The Climategate Emails

climate-gate-imageBy John Costella

The most difficult thing for a scientist in the era of Climategate is trying to explain to family and friends why it is so distressing to scientists. Most people don’t know how science really works: there are no popular television shows, movies or books that really depict the everyday lives of real scientists; it just isn’t exciting enough. I’m not talking here about the major discoveries of science—which are well-described in documentaries, popular science series, and magazines—but rather how the week-by-week process of science (often called the “scientific method”) actually works.

[Image Credit:]

The best analogy that I have been able to come up with, in recent weeks, is the criminal justice system—which is often depicted in the popular media. Everyone knows what happens if the police obtain evidence by illegal means: the evidence is ruled inadmissible; and, if a case rests on that tainted evidence, it is thrown out of court. The justice system is not saying that the accused is necessarily innocent; rather, that determining the truth is impossible if evidence is not protected from tampering or fabrication.

The same is true in science: scientists assume that the rules of the scientific method have been followed, at least in any discipline that publishes its results for public consumption. It is that trust in the process that allows me, for example, to believe that the human genome has been mapped—despite my knowing nothing about that field of science at all. That same trust has allowed scientists at large to similarly believe in the results of climate science.

Until now.

So what are the “rules” of the scientific method? Actually, they are not all that different from those of the justice system. Just as it is a fundamental right of every affected party to be heard and fairly considered by the court, it is of crucial importance to science that all points of view be given a chance to be heard, and fairly debated. But, of course, it would be impossible to allow an “open slather” type of arrangement, like discussion forums on the Internet; so how do we admit all points of view, without descending into anarchy?

[Image Credit:]

investigateThis question touches on something of a dark secret within science—one which most scientists, through the need for self-preservation, are scared to admit: most disciplines of science are, to a greater or lesser extent, controlled by fashions, biases and dogma. Why is this so? Because the mechanism by which scientific debate has been “regulated” to avoid anarchy—at least since the second half of the twentieth century—has been the “peer review” process. The career of any professional scientist lives or dies on their success in achieving publication of their papers in “peer-reviewed” journals. So what, exactly, does “peer-reviewed” mean? Simply that other professional scientists in that discipline must agree that the paper is worthy of publication. And what is the criterion that determines who these “professional scientists” should be? Their success in achieving publication of their papers in peer-reviewed journals! Catch-22.

It may seem, on the surface, that this circular process is fundamentally flawed but, borrowing the words of Winston Churchill, it is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. Science is not, of course, alone in this respect; for example, in the justice system, judges are generally selected from the ranks of lawyers. So what is it that allows this form of system to work, despite its evident circularity?

The justice system again provides a clue: judges are not the ones who ultimately decide what occurs in a courtroom: they simply implement the laws passed or imposed by the government—and politicians are not, in general, selected solely from the ranks of the legal profession. This is the ultimate “reality check” that prevents the legal system from spiralling into navel-gazing irrelevance.

Equivalent “escape valves” for science are not as explicitly obvious, but they exist nonetheless.

First, a scientific discipline can maintain a “closed shop” mentality for a while, but eventually the institutions and funding agencies that provide the lifeblood of their work—the money that pays their wages and funds their research—will begin to question the relevance and usefulness of the discipline, particularly in relation to other disciplines that are competing for the same funds. This will generally be seen by the affected scientists as “political interference”, but it is a reflection of their descent into arrogance and delusions of self-importance for them to believe that only they themselves are worthy of judging their own merits.

Second, scientists who are capable and worthy, but unfairly “locked out” of a given discipline, will generally migrate to other disciplines in which the scientific process is working as it should. Dysfunctional disciplines will, in time, atrophy, in favour of those that are healthy and dynamic.

The Climategate emails show that these self-regulating mechanisms simply failed to work in the case of climate science—perhaps because “climate science” is itself an aggregation of many different and disparate scientific disciplines. Those component disciplines are extremely challenging. For example, it would be wonderful if NASA were able to invent a time machine, and go back over the past hundred thousand years and set up temperature and carbon dioxide measurement probes across the breadth of the globe. Unfortunately, we don’t have this. Instead, we need to infer these measurements, by counting tree rings, or digging up tubes of ice. The science of each of these disciplines is well-defined and rigorous, and there are many good scientists working in these fields. But the real difficulty is the “stitching together” of all of these results in a way that allows answers to the fundamental questions: How much effect has mankind had on the temperature of the planet? And how much difference would it make if we did things differently?

church-of-climatologyIt is at this “stitching together” layer of science—one could call it a “meta-discipline” —that the principles of the scientific method have broken down. Reading through the Climategate emails, one can see members of that community—usually those with slightly different experience and wisdom than the power-brokers—questioning (as they should) this “stitching together” process, particularly with regard to the extremely subtle mathematical methods that need to be used to try to extract answers. Now, these mathematical and statistical methods are completely within my own domain of expertise; and I can testify that the criticisms are sensible, carefully thought-out, and completely valid; these are good scientists, asking the right questions.

