Global Warming: What is it all about?

Click the image to be taken to Dr. Richard Lindzen's Global Warming power-point presentation, given at Rockhurst University, 2/11/2009 .

<-- Nopenhagen: Fata Morgana fades in Truth's Brilliant Light

 

Nopenhagen: Fata Morgana fades in Truth's Brilliant Light

Copenhagen talks in chaos after leak of 'Danish Text'
indicates intent to take gross advantage of developing countries...

Fata Morgana is a shimmering mirage, a term used by C.F.W. Walther in his fourth lecture on Communism and Socialism to describe the aspirations of these social/political/economic ideologies. After setting forth the Classic rebuttal to Communism and Socialism, showing that it is entirely unreasonable on the basis of Natural Law, and further exposing the slander committed by Socialists against the Scriptures, he states:

Their aim is a Fata Morgana, i.e. a brilliant airy appearance, like a fairy castle. The pilgrim makes one more effort to reach this castle. He finally reaches the place where the bewitching atmospheric appearance was seen. And behold, it is gone, and the deceived wanderer is now surrounded with a darkness and trouble all the more dreary.

That the aim of Communism and Socialism is nothing but a shimmering mirage follows from the fundamental fact that these ideologies are contrary to human nature. One man is not equal in capability to another, so enforced equality of outcome is a manifest crime against his nature. One man does not find the same measure of happiness as another in the same external advantages, so the aim of realizing equal happiness by an external equalization fails at the start. Mankind is naturally gregarious, but he is not naturally cooperative; on the contrary, due to innate selfishness, he is naturally competitive. Experience shows that these factors always result in the failure of Communism and Socialism.

Indeed, that the aims of Communism and Socialism are but a shimmering mirage is well known to those among the ruling class, the shimmering allure of sharing in the wealth of the rich and of reducing them to modest station serving to exploit envy and sloth among the servile classes – natural weaknesses of human character that they are – and to fool them into giving up their property, and with it, all incentive to use God-given faculty for their own advantage and that of their fellow man. In my November 27 post, EU President: 2009 to be First Year of Global Governance, I developed this point by emphasizing the Depravity of Man and the Scandal of Enforced Fraternity, and concluded that,

Marxism, in the end, will never lead to a classless society. The upper classes – the ruling class – will never allow it, will never divest themselves of advantage. Rather, as if dangling the carrot of social equity before asses, the ruling class serves their own fantasy of a Utopian Society in order to secure their own advantage, by using their power to regulate the middle class out of existence while otherwise duping the servile classes into relinquishing the only means they have of working themselves into their own relative positions of advantage: the free use of their faculties and ownership of their property. In a Utopian Society, the upper class still needs minions to provide labor -- to grow food, to sweep streets, to weed the flower gardens, and to polish golden toilets. This is a truism: there will never be fewer than two classes of people in any society.

"Climate Change" and the Copenhagen Treaty: Fraud in the Works
How interesting then that today, in Copenhagen, developing nations were exposed to the true motives of Global Socialists – not at all in the interest of equalization, but of domination, using the promise of a big pot of gold to sucker them into agreement. The so-called 'Danish Text' of the Copenhagen Treaty was leaked today, the contents of which infuriated representatives of developing countries. An article published today in U.K.'s The Guardian, entitled Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish Text' leak, details these revelations and their political fallout:

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:



• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;
  
• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";
• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;
• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

Here's more from a CNN correspondent in Denmark:

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak


The aim of Copenhagen has nothing whatsoever to do with mitigating supposed “climate change,” the Guardian article goes on to point out, as the regulation of carbon output comes nowhere near the 40% reduction that “science” supposedly says is needed. The aim of Copenhagen is one thing alone: to set up a Global Socialist government.

As pointed out in my series of posts on this subject beginning in October – Natural Law, Moral Imperative, and Public Policy: Copenhagen Looms Near, An “Inconvenient Truth:” Climate Change and Scientific Fraud, and EU President: 2009 to be First Year of Global Governance – “Climate Change” hysteria is a Scientific Fraud. Actual data entirely contradicts the fantastical prognostications and ideological fabrications of climatologists' “computer models.” The science is detailed in the previous posts just mentioned. Moreover, the scientists themselves have been caught in the act of fraud – conspiring to prevent fellow scientists from publishing contradictory findings in peer reviewed scientific journals, manipulating data to match their theories, permanently disposing of raw data, and illegally interfering with the release of information requested under the Freedom of Information Act. This, too, has been detailed in the previous posts just mentioned. That popular junk-science regarding impending global climate disaster is fraudulent, is underscored by commentary released today by renowned Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane forecasting specialist, Dr. William Gray, Professor Emeritus at Colorado State University. Writing on ClimateDepot, he states:

Had I not devoted my entire career of over half-a-century to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events I would have likely been concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global climate degradation.

There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO_2 ) induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.

Rising levels of CO_2 are not near the threat these alarmists have portrayed them to be... The global climate models predicting large amounts of global warming for a doubling of CO_2 are badly flawed. They should never have been used to establish government climate policy.

