dome Petroleum and by 31, he was president of the Power Corporation of Canada. He founded and was head of CIDA (The Canadian International Development Assistance Program) as well as Petro Canada.

With the support of the Canadian government, he has participated in or directed nearly every major environmental initiative that has come out of the U.N. for the past 20 years. He was secretary general and chief organizer of the first World Conference on the Environment (UNCED) in 1992, better known as the Rio Earth Summit.

This Summit gave birth to the Brundtland Report which in turn gave birth to the global green movement. Mr. Strong considers himself a new age mystic and is a member of the Baha'i World Faith, which proclaims the unity of all religions. His 63,000 acre Baca Grande Ranch is in the San Luis Valley on the edge of the Sangre de Cristo (Blood of Christ) mountains.

This New Age Mecca is referred to by insiders as "The Valley of the Refuge of World Truths" or the "Vatican City of the New World Order." Strong built a great temple to the sun god at his Baca Ranch and has plans to build a 300 foot pyramid in his futuristic complex of buildings. He has helped to finance a second Ark in preparation for the next deluge.

Many powerful and influential people visit Baca Grande including Rockefeller, Kissinger, McNamara, Trudeau, Moyers, the Dalai Lama, Shirley McLaine, John Denver and countless other dignitaries, politicians, businessmen, media moguls, actors, actresses and new age gurus.

Peter Caddy, founder and director of the Findhorn Community in cotland is a close friend of Strong's, as well as William Thompson who founded the Lindisfarne Association in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine. His Danish born wife is a self-styled visionary who sees the earth's population drastically shrinking in the next few years due to environmental contamination and degradation. Strong's deepest conviction is that a worldwide spiritual awakening is the only thing that can save the earth and that the only way to save the earth will be for industrial civilization to collapse. As UNCED secretary general, Maurice Strong has forcefully advocated a new economic order based on the re-distribution of the developed world's industries and wealth to the Third World.

Further, during the 1992 Earth Summit, he accused the U.S. of committing environmental aggression against the rest of the world. In short, he used the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environmental crisis.

The network of environmental groups such as the Washington Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation and the Environmental Policy Institute (which merged with Friends of the Earth) concentrated on tropical deforestation and they knew the World Bank had enormous influence on such developmental projects. These groups needed a graphic example of environmental problems that would be caused if the World Bank funded development in the rainforest.

These U.S. groups also discovered that they had more influence on the World Bank when the Brazilian groups which were affected by such development were vocal. U.S. and Brazilian political activists meshed in 1985 after the Polonoroeste development project was stopped. The green machine learned that pressure tactics worked even when they weren't directed at anything.

To demonstrate how this ploy works, Dewar eventually learned that there had never been dams planned for the Xingu River. The sites on the Xingu had been dropped from the World Bank's loan plan to Brazil before Paiakan came to raise funds in Toronto to protest them! You see, it is enough when political pressure via the World Bank can be brought to bear against rebellious governments.

Cloak of Green must be read by anyone interested in the environmental movement and world politics as they are played in the 1990's. Knowledge is power, and anyone who reads this book will gain a great deal of it.

Further Reading:

Larry Abram. The Greening. Lilburn, GA: UllumiNet Press, 1991.

Ron Arnold. Ecology Wars: Environmentalism As If People Mattered. Belevue, Washington: Free Enterprise (Merril Press), 1987.

Ronald Bailey. Ecoscam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse. New York: St. Martins Press, 1993.

Michael S. Coffman. Saviors of the Earth? Chicago: Northfield Publishing, 1994.

Martin W. Lewis. Green Delusions: A Environmentalist's Critique of Radical Environmentalism. Durham: Duke University Press, 1992.

Dixy Lee Ray. Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense? New York: Harper Collins (reprinted with permission by Regnery Gateway), 1993.

George Reisman. The Toxicity of Environmentalism. Laguna Hills, Calif.: The Jefferson School of Philosophy, Economics, and Psychology, 1990.

