The Great Global Warming Swindle
THE CAP AND TRADE FRAUD
A Rasmussen poll in April 2010 showed that only 33 percent of Americans believe in man-made global warming.
The Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University headed by Phil Jones was found to have engaged in massive fraud and deceit in manipulating data purporting to show that the earth was in a warming trend and that this was a result of humans burning fossil fuel.
Similar dishonest manipulation of data was also found at the UN panel on climate change.
The International Conference on Climate Change was held in Chicago in May 2010. It was attended by 800 scientists from 40 countries. This conference found no evidence to support the man-made global warming theory. Even discredited Climategate scientist Phil Jones was forced to admit that there has been no "statistically significant" warming for the last 15 years. A study conducted by the Christian Science Monitor exposed massive fraud in the data purporting to support the man-made global warming theory.
President Obama stated in January 2009 that "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Despite the negative information, congressional diehards remain steadfast in their crusade to pass climate change legislation. The Waxman-Markey bill, based upon this fraudulent information, would cost American taxpayers almost 400 billion per year.
Cap and trade also promises to significantly damage U.S. employment. It would likely offshore more American jobs, since countries like China and India do not levy Greenhouse Gas taxes. Considering the economic consequences of legislation crafted to combat what more and more voters, view as a non-problem, cap and trade probably doesn’t have enough support to pass the Senate this year.
President Obama is determined to push ahead with his agenda even if no law goes into effect. In December 2009, a White House official stated: The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is going to have to regulate in this area. EPA is not wasting any time. In February 2010, agency Administrator Lisa Jackson announced plans to begin regulating large industrial facilities Greenhouse Gas emissions in 2011, ignoring the fact that cap-and-trade has not passed Congress.
Legislators are scrambling to shackle EPA’s Stalinist tactics. U.S. representative Marsha Blackburn said: " The EPA is rushing to implement cap-and-trade legislation before it is passed." U.S. representative Earl Pomeroy introduced a bill to prohibit EPA from regulating Greenhouse gases. It should be noted that the U.S. Constitution includes no enumerated power related to climate or energy. Former U.S. Senator and NASA astronaut Harrison Schmitt says both EPA regulation and cap-and-trade legislation violate the Constitution. Schmitt stated that federal authority is limited to issues of national defense. "Cap and trade actually jeopardizes national security", he argued. "It reduces the energy supply, weakening the country’s ability to defend itself."
What explains this suicidal cap-and-trade agenda? "Alarmists look at abundant energy as a peril to be controlled," said Christopher Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "It was never about climate. The environmental agenda seeks to use the state to create scarcity as a means to exert the state’s authority over your lives. It will be up to American voters to elect a Congress this November with the courage to protect and defend America from all enemies of her Constitution.
WHAT ARE THE GOALS BEHIND THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD?
"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." –Barack Obama – Interview with San Francisco Chronicle– January
"Every aspect of our lives must be subject to an inventory" – Nancy Pelosi –Plugging personal carbon rationing cards during visit to China in 2009.
"You have to find ways to exaggerate the threat…I sometimes wish we could have…a lot of horrid things happening…like tornados..that would get people very concerned about climate change" – Thomas Schelling – Former presidential adviser.
"We want to move from…capitalism…so the green economy will start…small, and we’re going to push it, and push it, and push it, until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society." – Van Jones – Obama’s former green jobs Czar and admitted Communist in a 2008 interview.
"We need to make sure that…we will get to a system where an electric company will be able to hold back some of your power so that your air conditioner won’t operate at its peak" – Carol Browner – Obama’s Climate Czar in a 2008 interview with U.S. News and World Report
"Stop building airports, switch to electric cars and shut down coal fired power stations as part of a planned recession to avoid dangerous climate change." A September 2009 column in the London Telegraph offering advice for Britain.
"This is not an environmental bill"– Senator John Kerry on cap and trade.
"It’s not a global warming bill to me, because global warming as a reason to pass legislation doesn’t exist anymore" – Senator Lindsey Graham on cap and trade.
"One of the ways global-warming awareness will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements" – Al Gore 2009.
"We must leave behind 10,000 years of civilization…we will have to figure out how to live locally..which means we are able to get everything we need in walking (or animal riding) distance." – Columnist Adam Sachs in Grist Magazine August 2009.
"Cap-and-trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one" Congressman John Dingell.
Leftists want to inflict a massive "Cap and Trade" tax scheme on our nation which would tax every manufacturing activity that burns fossil fuel. The resulting inflation would reduce the nation to a poverty comparable to the poverty in third-world countries. We are expected to sheepishly go along with destroying our lifestyles without a whit of reliable evidence of actual temperature increases, much less any evidence of human causation.