The last century's global warming of about 1 degree F is not a consequence of human activities. This warming is primarily the result of a multi-century change in the globe's deep ocean circulation. These ocean current changes have lead to a small and gradual increase in the globe's temperature. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age and into a generally warmer climate state. This is akin to the warmer global climate of the Medieval Period. We can do nothing but adapt to such long period natural temperature changes.

The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years. This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publicly funded climate research groups of the US and of foreign governments were ever made public...

As if in coordination Dr. Gray's letter, today, 140 climatologists signed an open letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, stating in part:

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:



1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do.

The atmosphere has indeed bewitched the masses – it has almost fooled them into giving up their liberty, thinking that by voluntary economic sanction and shared worldwide misery the masses can save the world and make it a better place. What the masses have instead discovered is the depravity of man. There is no scientific basis for "anthropogenic climate change." The hypotheses of CO2 induced "Greenhouse Effect" causing global warming have been falsified by OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE, namely, the recent research of Lindzen and Choi. Claims of dramatic temperature increases have been fabricated by ideological zealots posing as scientists. The political gathering in Copenhagen has been deprived of all basis in scientific fact. Yet it continues. It continues solely to exploit insecurities of man in order to deprive him of his liberty, property and capital, and to globally deprive him of his access to representational governing authority.

Global Warming: What is it all about? -->

<-- EU President: 2009 to be First Year of Global Governance

 

EU President: 2009 to be First Year of Global Governance

On November 19, 2009, European Union president Herman Van Rompuy stated the following in his inaugural speech:

We're living through exceptionally difficult times: the financial crisis and its dramatic impact on employment and budgets, the climate crisis which threatens our very survival, a period of anxiety, uncertainty, and lack of confidence. Yet these problems can be overcome by a joint effort between our countries. 2009 is also the first year of Global Governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis, the climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.

Repeating from the conclusion of Wednesdays bog entry, An “Inconvenient Truth:” Climate Change and Scientific Fraud,

I close by quoting again from last month's review of Lord Monckton's presentation:


Lack of fidelity to truth is necessarily followed by fundamental immorality – which reasonably follows given that questions are asked, and answers are sought, for the sake of guidance in our thoughts and deeds. False foundation for thinking and acting naturally results in wrong thinking and acting. Governments and large organizations cannot act ethically by deliberately mis-handling the truth – immorality on a grand scale is the tragic result.

Heralded by its organizers as a significant step toward Global Governance, Copenhagen was to be the beginning of a legally-binding realignment of world powers. A realignment founded on falsehood and deceit on a grand scale, it would have created a new global governing body, overtly requiring that members hand over their sovereignty as independent nations, for the purpose of transferring capital between these member nations based on carbon usage, subject to international enforcement. That's


1. a new global government
2. with enforcement powers (a military, or access to internal economic controls for punitive purposes, perhaps), that
3. manages the flow of capital between member nations on the basis of factors directly related to a nation's economic success (production/transportation of goods and services).

Manages the flow of capital between member nations on the basis of factors directly related to a nation's economic success. Not only is this merely "redistribution of wealth," it is redistribution that penalizes productive nations on the basis of measures of their productivity, that confiscates the financial proceeds of their success and gives it to the demonstrably unproductive. It is a scheme for enforcing financial equity of outcome on a global scale, and as such, it is strident Marxism.

Marxism: Recipe for the whole of society
Marxism isn't just another political ideology. It is (1) a political ideology, (2) an economic ideology, and (3) a social ideology, flawed at the foundation with a wrong view of human nature. Relying on the notion that mankind is basically good, and is therefore naturally cooperative, Marxism is an ideology which offers a solution for the totality of human action and interaction which will bring about man's supposedly natural inclinations across society. Yet, the foundations, and therefore the conclusions, of Marxism are false. While mankind is naturally gregarious, he is not basically good, but basically evil, and is not naturally cooperative, but naturally competitive.

Scripture Teaches the Depravity of Man, and his need for a Saviour on this basis
The Bible, of course, teaches the depravity of mankind in his fallen state -- the natural, or unregenerate, man, being destitute of merit before a perfectly Just and Righteous God, is incapable of pleasing Him or of atoning for his own sin. Mankind is thus estranged from God, and by definition, is in open rebellion against God. Being perfectly Just, God demands that this rebellion be punished -- dooming unregenerate man to an eternity under God's wrath. This is why mankind needs a Saviour: to do for man what man cannot do for himself -- live perfectly under God's Law (perfect righteousness) and reconcile man into a relationship with God by satisfying his debt of sin. Jesus Christ, being both fully Man and fully God, lived this perfect live on behalf of makind; and being perfectly Loving, took upon Himself the sin of the World, voluntarily suffering for man on the Cross the penalty of man's sin: death and separation from God. Thus Atoning for man's sin, He was raised to life, demonstrating God's satisfaction with the payment and proving that Jesus is who He said He is -- God incarnate -- and that His promises can therefore be believed: that through faith, we are given new spiritual life (made spiritually alive, or regenerated), we are given His perfect righteousness to bear before God (not our own righteousness), our sins are forgiven, and we are no longer estranged from God, no longer his enemy, but are restored to a relationship with Him as His children and as brothers of Christ.