So what reception do they get? Instead of embracing this diversity of knowledge—thanking them for their experience (no-one knows everything about everything) and using that knowledge to improve their own calculations—these power-brokers of climate science instead ignore, fob off, ridicule, threaten, and ultimately black-ball those who dare to question the methods that they—the power-brokers, the leaders—have used. And do not be confused: I am here talking about those scientists within their own camps, not the “skeptics” which they dismiss out of hand.

This is not “climate science”, it is climate ideology; it is the Church of Climatology.

It is this betrayal of the principles of science—in what is arguably the most important public application of science in our lifetime—that most distresses scientists.

John Costella
10 December 2009
(From The Introduction)

View / Download The Climategate Emails (180 page PDF document)

46 thoughts on “The Climategate Emails”

  1. Excellent to see a posting on this subject.

    It’s so distressing to have to explain how wrongheaded the march on Sunday was. Even worse is the idea of global warming/climate change, as promulgated by our deception media.

    True science can be replicated; this is impossible to do when the data is sequestered, as documented. “Peer review” was used to game the system.

    I’ve read this a number of times, and it just gets better with each reading. I’m saving the newest offering for the additions to the texts.

  2. The initial title that is provided in the link Costella gives is “Why global warming is nothing but a fraud.” The implication is that the all the scientists working on climate change are intentionally trying to deceive the population. That there is no truth whatever in global warming, it is entirely a projection of deceit.

    This is frankly absurd, and can be dismissed out of hand. It is something Russ Limberger or someone like that would assert. But this sweeping statement is counterposed to a claim of the writer that he is defending Real science. Personally, I found this piece on science very naïve, and even more so its analogy to the legal system.

    The details of global warming are very controversial, and admit of a variety of opinions. But to claim that the entire area is a fraud, stigmatizing those who provide evidence for it, is the kind of thing that the power system does with Conspiracy Theories, intimidating the population from critiquing false flags. It implies that the hundreds of thousands of people marching against global warning throughout the world are either frauds or dupes.

    I don’t know what the truth of the matter is. But I’ve talked to scientists investigating the matter and they appeared sincere. It is true that I am quite naïve and gullible, but I can still distinguish who is lying the most. It does appear to me to be the climate scientists.

    1. “It implies that the hundreds of thousands of people marching against global warning throughout the world are either frauds or dupes.”

      Indeed, Mark, the implication is true. Poor, deluded, fools led by despicable frauds.

      “I don’t know what the truth of the matter is.”

      Glad to hear the admission.

      “But I’ve talked to scientists investigating the matter and they appeared sincere. It is true that I am quite naïve and gullible, but I can still distinguish who is lying the most. It does appear to me to be the climate scientists.”

      So what are you complaining about? You can detect that they are the ones who are lying–and quite commendably. Hats off to you for your discernment, Mark! Climate fakery is a menace, easily seen through. Glad to have you on board.

  3. Actually the MHB editor provided the link as a courtesy and as a means of attribution to the organization overseeing publication of the analysis.

    No doubt, there is often peril in dismissing arguments “out of hand,” especially those running counter to popular and impassioned opinion.

  4. Sadly, it’s worse than these remarks indicate. Science, across the board, has been corrupted in the last century and a half.

    The corrosive poison was the state. How government at any level should have anything to do with scientific exploration is a mystery for the ages–which cannot be resolved, because the state CAN’T aid scientific exploration, only hinder it. It is free minds that explore creation and learn it’s secrets; the state is a mental prison.

