JustGetThere

Red Ice Creations | NASA and CISCO systems welcomes you to the prison planet, a global surveillance infrastructure is being built up. This is total "control" and monitoring on all activity on earth. Just imagine feeding this data into an artificial intelligence.

The following is from the Planetary Skin website:

Planetary Skin Institute will research, develop and prototype an approach to provide near-to-real-time global monitoring of environmental conditions and changes. This will deliver the required decision support capabilities to manage global resources, risks and build environmental markets. Planetary Skin proposes an open and unifying approach to develop the required decision support capabilities to manage global resources, risks and enable the necessary environmental markets.

planetaryskin.org

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet | As hundreds of people die worldwide as a result of record low temperatures in the midst of a savage winter, scientists are preparing for a conference in which they will discuss measures to use geoengineering to block out the sun.

“The summit of climate scientists, to be held in California in March, will examine drastic techniques for slowing climate change that are controversial and have been described as “geo-piracy,” reports the Telegraph.

“Most techniques focus on ways of reducing the sun’s rays by blocking them using mirrors orbiting in space or by spraying sulphur compounds into the high atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from earth.”

Another proposal involves sending spaceships into the upper atmosphere to spray seawater into the sky and reflect sunlight back into space, an idea that would seem more at home in the context of some bizarre alien invasion movie.

“Most of the talk about these geo-engineering techniques say they should be saved until we get to an emergency situation. Well, the people of the Arctic might say they are in an emergency situation now,” said conference organizer Mike MacCracken.

In actual fact, a recent expedition to an East Antarctic ice shelf showed “no sign of higher temperatures despite fears of a thaw linked to global warming”. In addition, Arctic sea ice expanded over an area bigger than the size of Germany during the year of 2008, a 30 percent increase, after global warming alarmists had claimed that it would be “ice-free” for the first time ever.

With areas all over the planet experiencing record snowfall and plunging temperatures, some scientists are warning that we are now entering into a mini ice age, with 30 years of global cooling predicted.

Governments are already geoengineering the planet in the form of cloud seeding and similar techniques to both cause and prevent rainfall. Many would argue that the upper atmosphere is already being seeded with chemical compounds in the form of chemtrails, which differ from normal contrails emitted by airplanes as they hang in the air for hours and produce criss-cross patterns.

A 2008 KSLA news investigation found that a substance that fell to earth from a high altitude chemtrail contained high levels of Barium (6.8 ppm) and Lead (8.2 ppm) as well as trace amounts of other chemicals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium and silver. Of these, all but one are metals, some are toxic while several are rarely or never found in nature. The newscast focuses on Barium, which its research shows is a “hallmark of chemtrails.” KSLA found Barium levels in its samples at 6.8 ppm or “more than six times the toxic level set by the EPA.”

KSLA also asked Mark Ryan, Director of the Poison Control Center, about the effects of Barium on the human body. Ryan commented that “short term exposure can lead to anything from stomach to chest pains and that long term exposure causes blood pressure problems.” The Poison Control Center further reported that long-term exposure, as with any harmful substance, would contribute to weakening the immune system, which many speculate is the purpose of such man-made chemical trails.



As we have previously highlighted, a prominent supporter of geoengineering proposals is none other than White House science czar John P. Holdren, a key Obama advisor who infamously co-authored a book in which he called for a “planetary regime” to enforce draconian population control measures such as forced abortion, infanticide and mandatory sterilization.

In April last year, Holdren revealed that high-level talks had already taken place to explore the possibility of “geoengineering” the environment by “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays”.

“It’s got to be looked at,” Holdren was quoted as saying, “We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.” The AP also reported that Holdren said he had raised the concept in administration discussions.

Letting modern day eugenicists like Holdren mess with the planet would be like handing Dr. Josef Mengele control of the health care system. Holdren has proven himself to be a barbarian and a control freak, promoting a brand of bloodthirsty eugenics even more depraved than anything Hitler proposed in his drive for a super race.

Allowing scientists who have been completely exposed as agenda-promoting quacks by the Climategate scandal to experiment with the environment on a mass scale in the name of stopping the increasingly debunked premise of man-made global warming is absolute lunacy and should be stopped at all costs.
___




Solar shield on agenda at climate summit

Emergency measures to slow global warming, such as a ‘solar shield’ to block the sun or artificial trees to soak up CO2, will be discussed at a ‘geo-engineering’ conference.