The Depravity of Man, Observed
But we don't need the Bible to see that man is depraved. Anyone who has been an engaged parent for more than six-months understands this perfectly well. The fact is, humans are born with an incurable self-centeredness and callous disregard for others that makes them entirely unfit for entrance into society. Thus, the primary job of a parent -- indeed, one's obligation as a parent to the whole of society -- is one of continuous correction in order to break a child of the most egregious of uncivilized propensities, to make him at least minimally fit for productive life in society. In the Civilized World, this, along with formal education, officially takes 16 to 18 years of rigorous training -- with most in the West, it seems, agreeing that children aren't truly "adult" until nearly age thirty.

Even with such preparation, Civilized Society requires Laws. Requires them. Millions of them. Why? Because despite such preparation for civil life, mankind still excels at criminally exploiting his neighbor for his own benefit. This happens on a small-scale in every-day life, as at each moment each person in society considers his actions with respect to others to create advantage for himself -- whether strangers, neighbors, friends, employers, or institutions like businesses, schools and governments. And it often happens on a grand-scale. Climategate is only one recent example. Enron is another. The exploits of Bernie Madoff is a third. If people were basically good, the need for laws and the need for government would scarcely exist. Yet the dire need for such things is universally acknowledged, particularly among those who espouse Marxism in the Western World, as their zeal for regulating the minutiae of individual life is unparalleled in its insatiableness.

Enforced Fraternity
Of what use are Laws to to the Marxist? To force man into communal cooperativeness. Why is it necessary to force him? Because man is not naturally cooperative, but naturally competitive. Moreover, each man is unequal to another in his God-given faculties, which are necessary for his use as he executes the duties of his various vocations. It is entirely against human nature to enforce his fraternity with others, and a rank deprivation of his liberty and of his service to God to constrain or penalize his free use of human faculty. Innovation only comes from such free use; human society can only regress when it is constrained or penalized. In 1850, French assemblyman Frédéric Bastiat, a classical liberal, political economist and celebrated polemicist who wrote convincingly against the positions of Socialism, had much to say concerning Enforced Fraternity, and its relationship to liberty, in his iconic essay, The LAW:

Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty
Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: “Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity.” I answered him: “The second half of your program will destroy the first.”

In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.

Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.

At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I mean by the word plunder [spoliation].

Plunder Violates Ownership
I do not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, uncertain, approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientific acceptance — as expressing the idea opposite to that of property [wages, land, money, or whatever]. When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it — without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud — to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed.

I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to suppress, always and everywhere. When the law itself commits this act that it is supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is still committed, and I add that from the point of view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights is even worse. In this case of legal plunder, however, the person who receives the benefits is not responsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility for this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and society itself. Therein lies the political danger.

...

Three Systems of Plunder
The sincerity of those who advocate protectionism, socialism, and communism is not here questioned. Any writer who would do that must be influenced by a political spirit or a political fear. It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth. All that can be said is that legal plunder is more visible in communism because it is complete plunder; and in protectionism because the plunder is limited to specific groups and industries. Thus it follows that, of the three systems, socialism is the vaguest, the most indecisive, and, consequently, the most sincere stage of development.

But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are not here under question. In fact, I have already said that legal plunder is based partially on philanthropy, even though it is a false philanthropy.

With this explanation, let us examine the value — the origin and the tendency — of this popular aspiration which claims to accomplish the general welfare by general plunder.

Law Is Force
Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also organize labor, education, and religion. Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it could not organize labor, education, and religion without destroying justice. We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.

When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.

Law Is a Negative Concept
The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.

As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed—then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.

Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.

That Enforced Fraternity is scandalously unjust, even in a strictly social context, and can only result in dramatic failure, need not rely purely upon theorizing. One only needs to make note of one recent and horrific example of its outcome: the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Under the iron rule of Tito, incongruous ethnic peoples of mutually-exclusive religious convictions were forced into the fictitious mould of a harmonious communal society. Yugoslavia was considered a model of ethnic and religious social integration. But it was enforced. Under the calm surface of this contained society, division and conflict fermented, producing such social pressure, that, soon after the death of Tito, open ethnic war erupted with volcanic force. The breadth of its atrocity is now well-known. Birds of a feather flock together, but blackbirds and crows don't seem to get along.

