Lies, Damned Lies, and Embarrassed Global-Warming Liberals

"Global warming" fraud conclusively proven.

Throughout the six thousand years of recorded human government, there have been countless millions of lies told by public figures large and small.  Some never get discovered and the lie passes down through history as recorded truth; others get discovered only too late, like Hitler's famous Big Lies which were very convincing until after he'd dragged all of Europe down into a Holocaust of destruction.

Rare indeed, though, is the lie which is both of the mammoth society-destroying type and which has reached the level of Received Wisdom throughout an entire elite leadership structure, and then which suddenly and very publicly is revealed to all as the fraud it is, before extremes of destruction are reached.  In fact, on reflecting through history, I can't think of an example.

Until last month, when the lies of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were revealed to the world by an anonymous hacker.  Not since Aladdin has a thief saved his country; and this data thief may actually save the world from the proverbial fate worse than death.  For the stolen data, now posted on public whistle-blowing websites throughout the Internet, reveals all the truths that climate-change "deniers" have been shouting upon deaf ears.

Why has nobody other than the IPCC been able to see the actual raw data collected by researchers which supposedly proves global warming is taking place?  Simple: IPCC officials at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit destroyed the underlying numbers after they'd created their alarmist graphs, so that no skeptics could identify any methodological or mathematical errors they might have made.  Since the work was funded by the governments of England and the United States, destruction of the data is destruction of government property, a criminal act which can and should be prosecuted.

How is it that the IPCC's numbers show a nice clear "hockey-stick" warming trend where other research shows the world getting colder?  Prof. Phil Jones succinctly explains in one of the leaked emails:

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline[emphasis added]

Yeah, adding in fudge factors is definitely one way to make the numbers show whatever you'd like them to.

What about the very serious point global warming alarmists make against deniers, that denying scientists can't get their research published in respected scientific journals because it isn't very good, unlike the alarmists whose views burst from the pages of the most august tomes?  Gordon Crovitz explains:

The panel, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, now faces the inconvenient truth that it relied on scientists who violated scientific process. In one email, the Climate Research Unit's director, Phil Jones, wrote Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, promising to spike studies that cast doubt on the relationship between human activity and global warming. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," he said. He pledged to "keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another email exhange, Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Jones: "This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature.' Obviously, they found a solution to that - take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."  [emphasis added]

In other words, these scientists whom most viewed as the world's leading climatologists decided that any journal which published scientific articles that didn't agree with them no longer counted as a scientific journal, and that no "respectable" scientist would ever be published in the sort of pulp rag which would ever consider publishing non-alarmist research.  Shades of Barack Obama saying that Fox News is not a legitimate news channel because it criticizes his political programs!  As the Wall Street Journal (Europe) reported:

The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited-in that same peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim.

Oh, and what of those much-vaunted computer software models showing the world warming, the icecaps melting, and the world ending?  The leaker kindly included the computer code used by the IPCC for its modeling, in which we find this interesting snippet:


; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!



valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$

2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'



Yes, that's right: the computer code was designed to create a warming trend no matter what data was put into it.  You could make up your own numbers showing the exact same recorded temperatures each and every year for the last thousand years... and the "model" would still spit out an Al-Gore-style hockey-stick warming graph.

This is not science; this is not data; this is not research.  It is fraud, nothing more, nothing less - transparent, obvious fraud.

Let's sum up: we now have ironclad proof that a) there is no data proving global warming even exists, b) the IPCC scientists knew that the data didn't support their views and created dummy results to get the answer they wanted, and c) they used their undeserved respect in the scientific community to suppress any research which contradicted them, regardless of its scientific merit.

This is the "scientific consensus" that wants to force the rich world into paying countless trillions of dollars, countless millions of lost jobs, unimaginable loss of modern comforts... to solve a problem that can be "proven" to exist only by the use of forgeries, fraud, and lies!

Now, there is no shortage of true believers in global warming even in the face of this awe-inspiring scandal.  They do have a point: just because there is no evidence of global warming doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't happening.

It's also true that just because UFOlogists have entirely failed to produce ET, it doesn't necessarily mean that extraterrestrial aliens aren't among us.  After all, how can you absolutely prove a negative?

But until the alien-abduction brigade can bring a crashed flying saucer, decaying alien corpse, or working ray-gun to a press conference for all to see, we aren't going to reorganize our entire global economy to meet the impending threat of an invasion from Mars.