    We can say that it is the great tax-exempt foundations that shattered the purity of scientific exploration, but that’s misdirection on two levels. One is obvious–the words “tax exempt.” The history is clear: the engineered creation of the income tax in the United States was simultaneous with the creation (by the same trillionaire families who pushed it through Congress) of the tax exempt foundations, shielding the vast fortunes that were amassed in the years after the War to Prevent Southern Independence from the hobbles the new tax regime would impose. These great family fortunes could keep manipulating the future without the financial confiscation any newcomers would face–any nouveau riche who might desire to use their money to reverse the horrible agenda of the Rockefellers, et al. would face an impossible burden. The new regime was a fait accompli.

    This is a bigger history than can be told here, but suffice it that the initial creation of the tax exemption/foundations paradigm provided an air bubble that lasted long enough to completely transform the academic/scientific research landscape permanently; all newcomers would thenceforth have to live inside the new paradigm, where the research universities were now under the control of the grant-making power of the legacy foundation-families.

    The other level of misdirection is the very fact of what happened to the state (and particularly the States) as a result of the wrong side winning that horrible war. The federal government would inevitably become the 800 pound gorilla in every room in science, and would only brow forever after. The fact is, every scientist, out of the blue, came to need to bend the knee and supplicate the federal government, not just the foundations, hat in hand, to do their work, or to even be recognized.

    As I say this is too big a topic to flesh out here. This summary is necessarily weak, lest the comment grow to article-length. But the point is that if any thread of scientific exploration displease either the great tax-exempt foundations or the federal government, the explorer will have to find work shining shoes.

    But some intrepid explorers discover things the state does not find displeasing, indeed likes very much, yet also will not allow to be acknowledged. Fantastic discoveries, like those of Nicola Tesla, made independently outside the new paradigm, are in this new paradigm simply stolen by the new order, and then further developed in secret. Deep Underground Military Bases, antigravity flying ships that move faster than the speed to light, Free energy from the vacuum–which all mankind could benefit from. All of this was discovered and proved by genuine scientists in the 20th century, outside the private foundation/federal government matrix, was stolen from them, developed to perfection, and denied the human race as a whole. And the it is all used by them routinely. They just don’t tell any of the rest of us about it.

    1. Isn’t it great to get a science lecture from someone who thinks that objects can travel faster than the speed of light? Or in “free energy”, which is in violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

      1. Thank you, Paul, for providing a perfect demonstration of my thesis.

        Tesla and Maxwell proved these things. Tesla demonstrated them. They are being demonstrated today, whenever “impossible” UFO behavior is observed. Various above unity technologies have been invented Anyone who bothers to look can find the proof of it. I told our race-obsessed friend Mark to look up Bearden. I advise you to do the same. It is a terrible thing to…what did the United Negro College Fund used to say on TeeVee all the time? Ah, yes. Don’t wast your mind. Look it up.

        That is to say, this foolishness about above unity technology being impossible is a waste of a mind. Gravity is magnetism. Don’t you know that? All that is necessary is a technology to harness and transform this phenomenon. Are you denying that this is a possibility? Don’t you know that space-time can be bent, if only the means can be devised?

        Look at it this way: if the fabric of space is a sheet of paper, and it can be folded, the two ends can be made to touch for a moment, and a person in a space craft can find himself on the other side of the “sheet of paper” instantaneously. Technically, he traveled faster than light, across the galaxy.

        I don’t know if that is how they do it, but I DO know they do it. They might do it using many techniques. They certainly aren’t telling me. All I know is that for more than a century, we have been trapped in the theoretical box you are defending, and that they have made most of us us cheerful to stay in it. And like you, Paul, they have inspired us to delight in mocking those who see through the hoax. Tesla lived. And his work lives. Anyone who investigates the UFO phenomena can see it.

  5. “…anti-gravity flying machines that move faster than the speed of light, Free energy from the vacuum…discovered and proved by genuine scientists..”

    It’s always a treat reading your comments, Patrick, when you emerge from your rabbit hole, and don’t indulge in the vulgar and disgusting racism that you adhere to. The American people have been indoctrinated with an ideology that contains elements of Orwell, Kafka, and Walt Disney. You, with your literary sensibility, have substituted for Walt Disney the more amusing Lewis Carroll. Anti-gravity flying machines that move faster than the speed of light–isn’t science wonderful!

    1. You are unaware of these things, Mark? You have no knowledge of Tesla? Of Maxwell? Of Nazi anti-gravity breakthroughs? Of Operation Paperclip? Are you unaware of the Deep Underground Military Bases? What do you think the UFOs are? Objects that observers track going at “impossible” speeds, pulling what under conventional physics would be as much as 100 Gs, and then make an instantaneous right angle turn.