Marxism leads to Utopia, for some
The Depravity of Man and the scandal of Enforced Fraternity, are not new concepts. They are long-known and easily deduced through the honest use of Reason. While Special Revelation provides deeper insight into these truths, General Revelation, or Natural Law, produces them with sufficient basis to establish sound political and economic ideology and public policy. Free-market Capitalism admits man's fatal flaws, but instead of ruinously working against them, it recognizes and works with them. Mankind is gregarious yet competitive. Capitalism alone provides a framework within which these basic truths of human nature can flourish in a way that benefits everyone, by redirecting man's competitiveness away from destructive conflict toward productive associations in the interest of his fellow man's wants and needs. This is accomplished by a system of liberty, the overriding incentive to engage in legitimate, productive and peaceful labor being provided by the freedom to not only engage the full free use of one's faculties but to enjoy full ownership of the result. It is not without some need of containment, yet deprivation of freedom only presents man, in his competitive nature, with incentive to seek his advantage in other ways, in the old barbaric ways of open bloody conflict and exploitation of human life.

Marxism, in the end, will never lead to a classless society. The upper classes -- the ruling class -- will never allow it, will never divest themselves of advantage. Rather, as if dangling the carrot of social equity before asses, the ruling class serves their fantasy of Utopian Society to secure their own advantage, by using their power to regulate the middle class out of existence while otherwise duping the labour class into relinquishing the only means they have of working themselves into their own relative positions of advantage: the free use of their faculties and ownership of their property. In a Utopian Society, the upper class still needs minions to provide labor -- to grow food, to sweep streets, to weed the gardens, and to polish golden toilets. This is a truism: there will never be fewer than two classes of people in any society.

Conclusion
EU President Herman Van Rompuy laments our current "period of anxiety, uncertainty, and lack of confidence", and cites two causes: (1) the so-called climate crisis, and (2) the financial crisis. The solution being pursued by the EU, according to Rompuy, is a system of Global Governance which heels to Marxist principles: i.e., From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. In the case of the Global Government being created in Copenhagen, ability and need are determined by measurement of relative CO2 output -- which is directly proportional to a nation's productivity.

We now know that the "Climate Crisis" is not only scientifically false, but a manufactured fraud. It has, however, served its political purposes: along with recent financial woes, it has brought us to the brink of worldwide Marxism. Is anyone taking bets that the Financial Crisis was an orchestration of strategically placed ideological zealots? After all, the Financial Crisis can only be explained by approximately a decade-and-a-half of irrational and obviously destructive investment practices, along with foolish monetary and fiscal policy, beginning about the same time as Climategate, according to now-public documentation. I'm suspicious.

Nopenhagen: Fata Morgana Fades in the Brilliant Light of the Truth -->

<-- An “Inconvenient Truth:” Climate Change and Scientific Fraud

 

An “Inconvenient Truth:” Climate Change and Scientific Fraud

On October 29, I posted a blog entry entitled, Natural Law, Moral Imperative, and Public Policy: Copenhagen Looms Near. It included a 90 minute lecture given by noted Anthropogenic Climate Change skeptic, Lord Christopher Monckton, in which he details how long-known data has always questioned the predictions of so-called climate change computer models, how climate organizations, like the IPCC and CRU, have been caught doctoring public reports supporting the notion of climate change, and how recent scientific observations, specifically addressing the question of climate change, utterly disprove the theories concocted by politically motivated scientists and organizations, and propped up by magical computer models. In this latter regard, I noted a recent paper by German scientists Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics, which concludes: “the derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science” (pp. 90-91). Science – that is, real science, or the process of hypothesis testing through direct observation of phenomena, rather than the make-believe science of supporting one's assumptions (or “scientific models”) by programming a computer to produce the desired answers – has, as recently as this Summer, not only proven that anthropogenic climate change models are false, and that the fabled "hockey-stick" graph showing dramatic temperature increases is a fabrication, but that the so-called "Greenhouse Effect" does not exist, the results of recent research by Lindzen & Choi (MIT) showing that heat is not trapped in the atmosphere but radiated out. Kirsten E. Lombard, in a review of Glenn Beck's October 20 interview with Lord Monckton, summarzes Lindzen's work from this interview, as follows:

Richard Lindzen of MIT, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Planetary and Atmospheric Sciences, has in the last two months, released a salient (understatement of the year) study on climate feedbacks. Simple in concept but meticulous in execution, Lindzen's study measures the escape of outgoing radiation into space.

Al Gore and those with whom the former vice president aligns himself claim, of course, that such radiation becomes trapped within the earth's atmosphere, leading to precipitous and disastrous warming. Yet Lindzen's study finds quite the opposite: such radiation has continued escaping out into space at rates that would seem finally to put an end the global warming scare. Results indicate, in fact, that the effects of CO2 on temperature over the course of the next century will remain well below 2° F, possibly as low as 1° F. These projections amount to less than one sixth of what the U.N. claims and are, quite simply, negligible.

Better still, where all previous projections were based solely on computer modeling – much of it wildly biased – Lindzen's projections are based on hard data accumulated over the course of 20 years. Monckton had actually published a paper last year that arrived at the same conclusions from a theoretical perspective. Now Lindzen's rigorously conducted science backs him up.

Lindzen and Monckton aren't the only ones standing against the Anthropogenic Climate Change crowd: nearly 32,000 professional American scientists have signed a petition urging the US government to reject treaties such as Kioto and Copenhagen, stating,

There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

That's 32,000 professional American scientists, and counting.