Jonathan Vankin. Conspiracies, Covenips, and Crimes: Political Manipulation and Control. Lilburn, GA: IllumiNet Press, 1996.
After reading this, my comments will be brief, but pointed.

The main raison de' etre of business is to make money.

All else is secondary to this reason.

Any time a business purports to doing otherwise, look for the blinders that are being set up around you.

The truth of the "global warming" scare is to separate you from your money, but in a way that makes you feel like you're helping the future; but what future are you leaving to your children if they have to pay for oxygen?

Destroying the rainforest will require that machines smash oxygen from the atmosphere - something our rainforests are doing without cost.

Whenever PROFIT enters into a working system, that system BREAKS.

That's it from me.

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

How Long Can The Falsehood of "Global Warming / Climate Change" Continue?

It's amazing to me how long a lie can continue.

"Global Warming/Climate Change" has turned out to be naught but a money making scheme, a huge Ponzi upon the American people, if not the world at large. Any of the recent postings at GWPF, Watts Up With That, Bishop Hill and other sites will tell that story; however, here's a story that hasn't been much shared:

Snowstorm inflicts major damage on S.D.'s cattle industry

(CBS News) It was a heavy snowstorm that clobbered South Dakota last week -- up to four feet near Deadwood. That snow had a devastating effect on cattle ranches with the state's major industry has taken a massive hit.

The dead cattle littering the South Dakota prairie are victims of last week's freak fall blizzard. Tens of thousands were killed.

These cattle buried in the snowbanks are victims of a freak snowstorm in South Dakota.
/ CBS News

"A lot of guys were losing everything -- cows, calves, you name it," said rancher Monty Williams.

Many of the dead animals were found huddled in groups. Others were burried in snowbanks along a 100-mile swath of the storm's path. It's catastrophic for ranchers, said South Dakota Farmers Union director Karla Hofhenke.

'"By losing this year's calf crop, that's this year's paycheck for them. By losing the cows themselves, they've lost paychecks for years to come," she said.

The early autumn blizzard dumped up to four feet of snow in two days. It hit before the cattle had developed thick winter coats, and many may have died of hypothermia.

This disaster comes as many South Dakota ranchers were still recovering from last year's severe drought. Things had been looking up, said livestock owner Scott Vance.

"Finally we had the people that had the cattle, had the market, they had the weights," he said. "The dollars were there, they were going to start to retain and rebuild, and that's just all gone."

Cattle owner Justin Tupper said the timing couldn't be worse. "The ranching industry in general brings in most of the business to these towns. This is when we should be selling calves off the cows and our busiest time."

It could also be tough for consumers. The livestock loss could mean higher beef prices.


Of course, there's no explanation as to how the "alarmists" got it all wrong.

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Professor Murry Salby vs. University of Macquarie

Scientist Fired by University for Exposing Truth on Climate Fraud

Written by John O'Sullivan, PSI.
Prof Murry SalbyProf Murry SalbyHighly qualified and well-respected professor, academic teacher and climate scientist, Murry Salby has been performing important and groundbreaking research exposing myths about the so-called "settled science" around greenhouse gases and their impact on climate. Uniquely, his work is based solely on empirical evidence rather the dubious ideological whims of post-normal climate 'science'. Other leading researchers have validated his findings and, as such, Salby is now very much a thorn in the side of promoters of man-made global warming alarmism.

For simply pursuing the truth, as any good scientist should do, Salby has been fired by his employer, the University of Macquarie, Australia.
This is despite the fact Macquarie University had originally appointed Salby as their Chairman of Climate Science. He is a scientist of such repute that he has held visiting professorships at Paris, Stockholm, Jerusalem, and Kyoto, and he’s worked at the Bureau of Meterology in Australia.
Principia Scientific International (PSI) is so horrified and angered by the retaliation of pro-green anti-scientist administrators at Macquairie University that we have secured a generous donation from our publisher, Stairway Press, to sponsor Professor Salby's visit, if he agrees, to London in October to make a high profile public presentation of this attack on science.
As such, PSI and other supporters of traditional scientific methods will ensure this outrageous attack on an honorable researcher will be exposed at a key British climate science gathering.
Below is Professor Salby's outline of the backstory of his victimization proving that essential academic freedoms in Australia are being supplanted by unprincipled self-serving promoters of Big Green.
 By Murry Salby:

Thanks for your interest in the research presented during my recent lecture tour in Europe. from several make it clear that Macquarie University is comfortable with openly disclosing the state of affairs, if not distorting them to its convenience. So be it. Macquarie’s liberal disclosure makes continued reticence unfeasible. In response to queries is the following, a matter of record:
1. In 2008, I was recruited from the US by “Macquarie University”, with appointment as Professor, under a national employment contract with regulatory oversight, and with written agreement that Macquarie would provide specified resources to enable me to rebuild my research program in Australia. Included was technical support to convert several hundred thousand lines of computer code, comprising numerical models and analyses (the tools of my research), to enable those computer programs to operate in Australia.
2. With those contractual arrangements, I relocated to Australia. Upon attempting to rebuild my research program, Macquarie advised that the resources it had agreed to provide were unavailable. I was given an excuse for why. Half a year later, I was given another excuse. Then another. Requests to release the committed resources were ignored.
3. Three years passed before Macquarie produced even the first major component of the resources it had agreed to provide. After five years of cat-and-mouse, Macquarie has continued to withhold the resources that it had committed. As a result, my computer models and analyses remain inoperative.
4. A bright student from Russia came to Macquarie to work with me. Macquarie required her to abandon her PhD scholarship in Russia. Her PhD research, approved by Macquarie, relied upon the same computer models and analyses, which Macquarie agreed to have converted but did not.
5. To remedy the situation, I petitioned Macquarie through several avenues provided in my contract. Like other contractual provisions, those requests were ignored. The provisions then required the discrepancy to be forwarded to the Australian employment tribunal, the government body with regulatory oversight.
The tribunal then informed me that Macquarie had not even registered my contract. Regulatory oversight, a statutory protection that Macquarie advised would govern my appointment, was thereby circumvented. Macquarie’s failure to register rendered my contract under the national employment system null and void.
6. During the protracted delay of resources, I eventually undertook the production of a new book – all I could do without the committed resources to rebuild my research program. The endeavor compelled me to gain a better understanding of greenhouse gases and how they evolve. Preliminary findings from this study are familiar to many. Refer to the vodcast of July 24, 2012.
Insight from this research contradicts many of the reckless claims surrounding greenhouse gases. More than a few originate from staff at Macquarie, who benefits from such claims.
7. The preliminary findings seeded a comprehensive study of greenhouse gases. Despite adverse circumstances, the wider study was recently completed. It indicates:
(i) Modern changes of atmospheric CO2 and methane are (contrary to popular belief) not unprecedented.
(ii) The same physical law that governs ancient changes of atmospheric CO2 and methane also governs modern changes.
These new findings are entirely consistent with the preliminary findings, which evaluated the increase of 20th century CO2 from changes in native emission.
8. Under the resources Macquarie had agreed to provide, arrangements were made to present this new research at a scientific conference and in a lecture series at research centers in Europe.
9. Forms for research travel that were lodged with Macquarie included a description of the findings. Presentation of our research was then blocked by Macquarie. The obstruction was imposed after arrangements had been made at several venues (arranged then to conform to other restrictions imposed by Macquarie). Macquarie’s intervention would have silenced the release of our research.
10. Following the obstruction of research communication, as well as my earlier efforts to obtain compliance with my contract, Macquarie modified my professional duties. My role was then reduced to that of a student teaching assistant: Marking student papers for other staff – junior staff. I objected, pursuant to my appointment and provisions of my contract.
11. In February 2013, Macquarie then accused me of “misconduct”, cancelling my salary. It blocked access to my office, computer resources, even to personal equipment I had transferred from the US.
My Russian student was prohibited from speaking with me. She was isolated – left without competent supervision and the resources necessary to complete her PhD investigation, research that Macquarie approved when it lured her from Russia.
12. Obligations to present our new research on greenhouse gases (previously arranged), had to be fulfilled at personal expense.
13. In April, The Australian (the national newspaper), published an article which grounded reckless claims by the so-called Australian Climate Commission:
To promote the Climate Commission’s newest report is the latest sobering claim:
one in two chance that by 2100 there’ll be no human beings left on this planet”
Two of the six-member Australian Climate Commission are Macquarie staff. Included is its Chief Commissioner.
14. While I was in Europe presenting our new research on greenhouse gases, Macquarie undertook its misconduct proceedings – with me in absentia. Macquarie was well informed of the circumstances. It was more than informed.
15. Upon arriving at Paris airport for my return to Australia, I was advised that my return ticket (among the resources Macquarie agreed to provide) had been cancelled. The latest chapter in a pattern, this action left me stranded in Europe, with no arrangements for lodging or return travel. The ticket that had been cancelled was non-refundable.
16. The action ensured my absence during Macquarie’s misconduct proceedings.
17. When I eventually returned to Australia, I lodged a complaint with the Australian employment tribunal, under statutes that prohibit retaliatory conduct.
18. In May 2013, while the matter was pending before the employment tribunal, Macquarie terminated my appointment.
19. Like the Australian Climate Commission, Macquarie is a publically-funded enterprise. It holds a responsibility to act in the interests of the public.
20. The recent events come with curious timing, disrupting publication of our research on greenhouse gases. With correspondence, files, and computer equipment confiscated, that research will now have to be pursued by Macquarie University’s “Climate Experts”.
Murry Salby

