BREAKING: NEW CLIMATE DATA RIGGING SCANDAL ROCKS US GOVERNMENT

http://www.principia-scientific.org/breaking-new-climate-data-rigging-scandal-rocks-us-government.html

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode/

Excellent graphics at the above links.

“But does this evidence prove an intentional fraud? Goddard certainly thinks it possible and only a full examination of all the files will show that, one way or the other. Goddard wants backing from others to compel the Administration to come clean on this massive story, using Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) rules. The ramifications are that hundreds of bilions of tax dollars have been misallocated to “solve” a non-problem, all due to willful malfeasance and/or incompetence in data handling.”

“Judging by recent history, the bureaucrats should be worried…”

TO: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, inquiries@un.org 14th of July, 2008
Copied to the G8 leaders

Dear Secretary General Ban Ki-moon,

The UN Climate Change Panel must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices- Policies based on false science must be ended.

We, an independent group of experts in various aspects of science and the environment, ask you to redress the lack of scientific integrity of the UN’s Climate Change Panel (IPCC) and to stop making reactionary and futile ‘Climate Change’ recommendations that hold back the developing world.

As you read this, policies that you endorse are already causing misery and starvation for the world’s poor.

On the 14th of April this year some of us wrote to the Chair of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, copied below and available on the UN CAPSA site (ref E), asking him to present clear and graphic evidence of the theory that carbon dioxide (CO2) drives global temperature. We pointed out that no such evidence exists and offered charts and references that refute the man-made global warming theory.

Dr. Pachauri has failed to respond. Perhaps he lacks the knowledge to defend his position. Nevertheless, the IPCC’s 51 ‘drafting and draft-contributing authors’ of the Summary for Policymakers (ref A) – not thousands as claimed – includes scientists who are surely obliged to provide such evidence if any exists.

For your illumination we refer you to:

(i) The chart in our letter of 14 April (page 3) which shows, using official data, that for the last decade World Temperatures have been falling whilst CO2 keeps rising, and

(ii) A geological (Greenland ice core) chart of polar climate covering the last 10,000 years (Ref B) which shows that while CO2 levels have been rising, temperatures have been falling since the Bronze Age around 4,000 years ago (see page 2). The assertion that the recent rapid rise of CO2 is unique and dangerous is both deceptive and irrelevant because CO2 does not drive the world’s climate. Claims that such rapid rises have not happened before are not supported by ice-core or other geological records (ref C).

Either the IPCC is simply failing to notice these gross discrepancies or it is consciously evading or covering-up observations that challenge its theories.

Given the facts (i) above, from observations over the last decade alone, there can be no justification for trying to restrict CO2 levels and retard third-world development while temperatures are in fact falling (also see Note D). Considering data over the last 4,000 years (ii), in its Summary for Policymakers and in its Full Report, the IPCC depicts CO2 rising but fails to depict a corresponding fall in temperature.

From its obstinate resistance to answer inquiries — an insult to the public, let alone to other scientists — one can only conclude that the IPCC is engaged in a self-serving distortion of data acquired at public expense.

Whatever might have seemed the case ten years ago, now, with better data and understanding, there is clearly no evidence for the CO2-based theory of global warming. Indeed, there is only evidence against it. Therefore, as a matter of utmost importance we urge you to:

1. Call the IPCC to account – Hold an Inquiry into its operations. Insist that it adhere to the same ‘prove and predict’ norms as other sciences. Further, noting its impotence in the face of contradictory evidence, lead the UN into abandoning the CO2-based theory of global warming and nullifying its former recommendations.

2. Immediately announce your opposition to biofuels – whose large-scale production entails the displacement of food crops, thus raising the price of food and bringing starvation to the poor.

Please do not hesitate to ask us for further information or assistance and we will provide it directly or through other independent, qualified colleagues.

Yours sincerely,
Piers Corbyn Astrophysicist & forecaster, WeatherAction, UK piers@weatheraction.com
Vincent Gray IPCC Expert Reviewer, Climate Consultant, NZ vinmary.gray@paradise.net.nz
Richard Courtney IPCC Exp. Rev., Energy & Envir. Consultant, UK RichardSCourtney@aol.com
Hans Labohm IPCC Expert Reviewer, Economist & Author, Holland H.Labohm@freeler.nl
Will Alexander Prof. Em. Dept. Civil & Biosystems, South Africa alexwjr@iafrica.com
Don Parkes Prof. Human Ecology (Ret.) Australia & Japan dnp@networksmm.com.au
Joseph D’Aleo Certified Consultant Meteorologist, Fellow AMS, USA jdaleo@icecap.us
Svend Hendriksen Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared), Greenland hendriksen@greennet.gl
Alan Siddons Climate Researcher, USA alan618034@earthlink.net
Bob Ashworth Chem. Eng. (Energy & Environment), USA bobashworth@earthlink.net
Norm Kalmanovitch Geophysicist, Canada, kalhnd@shaw.ca
Jim Peden Atmospheric Physicist (Ret.), USA peden@middlebury.net
Hans Schreuder Analytical Chemist (Ret.), UK hans@tech-know.eu

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, late Dem Senator from New York,  said, “A case can be made … that secrecy is for losers. For people who don’t know how important information really is. The Soviet Union realized this too late. Openness is now a singular, and singularly American, advantage. We put it in peril by poking along in the mode of an age now past. It is time to dismantle government secrecy, this most pervasive of cold war-era regulations. It is time to begin building the supports for the era of openness which is already upon us.”