How interesting it is, then, that late last week, mere weeks before the U.N. Climate Change Conference was set to begin in Copenhagen (on Dec. 7), “hackers” were able to gain access to UK government systems and “find” a store of emails and documents authored by very prominent climatologists from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU), which go back approximately 15 years and clearly detail scientific fraud, not only by calculated and systematic manipulation of data, but scheming to prevent other researchers, with competing conclusions, from publishing their findings. Andrew Bolt, journalist for Melbourne's Herald Sun, reports on Nov. 20:

So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics.

On November 24, a Washington Times editorial comments:

Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones' institution [University of East Anglia (UEA)] have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it's difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts... [T]hese e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released [without having to be hacked]. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University [Professor Micheal E. Mann], the University of Arizona [Professor Malcom K. Hughes] and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst [Professor Raymond S Bradley] conduct proper investigative inquiries.

“A scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science,” exclaims Mr. Bolt. Indeed. Piltdown Man, while disenfranchising two or three generations of school children, surely did not have the political and economic implications of Climategate. Recently, it was discovered that Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a German anthropologist, was forced to retire from his university in Frankfurt “because of numerous 'falsehoods and manipulations' ...his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man's development will have to be rewritten.” But again, a few academically disenfranchised students, some republishing costs, and a little egg-on-face for his former employer, are nothing compared to the commercial and political interests already fully vested in the outcome of Copenhagen. Some folks are already warning investors to dump alternative energy stocks. Of course, there still are all the poor little school children who've been lied to and deliberately frightened for the past two decades – but who cares whether they will have sufficient knowledge to function as productive citizens, the vulnerable emotions of helpless and ignorant children are too politically useful to worry about truth and integrity.

Interestingly, the Copenhagen Treaty was DOA anyway – for political reasons. On November 17, Der Spiegel reports:

At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Singapore [on November 15], 17 heads of states and government -- including ones from China, Russia and the US -- destroyed all hopes of setting internationally binding climate targets in Copenhagen. Even the agreement to halve carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 that was agreed upon in L'Aquila has been sidelined. Now, the only possible result of the Copenhagen talks will be a "politically binding agreement." According to the latest plan for the summit, a formal, legal agreement would then be reached at a later stage [ostensibly, Bonn in 2010].

Copenhagen is a failure now on both scientific and political grounds. Bone fide science debunks claims of anthropogenic climate change. Highly respected scientists, advocates of anthropogenic climate change, have been caught in the global fraud of the century. And the politicians can't seem to agree anyway (and why should they agree? Disagreement is better for their careers – it is always much more theatrical, enhances the perception that they are conscientious problem solvers, and provides additional opportunities for them to be seen and heard by their adoring public.).

Nevertheless, in the US, issues of scientific fraud are being taken seriously. Senator Inhofe (R – OK), who has always been suspicious of climate alarmism and a skeptic of anthropogenic climate change, will be pushing for full Senate investigation into the extent of this fraud.



On November 18, Inhofe spoke at a press conference regarding the lack of science behind anthropogenic climate change (above), claiming vindication of his skepticism on scientific grounds, and offers a pretty good history of his anti-alarmist skepticism and consistent leadership on this issue.





On November 23, three days after the CRU fraud was made public, Inhofe says he will call for an investigation into Climategate (above).





And then, just yesterday, reiterating his promise to call for investigation into Climategate, Inhofe relates (above) how he had been approached by many prominent US scientists over the years who expressed concern that they had not been allowed proper input into climate studies or to publish their research, some even having left the IPCC over the treatment they had received. Fraud apparently extends beyond the CRU.


Finally, Chris Horner (another well-known global warming skeptic) was interviewed by Fox News, along with a global warming advocate. Mr. Horner's comments are worth paying attention to.

Q: Do these emails substantiate what you have been saying for years?
A: That's precisely what they are. They are miscast as revelations when in fact they are all affirmations. None out of context, all posted in full context, including entire email threads, affirming the specifics of the actions that we have been describing, including ...falsifying the data of the entire premise for the IPCC's process, the Kioto Treaty, the Kioto II Treaty, Cap & Trade, EPA's actions, and so on, all of which, from the US perspective, must be stayed until the truth is out. We do need an investigation ...in fact, they are affirming everything that a lot of people, including many many scientists, including some in the refereed literature had been [pointing out], for some time, has been going on...

Let me clarify what these are. This isn't information ...that somehow was just sprung now. In fact, it's just as likely to have come from a whistle-blower, someone from inside with a conscience. All of this information is subject to the UK's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). All of it has been under request for years. The most recent request, after they had run out of reasons, was [denied with the statement], “We lost the data.” Well, that's implausible beyond belief, and also would cause a stay in the process until they found [it]. So someone has forced cooperation with UK's FOIA by revealing this, what, 12 to 13 year string of evidence of seeking to, not keep people out of conferences, but out of refereed literature, and of seeking to falsify their own results. Not just random marginal results, either, but the premise – the hockey stick. They talked about hiding the decline in temperature of the last half of the last century. That's not what other people are just saying, “Yes, I found that too.” Other people are echoing significant data. They are disagreeing [with their own premise] in their own words, and they can't deny it any more.

