Thursday, 2 February 2012

The opportunities for fraud within climate change

The opportunities for fraud within climate change

This is not a scientific essay arguing the reality or otherwise of man made global warming, but the potential for dishonesty, theft and general fraudulent behaviour, legal or otherwise, from every possible area within the realm of the system from top to bottom.
Due to the inherent complexity within the natural atmosphere then representations of anything from temperature and sea levels to projected changes and internal cause and effect connections are potentially so tenuous meaning the potential to hide or change material is there from the start, and up to the personal integrity of the individuals and organisations involved whether or not to use this to any degree to their advantage.

My own opinion is the complexity, disagreement on core measurements, and most of all major reliance on predictions in a profession previously designed for short term forecasts of no more than months ahead leaves this an open issue, but this is about the opportunities to abuse this area rather than presenting all data honestly and openly, however wide the following uncertainties become. The areas covered are the science (using recognised and official data from qualified sources), attempts to 'mitigate climate change', the media and governments and psychological tactics. While each can be looked at individually they all overlap and interlink like a spider's web, so will always include each where related.


I am not a scientist but an interested layman who relies on scientists to inform me and then if required form my own opinions, after all, nearly all voters and jury members for that matter are in the same position, yet have always been accepted to decide on defendants' guilt or innocence by hearing both sides of any subject matter whatsoever. But the inherent complexity of suddenly finding CO2 has risen over the last century, associated with a slight rise in temperature which may or may not be causing it, and then trying to prove it when trends in climate often take 100 years or more (Phil Jones, CRU) the resulting chaos caused is enormous. The lack of requirement for such detailed world measurements previously has been because climatology was divided into meteorology, the short term local weather forecasting for people and businesses, and the academic side which looked into wide trends and history. Suddenly climatologists were promoted to have to practically analyse the climate as a whole to see how and when the added CO2 would interact, and from the many reports I have read, the existing technology is simply not adequate for such a task. Land temperature measurements were drastically reduced in 1979 when the first satellites were put up (15), meaning now we have two quite different sources measuring temperature attempting to either merge or compete the various findings to create a usable and consistent picture, and then divide the measurements further into land, sea, and air which all react quite uniquely from each other. Climatology itself only really began in the early 70s from a branch of meteorology when the University of East Anglia set up their now world governing Climate Research Unit.

Until the alleged problem with a slight rise in temperature coupled with a much higher rise in CO2, this had not been an issue. The current science is based mainly on the work of Svente Arrhenius in the early 1900s, long before the measuring opportunities available now. As a result they were based solely on what was and is still possible under lab conditions and molecular equations including energy conservation etc. and the very rudimentary direct measurements available worldwide at the time. I have heard a number of climatologists on the radio explain how they noticed the temperature rise since around 1970 (which also coincidentally corresponded with an increase in the number of stations from circa 1950 to circa 1970 and corresponding temperature changes), and started to eliminate possible causes until all they had left at the time was the correlation with the rise in CO2. Although it could not actually be proved for certain it became treated as such simply as they didn't know anything else at the time. This is called an argument from ignorance, ie even though you don’t know for certain, it ‘must be’ the only known possibility. That was around 1990, since then new satellite readings and solar effects, combined with a far deeper knowledge of short and long term oceanic cycles, simply as they were now funded to do so, are continually providing a better understanding that there are many more possible causes of the temperature rise, but the first potential for fraud is the inertia in refusing to shift the political position in response to new doubts. This in effect is a departure from science, which constantly tries to disprove all its theories, even well established ones like the constant speed of light, as new methods and technology will infinitely be arriving to learn yet more. Here the political and financial incentives to stick to the story regardless and spend money actually paying organisations to quash new data as it appears, such as the University of Queensland's Global Change Institute, who employ John Cook, the creator of the Skeptical Science website designed purely to quash every new study showing climate change is not as ‘expected’ and turns out a constant stream of material all day every day. They of course would say they are fighting the liars on the other side, whoever they are, but science should stand and fall on its own merits and not need full time PR departments to stop it from evaporating. George Soros also runs Environmental Media Services, part of his Fenton Communications company to do much the same thing, running the Real Climate website, as well as the activist group MoveOn. Interestingly Soros is also a perfect example of ‘big oil’, having a $811 million stake in the Brazilian oil company Petrobras. Clearly there is no conflict between climate policies and oil companies as claimed. (17)

History shows scientific breakthroughs tend not to be from consensus but individual innovation, from the eventual shift from the flat earth and heliocentric universe to the long term theories on the causes of stomach  ulcers, ie stress and excess acid, leading to a lifetime of partial treatment with antacids. One single scientist discovered a presence of campylobacter in some samples from patients, and had to poison himself to test if that was the cause. This is now the known cause and now allows a total cure in many cases. This of course is a simple system with measurable cause and effect. The climate, however, was the very area which gave rise to chaos theory, as it is extremely complex, large, open and non-linear. Putting this data into a computer based solely on what we know right now and expecting unknown sensitivity to added CO2 and feedback to     be played out when we simply can't know until it happens is basically a fairy story with the potential to claim anything you want, especially as the IPCC use a 100 year projection where the temperatures, at an average of 2.5C if nothing stops the rise in CO2, but from 0.5 to 6C, an error margin many times wider than would be used in any other field, and an experiment which is physically impossible to know the result as no one would be alive to know it.

This is not a foundation designed to preserve integrity, clearly quite the opposite. The IPCC, to give them credit, contain vast explanations of uncertainty in their reports. The media and politicians however have consistently used proven dishonesty in only reporting the possible problems and not the pages of benefits, uncertainties and list of caveats supposed to be used when interpreting the complete scope of the report. A very recent example was on the 21st of October 2011 when the Economist and Guardian in the UK both reported the temperature report from Berkeley University, which was trumpeted as proving global warming once and for all. What it did do was simply say that given the data from the other major studies the findings were roughly similar, but was not designed to attribute the warming to anything in particular, plus it was released before peer review. But the major act of dishonesty was leaving out the crucial conclusion, reported here in full to see how selective reporting can and does remove any scientific value and integrity and the collusion by not challenging these errors (nothing has ever been mentioned since) shows the network is present to allow such events as whatever the reasons for doing so by the publications the system above it clearly approves.

Such changes may be independent responses to a common forcing (e.g.greenhouse gases); however, it is also possible that some of the land warming is a direct response to changes in the AMO region. If the long-term AMO changes have been driven by greenhouse gases then the AMO region may serve as a positive feedback that amplifies the effect of greenhouse gas forcing over land. On the other hand, some of the long-term change in the AMO could be driven by natural variability, e.g. fluctuations in thermohaline flow. In that case the human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.”

(AMO= Atlantic multidecadal oscillation, one of many interacting natural current cycles along with the regular el nino and la nina.)

This clearly changes the message drastically, and reporting a study without the punchline is a perfect example of how easy it is to both distort the original material and collude to allow it to happen unchecked.