      You are unaware of all of these things?

      If you know nothing of these mysterious phenomena we have lived with lo this last half century, you sound like a moron when you mock their evocation. Especially here, a place where everyone happily laughs when told they don tin foil hats (I notice, to my delight, that at the bottom of this post James links to the tin-foil hat icon that takes the reader to one of my own articles).

      I don’t suspect, Mark, that you would be interested in learning about these matters, as they have nothing to do with race, but in case you are curious, google Tom Bearden. You might enjoy the treats his life work provides us all, for free.

      Incidentally, for all of my readers, please forgive the imperfection of my prose in the comment Mark is replying to; I had to rush out of the house to a job (I was in fact late for it), but since the comment kept developing, although I could complete it I had to leave without reviewing it. I hate to deliver a poor performance.

      1. Maxwell didn’t ‘prove’ anything. He came up with a way to mathematically explain Faraday’s experiments with electricity and magnetism. Tesla came up with some great ideas, but tried a brute force method for radio transmission (in his attempt to transmit electricity through the air). He was beaten in the hardware sense by Marconi, and J. P. Morgan pulled his financial support~ though Tesla has been since credited with discovering radio transmission. The modern mythology regarding Tesla is strong.

        Tom Bearden is very adept at throwing around ‘techno-speak’ to explain his ideas, but his only physically realized device to date~ his MEG, failed its test. The wrong resistor value was used to measure its output, which is a great way to fake a successful test to those whom are ignorant of basic electronics. TB stuff is sci-fi eye candy.

      2. Well, Dylan, sounds like these guys I referenced are totally debunked! In a few sentences, all of the theory of hidden mathematics and hidden technology is made to go away! Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

        I guess I’ll now have to crawl back into the science box the Rockefellers wrought for us to shiver within, cold and impoverished, because scarcity really IS inescapable (not for them, of course).

        Thanks! You have freed me from my delusions! Now, I have to attempt to start believing the fraud, Michael Mann, and blind myself to Climategate, somehow rationalizing away those troublesome emails. I think I can manage it, if I wish hard enough, close my eyes, and click my ruby slippers together.

  6. Mr. Costello
    Thank you for compiling the proof that the UN IPCC is nothing more than a political tool used to mimic what the UN wants to hear.

    Notice they have rebranded their massive deception at least three times now. We started with global warming which got iced over for climate change and now we are at saving the environment from those greedy capitalists.

    Just as a court case could be thrown out for tampered evidence, the judge always advises the jury if you suspect a witness was untruthful in any part of their testimony, you can discount all of their testimony.

    Anyone who actually read this article would know the corruption is undeniable in the IPCC. Here is testimony from dozens of scientists who concur.

    Here is a new study that just came out indicating natural causes have a lot to do with weather and somehow it is considered controversial.

    China is lecturing the US on pollution!

  7. almost every single word coming from “scientists” is a LIE & tell them to LOOK UP at the jets spraying them & the entire planet with a HEAVY METAL BLANKET of chemicals that is destroying the climate and altering ALL WEATHER and haarp is also producing almost every catestrophic storm in the last decade or more – if we don’t stop the jets from spraying and altering all the weather we are doomed , no photosynthesis no life – between the sun being blocked & the chemicals & their haarp machine how can anyone tell what is real 7 what is not – but you can be sure of one thing everything coming from main stream media is a fabricated lie.

    1. Thankyou Truthchase, spot on. As I sit under my fully geoengineered sky with pinkbrown haze, smokey stripes and dirty ringed sun, I despair at the idiocy and insanity of the perpetrators. The recent climate march should have been infiltrated with those of us aware of the global chemtrail programme, bearing large banners the MM could not have ignored. Unfortunately, I for one am too sick with my multisystemic, incurable disease that actually appears to have been weaponised at the Plum Island facility. So just as TPTB wished, those of us awake to the manipulated weather issue, amongst much else, are often now too debilitated to act….

      1. its time to wake up people – any one who doesnt see these jets flying over their heads spraying this heavy metal garbage on their children is either blind or brain dead & if they do see them, then they need to wonder WTF are they spraying & do some more OBSERVATION – if you have eyes & a brain – this is not hard to figure out exactly what they are doing to us, here are my OBSERVATIONS – —- —– —— —— —- —– —–

      2. Thanks Fishandroaches – I still haven’t been able to bring myself to watch that… although it is apparently excellent. We have a full blown case of Lymegate here in Australia. By the way, liked the T-shirts but was unable to purchase. Are they still available?

