The scientists and their environmentalist cheerleaders really botched this one.
As the massive global warming fraud implodes, the one aspect of it that has not been explored in depth is the equally massive waste of billions of dollars spent by the United States and nations around the world, we were told, to avoid global warming.
Whole industries such as automobile manufacture had demands and limits put on them. Some states required utilities to buy "carbon credits" to offset their use of "fossil fuels." The list of things attributed to global warming expanded to the point of total absurdity.
The codification of the fraud into law began with the Kyoto Protocol, an element of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change whose purpose was to fight a global warming that we now know was not happening.
The data to support the fraud came out of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that specialized in distorting climate data in every way possible to emphasize a normal warming cycle and then to minimize any indication of a new cooling cycle dating to around 1998 or earlier.
The IPCC data, released periodically in reports purporting to be the work of some 2,500 scientists from around the world, were actually based on the handiwork of a few academic centers such as the Climate Research Center (CRU) at East Anglia University in England, Penn State University, the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and climate modeling from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.
Other participants in the fraud were NASA's Goddard Institute and NOAA, both of whom produced claims, predictions, and questionable data to support "global warming."
In the U.S. alone, I have heard figures in the area of $50 billion that has been spent on "climate change" over the course of administrations dating back to Clinton. In England, between 2006 and 2008, the government spent the equivalent of nearly $14 million (U.S.) on publicity stunts to convince Brits that global warming is real.
It is legitimate to ask if global warming has not in effect been a criminal enterprise.
The Kyoto Protocol required the nation-states that signed onto it to commit to a reduction of four "greenhouse" gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and sulphur hexafluoride — and two groups of gases, hydrofluorocarbons and perflourocarbons. These gases occur in minimal amounts in the Earth's atmosphere which is composed primarily of 95% to 97% water vapor!
The cost of accepting this commitment is measured in several ways, not the least of which was the sale of "carbon credits" to utilities and to industrial enterprises that would permit them to function outside the limits imposed. The exchanges created for this purpose prospered but it increased the cost of providing electrical energy and the manufacture of all manner of products.
The limitations, however, did not apply to either China or India, both of which were exempted, as were undeveloped Third World nations.
The climate change fraud also affected major U.S. corporations, none of whom wanted to appear to be opposed to it. However, on Tuesday, February 16th, BP America, Conoco Phillips, and Caterpillar all announced they were dropping out of the Climate Action Partnership that advocated energy-rationing. Some of the millions squandered on various global warming and "environmental" projects and groups came from the bottom line of corporations across the nation.
At this point, any corporation that speaks of "climate change" in its advertising and other public statements is part of the global fraud that originated in the United Nations Environmental Program.
The carbon emissions limitations also served to justify huge public subsidies for U.S. producers of wind and solar energy, called "clean" energy. Several nations, such as Spain, Germany and Great Britain, invested heavily in these alternative energy sources only to discover that they were massively inefficient and unreliable.
At the same time, the global warming fraud in the United States limited the building of coal-fired plants to generate electricity when, in fact, coal provides 50% of the nation's electricity needs. Combined with fears of nuclear energy dating back to the 1970s, the United States has essentially starved itself of the energy it needs.
According to a recently released study by the National Association of Utility Regulatory Commissioners, the U.S. gross domestic product would lose $2.36 trillion and American consumers will pay an additional $2.35 trillion for energy if the oil and gas on federal lands remain off-limits through 2030. This constitutes a form of energy and economic suicide!
A British newspaper, the Daily Mail, in a recent interview with CRU Prof. Phil Jones, revealed he knew there had been no "statistically significant" warming for the past fifteen years. Little wonder Prof. Jones and the CRU refused to honor UK Freedom of Information requests for the data on which the IPCC claims were based. He and others who provided IPCC data are under investigation.
In essence, the IPCC reports were all fraudulent and all were used to advance the global warming fraud. That is why President Obama's claim of "overwhelming evidence" of climate change, i.e., global warming is particularly troubling.
It is essential to understand that the "Cap-and-Trade" legislation passed by the House and waiting for a vote in the Senate is based on the IPCC reports and the threat by the Environmental Protection Agency to begin regulating carbon dioxide emissions throughout the nation have no legitimate basis in science.
There are still billions at stake if global warming-related laws, projects such as wind farms or the requirement that ethanol be added to every gallon of gas purchased are permitted to proceed or continue.
Global warming as an issue or basis for any law or expenditure of public funding no longer exists.