The basic foundation of the CO2 global warming effect is very simple, and based on lab experiments which would presumably be based on pumping CO2 into a flask of air and measuring the associated temperature rise under controlled conditions, equations and measurements of air content to temperature throughout history. The base figure was the greenhouse effect heated up the planet an average 33C above space, with 95% of the cause being water vapour. CO2 at 260ppm added 1C. The fear is based on positive feedback, mainly from an increased ocean evaporation causing more cloud cover and raising the temperature far more. So in isolation doubling it to 520 would add another 1C. So far the experiment is half run at 390ppm in late 2011, and the average rise has been 0.8C. Subtract the rising trend and you are left with pretty well zero feedback already, so if the experiment can be simplified and played out in the real atmosphere, so far the positive feedback has been clearly absent to any observer. However, it is not even a certainty as past CO2 concentrations are mainly assessed by ice cores, which itself is not a fully accepted method of obtaining accurate figures. (1) Also it does not occur to most people that the greenhouse effect, the reason given for this problem existing at all, applies to a greenhouse with glass windows. The atmosphere, however, is an open system and as such allows far more heat exchange than a solid panel of glass. Recent findings by NASA's own Terra satellite in 2010 have found more heat leaving the surface than predicted mathematically. (16)

Of course I am personally unable to write a full scientific analysis, and plenty of others who are qualified are busy doing so elsewhere, but the holes clearly visible to anyone who looks, and examples of them where no one needs to be qualified to see them. This overlaps with the next area, psychology, as appeal to authority and the associated automatic trust is exploited here to its maximum levels.

Scientists, especially doctors, have always held one of the highest positions of trust in all societies. But also the phrase 'blinding with science' means their power is such it would be easy to hide a fault behind incomprehensible data should they want to. Professionals are human first and professional second, and all human nature has the potential to override professional integrity. There's no shortage of examples, even the latest of Michael Jackson's personal doctor found guilty of professional negligence for prescribing an anaesthetic as a sleeping draught. Temptation is a human failing if succumbed to, and money and power are two of the biggest. But the internet has allowed everyone to check scientific data now, and the summaries
and simple graphs are usually quite sufficient to be correctly viewed by anyone. But the ones who do not, the great majority, simply rely on what they are told, as they quite rightly should be able to. Now knowing this
unscrupulous experts of all types have had the potential to exploit this throughout history. If this then goes on to make laws based on what may not be a genuine theory then they both have little idea and condemn those who try and claim it may not be certain as they have already been told both by experts and their leaders it is.

There are various ways the media can also get around reporting exactly what is published. Although this forms the basis of the world's current state of knowledge and law making, it is full of caveats, uncertainties and also includes many potential benefits of a warming up to 3C. I have yet to see any of this reported in the    media or mentioned by politicians. They are certain, certain enough at least to have an urgent need to 'tackle the problem', mainly in financial ways which will be described later.

This doesn't imply a certainty, the standard line is 'The science is settled', although the IPCC report adds 'with many doubts and limitations'. As the IPCC are actually the source of their information unless they look at either the source material directly which agrees or the alternative studies which do not, they are duty bound to report it honestly and openly, but do not. If they did then the only thing settled about the science is the limits. Yes, it may be likely, but in criminal law a defendant is innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, yet the list of reasonable doubts in the IPCC report have no place in laws anywhere, eg

"Projections of climate change and its impacts beyond about 2050
are strongly scenario- and model-dependent, and improved projections
would require improved understanding of sources of uncertainty and
enhancements in systematic observation networks. {WGII TS.6}"

"Uncertainty in the equilibrium climate sensitivity creates uncertainty
in the expected warming for a given CO2-eq stabilisation
scenario. Uncertainty in the carbon cycle feedback creates uncertainty
in the emissions trajectory required to achieve a particular
stabilisation level."

These two alone (from a good few more) are enough to blunt the tools of any climate activity, but no reference has been made to my knowledge in political circles, who do not make reference to any doubts or built in uncertainties but act as if doing nothing would be a reckless and dangerous omission. The methods they use to do this lead us to the largest area of potential, as the heaviest weapons they use are financial ones, which should wake the observers to a huge open cash register for unrelated hangers on, let alone the legislators and teams themselves who are no less prone to altering the details to finish the job. In fact there is a recognised term for this which I will explain in detail later, called 'Post Normal Science'. The very title of the IPCC report sections 'Summary for policymakers' is a diversionary tactic in itself by implying that is all they need to, and as a result probably will read.

"There is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems." 

"Many extreme weather and climate events continue to be the result of natural climate variability." 

These two just arrived from the preview of the latest report in November 2011, and is far more uncertain overall than all the previous ones.

One of the main IPCC suppliers of data are the East Anglia University 'Climate Research Unit'. If anyone assumed climate data was always reliable, direct and straightforward, the hacking of their emails, never disputed as genuine, has changed all that, although the team were never found guilty of wrongdoing. That in itself will be discussed further as the choice of panels to do so was hardly impartial. Mentions of 'hiding the decline', 'tricks', and best of all 'we'll just make it up' are all from the very scientists people both trust their lives to and pay their taxes because of. The fact nothing ever happened as a result does not confirm they did nothing wrong, but that the investigations did not necessarily conform with legal standards. The network of connections and hierarchies, which shore each other up and protect from outside scrutiny and challenge is almost watertight (see diagram). This is not complete but contains all the main players and direct links in both directions. Each fits with the other in ways to make sure support is always present from whichever unit is challenged, so acts together as a smoothly running machine to seal any cracks which may try and form.

The wide variation in both measurement methods of temperatures, sea level and ice coverage and thickness, and the spaces where they are not taken, mean there is no average figure which is exact, but based on estimates within error margins, and also means each supplier is not exactly the same as others, often quite different. I have found a series of graphs for each covering the same periods and place, and the variation seems beyond something that can be relied upon for any more than basic short term trends. And the IPCC report which chose the famous 'hockey stick' diagram showing a sharp rise in temperature since 1970 was one of four, three similar and one with far less of a rise. This would not have a particular reason to
choose one over another, except using the team scoring method in sports like gymnastics the highest and lowest figures are always discarded. And it turns out prior to 1995 the IPCC used a different temperature history with a medieval warm period far higher than present, which is also in all official academic publications before then. This raises a number of questions, firstly clearly one has to be completely wrong, but which one? They have either found earlier methods of measurement are wrong and corrected them, in which case what is stopping the new measurements becoming equally superseded by better methods, and as the data they collected before the early 19th century used proxy data and the current graph still does, what makes the same proxy data read a degree or so lower now than it did then? And if it was so far out it needed to be altered by such a vast amount (greater than the total rise shown by the hockey stick) what have they learnt about the identical proxy data they used for the first graph that meant they read it so poorly the first time? Isn't that just saying you can't trust proxy data at all if it can suddenly become so different once errors were discovered?
Despite the same results occurring continually with these world measurements the media and politicians usually manage to pick the highest rise (or fall, for ice), whereas
anyone checking can quickly find university and coastguard records showing quite different plots. (2)

James Hansen's artificially extended world temperature graph, apparently filling the 75% of unmeasured temperature in red heat rather than evenly with the overall average. (3)

Secondly the gaps in coverage mean somehow they have to be filled in. The two usual ways for this are smoothing, taking the average across the board where there is data, and using anomalies, usually the difference between the average for a certain time across the period covered. This is aimed at covering the issues such as uneven coverage and local highs and lows etc, and effectively shows the increase rather than whatever the base figures are. But adjusting data again opens the door to many potential hidden tweaks only able to be deciphered by experts or comparing with the original data when available. The worst examples are the swarm of altered gradients around online, where originally fairly flat average lines have been tilted to rise despite no rise being in the original figures. I'm sure some had a good reason to do so, but is not exactly normal practice across the board in any area of measurement, in fact without a very good reason the data must reflect the original findings and explain any deviation clearly on the same page. Again, blinding with science means the writers have carte blanche to provide whatever they wish to the public, who, even if they are told it's been tilted, assume it had to be for some reason, although none was given. And contagion appears to have happened, as you also discover that independent agencies such as coastguards produce public graphs online as part of their duties and are provided purely as a long term public service with no relation to climate change theory. Then you discover graphs for the same area (eg the US west coast and seas off Australia) by a university investigating climate change and they have been altered. The major point is not so much whether there has been any unnecessary alteration, but how it looks to the outsider. And as it is both possible to tilt graphs for genuine and disingenuous purposes then again the public won't have the slightest way to tell when they come across them.