We need an investigation... The emails prove that they broke the law, they describe how to break the law. They also engaged in fraud.

Q: Is it possible that more information will come out to exonerate these scientists?
A: ...[T]he bottom line is, would we have heard a defense if a real one existed? Yes, we would have heard it by now. Instead, what we have seen are statements like, “Using the word 'trick' is acutally a very common application in science,” although this is the first we've ever heard of it, and “Hiding the decline is just really describing something else.” The plain meaning is described as the implausible, and the implausible is described as the reasonable meaning. If that's your first, best, and apparently last defense, these people have been caught with their pants at their ankles, and another 100mb of data are coming. A real investigation ...shall ensure now, and all processes should be stayed: Kioto II, Cap & Trade, EPA regulatory push, all of the energy rationing and tax schemes premised precisely on research proven falsified in this material, must be stayed.

Somebody with a conscience, indeed. No random hacker is going to break into a system and simply discover a store of approximately 1100 documents detailing a pattern of scientific fraud over the past 13 years – especially regarding such high profile research. Someone was most definitely collecting this information. The hacker had to have known what he was looking for, where to find it, and how to anonymously post it under the title "FOIA" for the world to discover.

To stay on top of this as it develops, frequently visit Climate Depot. They are maintaining a running list of news stories covering Climategate.


I close by quoting again from last month's review of Lord Monckton's presentation:

lack of fidelity to truth is necessarily followed by fundamental immorality – which reasonably follows given that questions are asked, and answers are sought, for the sake of guidance in our thoughts and deeds. False foundation for thinking and acting naturally results in wrong thinking and acting. Governments and large organizations cannot act ethically by deliberately mis-handling the truth – immorality on a grand scale is the tragic result.

Heralded by its organizers as a significant step toward Global Governance, Copenhagen was to be the beginning of a legally-binding realignment of world powers. A realignment founded on falsehood and deceit on a grand scale, it would have created a new global governing body, overtly requiring that members hand over their sovereignty as independent nations, for the purpose of transferring capital between these member nations based on carbon usage, subject to international enforcement. That's (1) a new government (2) with enforcement powers (a military, or access to internal economic controls for punitive purposes, perhaps), that (3) manages the flow of capital between member nations on the basis of factors directly related to a nation's economic success (production/transportation of goods and services). What manner of immorality, illiberality and exploitation could descend from such an arrangement, hopefully we'll never have to find out. President Obama, however, despite the November 17 report from Der Spiegel, cited above, just today offered his assurances that, as a result of his recent political gallivant, he has been successful moving sentiment in China and India toward a positive stature regarding the Copenhagen Treaty. We'll see...




Some links:

• Capping Emissions, Trading On The Future: The West's goals in Copenhagen are tantamount to suicide.


• Nature will decide Earth's future:"AS the core samples from deep underground pass through the logging sensor before me, the rhythmic pattern of ancient climate change is clearly displayed. Friendly, brown sands for the warm interglacial periods and hostile, sterile grey clays for the cold glaciations. And for more than 90 per cent of recent geological time the Earth has been colder than today."


• The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero: "Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming. One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK” are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero."


• The warming theory is falling to bits: "Recent results published by top scientists cast doubt on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s theory about the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming…"


• Pressure Mounts From Inside: Disband IPCC? Scientist from U. of East Anglia Suggests 'UN IPCC has run its course...politicizes climate science...authoritarian, exclusive form of knowledge production' -- ClimateGate reveals science has become 'too partisan, too centralized...more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures'


• News Busters: Obama is going 'to Copenhagen not in spite of these e-mails but because of these e-mails. He's in full panic mode'


• Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama's Cap and Trade laws


• Climatology, Junk Science, and Congress: Climategate Scientist Phil Jones Provided Data to the US Congress


• WSJ: Rigging a Climate 'Consensus' ...About those emails and 'peer review.'


• UK Scientist Piers Corbyn speaks: 'Case for climate fears is blown to smithereens...whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed' -- 'We should end this anti-scientific nonsense now' -- UN's 'Copenhagen jamboree is a scandal and it must be stopped'


• UN scientists turn on each other: UN Scientist Declares Climategate colleagues Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf 'should be barred from the IPCC process' -- They are 'not credible any more'


• New Zealand Climategate: the scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens…


• New Zealand: Government agency accused of 'cooking the books to create a warming trend where none exists'


• Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.