Just because a bunch of noisy, self-interested academics and politicians say that we're destroying the world does not mean that we should give up everything that modern technology has given us without abundant proof.  For years now, Al Gore has been pointing to his fellow Nobel-prize winners, the IPC, as the last word in scientific proof.  Today those selfsame "authorities" stand revealed instead as charlatans of no more scientific standing than Doctor Cure-all and his Magic Elixir.

Spending fifty cents on a fancy bottle of soda water "guaranteed to cure all ills" is one thing.  Spending more than our entire national economy on chasing an ephemera... well, that's the sort of malfeasance of which impeachment charges are made.  Before this scandal broke, a majority of Americans wanted no part of the "cap-and-trade" bill.  And now?

Well, the mainstream American media, predictably enough, have totally ignored the entire scandal.  There is, however, that small phenomenon of which they may not be aware, and for which they can thank none other than His Greenness Al Gore.  Yes, that's right: a surprising number of Americans are now using the Internet, and are finding that the newspapers of England are as engaged by the Climategate scandal as ours are ignorant of it.

The results are quite amusing.  The American MSM merrily sails on, rolling out the same stock "sky is falling" climate change articles they have for years... then, in the online comments, ordinary Americans tear them apart for their lies, as with this example from the Washington Post.

If the common man needed more proof that normal news organs are intentionally hiding front-page events, this is it.  Last week my family went to dinner at a local pizza joint, and I took the opportunity to bring them up-to-date regarding Climategate.  From the next table over came a cry from one diner to their partner on overhearing my remarks, "See, I told you it was true - there's somebody else talking about it right over there!"

Throughout the country and the world, the same thing is happening - on the subway, in restaurants, in the office - as the truth is passed from one to another, with proof supplied instantly online, despite even the best efforts of Google.

For the Left, here be dragons.  Getting truth directly from the Internet is habit-forming... just in time for elections in England, the United States, and perhaps Australia.

Kermit Frosch is a guest writer for  Read other articles by Kermit Frosch or other articles on Environment.
Reader Comments
Wait... that computer code snippet IS REAL??? I thought you were exaggerating for effect. They really added comments in their code for "oops" and "fudge" and "artificial"? That is ASTOUNDING.
December 1, 2009 9:52 AM
I read this elsewhere in the London Telegraph.. my global warming activist friends have been silent, but they are starting to reconsider their support for Mr Obama (the war) and the health care debacle, which is probably why they are friends, not debate adversaries.
December 1, 2009 10:04 AM
Wow, looks like Climategate has already claimed a political scalp: the Australian opposition party just abruptly sacked its leader because he strongly supported a devastating cap-and-trade bill, and replaced him with another guy who called climate change "absolute crap." Nice! One down... hundreds to go...
December 1, 2009 10:54 AM
That code doesn't look legitimate to me... what language is that? No markers for comments made in the code? Many languages use ; to mark the end of a line of code, but why would there be ; every couple of lines?

Its good, however, that the prophets of global warming are meeting their collective judgment. As with prophets of the end of the world, when it doesn't happen people are going to look twice at your methodology.
December 1, 2009 2:43 PM
mumbo jumbo rools
December 1, 2009 3:15 PM
The leading semicolons are the comment markers - so any line starting ";" would be ignored by the compiler.

The programming language is called IDL, and uses semicolons that way.

Mumbo jumbo only if you don't know IDL, like, well, pretty much everybody. Thank goodness for experts on the Internet who can parse this stuff!
December 1, 2009 3:39 PM
Thanks, I was trying to make it make sense in C++ :) I've never heard of using ; as a comment marker.

Having looked through those I would like to add that this seems like a very obtuse language. I'm not a professional coder but I've programmed in Python, C++, Java, QBasic, and Visual Basic and I can't make heads or tails of that code.
December 1, 2009 8:18 PM
Apparently neither could the IPCC programmers - the email train that website referenced seems to show constant complaints that they couldn't make head or tail of what earlier programmers had previously written. Kludges and fudges on top of kludges and fudges. And yet we're suppose to sacrifice our entire civilization to the outputs of this abortion of software!
December 1, 2009 9:27 PM
Good naming conventions and comments intended for other people not you are how you have to write code. That stuff is just non sense, I'm not surprised they couldn't make heads or tails of it.
December 1, 2009 9:34 PM
I'll parse this for you. Delete mumbo jumbo & rool. Insert confusion & control:

Where there is confusion there is corruption, usually associated with financial fraud but always when there is a corrupt government who wish to control the masses. In the Third World it is achieved through disease and hunger, in the West the levers are money and our recently programmed 'green' conscious.