By Alastair Jamieson

Telegraph | The summit of climate scientists, to be held in California in March, will examine drastic techniques for slowing climate change that are controversial and have been described as “geo-piracy”.

Among the possible measures to be discussed will be ocean fertilisation, which would see iron dumped into the sea to boost plankton growth, and artificial trees that use a chemical process to soak up CO2.

Most techniques focus on ways of reducing the sun’s rays by blocking them using mirrors orbiting in space or by spraying sulphur compounds into the high atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from earth.

One proposal is for a fleet of ships that would spray seawater into the sky that would leave behind salt crystals to brighten clouds, reflecting more sunlight back into space.

The conference, reported in The Guardian, comes amid concern that such techniques may be the only way to prevent average temperatures rising.

Mike MacCracken, a global warming expert at the Climate Institute in Washington DC, who is organising the conference's scientific programme, told the newspaper:

"Most of the talk about these geo-engineering techniques say they should be saved until we get to an emergency situation. Well, the people of the Arctic might say they are in an emergency situation now."

Scientists at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs say the techniques should not be ruled out but that more evidence from experiments is required.

The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation recently described geo-engineering an act of "geo-piracy" and warned that the "the world runs a serious risk of choosing solutions that turn out to be new global problems".

However, some geo-engineering techniques are already being used on a large scale. The Chinese government is thought to use cloud-seeding on a regular basis to encourage precipitation in areas hit by drought.

Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, has become embroiled in a climate change spin row after claiming that the Arctic could be completely ice-free within five years.

By Murray Wardrop

Telegraph | Speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, Mr Gore said new computer modelling suggests there is a 75 per cent chance of the entire polar ice cap melting during the summertime by 2014.

However, he faced embarrassment last night after Dr Wieslav Maslowski, the climatologist whose work the prediction was based on, refuted his claims.

Dr Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, told The Times: “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at.

“I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

The blunder follows the controversy over hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which sceptics claim suggest scientists manipulated data to strengthen their argument that global warming is man-made.

Mr Gore, who narrated the Oscar-winning climate change documentary An Inconvenient Truth, told the conference that record melting of Polar and Himalayan ice could deprive more than a billion people of access to clean water.

Alluding to Dr Maslowski’s work, he said: “These figures are fresh, I just got them yesterday.

"Some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of summer months could be completely ice free within five to seven years.

"There are more than a billion people on the planet who get more than half of their drinking water – many of them all of their drinking water – from the seasonal melting of snow melt and glacier ice."

His projection strongly contradicted forecasts made eight months ago by the US government agency that the ice cap may nearly vanish in the summer by 2030.

Dr Maslowki said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020.

He added: “I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean.”

Following Dr Maslowski’s comments, Mr Gore’s office later said the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

Mr Gore’s speech also provoked criticism from leading members of the climate science community, who described the projection as “aggressive”.

Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told The Times: “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics.

“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”

Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, said: “It's possible but not likely. We're sticking with 2030."
Average global temperatures have increased by 1.3F (0.74C) in the past century, but the mercury has risen at least twice as quickly in the Arctic.

Scientists say the make up of the frozen north polar sea has shifted significantly in recent years as much of the thick year-round ice has given way to thin seasonal ice.

In the summer of 2007, the Arctic ice cap dwindled to a record low minimum extent of 1.7 million square miles in September. The melting in 2008 and 2009 was not as extensive, but still ranked as the second and third greatest decreases on record.

Dead Man Musings | Since its inception, the environmental movement has been perpetrating one fraud after another as a means of moving us towards a New World Order. For Example:

1. "The Greenhouse effect" : Purportedly Caused Global Warming by trapping the heat from the sun in Carbon Dioxide and other "Greenhouse Gases" in our atmosphere.

2. " Global Cooling and the Coming Ice Age": In this scenario pollution blocks out the rays of the sun and the earth plunges into another ice age. I call this the lie before the lie.

3. Ozone Holes: In this scenario we will all be fried by UV rays getting through a hole in the ozone layer. The culprit was freon and aerosol cans.

I could go on and talk about overpopulation, the rain forest, water shortages etc. Instead of focusing on the fraud itself, I will focus on the reasons behind it and the perpetrators.

If you remember nothing else, remember this: The Illuminati are both Fascists and Communists. They want to maximize profits and consolidate political power under a tyrannic one world government. In order to accomplish this, they need to destroy the middle class and industrial bases of North America and Europe.