Now this raises the single question 'If the coastguard data is provided as accurate, why does it need altering?'. I have yet to learn a single answer to this, and would suggest an example of the facts speaking for themselves at least prima facie. Furthermore, If lives depend on coast guard data, would they really be likely to fiddle it and risk being caught out and suffering lawsuits? This further raises the question if their data is for safety at sea, then what right have others to take it and mess around with it at all?

World temperature measurements include land, sea and air, plus satellite. Like ice and sea levels it is different at all points and times, but the most in comparison as it can change in minutes. Trying to obtain a standardised version, where graphs going back in time also use proxy methods including tree rings and ice cores, makes it a task way beyond direct and simple. Then they try and compare a period from 1850-2010 as if all the data, proxy till the late 19th century, land measurements till 1979 and then satellite, coincidentally when it sharply rose, and treated as all equal. Sea level is just as variable in its results. Satellites have also been used alongside the floats, but although similar are capable of producing significant differences both from each other and float measurements, while floats themselves are limited in their ability for a list of reasons. Ice measurement can be visually displayed quite accurately from satellites, but it does change rapidly and as well as local freezes and melts only the total amount is significant for reference, but not only the coverage but thickness which even the best satellites cannot gain more than the most basic measurements (+/-15% typically. Sea ice varies cyclically). Satellite measurements are often affected by orbital decay and for the most part this has not been accounted for correctly. Satellites with controlled orbits give different and usually fairly constant responses. Pen Hadow was sent to the Arctic to drill at intervals for a better idea (demonstrating this limitation with satellites), but the equipment failed and was only able to measure the every thinnest ones before breaking. They also travelled across the easiest routes which are newly formed thin ice which is flatter and smoother, thus avoiding the very direct overall measurements they were claiming to provide. (4)

The opportunities within statistics to alter data without detection are infinite. At school I learnt to present data, and had I stayed on for A level would have learnt to adjust it. But only had I continued to study to degree level would I or most other people be able to tell when someone else had, and how to return to the original data by reversing the process. A little know fact has arisen around the all important oceanic oscillation cycles. They average around 60 years and the end result is a regular warming and cooling cycle within the overall picture. The hockey stick diagram placed the mid point for its temperature anomaly bang at the end of the cooling cycle. This had the effect of doubling the apparent rise, as they began at the lowest point. This can only be avoided by not using a 30 year average at all but a 60 year one to smooth out the data on both parts of the cycle, which would have halved the hockey stick in slope and temperature rise. This cycle is almost unknown outside the climate community but hopefully better known after learning it here. The full diagrams are at the reference site and even without an A level in statistics is simple to see after presented before and after tweaking. (18)

The media are not apparently too concerned with any of this, as if ice melts it appears to be news. Whole TV programmes have been made about melting glaciers, selecting individual ice falls as if it only started happening recently, and using that least scientific method of all, generalising from the particular, or induction. Of course this in itself is not actually fraud, just something a student would be failed for, but allowing it on TV through the production process may be considered irresponsible if nothing else.

Until climate change few lay people had more than heard of peer review in passing. Since, it is the first question aimed at every single claim, 'Has it been peer reviewed?', as if it refers to some essential step almost akin to passing a camel through the eye of a needle, or passing the queen's test of being amused. I
am far from familiar with it myself so have only included it for completeness, the two major observations I am familiar with is firstly that peer review does not actually have to look for mistakes and the accusations (easy to follow for those adequately equipped) that some climate papers (especially within the CRU) had been peer reviewed by colleagues who were not independent. (5)
So there’s a classic example of the kind of thing that bothered me. About twenty years ago, I started saying ‘Well why are they pushing the peer review?’… And now of course we realise it’s because they had control of their own process. That’s clearly exposed in these emails.” Dr Tim Ball, climatologist.

This is a regular accusation addressed in the study of peer review, where instead of peer review being genuinely used to eliminate invalid or incorrect parts of a study for whatever reason, many journals can choose the reviewers and insiders such as the one quoted, an experienced writer and peer reviewer, is only too familiar with. So instead of being a quasi-academic process which can actually be used to pass studies as fit for purpose, as it is not actually an official technical review with any binding rules or marking, it again is left wide open to mutual back-scratching exercises.

These holes in the system simply tell us that climate measurement for the whole planet is not an exact field, but a collection of estimations within a particular margin of error. But no reports that reach the public through media or politicians tell you this, despite it being almost of statutory status in the IPCC reports. You should not treat climate data the same way anecdotally or any other way as linear data such as astronomical paths. We know where a star or planet will be millennia ahead, as known even as far back as ancient Egypt. For some reason the general public seem happy to accept the climate data, including all or any future projections as just as certain, although they are almost polar opposites. The longer you go ahead in time with any climactic feature the further the divergence from linear by its nature. The IPCC report has a wide shaded area to demonstrate this, so quite open, but policies have not appeared to acknowledge any but the top 5-6C figure required to 'create' a genuine problem ahead, rather than the far more likely 2.5C in the very middle with the best likelihood (according to the IPCC at least). The actual time and effort required to check all this material for ordinary working people would make it an unpaid task few would have the time or interest to pursue, and then only with the internet and a good deal of storage to collate the findings. The politicians are fully aware of this, and as the sanctions of lying to the public are generally non-existent (besides expensive judicial review, there are no real ways of taking politicians to task on technical issues unless a crime has actually been alleged) they are free to take as much or little advantage as they feel able to, much like the expenses, which were criminal and thanks to the Freedom of Information Act among others, and investigative reporters, did the same job as the internet has done for climate records. Some classic examples from the CRU Climategate emails, none denied but all since exonerated:

Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh, yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.”

"plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."

"Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid the decline)"

"Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"

And no sooner did I add these did 5,000 more arrive in climategate 2, in November 2011. This isn’t all about them as many others have been written on them entirely, but if the first were suggestive, the new ones are completely explicit. As well as long discussions being threaded together showing doubts with models (what, they don’t think they’re reliable either?) but the best so far dedicated to the same sort of comments about Michael Mann’s hockey stick temperature diagram, the very reason the IPCC exists, everyone else has said ever since it was unveiled to the world.

#4133 Johnathan Overpeck – IPCC review.
what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm)the globe actually got.

[and later]
Unsatisfying, perhaps, since people will want to know whether 1200 AD was warmer than today, but if the data doesn’t exist, the question can’t yet be answered. A good topic for needed future work.

This is just one of a string of similar comments made which overall question the whole existence of his work, which still has never been opened to scrutiny to his peers (what happened to peer review?) by releasing the original data used to create it, and a court case in Pennsylvania is still losing the fight to make this happen. More samples have been added at the end as an appendix.