We would need to ask if more confusion is being created by the expose of this confusing piece of programming language.

Thank goodness for lateral thinkers: Enjoy your linear world.
December 2, 2009 12:11 AM
Here's the Times' take:

E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science
Messages from British climate scientists gave insight into their thinking, and they might be their own worst enemies.

Of course, they weren't their own worst enemies until their machinations came out. YAY for Freedom of Information acts! If only someone could bust into the Federal budget guys and find out where the stimulus dollars are REALLY going! The White House sure doesn't know.
December 2, 2009 5:01 PM
The code clearly says what it is doing, and the email quote is also quite clear. Generally I have trouble believing in any conspiracy that has more than four members in the know. I can think of only three ways to reconcile the information:

1) There was a very small group, including Prof. Jones and the author of that program which were conspiring and were able to have extremely tight and complete control of the whole field that nothing was published in other journals. This seems hard to believe.

2) There is an actual reason to model things that way, although I find this hard to believe as well.

3) This is not a representative sample.

In any large group discussion you'll have people doing dumb things to make their point at the expense of reality. You'll also have people who actually understand things filtering crap out. Perhaps there was good reason to keep those two papers out. Perhaps those are the only two that received such treatment. I don't know. I do know Mr. Frosch didn't go through the entire leaked data to see what was going on, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't have the technical background to understand the technical details.

That doesn't mean Mr. Frosh is wrong. Not many people do have the background or time to wade through so much stuff and gain a clear picture. It certainly raises my eyebrow as to the process which was followed and possibly violated for publishing in that one journal.
December 3, 2009 5:02 AM
Looked at the polar ice caps lately? Actually spoken to ANY legitimate scientists about the changes that are occurring everywhere around the globe due to the increasing temperatures? I thought not. Instead you find it easier to pick up some bullshit oil-company-sponsored-and paid-for talking points that shoot out of Rush Limbaugh's or Glenn Beck's ass.

Have you completely lost your god-damned minds? Do you finally not give a shit about the world you're going to leave posterity, because you've swallowed so much corporate propaganda disguised as "Americanism" that you don't know the real meaning of conservatism anymore?

Wake your selves up, dumb asses. There is a tipping point and we are there. What we do in the next several years will definitely help determine the future of our species. God help you if you can't snap out of the left-right paradigm and start thinking about your responsibility to those who will come after us.
December 5, 2009 1:05 AM
"Looked at the polar ice caps lately"

Yes, so what?

Have you looked at Antarctica lately? It's been growing at a rate of 9 inches per year.

The fact that one region of the world is getting warmer does not mean a) the ENTIRE world is getting warmer or b) that it is caused by human activity.

Stop the scaremongering and actually read some real science. This, for starters:

It's telling that every time a global warming proponent comes along, he spends 75% of his time berating global warming opponents for being "dumb asses" and the other 25% of the time droning on about how 'the end is nigh'. Then he'll throw in a few 'read the science' cliches without actually ever citing any specific science.

Where's your data, dzent1?

What 'legitimate' scientists would you like to quote? Michael Mann at Penn State? Or perhaps the team at East Anglia University?
December 5, 2009 6:00 AM
"Tipping point", what a total load of BS. The whole planet had ten times more CO2 during the age of the dinosaurs and was lots warmer - there were palm trees in Antarctica, for goodness sake! And there was more and lusher plant life then, and more and bigger animals, than ever in human history. Oh, and mammals too, none of which were driving SUVs.

Worried about feeding people? Pray for more CO2 and more global warming. Naah, dzent1, as an environmentalist you'd probably rather all those horrible humans starve to death and "save the planet" for the speckled gnarf.

When I meet an environmentalist who doesn't fly in planes, drive a car, or take hot showers, then I'll listen to whatever scientific evidence he's got - if he can find any that's not lies and fraud. Otherwise, if it's not that big a deal for Al Gore to live in a massive manor and run around in idling SUVs and private Learjets, it's not that big a deal for me to do the same when I can afford to.
December 5, 2009 6:29 AM
The Times is occasionally prophetic:
Biggest Obstacle to Global Climate Deal May Be How to Pay for It
The price of a climate agreement will be $100 billion a year by 2020, many economists estimate; some put the cost at closer to $1 trillion.