It's long past the time when the nation's news media should stop referring to it as anything other than a fraud perpetrated on the people of the world.
My only real question is "When will the perpetrators of this fraud be charged as the criminals that they are?" We should also go after them for restitution.
Alan,
Excellently researched.
However; your statement; "In the U.S. alone, I have heard figures in the area of $50 billion that has been spent on "climate change" over the course of administrations dating back to Clinton."
$50 billion over three administrations. Seen as how just the Obama administration has run up over 4.2 trillion in either real or projected spending over the next twelve months, and that $50 billion is only 15% of that number; we probably have other things to concern ourselves over.
I understand that cap & trade would bankrupt the country, but Obama sems to be well on his way to doing that all by himself without any legislative help.
The dolphins are poisoned, penguins are disappearing, birds are diseased, the honey bee population is collapsing, there's a hole in the ozone layer, there are cancer clusters, contaminated waters, polluted air, infected foods, diminishing rain forests, tainted drinking water…so, tell me, why does global warming seem so far fetched to you deniers? You think this is all a part of a natural cycle and man has nothing to do with this? Can you be that oblivious? Does it seem plausible to you that ALL conservatives dismiss global warming collectively and ALL liberals are unified in their belief that it exists? This is no coincidence. Why can't we respect this planet and revere it for the sacred entity that it is? Do you believe we have an intrinsic right to strip everything barren, desecrate every acre of land and annihilate all species to make a buck? When is enough, enough? At what point do you say to yourself, "ok, this has gone too far?" When there's nothing left? Then, it will be too late. Can we all agree that the earth is sick? If you can't agree on that, then, we, the claimers/believers, really have to keep you at bay and out of the decision making process because you don't work towards the common cause.
Great analysis & presentation showing knowledge & research.
I would add ('cause I see it presented once a year on PBS Army-McCarthy hearings)to those who hang on to this sinking ship: have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
MacBeth Science
Is this a hockey stick which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee!
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight? or art thou but
A hockey stick of the mind, a false creation
Proceeding from the heat-oppressèd brain?
Translation from MacBeth Science: OK, the process was poor, the data is hasty-pudding, the adjustments are ad hoc, the models don’t quite work in a scientific sense, & it was basically humbug by credentialed fakers justifying their grants & bribes from industry, but other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, we’re still 100% sure of the results. And all the fraud, “lost” data, hiding the decline, trying to put a hockey stick up our a**es, & punishment of dissenters doesn’t prove that there’s no AGW, OOPS Climate Change. And there’s some truth in the web of lies, so stop calling it a "pack of lies".
Finally, many of us skeptics were really p***ed when we were dismissed as "deniers" or (worse?) "fundamentalists" by our friends & co-workers who wrapped themselves in the mantle of Phil Jones & his “corpse” of cranks with their “splendid samples of sham science with spurious specificity”, a/k/a, "settled science".
As someone has noted: “It’s the non-skeptics who look bad. It’s not science to be a true believer who wants to ignore new evidence. It’s not science to support a man who has the job of being a scientist but doesn’t adhere to the methods of science.”
I’ve taken issue with the fact that many on the Left took the AGW theory to mean that there was an urgent need to repeal the Industrial Revolution & that anyone who objected should be marginalized.
One commenter, meiosis-impaired, hastened to admonish me by pointing out that he was only saying that our lifestyles would have to be diminished somewhat. Or something like that.
The guys who are still defending them are in the category of Birthers & Truthers.
And, you point out the follow the money theory when there's obviously just too much invested in keeping the Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change scam going to let reality get in the way. This AGW scam affected major U.S. corporations, none of whom wanted to appear to be opposed to it & QED, un-PC & retrograde. I'm glad that you noted that recently a group of corporations announced they were dropping out of something called the Climate Action Partnership, which advocated energy-rationing (death panels!). Good show!
BTW, I, fearlessly, predict, based on my computer models on the scientific study of human nature & my writings on the meaning of meaning, that Al Gore, Tom Friedman, & assorted AGW hypocritical fakers will now go on Dancing With The Stars. And that some folks one will crash planes into the More Stately Mansions of these worthies.
And, you can't disprove me. So there.
"The dolphins are poisoned, penguins are disappearing, birds are diseased, the honey bee population is collapsing, there's a hole in the ozone layer, there are cancer clusters, contaminated waters, polluted air, infected foods, diminishing rain forests, tainted drinking water…so, tell me, why does global warming seem so far fetched to you deniers?"
These claims are all false from beginning to end. That is how Greens present their arguments, citing fantasies to hide the truth.