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Point (On The Top Of His Head) - Counterpoint

 First, from the whiner himself, Michael Mann (thanks to Anthony Watts of WUWT for both pieces):

The descent of Mann’s legal standing

Story submitted by Rob Ricket
Mann plays the victim in article from “The Scientist”
Opinion: Life as a Target
Attacks on my work aimed at undermining climate change science have turned me into a public figure. I have come to embrace that role.
By Michael E. Mann| March 27, 2013
As a climate scientist, I have seen my integrity perniciously attacked. Politicians have demanded I be fired from my job because of my work demonstrating the reality and threat of human-caused climate change. I’ve been subjected to congressional investigations by congressman in the pay of the fossil fuel industry and was the target of what The Washington Post referred to as a “witch hunt” by Virginia’s reactionary Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. I have even received a number of anonymous death threats.
My plight is dramatic, but unfortunately, it is not unique; climate scientists are regularly the subject of such attacks

This cynicism is part of a destructive public-relations campaign being waged by fossil fuel companies, front groups, and individuals aligned with them in an effort to discredit the science linking the burning of fossil fuels with potentially dangerous climate change.
My work first appeared on the world stage in the late 1990s with the publication of a series of articles estimating past temperature trends. Using information gathered from records in nature, like tree rings, corals, and ice cores, my two coauthors and I had pieced together variations in the Earth’s temperature over the past 1,000 years. What we found was that the recent warming, which coincides with the burning of fossil fuels during the Industrial Revolution, is an unprecedented aberration in this period of documented temperature changes, and recent work published in the journal Science suggests that the recent warming trend has no counterpart for at least the past 11,000 years, and likely longer. In a graph featured in our manuscript, the last century sticks out like the blade of an upturned hockey stick.
This header from Dr. Mann has some important legal value:
Attacks on my work aimed at undermining climate change science have turned me into a public figure. I have come to embrace that role.
A public figure has a higher burden of proof in defamation cases, such as the one where Dr. Mann is suing Dr. Tim Ball and Mark Steyn at The National Review. For example:
According to the public figure doctrine, prominent public persons must prove actual malice on the part of the news media in order to prevail in a libel lawsuit. Actual malice is the knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of whether a statement is true or false. The public figure doctrine makes it possible for publishers to provide information on public issues to the debating public, undeterred by the threat of liability.
Further, Dr. Mann is going to have to prove that the statements by Tim Ball and NRO weren’t parody or satire:
Whether parodies should be potentially actionable as defamation depends on whether the statement is deemed factual and thus potentially actionable, or is a matter of protected opinion and not actionable.
Although plagued by confusion and lack of consensus, under the prevailing trends of constitutional law and/or state substantive defamation law principles, four core bases have emerged for classifying a statement as protected opinion:
(a) it did “not contain a provably false factual connotation;”
(b) it “cannot ‘reasonably [be] interpreted as stating actual facts;’”
(c) it consists merely of “rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet,” or “imaginative expression;”
(d) it does not state or imply undisclosed, unassumed, or unknown defamatory facts.
I think with his public figure admission, combined with the recognized first amendment right to satire and parody of public figures,  he just took his two legal cases out back and shot them dead.
Get the shovel - we got some stank out here.