Ms. Rosenthal has a point, particularly now that citizens are catching on to the fact that we've been conned. Is anyone calling for an investigation?
December 5, 2009 10:20 AM
The business minds behind this are genius; the work generated must be colossal. Wind Farms & Harvesting the Waves must be a real money spinner not to mention a vote catcher for the Parties who claim 'Greenness'. The cottage industries and by products are with us: Let's pay for another study and enquiry, let's buy and sell quotas, let's create more confusion and that is always great for corruption. I wish I was smart and work out a way to get on the gravy train of Global Warming. Any side will do me because the 'proof' appears to be out of reach of both teams. Stand alone extracts from computer programmes appear to be the order of the day. Reminiscent of a recent article where extracts from emails were used out of context in attempt to secure a conviction, is it a con one way or the other? The answer lies in the future, the question is how best can I hedge my bets and make money like the rest of the fat cats?
December 5, 2009 12:52 PM
Any idea of finding a 'legitimate' scientist is unfortunately blown out of the water by this. How am I to know if the person is speaking to protect his wallet or on scientific merit. I've attempted to read science papers and I lack the proper back ground to know if its total crap or useful information.

Scientists disagree on a regular basis about myriad ideas. Before Einstein most physicists believed that they had the entire big picture of the universe figured out. It was shown that they were wrong. Today, with this gross misuse of public trust of science, how are we to decide if any person acts within the scientific method in the pursuit of knowledge?

Honest disagreements do no harm and much good, but the abuse of science by any group of scientists calls into question the purpose of them all. I would hope that most scientists act with good intentions to further the interest of knowledge, but blind faith in science has been shown to be an ill placed trust.
December 5, 2009 2:26 PM
The Times is still a true believer in man-made climate change. Oh, well, they still like Obama too, what can you expect?

That Climate Change E-Mail
E-mail messages with contrarian views from American and British climatologists don't negate the underlying scientific facts about climate change.

What theydon't tell you is that the emails make it clear that nobody knows what the underlying FACTS are given destroyed data, faked computer programs, manipulating the peer review process to censor other scientists! Pui on the Times.
December 6, 2009 6:49 AM
Would climate stagnation be preferable? How about global cooling? The only constant is change.
December 7, 2009 11:40 AM
So you say that the numbers from 1961 show a decline, how can you factor out the numbers from 1981 that show and increase. we are talking 28 years here, and the biggest increase to industrialization around the world in history.
December 7, 2009 3:24 PM
Sorry, richard, but your "facts" are almost exactly backward. Read this article from the London Daily Telegraph.
December 7, 2009 4:03 PM
Count me as a guy that has been interested in this whole issue. I got to this site through a Google search as I was looking for more information about the "Climategate" subject. I can honestly say that I am a guy who has read global warming articles in the past, watched scary movies about "what it will be like in the future when the polar ice caps are melted (Water World) and just accepted it as "something we need to fix". I always suspected that maybe we where not getting the whole story...but this now is stunning!! Besides the obvious issues with faking scientific research results, I am even MORE disappointed that the media is not covering more than they are and demanding a full investigation!!
December 7, 2009 5:00 PM
It's over. Time to file declaratory law suits against politicians to force them to PROVE they have followed their Oath of Office, Fiduciary Responsibility and DUTY as public servants. We The People have got to take over this out of control government. We don't have to wait for the NEXT election. These morons have violated public trust. Can anyone spell TREASON. George Washington didn't take the British to court, he shot them. Jefferson once shot a man on the White House Grounds for treason. The Romans killed their Senators. I don't think we have to go to those extremes but the prisons are filled with INNOCENT people of any crimes. The "Powers That Be" have obfuscated and manipulated the "LAW" for so long it is now common place. Judges are legislating from the bench. Scumbag lawyers are foreclosing illegally. Statue law prevails as opposed to Common Law. Politicians spend millions to get a job that pays $150,000 annually.

Our Military people (now waking up to fighting Corporate Wars) took an oath to the Constitution as well and thank God for

The good news is forums like this. 300,000,000 people might just be waking up.

I like Robin Williams comment: Hey "sparky" ("sparky" = politicans, judges, police, lawyers) DOES CUSTER'S LAST STAND HAVE ANY MEANING TO YOU?

We are paying attention and we are coming, fair, square, above board and by the book, but WE are coming. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
Pucker Up!

December 13, 2009 9:15 AM
Ok, let's just closely examine the supporting data for AGW.