DO HUMANS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING?
Leftists have been spreading alarmist propaganda that human activity is heating up the planet, causing bad consequences, and we must restrain corporations from burning fossil fuel by taxation so extreme as to cause runaway inflation and drive down our standard of living to that of third world countries.
Much of this false propaganda comes from the CRU (Climate Research Unit) in East AngliaUniversity which is located in England. The head of this unit was the discredited professor, Phil Jones. Dr.Michael Patrick of the CATO Institute pointed out that Jones constantly adjusted and manipulated data to make it appear that the earth was getting warmer.
Jones was ignoring and throwing away all data that didn’t show any warming:
1. Weather balloon data was squelched because it didn’t show a warming trend.
2. Data that showed cities were hotter than rural areas was ignored.
3. He deleted climate data for 40% of Russia to try to show warming. Russian scientist Illarionov stated that Jones had tampered with Russian climate data to get his desired effect.
4. Jones ignored temperature data obtained from satellites because the satellite data didn’t show a warming trend.
5. The National Oceanic Administration deployed 3,341 floating buoys in oceans around the world to measure ocean temperature. The buoys are properly recording temperature but the data is not used by East Anglia University since it doesn’t support their theory of global warming.
East Anglia fired researchers who wouldn’t distort the data to fit their desired result. They also deleted any data which contradicted their global warming theory. Note the following e-mail from Jones to researcher Michael Mann:
"Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4. Keith will do likewise….Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?..We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."
The computer programmer at East Anglia University Ian Harris wrote about the "hopeless state of the data base….No uniform data integrity….The whole project is such a mess." Jones and his associates completely fouled up global temperature records in an attempt to manipulate data.
Climategate scientist Phil Jones admitted to the BBC in February 2010 that there has been no "statistically significant" warming for the last 15 years.
Leftists want to inflict a massive "Cap and Trade" tax scheme on our nation which would tax every manufacturing activity that burns fossil fuel. The resulting inflation would reduce the nation to a poverty comparable to the poverty in third-world countries. We are expected to sheepishly go along with destroying our lifestyles without a whit of reliable evidence of actual temperature increases, much less any evidence of human causation.
WHY OBAMA DIDN’T PROTECT AMERICA FROM THE OIL SPILL
"You have to find ways to exaggerate the threat…I sometimes wish we could have…a lot of horrid things happening…like tornados..that would get people very concerned about climate change" – Thomas Schelling – Former presidential adviser.
The United States was faced with a major disaster when the BP oil well exploded. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAD AN OBLIGATION TO PROTECT HIS NATION. He had vast expertise and resources at his disposal-The Army Corps of Engineers, The United States Navy, The National Oceanic Administration, The National Science Foundation,The combined expertise of all the oil drilling companies, the experience of foreign companies, the expertise and resources of various states. HE MADE NO ATTEMPT TO USE THE RESOURCES AT HIS DISPOSAL TO PROTECT THE NATION.
When various foreign nations offered to send ships to scoop up the oil from the surface HE REFUSED THEIR OFFERS. When the state of Louisiana offered to build sand reefs to block the oil from the shore and also to scoop up the oil, THE PRESIDENT DELIBERATELY PREVENTED LOUISIANA FROM PROTECTING ITSELF. THE PRESIDENT ABDICATED HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE NATION
Not content with ruining the livelihood of the fishing and tourist industries of the gulf states, Obama issued an executive order suspending offshore oil drilling. This was despite a history of 60 years of safe drilling before this one accident. Obama drove tens of thousands of oil-drilling Americans into unemployment.
Why did Obama allow all this devastation over a period of approximately 18 months?
HE WANTED TO CREATE A CATASTROPHE AS AN EXCUSE TO PUSH THROUGH CAP-AND-TRADE LEGISLATION.
VIDEO - JOHN COLEMAN OF THE WEATHER CHANNEL TALKS ABOUT THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD
Click the "Edit" Link to add HTML to this space.
Documentation: Harold Lewis Letter of Resignation from the American Physical Society
October 22, 2010 • 10:06AM
Harold Lewis sent the following letter of resignation to the President of the American Physical Society. Lewis's credentials are as follows: Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara has resigned from the American Physical Society. Here is short version of the Lewis career pedigree: Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara and former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chairman of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, Presidents Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II.
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence. It was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be? How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison dêtre of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’tbelieve that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate.
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in) distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer explanatory screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind simply to bring the subject into the open.
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other peoples motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I dont think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I'm not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question. I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
Link to National Examiner Article on Climategate:
Link to More on ClimateGate emails