They know that Americans, Canadians, and Western Europeans won't work for starvation wages or as wage slaves. So, they focus their efforts on undermining our economic and political systems.

1. Tariffs are the enemy to globalism. The United States ran on tariffs for the first part of its existence. Tariffs are taxes on imports that prevent multi-national corporations from "dumping" cheap manufactured goods from a foreign country on a developed country's soil.

2. NAFTA, GATT etc., have taken down these walls of protection that are necessary for an industrialized nation to have a healthy economy and solid industrial base. Now instead of Americans competing against Americans, we have Americans competing against North Korean slave labor.

3. Free Trade is an Illuminati Illusion that will always have a winner and a loser. One country will be depleted at the expense of the other country's growth.

So, what does this have to do with the environmental movement? Plenty! By imposing environmental regulations on developed and industrialized societies, the Illuminati take away their ability to compete globally. Regulations and laws cost money and businesses pass that cost on to the consumer. The result is higher production costs and a loss of competitive advantage.

The organization behind this massive fraud is the Illuminati front organization known as the "Club of Rome":

"The Club of Rome calls for urgent action to avert the growing risk of catastrophic climate change. The most recent scientific data presented to the Assembly by the world’s top climate scientists demonstrate the accelerating impacts of climate change on the natural systems of the planet. Beyond this existential threat to the future of humanity, the Club stresses the need to find a new path for world development to resolve the connected challenges in the fields of environment, global development and the restructuring of economies onto a sustainable path.

"We insist that responsibility for care in the use of energy and resources,responsibility for the environment and social inclusion are not simply costs to the economy, but investments in the future of humanity. Governments have directed trillions of dollars to stabilize the financial system: we call for the required levels of finance to salvage the future of the planet.

We should not aim to recover to the pre-crisis path of economic growth, which leads towards disaster. We call on governments and the business community to recognize the reality and urgency of the problems we face and to provide the leadership and sustained commitment to resolve the challenges of the 21st Century so as to leave a decent future to our children and grandchildren." (Source)

Founded in 1968 at the Rockefeller's Italian Estate, the Club of Rome has played the leading role in propagating the falsehoods of climate change:

"Headed by Anglo-American elites and European nobility, the Club of Rome is an elite 'think tank' specializing in crisis creation via the Hegelian dialectic: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. The main purpose of the club is to formulate crisis, through which the world can be "united" under a world socialist government.

A few notable past and present members of the club include:

* Al Gore - Former U.S. Vice President
* Mikhail Gorbachev - Former President of the Soviet Union; co-author of the Earth Charter
* Ted Turner - media mogul, founder of CNN
* Maurice Strong - head of the U.N. Environment Programme; co-author of the Earth Charter
* David Rockefeller - Donated the land where the UN stands in NY
* Henry Kissinger - Former U.S. Secretary of State
* Javier Solana - Secretary-General of the EU
* Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands

In 1991, the Club of Rome published The First Global Revolution, authored by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider. On pp. 104-105 are found the following statement:

"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... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." (Source)

Such illustrious organizations like "Greenpeace" look to the Club of Rome for Leadership and Guidance. I quote the following from Greenpeace America's blog:

"The Club of Rome and I share a great Louis Talarico deal in terms of how we view the opportunities and problems that our leaders must address. Here is a good point they make.

"Systems of education are less and less adapted to the new issues, to the new emerging global society we are presently involved in. New priorities force us to redefine the role of education, which should be conceived as a permanent learning process. Transmission of knowledge is no longer sufficient, and new objectives such as developing one's own potential and creativity, or the capacity of adaptation to change are becoming essential in a rapidly changing world.

The Club of Rome considers that education is both part of the global problematique and also an essential tool to become an effective actor in control of one's own life and within society. If there are "Limits to Growth", there are "No Limits to Learning" (titles of two Reports to the Club of Rome)." (Source)

While breathing clean air, drinking clean water, and living in a clean environment are what I want for myself and family, the Illuminati really could care less. They haven't eliminated these things. They have simply moved them "off-shore" to developing countries. An example of this is China's use of coal powered plants to produce the electricity needed to run its industrial revolution. (source) Right now, it is the biggest producer of Greenhouse Emissions on the planet. (ibid)

But, it never was an issue of climate after all. Its more of an issue of profit.

FTO | Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the WTO recently said that the EU is the “laboratory of international governance”, meaning the emerging one world government sees the European Union as a model for building a one world government.