Counterpoint by the brilliant Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley:

Opinion: Life as a Target

English: Lord Monckton in Washington, D.C.Monckton in Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Attacks on my work that are aimed at undermining true climate change science have turned me into a public figure. I am not vain enough to embrace that role.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley (with no apologies to Michael E. Mann)
As a climate researcher, I have seen my integrity perniciously attacked. Politicians have demanded I be tried for “high crimes against humanity”, for which the penalty is death, because of my work demonstrating the reality and threat of exaggerations about human-caused climate change.
I’ve been subjected to congressional investigations by congressman in the pay of the environmental lobby and was the target of a scientifically-illiterate eight-month “witch hunt” by a Minnesota Trotskyite. I have even received a number of anonymous death threats. My plight is dramatic, but unfortunately, it is not unique; climate skeptics are regularly the subject of such attacks.
The cynicism of my attackers is part of a destructive public-relations campaign being waged by banks, “renewable”-energy companies, insurance giants, front groups, and individuals aligned with them in an effort vastly to profit by vastly exaggerating the science in making suggestions that the burning of fossil fuels may cause potentially dangerous climate change.
My work first appeared on the world stage in the mid-2000s with the publication of a series of articles in the London Sunday Telegraph indicating inter alia that estimating past temperature trends using information gathered from tree rings to piece together variations in the Earth’s temperature over the past 1,000 years had been proven unreliable. What I found was that the recent small warming, which coincides with the fastest growth in solar activity in 11,400 years, is a much-precedented event in this period of reconstructed temperature changes. 