One would have to assume that thousands of dolphins are showing up dead worldwide or at least ask what are these diseases afflicting birds that are not from natural causes. Bird species commonly suffer from ticks and other parasites, as if you cared.
The holes in the ozone open and close all the time. Most are located over active volcanoes, but you fail to mention that. Billions of ozone molecules are created and destroyed by nothing more than solar radiation.
And all this is cited as proof of a "global warming" at a time when the temperature readings from around the globe are showing record snowfalls and lower temperatures everywhere.
Shame! Shame! Shame! This does not even rise to the level of rational, fact-based discussion.
Re: dolphins are poisoned and other 'fairy tales': Holy cow Alan, I didn't realize you were mentally challenged and had no clue what was going on around you. I'm so sorry. Is it Alzheimers or Dementia? Poor dear.
Name calling is a poor substitute for an actual argument, and reveals a lot more about you than it actually serves to injure the receiving party. Your religious faith in apocalyptic prophecies built upon admittedly-falsified data is a downright comical reason for your apparent superiority complex. Poor dear.
AmendingAngel
You state; "Does it seem plausible to you that ALL conservatives dismiss global warming collectively and ALL liberals are unified in their belief that it exists?" doesn’t strike me as the least bit strange. Liberals have been unifying around foolish causes since the fifties. Liberals foolishly unifying around Obama is just the latest in a long list of foolish liberal causes. That an entire political group of could be swayed by emotional rhetoric as opposed to actual science has been happening to liberals for 'two forevers'.
I imagine that all this will go away soon. Let's face facts here, you are running out of reports to walk back, apologize for, and admit that errors exist within.
We understand what this is all about. It's all about you telling each and every one of the 6.5 billion people on this planet how to live. As soon as you've given up your car, your air conditioning, your electricity, your internet, your i-Pod and your clothing, and begin cultivating your own food on the side of a hill somewhere; then I'll listen. Until then, please have the decency to keep quiet while adults talk.
Amen Chorus Angel:
And you want to raise a lot of claims that have been, as lawyers are wont to say “asked & answered”, on a million Blogs. Many times. Good trick, but borrrrrrrrrrrring.
Shorter answer:
You Earthers are desperate & all emotion & grasping at straws.
Longr answer:
How many scientists formerly known as certain have to recant, resign, or fail to "re-up" (happening daily before our eyes) before the consensus is declared over & the settled scam science is declared scuttled scam science? IMHO, we've reached that point in the court of public opinion.
Of course, Amen Chorus Angel will just answer about the profanum vulgus, who have now been confused. And unsettled.
Some will say I’m mocking the poor guy. But, you can’t reach these guys on any intellectual level.
And he’s dumbed down a scientific discussion into a Conservative/Liberal issue.
Or maybe he has hit upon a point.
I’m laughing at these self-inflated know nothings, These “Big Government (controlled by the Right – Left, that is – People – read “us”) will take care of it; these “trust us” types. The ones who just want to control our lives because They Know Better.
What, they were those wonderful folks who brought us Global Cooling in the ‘70s? Nevermind. What, they scoffed at me & called me a ‘denier” as if I was disputing some basic principle of HS physics? I gotta get over that. It was nothing personal; it was all business; they just want to control me! OK.
It's not just mere cleverness or a superficial reaction to a really deep scientific scam, or just about the Hockey Stick up our a**es. It's like one of those Sci Fi movies. Good guy kills the blob & some of the ooze forms a new blob.
You kill the hockey stick, with a debunking by MIT, no less, & scuttle the sham science & they still say the "science is settled", the consensus stands, & you, according to them, made a mistake (which, if so, is an immaterial one) in your debunking or a misattribution & so, nynna, nynna, nynna, AGW, OOPS, Climate Change, is still not disproven & despite the rules of debate or logic you, you, you must disprove it or it's back to the Pre-Industrial Revolution status & we control your life & your toilet habits. What, China & India are ignoring us & the Europeans have never met their Kyoto goals? Nevermind.
You can’t reason with these Earther nutters anymore than you can with Birthers or Truthers.
Some will say that I am accusing these scientists of “lying” & scientists never lie. Right. And it was just negligence. (If pressed they’ll concede “Gross Negligence” Aside: in my Torts class at law school, I learned that the difference between “Gross Negligence” & “Willful Misconduct” is really philosophical & that when a guy is going 90 miles an hour in a car on some city street & kills someone it’s really a distinction without a difference”.)