• Climategate: Alarmism Is Underpinned by Fraud


• Numbers racket: 4,000 Scientists did not endorse IPCC report, only 60 did


• Big bucks riding on data: Leaked e-mails cast doubt on global-warming strategy


• New Peer-Reviewed Research: Atlantic Ocean Was 2.7°C Warmer During Roman Warm Period, 2.2°C Warmer During MWP


• What Is — and What Isn’t — Evidence of Global Warming: Scientist: 'Climategate has everybody rethinking global warming... is the evidence for catastrophic climate change weaker than previously thought? Actually, the evidence was never even evidence'


• Green totalitarianism: Which is the more terrifying and devastating: if people are bent and deliberately try to deceive others, or if they are so much in thrall to an ideology that they genuinely have lost the power to think objectively and rationally? I think that the terrible history of mankind provides the answer to that question. Nixon was a crook. But what we are dealing with here is the totalitarian personality. One thing is now absolutely clear for all to see about the anthropogenic global warming scam: science this is not.


• The Skeptics Are Vindicated: "We have been given the materials with which to obtain an insight into how all modern science works when vast amounts of public funding is at stake and when the vested interests associated with various 'progressive' causes require a particular scientific result."


• Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate: (1) the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results, (2) scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication, (3) the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom


• "Climate Gate" Development: CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA


• Old Consensus: There Is "Unprecedented" Global Warming; New Consensus: UN-IPCC Climate Scientists Are Unprecedented Liars


• The Death Blow to Climate Science


• Climate Cuttings: Lengthy and growing blog post of cuttings from Climategate emails...

EU President: "2009 to be First Year of Global Governance" -->

<-- Natural Law, Moral Imperative, and Public Policy: Copenhagen Looms Near

 

Natural Law, Moral Imperative, and Public Policy: Copenhagen Looms Near

Inconvenient Truth to be aware of ahead of Copenhagen



Lord Christopher Monckton speaks to the Minnesota Free Market Institute,
October 14, 2009, at Bethel University, St. Paul, MN

Most of us who have been trained in hard science have a cautious and dispassionate regard for the predictions of new theories. An inductive process, the scientific method, by design, cannot be regarded as a source of ultimate answers, but only as a process of iterative questioning in search of successive answers. As a result, true "fact" in science is a rare thing, and only conservatively agreed upon after a sufficiently exhaustive application of the scientific method seems to confirm it. The Laws of Thermodynamics are illustrative. It took nearly a century of testing by physicists across Europe, with nearly unanimous results, before these hypotheses, and later theories, were finally accepted as Laws. Theories are nothing more than an occasion for asking legitimate questions, not for making dire predictions.

As a result of scientific caution, I, along with most of those I know who have bona fide scientific training, have long been suspicious of recent political exploitation of modern "climatology." Such skepticism is warranted whenever politicians are involved anyway -- they have a long-standing reputation for misusing science as it is. After years of study, however, the data is in. The doomsday theories are wrong. The predictions of computer models, based on those theories, are also wrong. Climate variations, whatever their cause, cannot be anthropogenic. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that we are on the brink of climatic disaster, nor has there been any data supporting evidence of "global warming" since 1995.

The video above is the entire presentation of Lord Christopher Monckton given at an event sponsored by the Minnesota Free Market Institute earlier this month. Lord Monckton is a well-known and credible skeptic of climate-change hysteria, and in this presentation documents the clear scientific fraud of politically motivated climatologists, and produces both long-known data regarding climate variations as well as very recent results of careful scientific observation and inquiry weighing the specific questions of global climate variations and their causes. The power-point slides accompanying his presentation can be found here. In addition, his presentation followed the premier of the new documentary, Climate Chains -- an interesting video documenting the political and economic implications of giving-in to these unfounded doomsday hysterics.


Fidelity to Truth
I found Lord Monckton's introductory remarks interesting. He quotes Genesis in support of mankind's stewardship responsibilities, and quotes Christ (in the "original Latin"...) in support of our witness to the truth. Of course, in this quote, Christ was speaking of Himself and the Truth He alone could reveal to mankind, while Monckton applied the substance of this quote as a model for man to emulate with regard to his moral obligation to handle all questions with fidelity toward the truth. Regarding such questions, he states:

We are [here] to bear witness to the truth, we are not [here] to impose any ideology... on the truth. The truth is the truth whether you or I or anyone believe it or not. ...[I]t was all very well for jesting Pilate to ask that question and then not to tarry for an answer, but that question that he asked, What is the truth?, is the question which underlies every other question. It is the only question, in the end, that really matters. When you ask a question, you are really asking, What is the truth regarding the matter about which I am asking?.

He then proceeds to show by example that lack of fidelity to truth is necessarily followed by fundamental immorality -- which reasonably follows given that questions are asked, and answers are sought, for the sake of guidance in our thoughts and deeds. False foundation for thinking and acting naturally results in wrong thinking and acting. Governments and large organizations cannot act ethically by deliberately mis-handling the truth -- immorality on a grand scale is the tragic result.