Psychological methods:

Having studied counselling I am able to recognise known human emotional and cognitive weaknesses which allow those with authority to exploit them who understand them and how to do so. This was actually developed in the 1930s by Goebbels, expanded by the Soviet Union as propaganda and rebranded from the USA as public relations. This goes from the most basic pushing the positive and playing down the negative, now known as spin, to openly inventing problems in order to persuade the people to accept the solution to it they wanted to implement in the first place but would never have been accepted otherwise. To quote Goebbels directly,

"...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."

Although lying was not essential, it was irrelevant to the message, preceeding post-normal science by

“Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false.”

By openly disseminating propaganda whose content or tone causes the enemy to draw the desired conclusions “

Of course who 'the enemy' is in each new situation is different, but the wonderfully coined new term, 'denier', appears to refer directly to who the AGW team's enemy is, and chillingly reminiscent of the exact Nazi origins of the insult.

Hitler then described it perfectly, not that I'm saying anyone believing in global warming is a Nazi of course, but demonstrating such a system both exists openly for the purpose of manipulating the public, and has been used and eventually sanitised into PR ever since.

“Make the lie big. Make it simple. Keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

This has now further developed into the Machiavellian method of 'Post-normal science', where a worthy end justifies any means, notably the priority of the cause over the truth, which is seen as subserviant. Although Goebbels already stated this clearly, modern PR would claim those days are over and they would not dream of lying but of course they would, wouldn't they. But post-normal science is the first since the 1940s to openly embrace avoiding the truth for a greater cause. “ appropriate for cases where "facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent" (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1991). It is primarily applied in the context of long-term issues where there is less available information than is desired by stakeholders.“ In an interview specific to climate change in The Guardian, the top CRU climatologist Mike Hulme stated

“…’self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking…scientists—and politicians—must trade truth for influence. What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy.” (6)

Although this has been dressed up with emotive language and high ideals, he is admitting the policy is not one of direct honesty.

There are two simple weaknesses exploited here, first, the appeal to authority, and secondly and by far the strongest, abject terror. Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, has exploited this to its ultimate extent, with the most frightening catchphrase of all 'You must do this for your unborn grandchildren'. This contains every bullet in the propaganda/post-normal arsenal, as the strongest bond of all in nature is between parent and child. In counselling, you learn the reason why normally normal rational people act like unbalanced ones or worse is the emotion involved with your children overrides the higher brain by bringing in the lower brain survival mechanism found in all mammals caring for children. This is how one of the great thinkers of the 20th century saw blindly relying on experts:

Karl Popper in “The Myth of Framework
  [...] in my view, the appeal to the authority of experts should be neither excused nor defended. It should, on the contrary, be recognized for what it is – an intellectual fashion – and it should be attacked by a frank acknowledgement of how little we know, and how much that little is due to people who have worked in many fields at the same time. And it should also be attacked by the recognition that the orthodoxy produced by intellectual fashions, specialization, and the appeal to authorities is the death of knowledge, and that the growth of knowledge depends entirely upon disagreement”
Perception is king in the world of PR or mind manipulation, and if you then look for trouble you are guaranteed to find it, regardless of the fact it was always there and nearly always involves induction, like looking at isolated melting glaciers or floods. In fact blinding with science is best operated here, and when interviewed many citizens quote items like the ozone layer and air pollution when asked about the climate, although the ozone layer is to protect from ultraviolet light and not affected by CO2. Pollution is the key word in the PR machine's ammunition. Like 1984, they have taken a word with a very clear dictionary meaning, ie 'A substance or substances which are dangerous and unwanted in the environment', but inherently dangerous per se. That means things we all recognise like raw sewage and industrial waste. Overnight it seems, since the day President Obama made CO2 a pollutant, people both now tend to see all industrial pollution as affecting the climate (it doesn't, this is about CO2 and a small additional amount of methane from farming) whereas if you followed the dictionary line and eliminated CO2 from the atmosphere, which is
exactly what you aim to do with all pollutants, we'd all die as would all life except anaerobic bacteria and some viruses if they could survive alone. From Goebbels' long list of principles, using new words and phrases is an essential part of propaganda:

“ Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.
a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses
                    b. They must be capable of being easily learned
c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations”
So we can use catchwords like 'low carbon', 'carbon neutral' 'pollution’ (in its new definition), 'sustainability', 'denier', carbon footprint' 'clean energy', 'dirty energy', ‘green jobs’ and the like chosen and coined from existing words that all previously meant something totally different, or in the case of carbon footprint, nothing at all. Magicians and stage hypnotists understand psychology. They use diversion, suggestion and repetition to manipulate the people in the audience who know the rules and are willing participants. Perception is everything and reality is bypassed. So by exploiting known weaknesses in the human psyche anyone so motivated can take unwilling masses and persuade enough of them to both vote for and promote whichever agenda they have as long as they can make it look real enough and very hard to check for oneself. Say it's getting warmer enough times and most people will then report every single event (which was always happening already) as new evidence, and with two freezing winters in Britain even convinced many people that was part of it. If incorrect then it is using the same tactics as any common conman in cheating his victims out of their money whether from phoney investment schemes or imaginary family members in trouble. I can't see any difference between these methods and those used to enforce the views and methods within climate change. And add to the perception of worse weather events add the CO2 figures and hockey stick type temperature diagrams and it has to be man made as well. The IPCC and their information providers all say it is too early (and may never be possible) to attribute single events to climate change. That catch-all rule seems to be broken more than any other.
Helpful reporters have collected many quotes made by top officials involved in climate science, who clearly believe the cause is so strong, to follow the stated principles of Goebbels and post-normal science, the actual details really do not matter:

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Dr Stephen Schneider

A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said, ‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.’” David Deming,    2005

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”

Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”

Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

"Because you are working in a crooked system you have to do whatever works, not whatever is "nice". You have to do dirty deals to get in in a crooked system."

Dr Karl, Australian polymath turned global warming propagandist (20)

However, the other side can get their message out as well, and going back to who's telling the truth, the above quotes imply the AGW authorities clearly do not really mind as long as the people get the message, while the evil baby killing deniers (to quote many green activists) appear to disagree:

Global climate change” papers: 539
Evidence for “catastrophe”: 0
Schulte (2008)

No supercomputer, however powerful, is able to prove definitively a simplistic hypothesis that says the greenhouse effect is responsible for warming... The models are tuned to assume a high climate sensitivity, so a high climate sensitivity is what they find.”

Syun-Ichi Akasofu 2008

In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states

is not possible.”

IPCC (2001)

"Solar changes cause most climate change. The Sun caused today’s global warming. Today’s
warming is normal, not unusual. Today’s global warming will end soon."

IAU (2004)

Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed changes may be natural.”  IPCC (7)

Of course, they cannot both be right. As a court case where any man is on trial for a crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, one thing I’d say every single ‘reasonable man’ or jury member, to continue the legal theme, would say there was here. The legal result, instead of ‘wait and see’ or a partial verdict, would only be ‘not guilty’ (or possibly ‘not proven’ in Scotland, which means there is some evidence but not enough, but still an acquittal).  But both sides, claiming equally to be correct, cannot both exist in the same dimension, so whether knowingly or not, someone is being less than honest. Each claim they have all the correct figures, and there appears to be no common ground in the middle where they honestly admit there isn’t enough data to be certain either way. Cheating has been caught on both sides who tried too hard to twist graphs and the like, which is probably present in every field where something can be gained, but eliminating the general amount the remaining potential here is phenomenal. The most surreal thing about some of the second quotes is they are not from the 'contrarian' scientists, but the IPCC and related agencies. Politicians ignoring them are clearly wilfully blind to what they are supposed to rely on for their policies to save the planet, and if the costs are higher than the possible benefits then they must at least be guilty of negligence.