Though recent work published in the journal Science suggests that the recent warming trend has no counterpart for at least the past 11,000 years, and perhaps longer, the central England temperature record, which has proven a less inaccurate proxy for pre-thermometer temperatures than dubious tree-rings dubiously processed on dubious computers by dubious zitty teenagers paid by dubious rent-seekers like Michael E. Mann, confirms historical evidence that at the end of the Maunder Minimum temperatures rose at a rate of 4 Celsius/century for 40 years. Nothing like that has been seen since: the 20th century saw just 0.7 CÂș of warming, and the 21st century shows none at all. In a graph showing the linear trend for the last 23 years, the trend line looks like a billiard cue.
Since the Doha climate conference of 2012, at which I inadvertently represented Burma, the graph – now known as the billiard-cue graph – has become an icon in the climate-change debate, providing potent, graphic evidence of the recent total absence of human-caused climate change. As a result, governments, banks, renewable-energy hucksters, academics, journalists and those who do their bidding saw the need to discredit it in any way they could, and I have found myself at the receiving end of attacks and threats of investigations, as I describe in my forthcoming book Climate of Freedom. In 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) praised my work publicly; and, jointly with Congressman John Linder, I have been awarded the Meese-Noble Award for Freedom for my work on climate change.
On three occasions, Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) invited me to testify before the Energy & Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. On the third such occasion, the Democrats – for the first time in the history of Congress – refused the Republicans their free choice of witness because they wanted to protect their own witness, Al Gore, from the public humiliation to which my testimony would inevitably and deservedly have subjected him. I have also testified before the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Climate Change Committee. Inhofe and Barton are just two of the growing number of members of Congress who have seen through the climate scam.
More recently, Vaclav Klaus, as President of the Czech Republic, cited me twice in a speech on climate change in Washington DC, and subsequently accepted my invitation to deliver the annual Magistral Lecture at the World Federation of Scientists’ annual seminar on planetary emergencies.
The Chinese Ambassador to Italy forwarded my seminal, published paper on Clouds and Climate Sensitivity to Peking after his Scientific Counsellor, on hearing me present it, had commented: “This changes everything. It is clear there is no significant manmade influence on the climate.”
I, too, can name-drop sanctimoniously, just like Michael E. Mann.
Meanwhile, I’ve also been subject to a constant onslaught of character attacks and smears on websites, in op-eds, by a politicized and now-discredited clerk in the House of Lords acting without the authority of the House, in Michael E. Mann’s Climategate emails, and on left-leaning news outlets, usually by front groups or individuals tied to global-warming profiteers of the traffic-light tendency (the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds): groups like Greenpeace, Deutsche Bank, the Environmental Defense Fund, Munich Re, and the World Wide Fund for Nature.
As the website WattsUpWithThat has frequently pointed out, climate researchers are in a street fight with those who seek to discredit the data that now comprehensively disprove the once-accepted scientific “evidence” simply because it is inconvenient for many who are profiting from attacking fossil fuel use.
Being the focus of such attacks has a lead lining: I’ve become an accidental public figure in the debate over human-caused climate change. Reluctant at first, I remain reluctant embrace this role, but nevertheless I choose to use my position in the public eye to inform the discourse surrounding the issue of climate change.
Despite continued albeit diminishing skepticism in official quarters, in reality the evidence against dangerous human-caused climate change is now very strong. By digging up and burning fossil fuels, humans are releasing carbon that had been buried in the Earth into the atmosphere, helping to stave off the mass extinctions that would follow from the next – and long overdue – Ice Age. And storms like extra-tropical system Sandy and hurricane Irene, and the oft-precedented heat, drought, and wild-fires of last summer cannot in logic, reason, or science be attributed to “global warming” that has become conspicuous chiefly by its near-total absence over the past two decades and perhaps more. In a deterministic climate object operating on a rational world, that which has not happened cannot have caused that which has.
If we continue down this path of lavishly-funded nonsense, we will be leaving our children and grandchildren a different planet—one with more extreme Socialism, more pronounced and widespread scientific illiteracy, worse episodes of cant even than those of Michael E. Mann (if that were possible), and greater competition for diminishing taxpayer subsidies. It will be worse than we ever thought.
Greater competition for diminishing taxpayer subsidies, even at a time when global population growth is declining, in turn, is a recipe for a national security nightmare. The worst thing we can do is bury our heads in the Cypriot sand and pretend that national bankruptcy doesn’t exist.
It is imperative that we take no action now to squander trillions enriching charlatans like Michael E. Mann. It would be one or two orders of magnitude less cost-effective to spend a single red cent today than to let global warming happen, enjoy the sunshine, go surfing, and pay the minuscule cost of adapting to its consequences the day after tomorrow.
Global warming? As we shivering Scots lairds say as we carry glasses well filled with single malt whisky to our aged retainers as they gallantly shovel feet of unseasonal snow off our three-mile driveways, “Bring it on!”.
Christopher W. Monckton of Brenchley is a Distinguished Expert Reviewer for the IPCC’s forthcoming Undistinguished Fifth Assessment Report. Last year he was the Distinguished Nerenberg Lecturer in Mathematics at the Distinguished University of Western Ontario, where he discussed the mathematics of Doric architercture, probabilistic combinatorics, logic, climate sensitivity, feedback amplification, and climate economics in a Distinguished fashion. He directs Distinguished Monckton Enterprises Limited. He is the Distinguished author of numerous Distinguished reviewed papers in the Distinguished learned literature, and of the Distinguished forthcoming book “Climate of Freedom”. He is Distinguished for his notorious self-effacement, modesty, and humility – which is more than can be said for the Undistinguished Michael E. Mann.
It's not even a fair comparison - Michael Mann vs. Chris Monckton is like that Tyson vs. Holmes fight way back when Mike was an utter force of destruction in the boxing ring. When he first hit Larry, and Holmes jumped like a little boy - that's what it would be like if Mann debated Monckton face-to-face.