Let’s just quote the poet:
False witness not to bear be strict;
And cautious, ere you contradict.
Finally I repeat some more of my own poetry
Scientists of every rank,
For shame, all in the tank.
Their claim of manmade CO2, then
Was really manmade C9H9N.
So, prove me wrong on all the claims I've made.
AmendingAngle,
Patently ridiculous! In your previous post on Feb 22nd @ 6:27 PM you made twelve, count'em twelve, completely unsubstantiated claims without a single shred of objective evidence or reference to back up any of them. And notice I said objective; we don't settle for links to such bogus organizations as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, East Anglican University, NASA, the IPCC, the UN, or the NOAA since they've already proven themselves woefully unreliable and totally 'in-the-tank' for the AGW crowd.
That's not how it works here dear. You provide objective evidence and we concur or disagree. That's how real debate works outside of progressive circles. We'll forgive your naïveté this time as you're probably a little out of your depth here. First time attempting to engage in conversation with someone that doesn't totally agree with all your positions, huh?
No one gets away with spewing out emotional statements and, in the same breath, demanding that everyone drop whatever else their doing and either prove you wrong or elevate your drivel to the category of 'unassailable'.
I understand that's how it works at the Huffington Post and Moveon.org; but that kind of play here collects nothing but derision; as well it should.
We don't have to prove you wrong; it is you that have to provide objective evidence that your point is correct.
Lot'sa luck with that!
AmendingAngle,
Just to humor you I began the process you demanded of us here. I took your accusations in order results are recorded below from a standard Google search for the actual phrase you authored.
The dolphins are poisoned,
Top eight results
Nerdfighters.ning.com
Salon.com
Encyclopedia.com
Wwf.or.th
The petitionsite.com
http://www.seashepard.com
animaldiversity.com
http://www.dolphinspirit.org
penguins are disappearing,
Top eight results
http://www.penguinescience.com
http://www.wildlifeextra.com
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
theScotsman.scotsman.com
kirkoftheartic
penguinesland.blogspot
http://www.penguine.com
http://www.abc.net (This one for the movie March of the Penguines)
I've only been through 17% of your list and have yet to find a single substantiation from ANY objective web site. ZERO. Even if I call abc objective, the reference was to a movie and not a penguine's plight. Since I do work for a living, and the results of this search so far yield no useable results; I'll cease this futile mission and allow you to do your own heavy lifting. K? K.
Bill
You’re letting Amen Chorus Angel get to you. You’re playing by his rules. It’s axiomatic that an intelligent person loses when he tries to argue intelligently with Birthers, Truthers, & here Earthers. Fuhgedaboudit.
Don't you know that everything proves AGW, OOPS, Climate Change?
Colder weather then usual = AGW
Hotter weather than usual = AGW
Usual weather = AGW (woudda been cooler but for AGW, ya see)
More hurricanes than usual = AGW
Fewer hurricanes than usual= AGW
Same hurricanes as usual = AGW (woudda been more/less – pick one – neither answer is wrong – but for AGW, ya see)
More snow than usual = AGW
Fewer snow than usual= AGW
Same snow as usual = AGW (woudda been more/less – pick one – neither answer is wrong – but for AGW, ya see)
More Algore than usual = AGW
Less Algore than usual = AGW
Same Algore as usual = AGW
You getting this?
“Have you heard, it’s in the stars.
Next July we collide with Mars…”
said Cole Porter, & you can’t disprove him either.
Nice discussion, but here's a bit of advice I received many years ago:
Never argue with an idiot. They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Listen Angel, you hack. Come to the table with evidence and stop emoting. I'm a weather forecaster with the Canadian Government with an MSc and BSc in Meteorology and a background in the Environmental Sciences. DO NOT insult my/our intellegence with your drivel. I'm a liberal, but I've always come to this site with the facts. People may disagree with me, but I respect their opinions. THAT's what this site is all about. Now ENOUGH of this and let's get serious. If not start up a board with narlyerik and Chasm and leave us alone.
The hits keep coming:
The scientist who has been put in charge of the Commerce Department's new climate change office is coming under attack from both sides of the global warming debate over his handling of what they say is contradictory scientific data related to the subject.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/22/tom-karl-tried-to-suppress-data-critics-charge/
[...] Has global warming become a "multi-billion dollar fraud"? [...]
[...] The Multi-Billion Dollar Global Warming Fraud 03/1/2010 [...]
Glad this scam has been uncovered. It will help replace the fraud(imposter) we have in the Whitehouse.