Oh, wait! The "scientists" destroyed the data!

Why would scientists destroy data that supports their claims of Anthropogenic Global Warming???

Answer: They wouldn't. They destroyed the data precisely because it undermined their claims about AGW! If the data supported AGW, they would have smeared our faces in it.

AGW is the greatest scientific fraud in the history of mankind. The effects range from the starvation of poverty stricken people around the world (corn-ethanol swindle) to an attempt to completely bankrupt the world economy.

These criminal cockroaches should be put on trial for high crimes against humanity.
December 20, 2009 2:24 PM
Just one question for all the "warming" nuts out there. How do you explain the glaciers melting several thousand years ago? There weren't enough people to affect climate change then, no internal combustion engines or power plants etc, I guess their campfires were the cause. Global warming indeed! What a crock!
December 22, 2009 11:49 AM
it was the all smelters from the Bronze & Iron ages.. once man discovered how to mine and shape metals, mills became pandemic, forests were devastated, denuded, and like the smog London was famous for [due to coal burning], skies were blackened around open pit mines and armories, forges and foundries.. it was not until when coal was discovered, thousands (I think) yrs later did the forests start to recover, only for automobiles to continue the process: but the culprit was not CO2, but particulates.

>>this is a joke of course<<
December 22, 2009 12:08 PM
Well the glaciers could have melted from many natural factors. Perhaps instead of left bashing right and right bashing left people should be able to see the fact that what information we have and act on politically is lining someone's pockets. Be mad, but don't point fingers and bitch. Not enough of you know shit about the end result.
January 1, 2010 2:10 PM
Interesting article.
The emails you quote are taken out of context and the word usage in the emails is not the same as in a normal conversation. Scientists use common words differently. Ask them.
The code you quote doesn't appear to be of any computer language I recognise (but I could be wrong)
As to whether there is climate change or not I would suggest asking your parents and grand parents. It would seem to me daft that if you pollute the atmosphere that nothing is going to happen, its like smoking, no harm in it until someone dies. The world is changing because of humans. The world will always change, how fast it changes is up to us. I can see with I own eyes the world is changing. It is the only permanent in this world.
Have a good new year
January 4, 2010 10:06 PM
The world may be changing because of humans, but that is no reason to demand $$ from producers to go into the pockets of politicians- to be coerced into a form of insurance, paying for it to people who do not provide coverage is insanity and theft, and not sensible policy to those who would live rational lives; the climate change hypothesis is less and less a theory and more and more a scam to force billions of people into degraded level of living and an elite (politicians) to continue to debate what to do about it.
It's not about science any longer; it's about power, and silencing those who would disagree into a sense of shame and moral degradation and guilt.
January 4, 2010 11:16 PM
@irvn On the subject of politicians demanding $$$ from others to pay for a market to trade for "carbon credits" or whatever they are is outrageous. I agree with you.

I think it was an American Indian Chief that said that only when all the trees are cut down and all the fish gone from the river will man realise that he cannot eat the dollar.
January 5, 2010 5:11 PM
i does not tell anythig about global warming and im am 12 years old and in six grade trying to write a 30 page paper of global warning and it is talking about other crap. when i look on google it said WHAT IS GLOBAL WARNING AND THAT IS WHAT I PUT IN AND IT IS TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELES.
January 5, 2010 6:36 PM
Wow, Sabrina... All I have to say is... stay in school. Especially English class.
January 5, 2010 6:54 PM
Sabrina, if you'd like a thorough explanation of "global warming", you will not find one better than our series beginning here:

In fairness, though, the facts we discuss will probably not match the propaganda your teacher is expecting. Please feel free to refer her to our site as a reference.
January 5, 2010 6:57 PM
@Sabrina.. I am in school to become a middle/high school teacher- part of our training is to discourage the students from believing everything they read, develop the use of the brain, and question anything & everything anyone tells you, especially a teacher- of course I never believed my parents too, but that's part of growing up, for I only half agreed in the long run.
"Global Warming" in the scientific sense is the increase in average temperatures since the last Ice Age, ~20 000 yrs ago. It may be caused by solar activity, variations in the Earth's orbit- some would have you believe it is deforestation, power plants and the burning of fossil fuels.
You need to make your own decision, based on incomplete and even falsified data- sound impossible?
A good scientist will keep her mind open and defuse and annihilate counter-arguments to anything reasonable.
Good Luck~!
January 5, 2010 11:59 PM
January 6, 2010 5:55 PM
I love how Factcheck uses words that are themselves unfactual.