        1. really, that’s interesting. I haven’t logged in to the website for a couple of years it seems ever since I ran a cleaner and erased my password. it’s supposed to contact me if there are purchases so I will investigate. Yes, I still sell shirts and have quite a few that I never put on the website that are really cool. You can email me direct at:

      3. Fish
        Thanks for that, sending my husband to get tested.

        What a coincidence that CT ‘doctors’ are in the center of a conspiracy to line their pockets and declare patients with lyme disease just crazy .

        We have a huge triathlon event this weekend which brings thousands of athletes to the area. The Savannah River has recently infected folks swimming there with flesh eating disease. The marathon will go on as the health inspectors say the risk is very small for those swimming several miles.

        The agenda is getting clearer by the day.

  8. Oops, what I meant to say is that I don’t think it is the climate scientists that are lying, the precise opposite of what I did say. I must be getting senile. And I blamed Costella for what is apparently James’ fault for the title I quoted. I apologize.

    Maybe the best strategy is not to pay any attention to anything I say.

    1. I agree. That is an excellent strategy. However Mark, If you truly find some of the aforementioned examples of unreleased scientific discovery ridiculous, where have the trillions and trillions(I wish it was billions and billions so I could use my Carl Sagan voice) of taxpayer, and fed printed dollars gone over the years? You don’t really think it was all spent chasing guys on camels, ebt cards, and flying Pelosi around in huge jets, do you?

      Hell, Gen. Richard Meyers Himself admitted the pentagon misplaced two trillion just a few years ago. You can’t possibly think the pinnacle of human achievement at this point is the Iphone 6, and that ridiculous f-22 that is most likely no better than the last 10 fighter jets to be released.

      The “Laws” of thermodynamics were given the title “LAW” precisely to inhibit exploration beyond what they say is possible. Frank Herbert wrote “DUNE” and told us things about space that are coming to be accepted as true. Face it buddy, you are in the matrix with the rest of us. If Tesla had made the money off his inventions on the scale the corporations do today, he would never have had to go to guys like J.P. Morgan to get financed. The goons running the show today are going to take us where they want us to go, not where a guy like Tesla could have taken us. Too bad.

      1. Rich, I’m glad you brought up all the Trillions of dollars Obama has spent with NO budget in 6 years. Not to mention the 2.4 Trillion Rummy admitted to 9/10/2001.

        I think the no budget scam allows the money to go anywhere with accountability .There is NO way Obama spent 8 trillion + 2.3 Trillion that
        the IRS collects every year. That would be about 16 Trillion Obama has spent in the last 6 years!

        Also, the IRS paid out 4.2 Billion in fake tax returns in 2013..really?
        They have paid out Millions to fake returns to the SAME addresses every year even one in Syria!. Yet no one in Congress says a word.

        Not to mention if you are an illegal alien you can claim you support 20 kids in mexico when you file your taxes and get about 9k back from IRS even if you only paid in 1k.

        We are being scammed at every level

      2. The unaffordable health care scam is another multi trillion dollar debacle. No R’s voted for it, and try as they did, dirty harry would not take a vote on any of their bills to dismantle it.

        My health care costs have skyrocketed, even with my employee paid plain. My providers of health care are at their wits end, trying to explain this or that procedure previously covered, will no longer be, even before diagnosis.

        Just another piece of the puzzle, witnessed a report on how the cbo reported so many trillions of dollars were unaccounted for in the implementation on the unaffordable hca, and that report vaporized into cyber heaven.

        Our tax accountant advised us last year when we were exploring options on health care, do not even think those tax credits for health care are real, if someone tells you they exist they are lying and do not complain to me when you are required to pay it back next year.

  9. I just assumed that they stole the money, Rich. Rumsfield stated publically that they mislaid 2.3 trillion dollars or some such amount. He said it on Sept 10, 200; as a coincidence 9/11 happened the next day, the announcement was lost in the shuffle.

    A congressman Waxman stated in an investigation that the US laid stacks of hundred dollar billions on pallets and sent them to Iraq during the Bush war without demanding receipts. Some ten billion dollars were dissipated in that way. I assume the trillions were more or less invested in the same way.