“Snowden’s leaks have done less damage to the NSA’s ability to snoop than they have to its bureaucratic power. For the first time in almost four decades, the agency finds its authority questioned and scrutinized.”

“Moving laws off the public books and into the shadows where the governed cannot view them is something only a self-protecting, self-perpetuating bureaucracy could think up.”

“Analysis, far more than secrecy, is the secret to security,” Moynihan wrote.

http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/12/27/daniel-patrick-moynihans-1998-lesson-on-the-price-of-secrets/

The White House has once again said that it will not negotiate on the debt ceiling. Therefore, the House should permanently remove budget authority from the White House, reducing the budget for White House executive staff accordingly (saving that money), and return fiscal budget responsibility to House where it belongs. Spending is the Constitutional duty of the House, the wing of government closest to the citizens and taxpayers. The President should be left with his Constitutional duty to veto or sign any law including a budget. Not so long ago, Congress held all the budget strings and refused to grant budget authority to the Executive branch.  Congress realized then that control of spending by the President of a country has led to tyranny and too much power concentrated in one part of the government.

Re-configuring this check and balance in the wings of government as it was written in the Constitution, if the President vetoes a budget which has been duly passed by Congress, then to voting citizens it will be supremely obvious who causes the next shutdown, tyranny is less likely, and also who is responsible for deficit spending.

The current debate on the Ryan-Murray budget deal does not change the fact that the debt ceiling will be hit again on February 7.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-obama-wont-negotiate-on-debt-ceiling/article/2540803

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/nelson-mandela-a-candid-assessment?fb_action_ids=10200917621172546&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.UqcXpRlCqRU.like&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B1375801742666676%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%22.UqcXpRlCqRU.like%22%5D

Reblogging    http://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/there-is-no-denying-global-warming/

Here’s the Obama White House document detailing expenditures for climate change. Scroll down to Table 1. There are $5 billion in taxes and $8 billion in payments “in leu” of taxes “That May Reduce Greenhouse Gases” in 2013. I challenge you to find any law or regulation which authorizes these taxes. Congress voted AGAINST these taxes.    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

Obama warned us under his plans, “electricity rates will necessary skyrocket…. Coal-powered plants, natural gas plants, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations, that will cost money, that they will pass that money on to consumers.” 

• Absent any real world evidence that increasing CO2 harms life on this planet…
• disregarding the merits of evidence in thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies that both higher levels of CO2 and warmer climates are beneficial to life…
• in possession only of hypothetical computer models which have yet to work…

the Obama administration and a Democrat-dominated Congress allocated $3.4 billion to projects in 43 states to R&D and demonstrate sequestration of CO2, $2 billion of which is already committed.  And, the EPA will require hydrocarbon-fueled power plants to install this expensive but un-proven technology. 

According to this September 2013 report by the government’s non-partisan Congressional Research Service, “To date, there are no commercial ventures in the United States that capture, transport, and inject industrial-scale quantities of CO2 solely for the purposes of carbon sequestration.”…”For example, DOE states that the cost of deploying currently available CCS post-combustion technology on a supercritical pulverized coal-fired power plant would increase the cost of electricity by 80%.  The challenge of reducing the costs of CCS technology is difficult to quantify, in part because there are no examples of currently operating commercial-scale coal-fired power plants equipped with CCS.  Nor is it easy to predict when lower-cost CCS technology will be available for widespread deployment in the United States.”

The $3.4 billion is just the beginning.  These are just R&D projects.  The plants have not been built yet.  But Obama’s EPA is already shutting down power plants that produce the nation’s electricity.  The final cost could be 10’s or 100’s times more that that $3.4 billion.  And it will all come out of your pocket. 

Is the U.S. government insane?  No, this is big-government operating as usual, distributing the wealth of tax payers to the cronies of elected politicians and bureaucrats.  Like solar, wind, bio-fuel, electric car, ethanol fuel, the money – your taxes and your increased power bills – for carbon sequestration will go to cronies, and like those other technologies, carbon sequestration has no chance of reducing global warming.  There is no real world evidence that human-produced CO2 causes significant global warming.  You are being scammed once again, extorted to be precise. 