What "scientific consensus"? There IS NO scientific consensus. For some reason, those that support AGW seem to think that as long as you use those words, it really exists.

The "scientific consensus" that Al Gore uses in his movie and books is mostly made up of the CRU at East Anglia and self-referencing material by the IPCC. Other than those (now obvious) hacks, there is no other consensus. Same with the IPCC - again, a group that largely basis it's findings on a close-knit cabal of self-quoting researchers.

Go out around the blogosphere and read the random writings of mathematicians, biologists and physicists. At places like regular mid-Western universities. None of them agree about the consensus.

Their writing on the subject does one of the following:

a) defers to Gore's cabal, taking no personal stake in the debate
b) takes personal stake and uses the evidence from Gore's cabal, regardless of the fact that they THEMSELVES can't point to the underlying data that no one can see
c) takes no position at all
d) says it's a load of crock

Those 4 styles pretty much wrap up every position you find by scientists OUTSIDE OF the IPCC and the CRU East Anglia.

What consensus?
January 6, 2010 6:46 PM
Having read the factcheck article I noticed two things that call its assessment into question, although do not prove it wrong.

1. FactCheck seemed to rely purely on people that support the idea of global warming to determine if there were substantial issues revealed by the Climategate letters.

2. FactCheck stated that tree rings have diverged from accurate reading of the temperatures as gathered in the field. This means one of two things. Either tree rings are not an accurate way to gage temperature over time or the current readings being gathered are not accurate. Either way this presents an issue for both global warming proponents and global warming skeptics.

In the end I'll leave it to this: Clean air good. Killing the economy to get there... not so good.
January 6, 2010 7:28 PM
That the world undergoes climate change quite apart from human acitivity is easily proven through historical data and scientific research (real science).
The medieval warm period - approximately 800 - 1300 AD saw global temperatures warm enough to allow Vikings to colonize Greenland and Newfoundland (1000 AD +/-). It was warm enough for them to grow crops to support their existence. I don't recall anything in history lessons about power plants, SUVs or any other nasty old carbon dioxide emitters causing that warming.
Of course, the U. N. IPCC claims there is no evidence of a general warming but it was limited to North America and Europe. I find it odd that two relatively small areas of the globe unerwent considerable warming while the remainder experienced no such phenomena. That means that normal atmospheric circulation caused by normal global rotation somehow mysteriously ceased for several hundred years. Sounds like a lie to me - especially when coinciding warm and cool periods are evidenced in lake sediment as far away as Japan.
Shortly after the Medeival Warm Period, Earth experienced the "Little Ice Age" that lasted well into the 19th century. This period is known as the "Maunder Minimum" - a time of extremely low sunspot activity. It seems a logical conclusion that sun activity - which is not consistent over time - would impact global temperature based on the above observations.
I read recently that sunspot activity will peak in 2012. It will be interesting to see if temperatures decline as predicted when activity slows afterwards. We'll survive if it's just the usual 22 year cycle. However, I don't know if we'll survive when governments start making us wear some kind of measuring device that will record the amount of CO2 we exhale so they can tax us for it. It sure will be hard on athletes.
All joking aside, we are being led to believe there is another crisis in order to fleece us of our comparitively small amount of wealth and most of our freedom - a U.N. objective as they march us toward global communism.
And, one last thought. Earlier messages explore the idea that some scientists are more interested in their grants than telling the truth. Judging from my extensive readings, I'd say that's more fact than fiction.
January 15, 2010 3:59 PM
My take on this has always erred on the financial gain to be made on the confusion this issue has generated - where there is confusion there is corruption. It is alleged one of the Global leaders in corruption is the UN. I would like to thank kline27 for the contribution to the debate. My original contribution was: mumbo jumbo rools, I still stand by this.
January 16, 2010 3:23 PM
Eyehave said: is on solid ground in making the UN - confusion - corruption link. One only need research why and how the UN was created. There is a super rich and equally powerful cabal responsible for creating crises through their operatives - the UN being a big one. The global warming hoax is just another in a long series. Crisis creates confusion that begets corruption. It is likely many will view my comments as coming from a conspiracy theory nut. Using the scientific definition of theory, ".more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers." I stand guilty. The information is out there. If anyone has any doubt about the global warming, oops, I mean "climate change" hoax, one only need read about the information revealed when hackers broke into the computer system at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) for the University of East Anglia in Great Britain. One thing revealed is the convenient omission of data from the Medieval Warm Period I previously mentioned. It must have been an "Inconvenient Truth". Another inconvenient truth is carbon dioxide is a trace element comprising only 0.038% of atmospheric gases. Water vapor is responsible for 97% of heat being reflected back to Earth. If global warming is an issue, maybe we should be reducing water vapor emissions.
January 17, 2010 7:17 AM
All this conversation is enlightninh but there is ONE person that's being left out of this (heated) "discussion" & that is the creator of our world. And b4 I'm blasted as being a fanatical "religous" nut let me propose this idea:

If science is being questioned and is just a mega-money scheme &/or a "power-trip", let me remind you the Darwinian (therory) is also just that- a scientific therory which hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of doubt yet is still taught as fact in out schools today. It takes some hard (illogical) thinking to blindly accept that a beautiful world "poofed" out of a (seemingly) disasterous BIG BANG.

Romans 1 says people are without excuse... If anything will destroy "our" world it is the sin of the world & a non-acceptance of a loving God who made the world. There's nothing we can do to protect the "end times" but until then, we need to be responsible enf to take care of what we have been given. I pray that our choices will consider everyone and not just ourselves. Our eternal salvation is what is at state and not the trivial things like... AGW and other things distracting us fm the BIG Picture. God's Blessings to you all...
January 17, 2010 11:08 AM
Ah Suzanne, you too are on firm ground. It all ties together. I've studied the Bible off and on for over 30 years and I sincerely believe we are approaching the end times. One world government is prophesied and, even though many are pointing out various methods being used to get there, I haven't found a source that ties it all together. One has to look in many directions to comprehend the drift. I will now likely be accused of being a religious fanatic as well as a conspiracy theorist - the very reason I did not bring scripture into the thread before.

Before I sign off I will apologize to all perusers of this thread. I have a really bad habit of writing too much. Sorry.
January 17, 2010 12:08 PM
The end times have been called out for nearly two thousand years. Each of them said that this time it was different. The end will come as a thief in night. Let us face these problems as mortal men. Let God worry about the rest.
January 17, 2010 12:27 PM
jonyfries is right. "For when ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars...' 'For nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows." - Mark 13:7,8 - spoken by Jesus Christ when asked for signs of the end. And, that was about 2,000 years ago. This is only a small sample of numerous things taking place today, much of which was prophesied over 2000 years ago. These signs are happening even as I write.
January 17, 2010 2:55 PM
My point, however, was that people have always looked around and seen the prophecies coming true. Nations have always been rising up against nations. Disease has always stalked the land. We can not worry about if the world may be ending, instead we must assume it will not and act accordingly.

The crops must still be planted, sure its wasted work if the world does end, but if the world doesn't then we would all starve.
January 17, 2010 3:33 PM
Correct - prophecies have been coming true. I've read the Bible is 30% prophecy and 30% of that prophecy is in our future as of about 1990. That means 60% of prophecy has been experienced by mankind. I do not worry about the end of the world and I certainly do not advocate others do either. And, you are also correct that we should continue our lives as if no event is anticipated. Look at it like death - be prepared but don't worry. As an aside I've developed my own hypothesis about the beginning of the end. Read about the Yellowstone caldera, Mount Tambora and Lake Toba. A super volcano could occur at any time and could account for some of the tribulation descriptions in Revelation.
January 18, 2010 11:48 AM
The conspiracy behinde this hoax is to use global warming as an excuse to force all the developing countries such as China, India, Brazil and many more to buy new advanced energy generating? equipments and utilities from advanced western countries such as US, Germany, France, etc.. If developing countries refuse to buy new energy generators, all modern countries have the right to imposed large amount of taxes on all imported goods and services from these developing countries. It's supposed to be a way to force developing countires to be economically dependent on modern countries so that we can keep them on the leash. Another words this lie is actually created for our goods. Hahaha....
January 18, 2010 7:43 PM
And just where has Al "I invented the Internet" Gore been since the failed Copenhagen Climate Conference (that unfortunately happened during an awful snowstorm that brought the entire country of Denmark to a standstill and made it so so hard for the attendees to remain delusional about anthropogenic global warming)? Hiding out in his huge energy-guzzling mansion that has a heat signature you can see from space, probably. Visit for the latest comics about Al Gore and the other Libtard clowns!
January 24, 2010 10:40 PM
I'm sure you're all (or could be if you read some alternative news sources) intelligent people, how can you all really believe that the brown smog over major cities and the dirty, undrinkable water (again near large cities) isn't a caused by man and won't have catastrophic effects on the planet as a whole? We are ruining the ocean and the air! No matter what you want to call it it's bad and we're in trouble. Globally this is acknowledged as an issue, why is it that the US makes the biggest mess (highest CO2 admissions) but doesn't feel the need to clean up after themselves? You make me SAD to be an American! Lets step it up and show the world we aren't a joke and acknowledge the problem!!!! Please!!!! We only have one planet!!! Are you really willing to risk being wrong on this?
January 31, 2010 2:03 AM
CO2 emissions are a something that I would like to see lowered. Clearer air is definitely something that I want, clear water, and large tracks of pristine lands. All great things.