The carbon cycle is a universal part of school biology, so how a gas vital for all life and health becomes a pollutant by act of a politician is a PR coup to end all coups, but totally incorrect. This fully exploits the appeal to authority, as if the most powerful person on the planet says something scientific (like he's qualified, he's a lawyer) he is instantly and almost universally followed because he is the president. He doesn't therefore need to be right or even unable to test, he is accepted on face value illustrated by the fact this rule is now law since 2008 without a single legal challenge from any side. So we have an added level of the machine built on a blatant twisting of the English language with full authoritative collusion and support.

Returning to Al Gore's film, a further old-fashioned Machiavellian tactic is 'divide and rule'. Combine that with the Jesuit view of forming a child in the first seven years, then by making the film part of the UK National Curriculum, was getting young innocent children to harangue their parents about their 'carbon footprint' and blame them for killing polar bears. In fact, in the only known case of its kind, a concerned individual took the rule to court, and won the case after the judge found at least nine material scientific errors before he stopped counting and ordered both sides of the argument to be taught in future. Later the IPCC were found to have included both material errors they were warned about yet continued to place in reports, such as a study predicting Himalayan glaciers would melt hundreds of years earlier than it actually said, student theses and articles from an activist magazine as authorities for science. As who can police the police, nothing was done after these findings besides a more defiant than apologetic response much to the tune of 'It really doesn't make any difference to the big picture', a typical response when any rare news reported challenges a member on yet another study casting a doubt on an area of their previously watertight case. Belittling the opposition is a standard Machiavellian method much perpetuated by the modern PR version. However, in a recent 2011 Canadian court case trying to protect an area from industrial development, the plaintiff was   quoted as saying (in the verbatim court report) ...'although polar bear populations are currently healthy'... What, can we rewind this, he said polar bear populations are healthy, and he represents a green activist group who know their stuff? What next, falling sea levels? (source, CTV News, link removed).

Divide and rule extends all the way down, as the very people taught climate change threatens their family, born or unborn, now accuse anyone questioning climate change as baby killers and the like (I have been personally), which if nothing else is guaranteed to reduce open dissent to avoid confrontations with irrational emotional victims. The next trick is absolutism, dividing everything into black and white, while dismissing even any suggestion of uncertainty as dangerous denial, and replied with 'the science is settled'. Much against scientific method the BBC were told in 2007 not to focus on doubts now the science was settled. As the IPCC as officially the head authority on the issue (although legally they are a political organisation advised by outside experts) contains a page specifically for doubts already quoted in part, this approach clearly diverges from the reality.

Collusion can be extended to 'packing juries', as although the Climategate issue was tried by three separate panels, none at a legal level, and regardless of the findings and total clearance on all areas, besides possibly needing to be 'a little better and freer at communication to the public', no wrongdoing was found. Under British administrative law the criterion for all judicial appointments to a panel are to avoid 'The possibility for bias'. No bias needs to be found, just the chance, in which case a judicial review would quash any decision
as ultra vires, null and void ab initio. Literally as if it had never taken place. An analysis of all three enquiries showed crucial questions were not asked or issues addressed, so unlike a legal trial open to the eyes of the world, these internal affairs are not subject to appeal courts but rely on individuals with the time, legal resources and money to carry out a judicial review. One panel leader, Lord Oxburgh, did however confirm a lack of regard for the IPCC caveats and uncertainties generally, saying

“The scientific papers contained the necessary caveats and expressions of uncertainty where required. But he criticised the way these caveats were often stripped away when such research was presented by other bodies, such as the media, government agencies and the IPCC.

So although excusing the organisation itself, he did make a damning generalisation (no doubt from a huge amount of material from his position as former chair of the House of Lords science and technology select committee). Interestingly though, under the rules of natural justice in administrative law, Oxburgh probably shouldn’t have been on the committee due to the rule against possible bias. As described by James Delingpole at the time,

'Oxburgh has paid directorships of two renewable energy companies, and is a paid advisor to Climate Change Capital, the Low Carbon Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to Deutsche Bank. Last month we revealed that Oxburgh had failed to declare his directorship of GLOBE, an international network of legislators with ties to the Club of Rome.'

I will not analyse the complete personnel of the three investigative panels here, suffice to say some shared positions which would definitely have been compromised should any doubts arisen about man made climate change. As I say, this is not about actual fraud, but the opportunities, and network of support to maintain those opportunities with little chance of sanctions as a secondary level.


This is mainly driven by the political, with subsidies, taxes and financial schemes and penalties, carbon trading in particular, plus all the green energy industry, they are working under government orders or subsidies, so intimately entwined. I have already raised the issue of conflict of interests, and with politicians their job requires as high a standard as lawyers in not benefitting personally from any of their rulings or decisions. The media are also a shared part of this area, partly being businesses themselves and partly through their potential role of selective or biased reporting. I have two clear examples of the possibilities which show both a conflict, and protective system of authority stopping any investigation and possible subsequent sanctions.

The BBC, already mentioned for their one sided choice of climate science reporting, have a pension fund, which has now invested in a business called 'The Climate Change Investment Fund'. Making something which is officially supposed to be about saving the planet into a business is a pretty sly and cynical move in itself, but not actually fraudulent until it makes an individual change something in order to maintain their investment. Looking into the conflict of interest, investing in something you both report and have chosen to select what you report is a pretty clear example, while the 'possibility for bias' on the personnel side comes when you look at the company's head, who coincidentally is also a director of the BBC pension fund as well as owning the company it invests in. That's pretty much a family affair in every possible way it could be. (8)

There are two main methods of 'Tackling climate change', one is financial, one is technical. The financial includes a number of methods, all of which do a single thing, charge customers more for energy of all types except 'green energy’ (mainly wind and solar) which is subsidised from the higher bills and extra fuel taxes. Basic economics includes the price elasticity of commodities, the sensitivity to price changes, and is of three types, regular items where increases in price reduce consumption, essentials (food, shelter and power) which cannot change with price as people simply spend less on normal or luxury goods, and ‘Giffen goods’ where a price increase causes a perverse rise in consumption, but is quite a small area as you'd expect.

Therefore by raising the price of energy people are forced to simply use just as much and spend less on other things, unless it becomes so expensive they cannot afford it at all. The CO2 rise has been steady since these taxes began after the Kyoto Protocol in the early 90s, clearly illustrating this phenomenon in reality. The potential for fraud here alone is pretty clear, as if the prices are going up while the consumption, intended to fall (despite being essential) has not, the only thing that has changed is the profit. The fossil fuel price itself is the one thing which has risen regardless whether caused by carbon trading or credits, as all additional costs (on top of the direct taxes) are always passed onto the customers. The ensuing restrictions on oil and gas use and exploration of course have reduced supply and put existing reserves up drastically in price, thus giving the industry a second windfall on top of their free carbon credits, making the same resources worth a lot more by what is usually seen from other methods as market manipulation. Artificially
restricting supply is actually a crime in many countries, much as the Russian closure of the wheat market recently. So of course anything which offers an additional profit is music to the ears of the businesses involved. So called 'big oil' is nothing of the sort. BP, Shell and most others are in fact considered as 'energy companies'. They do not and need not stick to fossil fuel, far from it. They are into all energy whichever could make them a profit. So no wonder both named have large 'green energy' departments, advertising their
'carbon neutrality' (more newspeak using psychological repetition of catchphrases which are essentially meaningless) and receiving huge government subsidies to build wind turbines and the like. In fact, when the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit, the heroes of Climategate and main providers to the IPCC, were set up, thanks went out to all their backers, including half the well known energy companies. Now why would they do that if they fund skeptical PR? That is a double bluff, based on the economics demonstrated here, which must come from the warm side of the PR as energy companies do not dislike climate change one bit, it raises the value of their assets vastly and allows them to operate with taxpayer subsidies, a win-win situation.