Climatology is a study in Chaos
Other remarks in the presentation that I found to be interesting are of a more scientific nature. One is the reminder that climate is scientifically chaotic. The mathematical models which describe climate are iterative with countless variables, and many have no mathematical solution. From one iteration to the next, they quickly degrade into seemingly patternless and unpredictable results -- or chaos. Indeed, a recent paper by German scientists Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics, describes the serious solvability issues of global climatology models given their mathematically unsolvable nature and the lack of Numerical Methods which can be applied to them, outside of climate questions of strictly short term and local geography ("Numerical Methods," or "Recipes," are iterative mathematical algorithms for approximating solutions to unsolvable equations):

Thus there is simply no physical foundation [for] global climate computer models, for which still the chaos paradigma holds: Even in the case of well-known deterministic dynamics nothing is predictable. That discretization has neither a physical nor a mathematical basis in non-linear systems is a lesson that has been taught in the discussion of the logistic differential equation, whose continuum solutions differ fundamentally from the discrete ones (pg. 90).

Concerned with the direction of popular scientific trends, they continue:

Modern global climatology has confused and continues to confuse fact with fantasy by introducing the concept of a scenario replacing the concept of a model. ...Evidently, this is a description of a pseudo-scientific (i.e. non-scientific) method by the experts at the IPCC. The next meta-plane beyond physics would be a questionnaire among scientists already performed by von Storch or, finally, a democratic vote about the validity of a physical law. Exact science is going to be replaced by a sociological methodology involving a statistical field analysis and by "democratic" rules of order. This is in harmony with the definition of science advocated by the "scientific" website RealClimate.org that has integrated in ammatory statements, personal attacks and offenses against authors as a part of their "scientific" workflow (pg. 90).

They conclude:

A statistical analysis, no matter how sophisticated it is, heavily relies on underlying models and if the latter are plainly wrong then the analysis leads to nothing. One cannot detect and attribute something that does not exist for reason of principle like the CO2 greenhouse effect. There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems in non-linearity and the climatologists believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations leading to unphysical results that have been corrected afterwards by mystic methods, flux control in the past, obscure ensemble averages over different climate institutes today, by excluding accidental global cooling results by hand, continuing the greenhouse inspired global climatologic tradition of physically meaningless averages and physically meaningless applications of mathematical statistics.

In conclusion, the derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science (pp. 90-91).

No, it isn't science. It's ideology. On Oct. 27, American Physicist, Howard Hayden, issued his disproof of climate catastrophe, based on one letter of the alphabet, in this letter to the EPA. The fact is, there is no scientific consensus among the scientists making wild claims of imminent climate disaster, only a scientific cacophony. There is, however, plenty of ideological solidarity, beginning with an inordinate and scientifically unfounded emphasis on the CO2 "Greenhouse Effect," as also pointed out by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (a theory which they have falsified), above, as well as Lord Monckton, and leading to a disturbing solidarity of political ideology and consequent advancement of "political solutions." Indeed, the video Climate Chains, mentioned above, describes a dogged devotion to environmental causes of a peculiarly religious character, suggestive of a Holy War against Western Civilization in the name of distinctly pre-Christian paganistic/pantheistic values and priorities.


Correlation and Causation
More remarks of interest in Lord Monckton's presentation include the reminder that a correlation of independent variables does not at all imply a causal relationship. It was a running joke among us students of hard science that, using correlative statistics, one could prove that the moon was made of green cheese. In fact, I seem to recall that there is a positive correlation between the mosquito population of the Florida Everglades and the rate of traffic accidents in Juneau, Alaska. But to suggest a causal relationship between these variables is ludicrous -- a fact that we had much fun reminding students of Sociology and Psychology, for whom we had little academic respect. Much of the hysteria-inducing propaganda generated by the media, and others with economic and political interest in manufacturing a global crisis, is used to manipulate average folks by exploiting their ignorance of legitimate science, of experimentation, and of statistical analysis.


Other Thoughts
There are many other thought-provoking statements offered by Lord Monckton in this presentation, including the demographic evidence that wealthier nations are, in fact, environmentally cleaner and more efficient than those trapped in squalor, and that reducing the wealth status of such nations does not reduce their negative environmental impact, but increases it. In fact, the free-market solution of capitalistic investment in poorer nations, of providing them wealth generating opportunities, is the true environmentally and morally sound solution. I highly recommend that one take the 90 minutes or so to listen to the entire presentation.


Conclusion
If nothing else, listen to Lord Monckton's concluding statements, regarding the gravity of the Copenhagen Treaty, which our President will sign in December. This treaty will form a new government -- not theoretically, but actually, and in those terms -- the purpose of which is to enforce the global redistribution of wealth. It will supersede our Constitution, and hand over our national sovereignty to foreign interests over a non-issue.

Statistically and scientifically speaking, especially given recent published conclusions of real scientists studying actual data, climate change is a non-issue. Politically and economically speaking, however, fueled by artificially fevered public hysteria, it is very much an issue -- these have really been the only bases all along -- while the name of science continues to be misused by the world's governments as a tool to usurp individual liberty, control wealth and assert broad expansion of power. History shows that's what governments do. It shows that power is their favorite cause in the use of science.

An “Inconvenient Truth:” Climate Change and Scientific Fraud -->