I want environmentalists around who will fight for zero emissions just as I was large corps to fight for economic growth. The goal, in my opinion should be the eventual elimination of all pollution. This however is not an attainable short term goal. States should enforce progressively more strict pollutant restrictions. If all industries were forced to slowly increase their pollution controls we would eventually get to where we all want to be.

The problem is that attempting to force such changes too quickly will destroy our economy and who will follow in our foot steps to eliminate pollution if it leads to significant economic hardship? The long term goal would be served worse by attempting to do too much too quickly.
January 31, 2010 11:46 AM
Don't worry about glodal warming. There is no reason to because there is no such thing! We CANNOT destroy the planet. God created everything. If He can do that, then surely He can keep us from destroying it.
February 3, 2010 10:14 AM
Lizzy, that logic is farcical.

Did God create human beings? How, then, do people murder each other?

Did God create dogs? Why, then, was Michael Vick able to kill one?

Did God create water? How, then, is mankind able to poison streams, leaving them unpalatable?
February 3, 2010 10:26 AM
Strictly speaking we can't destroy the planet. Earth will continue to exist with or without us. We could however make it uninhabitable by humans. I really doubt any kind of pollution could manage that on a large scale but there nukes could manage it.
February 4, 2010 12:19 AM
Why will the Earth continue to exist with or without us? I don't believe in man-caused global warming, but the "earth can't be destroyed" doesn't make any sense.

Other planets, stars and asteroids have been destroyed. In fact, if the orbital patterns of Earth were affected even slightly by other spatial forces, we could be hurdled towards the sun.

As for mankind itself, it has already, in just a few short years of technological progress, discovered molecular processes for massive destruction.

How much more powerful is a nuclear weapon today than an exploding barrel of gunpowder 100 years ago? What will we have in another 100 years? Nuclear weapons are only the beginning.

Outside of one's belief in the supernatural force of a God to not allow the Earth to be destroyed - a purely religious view - there is no logical reason to say "we cannot destroy earth". If anything, technological trends show that we moving closer to that ability every single day, never mind the forces occurring in space around us over which we have no control.
February 4, 2010 6:57 AM
The human race, at present, does not possess the means to destroy the earth. We do possess the technology to make it uninhabitable but that is entirely different. If every explosive weapon current in existence on earth were to explode right now the earth would continue to circle the sun, it would simply be minus a vast number of life forms.
February 4, 2010 10:50 PM
Kermit Frosch the author of this article is KERMIT THE FROG, i had no idea how smart puppets are. I am surprised at the credibility of this article. Haha!
February 8, 2010 12:13 PM
we the humans of this planet have the right to preserve this planet for future generations of humans our children and grandchildren ,this planet can only take soo much abuse by pollution for the sake off mankinds greed .if we as humans are not responsible for what we do today there wont be a tomorrow The Bible predictions is correct because what happping in this world END TIME IS NEAR
February 9, 2010 9:51 AM
Anyone capable of logical thought processes should recognize a few characteristics of this ongoing thread. First, Mr. Frosch's article is lucid, rational and well referenced. Second, there are some responders who write more from an emotional perspective than factual. I think of these folks in the commonly used term "tree huggers." The subject is global warming, not pollution and, even though I agree there are some things that need to be healed, they have no connection to the warming lies. And last, there are some, when faced with overwhemling evidence that they are on the losing side of a debate will resort to name calling in order belittle their opposition and soothe their dented egos. One would be better off to note that none of the writers of the latter two groups have offered up even one tiny shred of evidence to support the global warming scam. Mr. Frosch, thank you.
February 10, 2010 7:58 AM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...