    1. “Invested”.

      That’s cute.

      I don’t believe in coincidences…and neither should you.

      To correct the first figure, I believe that it’s closer to NINE TRILLION DOLLARS, under the “control” of Rabbi Dov Zackheim.

      We still don’t know who made the put options in the four days before the events of September 11th…in fact, it’s been documented that 66 seconds before the first “collapse”, options were traded on Boeing.

      That’s cutting it quite close.

  10. You don’t even need to analyze the science to know something is seriously wrong with the climate change supporters. Anytime you see the types of efforts at secrecy shown in the climate gate emails and in the ongoing efforts to keep climate data secret, it is a huge red flag. Anyone conspiracy researcher will be familiar with these signs – from the Assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy to 911 and the boston bombing, unreasonable secrecy is the calling card showing something is wrong.

    You cannot defend this conduct by claiming that the skeptics of man made climate change will unfairly attack these scientists. Nothing shuts down unfair criticism than refuting it with the facts. And while sometimes getting those facts out can be hard, in this case the media has shown it is more than willing to help get out the “climate change” message.

    Nor can we assume that the secrecy is merely a misplaced effort to hide mistakes. While government employees will sometimes do this, it is very easy to see that such efforts of secrecy are counterproductive if you are acting in good faith. The public will forgive government mistakes quite easily when government corrects its actions. But any cover-up is likely to be viewed at as a worse crime than any mistake – see Watergate. JFK’s famous speech to the Broadcaster’s Association says it best – good government embraces those who expose their errors because such exposer allows government to correct those errors. If the climate change scientists were really in the right, they would have figured this out by now, but instead they continue to try to keep data secret and to attack skeptics with rhetoric, rather than just prove the skeptics wrong.

    Note, I am not arguing that there is never a reason to keep a government secret. But “good” government secrets almost always have three common characteristics: they are clearly supported in law, they serve an articulable public good and they are asserted in a transparent manner. The secrecy exposed in the climategate emails were secret secrets, where the scientists were seeking to hide the fact that they were keeping secrets.

    What is most frustrating in the climate change debate is that so few of the climate change supporters have shown the appropriate outrage at the actions shown in the climategate emails. Jon Stewart, a climate change believer, is an example of how anyone who believes in climate change should have acted – outrages at how the secrecy served to undermine the cause (Google Jon Stewart and climategate to find, I think it aired Dec. 9, 2009). But instead some many have circled the wagons and refused to recognize that something is really wrong here. I doubt most scientists are in on any fraud, but their tolerance and defense of secrecy makes them at least accessories after the fact.

    1. Paid Liars

      “On June 18th 2013,KCNR radio in Redding California featured 4 prominent climate “scientists” on a 2 hour radio show hosted by Dr. Doug Craig who also runs a blog titled “climate of change”.

      In the first half hour a caller asked NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt (NASA) what was being sprayed from aircraft to form grid patterns in our skies. Mr. Schmidt responded in no uncertain terms, “There are NO chemicals in the trails, nothing is being sprayed”. How is it possible a “scientist” can say he knows this for certain under any circumstances? Especially when there are countless videos of jet aircraft clearly spraying posted everywhere on line? Even up close and personal videos of military KC- 10s and KC-135′s that inarguably show the spray nozzles and the jets shutting on and off. There are three possibilities here, Gavin Schmidt is either totally ignorant of the subject of which he is a recognized “expert”, he is clinically blind, or he is a blatant liar.”

  11. I found this in the comments while reading a Reuters article about how the Dept. of Homeland Security is going to tackle climate change now. I think it is an eye-opener and I am not taking any credit for it:

    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.” – “The First Global Revolution”, A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider 1991 (Part of the Global Round Table..AKA New World Order) –Note the ‘we came up with the idea’.
    “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”– Vladimir Lenin

  12. The climate change industry has become quite a profitable business literally built out of thin air.

    Have to laugh at my nieces who haul their dishes to picnics to save the environment, only to haul them back home to wash in the dishwasher.

    Here we have Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh speaking of weather geo-engineering as if it is common knowledge that they are manufacturing the change.

    1. Excellent find. Where I live they charge people 40 cents a pound to throw out their old TV’s. The “recycling center is only open three days a week though, even though there are people in there 5 days a week. I think they are to busy the other two days laughing at the people who shell out $40 plus to junk an old TV. A TV which they promptly load into a shipping container that once full, is loaded onto a ship, steamed to Africa, and dumped on the nearest beach where small shoeless children fight over the bits of metal they can salvage and sell to the nearest recycler. Major Joke!