Extortion: The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42496.pdf      

The arguments made by NOAA, UN, EPA and so forth are dependent on a hypothesis which has been falsified many times over by real world data.  Proponents of the hypothesis created many computer models during three decades, but so far, none of these models has been able to accurately predict global temperatures retrospectively or prospectively.  A computer model is only a hypothesis.  A hypothesis must be tested against real world data.  The hypothesis predicted that increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide would trigger catastrophic warming of the planet.  This has not happened.

Many billions of dollars have been spent attempting to validate this hypothesis over the last 30 years.  However, much to the consternation of the proponents, the planet has not warmed and the models have been unable to predict even the general direction of global temperature.  The actual measured temperature trend has been statistically flat for more than 15 years and during that the same period the trend of CO2 concentration has continued to increase in its long term trend which began before the industrial revolution, that is before humans began using coal, oil and gas.  Climate model after model, more than 70, have continued to predict warming, some continue to predict catastrophic warming, but the global temperature trend, as measured by the most accurate means possible (satellites), has remained trendless, statistically flat.

Weather and climate changes almost continuously locally and globally, but global climate and temperature are averages computed across years and across geography.  Despite temperature swings as much as 50 degrees in one day in some locations, the average temperature for planet has varied considerably less than 1 degree.

In addition, examinations of historical data have revealed that when global temperatures trends have increased, this increase occurred prior to increasing trends in CO2 concentration.  An effect cannot occur prior to a cause, so CO2 cannot be a significant cause or trigger for warming trends.  More likely trends of increasing CO2 are an effect of planetary warming, especially oceanic warming.  Humans contribute only minor CO2 compared to the oceans.

Other studies revealed that CO2 concentrations have historically been several times higher than today’s trace concentration of CO2 and during these elevated periods there was abundant life, e.g. the Jurassic period of dinosaurs and nearly planet-wide jungle.  Many other real life scientific studies with growing various flora and fauna have shown that higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2, even several times higher, result in enhanced growth.  These were not computer models but growing of real plants and animals.

Other studies revealed several periods (e.g. Roman, Middle Ages) when temperatures were warmer than the warmest of modern temperatures and during those warm periods life was abundant, while in contrast cold periods such as the Little Ice Age resulted in high death rates.  In other words, even if the planet were warming, the result would likely be good for living things, not catastrophically bad.

Finally, it has been revealed that many of the studies published by global warming proponents have been faked with manipulated data, and those global warming proponents have made many attempts to ostracize, black list, defame and defund scientists and others who were skeptical of their warmist claims.

In summary, the hypothesis espoused by a relatively small group of climate scientists has failed miserably, although many no doubt will continue to fight for their belief in order to keep their jobs, their grants, and travel benefits.  But, multiple countries have withdrawn support for the UN climate change regime and have begun reversing regulations and taxes on carbon.

Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor in environmental studies and politics in science concluded recently, after reading drafts of the UN climate report AR5 chapter 2,  “Of course, I have no doubts that claims will still be made associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change — Zombie science — but I am declaring victory in this debate.”  Geologist Don Easterbrook states: “When compared to the also recently published NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) 1000+-page volume of data on climate change with thousands of peer-reviewed references, the inescapable conclusion is that the [UN] IPCC report must be considered the grossest misrepresentation of data ever published.”

Climate of Uncertainty: A U.N. report can’t explain the hiatus in global warming.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304713704579092883286839894

OPINION EUROPE

The Political Science of Global Warming: The U.N.’s latest climate-change report should be its last.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303464504579106993839343868

by Edward Snowden

This article by Edward Snowden was published Sunday in Der Spiegel.

In a very short time, the world has learned much about unaccountable secret agencies and about sometimes illegal surveillance programs. Sometimes the agencies even deliberately try to hide their surveillance of high officials or the public. While the NSA and GCHQ seem to be the worst offenders – this is what the currently available documents suggest – we must not forget that mass surveillance is a global problem in need of global solutions.

Such programs are not only a threat to privacy, they also threaten freedom of speech and open societies. The existence of spy technology should not determine policy. We have a moral duty to ensure that our laws and values limit monitoring programs and protect human rights.

Society can only understand and control these problems through an open, respectful and informed debate. At first, some governments feeling embarrassed by the revelations of mass surveillance initiated an unprecedented campaign of persecution to supress this debate. They intimidated journalists and criminalized publishing the truth. At this point, the public was not yet able to evaluate the benefits of the revelations. They relied on their governments to decide correctly.

Today we know that this was a mistake and that such action does not serve the public interest. The debate which they wanted to prevent will now take place in countries around the world. And instead of doing harm, the societal benefits of this new public knowledge is now clear, since reforms are now proposed in the form of increased oversight and new legislation.

Citizens have to fight suppression of information on matters of vital public importance. To tell the truth is not a crime.

Translated by Martin Eriksson. This text was written by Edward Snowden on November 1, 2013 in Moscow. It was sent to SPIEGEL staff over an encrypted channel.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-manifesto-for-the-truth/5356919      

https://magazin.spiegel.de/reader/index_SP.html#j=2013&h=45&a=119402581