Carbon trading, credits and offsets are the most fertile source of opportunity for the unethical investor. To begin with carbon trading, in economics an asset must be owned by the seller and deliverable. That cuts out  carbon credits for a start, and if anyone remembers the fiasco and following scandal of Enron then they will remember the fraudulent energy credits, which turned out to be imaginary assets and caused the fall of the company and owner's conviction for fraud. However, before this took place Bill Clinton's government had the first IPCC report to deal with (although in fact it was not adhered to by their government in the end), and Bill Clinton and Al Gore met Ken Lay, the chairman of Enron, in the White House to discuss methods to create financial instruments to limit carbon, and carbon credits were born direct from Enron's blueprint. As this was actually proved to be fraudulent in a criminal court, Al Gore later went on to create his own carbon trading company, which because of new laws was now both legal and compulsory in many countries. Literally making money from thin air. I have since discovered Enron itself was set up as a merger between two energy companies, and the individual behind it was the notorious junk bond crook, Michael Milken. Now to me and most other people, seeing a company created by one of the greatest frauds of the 20th century would raise alarm bells around anything else associated with it. My definition of fraud here is deception, whether legal or not. Prior to being adopted for purposes of climate, energy credits were legally fraudulent, as used by Enron to create imaginary assets to attract new investment. Just because they are now legal doesn’t make them stop being fraudulent. (9)

Carbon credits have no inherent value, and as a result the first tranche in the UK were given to companies free, some of whom actually still raised their prices as a result as the customers rarely realised this. Each lasts a year and if not used can be sold on for a profit either dictated by government as in Australia's new system, or the market of carbon traders. Japan however did not profit overall in 2010, the country losing $200 billion altogether and expected to in future years as they did pay for their credits. But someone of course sold them and is naturally quids in. So not only are they a theoretical concept, but so is their value.

The third of the trio is the voluntary carbon offset, paid to a company when using fossil fuel like on an air flight to compensate and become carbon neutral. Unfortunately the law did not require (in fact, had to negate) usual contract law for these and as a result relies totally on trust. This means the fate of your credit is not traceable and can legally go in the pocket of the company if they so wish. That is an open door to the bank after the staff have gone home.

Green energy is the second weapon against climate change. Besides the measurements of efficiency and cost, which would fail in an open market as under the British law few if any would be deemed fit for purpose, but not directly relevant here, they are all subsidised by taxes on fuel and power. This means people buying solar panels are given around ten times the value for any surplus energy generated (although only for a limited period) while owners of land are paid way over market rate from our taxes to rent their land for wind farms. And should you choose to invest in a wind farm you are guaranteed in the UK a ten year bond at 52.5% a year. Not in itself dishonest but just demonstrates the diversion from actual climate into massive personal profits regardless. I say to everyone who promotes wind and solar despite not realising its costs and incredible limitations, I'll accept wind and solar when you can run a hospital on one. I'm still waiting. Electric cars are not difficult to assess. Using commercial principles alone, compared to normal fuelled cars   10 which run for about 300 miles per tank of fuel and refuel in a few minutes, the average electric car does 60 miles per charge, which then takes around 8-20 hours depending if using 110 or 240 volts. I am not aware what happens on the day the exact journey plan failed and the driver could not reach home, or an alternative charging point, or what drivers do when out and need a charge from a charging point. The batteries also don't last many years and a new one costs a few thousand pounds, basically undoing any savings from not having to fill up with petrol or diesel. You also have to pay thousands for a charger to be installed.

There is also a similarity between the green energy system in the UK at least, with traditional pyramid schemes. They are similar to Ponzi schemes, but work on recruiting new people below, usually, but not essentially, with the selling of a product. Inevitably these products cost more than elsewhere to supply the many individuals who need a cut up the pyramid, but regardless of a product the real money comes from bringing new people on board as they supply the income of those above them. The illegal ones (although the little I’ve read of the law here is so complicated it’s hard to know what is still legal and what isn’t) are chain letter form, where there is no product but people simply put a sum in the pot at parties and evangelical style meetings, where the ‘winners’ are paid huge cheques as they’ve been there long enough for the money to work its way up to the top. As these are a form of Ponzi scheme as soon as the new people can’t be found it has to end, with all the lower levels losing their money, (as there aren’t enough on the planet as each level is a multiple of the one above), but demonstrate clearly how the people are happy to join such schemes out of greed regardless how they are expecting to get their money.

The standard legal pyramid schemes, active worldwide, have a catalogue of products like cleaning materials or food supplements, which members sell to anyone they can directly, but are told their main task is to recruit new members as this pays those who recruited them ad infinitum. The amount of profit shared between the two varies, but little to control whatever ratio the organisers choose. Now to relate it to green energy schemes, looking at solar panels in particular here, as the general public have little access to personal windmills. The customers can either buy a panel and wait for the subsidised returns plus relatively negligible power generated, or the companies can take over the panels in exchange for the subsidised energy payments for excess kilowatt hours generated. So a householder can either pay up front and take the decade or so to get their money and any potential profit back, or just get whatever power they generate free and the costs and future returns are kept by the company.

Having set the scene, the product must now be considered. Besides the limited lifetime of a panel (around 20 years) the apparent actual function of them is slightly in question. Although the story that when asked what a house could get from an £8000 solar panel in a typical day was a television for an hour may not be totally accurate the actual output is unlikely to be noticeable. Electric cars do have very exact capabilities, and as explained are definitely so inferior to normal cars, but something as subtle as an auxiliary power generator would need months or more of careful scrutiny to analyse just how much it was contributing to the householder’s total power usage amongst the rest of the conventional kilowatts. The advertising is often coy about mentioning the cost, usually a half page advert or so in a newspaper makes no reference to actual price, or many other figures such as power capacity etc. Of course as it’s dark for half the time and they don’t work so well when cloudy it’s not an exact figure, but they know the rough average. But the subsidised profits, or free extra power if passing them on to the company, combined with guilt of killing the planet with fossil fuel, seem enough to keep the industry going very smoothly regardless. So without subsidies and complex money sharing schemes then the market may not have taken off at all. Would someone actually invest £8—10,000 in a solar panel that couldn’t ever pay itself back, as the power it generated was limited to less than the initial outlay throughout its lifetime?