      1. LOL – Worked for a major corporation where one of my functions was to procure and distribute computer equipment. The warehouse guys were my buddies, while they received many truckloads every day, could count on them to deliver what was critical when it was.

        We were equal in that we busted our butts to meet impossible demands.

        Was allowed to put the empty, folded shipping boxes outside for them to pick up and they would bring to recycling. Receiving hundreds of boxes in a short time was a strain on all of us, and would not hesitate to bring the boxes to the recycling dumpsters to free their time up for the next delivery. Needless to say, it was absolutely not permitted to have stacks of boxes as they are a fire load.

        Then the recycle dumpsters vanished. Asked my contractor friend who was in charge of clean up/garbage, and complaining on how hard it was since they cut back on the number of dumpsters, does it make sense that your crews go through the offices two times, once for recycling and then for garbage and empty it all into the same place?

        Good question, never really thought about that! Left shortly after, but suspect those blue recycling bins are nothing more than a sham.

  13. Scientists speed up analysis of Human link to wild weather.

    I think the title pretty much sums up the motive behind the article.

    They are changing their tactics because no one buys it. I think this next year we are really going to get bombarded hard and told to pick a side.
    Having Politicians and agenda driven (grant Money) scientists to do this study is like as JE said below:
    It’s like having the Vatican do a study to determine if God exists.

    Excerpt from article:
    “What we propose is not an activist campaign to convince people that climate change is the worst problem in the world,” said van Aalst. “It’s about providing honest information that some risks are changing significantly and we need to do something about that.”
    Comments are amazing. People are waking up.

    JE 57 minutes ago

    “What we propose is not an activist campaign to convince people that climate change is the worst problem in the world,” said van Aalst. “It’s about providing honest information that some risks are changing significantly and we need to do something about that.”

    Pure BS. Does he really think that we are so stupid that we don’t know that they will manipulate the study to get the answer that they want? They are true believers. It’s like having the Vatican do a study to determine if God exists.

    Chris 5 hours ago

    “Both scientists stressed that the new system must be accepted as scientifically sound and politically neutral.” As long as Politics and Taxes are involved and EVERY NATION does not participate in changes that reduce POLLUTION and Over Consumption of Natural Resources (the real problem) and if thier report does not “STRESS” these facts and only points fingers IT WILL NEVER BE ACCEPTED! Remove any Polictical Face from being an activist or representing the CAUSE (when they continue to lie). For me to Accept and system there must also include an explanation of the past transistion periods between the Ice Ages (Earth has had many) where the Earth got cold and warmed again without MAN being involved. What caused those and could it be causing (or adding to) any change now.

    Could the Earth’s Magnetic pole shift (read those articles) have anything to do with the upper atmosphere shifts that are happening?. The upper atmosphere is greatly affected by magnetism, so when the giant magnet changes direction or moves even a little what happens to the winds and resultant weather, does it not change also? Something to think about….

    Sybex4 3 hours ago

    Monday, 30 September 2013 12:02 Moments after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) released a summary of its latest global-warming report on September 27, top climate scientists and experts were already reading through it and trashing the methods, findings, claims, and more. In fact, based on leaked drafts of the controversial report, critics had been debunking and ridiculing the UN’s climate claims for weeks prior to the official release. Once the summary report was officially released in Stockholm, the deluge of criticism accelerated, with more than a few top scientists calling for the UN IPCC to be disbanded entirely. Really?

    Mjb 29 minutes ago

    isn’t this the same group the falsified their data to get the desired results to keep getting their funding? Man made global warming is a bunch of bunk.

    Here is another bogus story with amazing comments:

    A Walrus Climate Scam?

    Arrgh 1 hour ago

    So in other words, just like with polar bears, the walrus have instantly adapted to changing conditions like most competent scientists said they would. I’m far from a global warming denier, but throwing unnecessary chicken little nonsense about mass extinction of animals who lived through the last 4 ice age and warming cycles with no problem does not help anyone.

    Gregory 4 hours ago

    This is a rather odd article, especially given the comments being made about it.