That would be about the greatest thing I could see in this day and age.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Monckton Slaps Doha

Ukip's Lord Monckton thrown out of Doha climate talks

Party's former deputy leader impersonates Burmese delegate and tells conference 'there's no global warming'
Doha conference ejects Ukip's Lord Monckton
The former deputy leader of Ukip, Lord Monckton, has been ejected from the Doha climate change talks and permanently banned after impersonating a delegate from Burma on the conference floor.
At one of the sessions, Monckton assumed the seat for Burma in place of the real delegate, and addressed the hall from his microphone. He spoke for nearly a minute, before being escorted out.
He was ejected from the conference centre, had his badge revoked, and is thought to have left the country. The UN later confirmed he had been permanently barred from future rounds of the talks. Monckton did not respond to requests for comment by the Guardian.
Monckton told the conference: "In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming at all. If we were to take action, the cost of that would be many times greater than the cost of taking adaptation measures later. So my recommendation is that we should initiate a review of the science to make sure we are all on the right track."
He was booed and heckled by other delegates. Although Monckton is not ethnically Burmese, many small developing countries have advisers from other countries, so his appearance in the hall dressed in a business suit would not have raised suspicions.
Earlier, Monckton had been seen dressed in a traditional Arab attire while distributing leaflets on his climate sceptic views.
Monckton, who is the third viscount of Brenchley and does not sit in the House of Lords, is a well-known climate sceptic. He frequently gives lectures alleging that the scientific consensus is wrong. He worked for Margaret Thatcher's Number 10 policy unit in the 1980s but joined Ukip in 2009 and became its joint deputy leader in June 2010. He relinquished his formal role in the party in the summer.
The Qatari president of the conference, who was chairing the session, realised shortly after Monckton began speaking, at the informal stock-taking plenary intended to assess progress on the talks, that he was a phoney and stopped him.
It is not unusual for people to be ejected from UN climate change meetings – some activists were made to leave earlier at this COP – for being disruptive or pulling stunts. However, impersonating a delegate is far more serious.
The Burmese delegation was not available for comment.
Nick Griffin, the BNP leader and MEP for the north west region is also at the conference. He said: "I am one of the few climate change sceptics, although I prefer realists. I'm here to keep an eye out to see if they have any crazy plans. Fortunately, their ambition is failing, so there are no crazy plans."
On Thursday, two activists were deported from Qatar after calling for more leadership on tackling climate change from the Gulf state, their campaign group said.
Libyan Raied Gheblawi, 22, and Algerian Mohamed Anis Amirouche, 19, held up a banner in the conference hall's central meeting point reading "Qatar, why host not lead?"
"Both were stripped of their badges and asked to leave the hall by security guards. They were told to return to their hotels and be at the airport ... ," said a spokesman for IndyAct, a regional advocacy group on climate change policy of which both deportees are members.
What is the truth of the matter?

CAGW is as real as the Great Pumpkin. You losers got Moncked!

Read the real story at Watts Up With That.

Monday, November 5, 2012

ClimateGate - Presented as a searchable PDF w/ URLs

I've read this already as a web page...but it just gets better with each reading.

The Lavoisier Group is now hosting the work of John P. Costella and his colleagues - go to and download that sucker!

This looks and reads great on a handheld device!

Monday, April 30, 2012

ClimateGate In Less Than Sixteen Minutes

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Not sure why the embed isn't working - please click this link.

It just doesn't get any better or clearer than this. I watched it twice, and I'm going to watch it once more, with feeling.

A well-deserved h/t to Bishop Hill.