So we have a dubious product (as illustrated by its theoretical operation without any subsidies whatsoever) which is used by the ‘hanger on’ companies who need no interest in the environment as long as there’s a profit, and bought by individuals who don’t realise at the end they may not actually save a penny overall. How many are told they may need cleaning annually, and putting a man on the roof costs around the figure they net in feed in tariff bonuses? The product, therefore, is far less important than the moving around of money from taxes to consumers with a cut to retailers. The actual benefit comes from the seed money, subsidies taken from everyone’s energy bills, which are then shared around all green manufacturers and retailers, and the regulations are hardly a discouragement to methods which may exaggerate or otherwise mislead innocent people into taking them on, or other complex ways of making more by the companies by finding inherent weaknesses in the recording of figures at any point. But the selling of a product more for the purpose of creating ‘green jobs’ where the main profit is taken from individuals with no choice in the matter, again it has elements of a compulsory pyramid scheme for the donors, encouraging many volunteers as recruiters (retailers) who know their profit is provided by tax money, and customers who profit at the expense of those who had the money taken from them with no option. And in common with pyramid schemes, regardless of whichever hokey products are used to hook people in, the end result of green energy schemes are ‘green jobs’. Like Soviet Russia, if you want the unemployment figures to look good (although admittedly with no elections there there was no one to impress) then just employ more people in state run businesses. These green businesses are private but financed with state taxes in subsidies, so effectively running a complete synicure system based on inadequate products as demonstrated that can only exist as financed centrally.

Electric cars or the rare roof turbines which have the lowest cost-benefit ratios as wind is completely chaotic, are clearly money down the drain for personal use as despite the massive government advertising scheme (Act on CO2) just looking at the simple figures here the government won’t mention without pressure. And with all wind turbines electricity is required both to limit the maximum speed using brakes (or they burn out) and turn them to face the wind with a motor. All also require a link to an on-line power station (they use as much power when turned on whether or not they draw it for use) for the majority of time when the wind isn’t generating. These costs appear not to even have been mentioned in any official sums, which if true is clearly an omission beyond the realm of honesty. As wind power is 3000 years old and never exactly took off till now then its capacity is thoroughly known already and the law of conservation of energy determines you can’t get more out from one than the wind provides, however more efficient the blades could be made. If all these were really so good then again no one would need to hide the problems and pay rewards from money forced from others to make them be used.

Looking at the bottom line from the point of view of the IPCC, collective financial measures to 'combat climate change' by reducing CO2 output have had no effect on the rise since they were brought in. Should
this be acknowledged by authorities worldwide who make these rules, surely the honest thing to do would be to discontinue them as a total failure, and if not then why not?


Of course, all politicians in a democracy are employees of the people, and working for the country and its citizens' best interests. Having given the official position, elected and unelected officials alike are not working alone, but include business leaders/lobbyists and anyone else with enough power and success in their lives in secret meetings of groups such as Bilderberg, the Club of Europe and Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission. I am not bothered with attempting to prove any conspiracy theories indirectly here as it's a fools errand. I have direct quotes from published material and interviews with members which say it directly.

The main statement prior to any actual policies being in place comes from the publicly published report of the Club of Rome in 1991, The First Global Revolution .

The common enemy of humanity is man.
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. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

This was restated in 1996 by Mikhail Gorbachev in an interview "The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key that will unlock the New World Order" (11)
“…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations…”

Maurice Strong: Opening speech at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development

Interestingly the Bilderberg meeting of 2010 had on its main agenda 'Global Cooling' -I'm sure if anyone knows what's really going on they do.

This sets a scene not for saving the planet from a natural disaster, but changing society through fear of it, have a policy you want, create a problem and offer it as a solution. This may be hidden away in the corners of the internet but can be found and is openly published. As you can see, the New World Order or Agenda 21 (the UN plan for sustainability few people have ever heard of) are not figments of bored layabout's imaginations, but genuine ideas and articles. As such, the latest level as reported by The Guardian in 2010 is an ultimate level of world taxation in order to collect a uniform carbon tax. (12) Of course once this level exists it won't be restricted to just that but opens the potential to add others as and when needed, just like the Common Market became the European Union. Of course, without the fear and threat of climate change how on earth could they have found a good reason requiring a world level of tax, and dependent on a world level of government to do so? It all seems to fit together perfectly. In fact it has now been openly admitted in a November 2010 interview with the IPCC's lead economist Ottmar Edenhofer, who did not beat about the bush but happily admitted the whole thing, saying:

“ must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy, This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more...”

“Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalisation. The climate summit at Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War”. (13)

Well there you have it. No ifs, buts or maybes. And guess what, a year later not one known news agency has either passed this on or investigated it. Why is that I wonder? If the organ grinder has said the rules have changed, and climate change is now a method to redistribute wealth from the rich to poor countries (Africa would benefit in particular, he said), then how did it only appear in a single world newspaper with no further reactions? Now clearly as the boss has stated the new rules while those under him are still saying it's about saving the planet they can't both be right.

I can update that in May 2012 De Spiegel became the first known national paper to write a piece about the true nature of the WWF World Wildlife fund, as a means to fund wars and genocide worldwide under the guise of environmentalism, just as Agenda 21 does at local level. Here is a more explicit description (19)

The whole picture:

Now we have all the parts, all overlapping and interconnected, we can now look at how they all fit together. This is a basic simplified diagram of major routes and players but not exhaustive.


V                                                              ^




V                                           V




Each and every one of these links is open to interception with things like bribes, pressure, helping friends and family, embezzlement, exaggeration and basically pretty much anything that can smoothe the flow of cash and favourable information. In case anyone asked 'Where are the independent scientists?', they weren't invited.

The grant situation is another which has, albeit spoken, at least one open admission of guilt, when an RSPB spokesman on BBC Radio 4 a few years ago freely admitted on a nature programme they and most other related charities had to mention the climate when applying for funding as they knew this was the only way they were likely to get it although the projects were actually unrelated and solely for their genuine purpose of protecting birds. Presumably lying and cheating in a good cause was outside his view of immorality, much like other major causes in post-normal science, and the support structure of the BBC and its regulators probably knew in advance he was going to say this (or certainly should have) and fully approved and protected him from any action. This needed a good number of coordinated groups to work together to avoid  what could be major consequences and possible suspension or penalties under the Charities Act. This was an admission, albeit one almost impossible to record as you didn't see it coming (although in hindsight could have tried to replay it online and save it that way, so easy to be wise after the event) and most people just listen to these things and don't actually notice their significance as it's not particularly important or interesting to them, much like the 100% lack of media reactions from Ottmar Edenhofer's speech.

So, with well known psychological methods of persuasion, financial instruments, hidden and obscure data, selective reporting, smearing the opposition, employing friendly individuals where required, influencing decisions you are personally affected by, protecting wrongdoers when exposed, peer and superior pressure to toe the party line or risk your job, play with data in ways most people could not detect or prove, on and on. But if this is a problem based on no more than man made CO2 causing an inevitable climate crisis shouldn't the data be certain enough to stand on its own?

Naturally the financial incentives apply in every single area for those inclined, but climate change has some of the widest doors in known history since the South Sea Bubble and church indulgences. Add the added power and status, from minor obscure climatologists suddenly making world policies and getting seven figure grants, to politicians travelling the world telling not just their own people what to do, but everyone who can hear them. So here is the potential, and a good number of examples of its operation, although without so far a single criminal conviction and a single civil court loss. But all this shows is the strength and security of the system so far, as if one or two main players drop out then the whole thing can fall down so the strongest
efforts are made, regardless of the accuracy of the science, to hold together on any related profitable front which relies on peoples’ total belief in the science.