    For starters, Arctic sea ice has pretty wide seasonal fluctuations in size. That’s why climate skeptics were (ignorantly) crowing about how much sea ice we had gained earlier this year/last year. It’s as disingenuous to pretend that loss of sea ice is evidence of climate change as it is to say that increase in sea ice is evidence against climate change.

    Also, yeah, some walruses are going to die. Just like they do every year during one of these gatherings of walruses.

    Who Is James Anderson 8 hours ago

    A Walrus Climate Scam

    The big scam yesterday is claiming that Walruses are enjoying the beach in Alaska due to a lack of sea ice, but as always this is complete #$%$. There normally isn’t any sea ice within 100 miles of Alaska this time of year, and this year isn’t much different from the 1981-2010 median.


    The rest of the year (late summer and fall), walruses tend to form massive aggregations of tens of thousands of individuals on rocky beaches or outcrops. The migration between the ice and the beach can be long-distance and dramatic. In late spring and summer, for example, several hundred thousand Pacific walruses migrate from the Bering Sea into the Chukchi Sea through the relatively narrow Bering Strait.

    Walrus – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    These fraudsters are shameless in their pursuit of money confiscated from citizenry. No lie is too big any more.

    smuckerboy 5 hours ago

    Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover – ‘The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense that has nothing to do with science…this is blatant nonsense and those who support or encourage this interpretation are misinforming the public.’
    ‘The Pacific walrus remains abundant, numbering at least 200,000 by some accounts, double the number in the 1950s’
    ‘Dating back to at least the 1604, there have been reports of large walrus gatherings or haulouts.’ – ‘Walrus haulouts are not unusual and have long been recognized and islands have been set aside for such gatherings.’
    Walruses known to migrate away from ice in late summer & fall: “In the non-reproductive season (late summer and fall) walruses tend to migrate away from the ice and form massive aggregations of tens of thousands of individuals on rocky beaches or outcrops.”
    AP’s own reporting debunks unprecedented walrus claims: The AP reported on 40,000 walruses in a haulout just 7 years ago in a single location

    bellamacina 2 hours ago

    Oh come on now, it’s clear the walruses are in on the AGW scam so they can get more grant money.

    If you expand the replies you will see massive trolls attacking everybody’s comments.

    I only copied this because I know Yahoo will delete the comments.

  14. stop the SPRAYING – stop the “climate problems ” including the man made west coast drought – our WEATHER is being GEOENGINEERED all weather catastrophies are man made , we must stop the spraying the planet is being systematically destroyed by sociopaths , the jets never stop spraying heavy metals , a blanket of heavy metals covers the entire planet

      1. yup PS, i have seen you comment often & we are on the same page. what better place to ‘hide’ something, then right in front of their faces & the train / brain wash them/ the public into calling them the NON EXSISTANT “CON” trails – we must wake them up soon, they have amped up the spray program so significantly lately we almost NEVER see the sun , the skies are filled with CHEMICALS always now , no real clouds, ever, just chemicals, trees are dying every where at a horrifying rate & actually falling on people everywhere also ( google falling trees kill ) , we can not grow our own food anymore, plants just die from the spray & the heavy metal laden soil, we are in such GRAVE DANGER from geoengineering & we dont have much time left if it isnt already too late to turn this around. geoengineering is killing every living thing on the planet, its not just the storms they are producing ,but this spray program has so many differant things they are doing with it, but the bottom line is geoengineering is meant to KILL & it is working as planned.

      2. Comment on this Hill site. Lots of different views there, but most of us agree, in this time when our military is stretched so thin and even sent to the pits of the ebola crisis, the pentagon, or whoever the evil mouth piece is, has lost their mind!

      3. Yeah, this is scary. As for water scarcity, it certainly doesn’t help matters that Maurice Strong and the creepy Colorado law firm of Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber are tying up water resources wherever they can find them. The scarcity will be due to their privatization of water, in other words, which they won’t talk about, not drought.

        I want to mention, too, that, although I agree that the jury is out on global warming, there definitely is a mass extinction going on. The biggest threat to most forms of life on earth is habitat destruction. This is caused by real estate development and agriculture; but no one talks much about curbing these activities.

      4. There are tons of articles out there on how ridiculous it is that the DOD finds climate change our biggest enemy, this is something most of us agree on. Comment away, my favorite is that this is a Ponzi scheme to make the rich richer, or maybe they are planning a coming out event where they declare they have been trying to control the weather for decades now and have massively failed.

Comments are closed.