Here’s a piece actually from a BBC report:

On the Italian island of Sicily, one recently-defected Mafia boss revealed just how some of this money was channelled into Mafia hands.
Not wanting to be seen speaking to the BBC in public, Antonio Birrittella agreed to a meeting in a private room in a backstreet hotel in the island's capital Palermo.
"All these funds from the EU were seen as a gift to the Mafia, easy pickings, especially the development of wind farms and renewable energy," he said. (14)
There are three clear groups in this game. The few leaders who all know the likely validity of the science whatever it is, the many followers who accept it, vote in 'green laws' and persuade others, and the criminals who as yet are only potential as none have been convicted.
Psychology and its manipulation through PR keeps the followers of whatever they want people to follow as a majority, forming a strong foundation, whether based on a genuine issue or invented, while the leaders have enough resources to bribe and cheat their way to maintain many illusions as long as the benefits and potential sanctions are wide and strong enough. The media have deliberately been isolated in the diagram as they are neutral messengers traditionally, besides the ones on the political extremes well known and free to propose whatever policies they like in a democracy. But the rest simply sell papers and TV time. If something will generate readers and viewers they aren't particularly interested in the story itself and often only do the merest of checks just to avoid being sued. So while the smart money's on climate change few TV stations or papers would turn against it as they'd know they'd lose many of their biggest backers and more importantly advertisers. If Shell or BP (both sponsors of green projects and the CRU) saw a paper had started exposing holes in AGW then why would they want to advertise their carbon neutrality there? So the big guys have to be cultivated and mollified or else. The politicians do not benefit financially directly from taxes, but are also allowed to be company directors and any other job they choose, provided they declare it, let alone all the directorships and positions as advisors once they are out of office if they are friendly beforehand. They are also free to invest in, as are their friends and family, in the very 'green energy' schemes they both legislate to create and draw subsidies for. Again, the potential is genuine for abuse.

Looking outside the climate to companies convicted of fraud, the biggest and best recent examples are Enron and Bernie Madoff's personal Ponzi scheme (producing and investing in nothing but paying old investors from new investor's deposits until they stop coming). This lasted a few decades, was even investigated and exonerated by the US financial authorities once, and only fell by pure chance when some accounts fell into the right lap. Enron also made many honest investors rich for some years before the front loading- paying old investors from new investors money, and in their case inventing assets to tempt them in, finally inevitably fell apart. But neither, especially Madoff's, fell quickly. Warnings and alarms were sounded and ignored for many years, much as the credit crunch which Gordon Brown claimed to be a surprise, despite Vince Cable and at least one top financial advisor saying you can't keep lending to companies and individuals before they default. Again a massive fraud (legal or not, it was not honest) was allowed to carry on for years in all three cases (lending to people who they knew could not pay it back for fees, and then hiding the loans in derivatives and selling them on, or non-status mortgages, for example) with many top-level warnings along the way falling on deaf ears (eg the calls to take council funds out of Icelandic banks a year before they defaulted) so a pattern is definitely there for all major frauds, and should one be operating here then the pattern would dictate a long period of success and thriving, followed by a few warnings and slight wavering, before a total exposure as at the bottom there is only one truth, and this situation only has whether man's fossil fuel burning causes increased and dangerous future global warming and climate crisis.

That can only be known as the IPCC rightly say after our lives on earth, but the data which points to the answer is I suspect in the most part known and here now but with all the protection mechanisms will take a  very long time, if at all, to come out before the experiment is played out for real on earth. Regardless of whether a cause is genuine, if it can attract parasites such as the media and retailers who will sell anything if legal and profitable to do so are just as happy selling climate change and solar panels as cocaine were it to become legal, just as tobacco and alcohol are already and generate more tax than much else, besides now fuel and energy. As taxes can indirectly also improve the politician's lives as shown then it can't be overlooked as an incentive to wring out every final drop before the reason for it may end one way or the other. But with the resources of the UN and billionaires like George Soros and Bill Gates behind you that isn't going to be allowed to happen as fast as it ought should it become known, as human nature is stronger than anything else besides nature itself. As King Canute demonstrated long ago, even the king cannot stop the tide, and possibly man cannot either affect the climate or undo that effect after the event. But whatever the answer the incentives to promote one over the other are legion. Just by silence or fear those involved who do suspect any types of wrongdoing usually have more to lose if they raise it so stay aware but silent, the omerta culture which holds the mafia together, another fairly simple model of a power structure which has stood the test of time using the now familiar methods.

Since writing this originally Climategate2 has been released on 22nd November 2011, clearly supporting my propositions. Here are four chosen quotes as examples:

"Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary"
"I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run."
"It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group."
"Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC"

Sources and references:

Before and after graphs

      (4)  Pen Hadow survey



(15)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Temperature measurement changes    the-mythology-of-man-caused-global-warming/

(16)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Nasa satellite figures

(17)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              George Soros PR companies

(19) Polar bear population currently a healthy 25,000 (under oath)

(20) Dr Karl- a member of the 'Green Left' movement

AGW Anthropogenic (man made) global warming
AMO Atlantic multidecadal oscillation
CRU University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit
IEA International Energy Agency
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
UEA University of East Anglia
WG II IPCC working group 2
WMO World Meteorological Organisation
© David Howard November 2011

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.


  1. Goodness - a magnum opus! Two thoughts so far, because I've only read a bit:

    Years ago I read supposed received wisdom from psychiatrists, that the most balanced, mentally healthy children are the ones who have been brought up to respect their elders. Really? It’s a few years after the 5th commandment, and probably out of the same stable. Thou shalt do as thou art told. Why should we teach our children to respect bullies and incompetents, just because they’re adults? (Mine seems to take people on their merits, not their age.)

    “we'd all be poor if we left the EU”
    In 1975 I had colleagues who were voting for the EEC without knowing the first thing about it. “Common Agricultural Policy? You wot? Whaddya mean, they destroy food to keep prices up? No - nobody would do that, that’s awful.” And so on - ad naus.

  2. Welcome to my world Lesley, glad to see you here. This took me some time to write (as you'd expect) and after failing to find a single publisher interested gave up and shared it directly. The mission is now complete with my new summary (and two video lectures for those who prefer hearing it to reading it, as recommended by Jimmy Z on Facebook who ought to know as a radio presenter) and the mission is now to spread the summary as far and wide as possible. The good news is since I started this I've seen my own words come back elsewhere a few times. No idea if it was from my information or not, but hadn't seen much of it either way. This year I've seen certain names mentioned from time to time meaning they are slowly catching on, but now I am planning to make every single person I can aware of the little list on the new entry so they can no longer operate in the shadows. Learning how to publicise it was as hard if not harder than putting together the information in the first place, but I've had some help from others who did know and now is all in place to move ahead. Should be interesting.

  3. Politicians think "diagonally". The movie An Inconvenient Truth had the effect of making people deny global warming. If Gore wanted people to believe, he would've known that a Hollywood movie is the wrong place to put the message. So it's obvious that Gore is a denier -- this explains why he refuses to use clean-energy technology. Gore has been using the cover of a Liberal reputation to secretly advance the Conservative denialist agenda.

    And funny you should mention the Snake in the Bible. It didn't deny the direct message. First it added to the message (changing "do not eat the apple" to "do not eat or touch the apple") and then denied the total. Similarly, the CRU added to the global warming forecast. It seems they want the average public to doubt them. There was no leak or hack. The sequence of emails was staged and deliberately publicized, to get funding from Big Oil.

  4. Wow, you've really managed to reach the quadruple bluff ultimate level of conspiracy, but Gore is a billionaire from this and his mates like George Soros have made many millions. It is for sure about the money and an excuse to rule the world from the UN, but absolutely nothing to do with the climate except for as the chosen vehicle. It could have been anything else but this fit all the simple criteria- impossible to detect, easy to manipulate and entirely beyond most people to follow.