He pointed out his belief for the need of global governance in his speech at the Bocconi University in Milan, Itialy on November 9 2009.

This comes as the Copenhagen Climate summit starts and is said to be the place where world leaders will sign away their countries to form global governance. Earlier this year a “new world order” was also announced at the G20 summit in Pittsburg.

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet | Shocking newly uncovered UN strategy documents reveal how elitists are recruiting members of academia from all over the globe in an effort to hide the “end-run” around national sovereignty that their agenda represents, emphasizing how the climategate crooks who were recently caught manipulating scientific data in order to “hide the decline” in global warming are working with the United Nations in the pursuit of a world government justified by the global warming fraud that they are helping to perpetrate.

One of the planning papers, entitled “The UNEP That We Want,” was produced by a specially selected group of influential environmental bureaucrats and delivered to the UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is the regulatory body that established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the politicized organization that has attempted to slam the lid shut on global warming skepticism by claiming it is the supreme authority, despite the fact that scientists used by the IPCC were caught manipulating data and conspiring to hide evidence of global cooling during the climategate scandal.

The IPCC has attempted to deny the gravitas of climategate by claiming that it has no bearing on their conclusions about global warming, despite the fact that scientists at the University of East Anglia used intimidation and academic witch hunts to ensure that data they didn’t agree with politically was blocked from appearing in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007.

Participants who contributed to the first UNEP document included Janos Pasztor, currently head of the team pushing U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s unprecedented Seal the Deal lobbying campaign to pressure U.N. member governments into signing a new environmental agreement at Copenhagen, Dominic Waughray, currently head of environmental initiatives at the World Economic Forum; and Maria Ivanova, and Bulgarian academic Maria Ivanova, director of the Global Economic Governance Project at the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

The first document is very similar to a second UNEP paper entitled, “ Proposed Medium Term Strategy 2010-2013.”

The documents outline a program of implementing a global system of governance based around environmental regulations and laws, stressing the agenda for the “evolutionary nature of strengthening international environmental governance.”

The aim of elevating UNEP’s influence to a position where it dictates rules to nation states, rather than nation states being the supervisors of UNEP as is currently the case, is advocated.

The documents discuss recruiting academia to further the power of UNEP, noteworthy in light of the recent climategate scandal where scientists at major universities were caught hiding evidence of global cooling.

“As the Swiss paper puts it, UNEP “should pioneer a new style of work. This requires going beyond a narrow interpretation of UNEP’s stakeholders as comprising its member states — or even the world’s governments — and recruiting a far wider community of support, in civil society, the academic world and the private sector.” At the same time the paper warns that these groups need to be “harnessed to the UNEP mission without appearing to make an end-run around the member governments,” summarizes Fox News’ George Russell.

This passage is fairly damning, as the UN is all but admitting that the program does represent an “end-run around member governments,” and that they have to do their best to hide the fact. That academics should be “harnessed to the UNEP mission” and not harnessed to producing unbiased scientific data about global warming also reveals how the climate change issue has been hijacked to serve the requirements of a global elite hell-bent on world government.

The first document also calls for an “Environmental Bretton Woods for the 21st Century,” where the environmental agenda is inextricably linked with the economy and the UN’s role is to have command over the economies of national governments.

The goals included in the four-year strategy paper include “efforts at local, national and global levels” to raise “sufficient finance to meet environmental challenges, including climate change,” which translates as using the problem of global warming to raise money for the operation of the global government structure which is being called for in the planning papers.

The goals enshrined in the documents, a counterpart to the globally binding agreement the UN is seeking to achieve in Copenhagen next month, are “certain to remain a UNEP rallying cry long after the Copenhagen meeting is over — and while the other brainstorming ideas that went into the new four-year strategy, not to mention the strategy itself, go into effect,” writes Russell.

This document represents yet another smoking gun proving that the climate cult movement is all about expanding the power of a dictatorial, unelected global government, diluting powers of nation states, seizing control of the global economy, eviscerating the middle class with a raft of new regulations and laws, and shutting down industry with impossible CO2 reduction mandates, while erecting environmentalism, which is really a thin veil for global fascism, as the new universal religion.

This has nothing to do with saving the earth and, as the climategate scandal has illustrated, nothing to do with the real science – but everything to do with a relatively small clique of globalists running roughshod over humanity itself in pursuit of their malthusian control freak agenda.

KEITH JOHNSON

The Wall Street Journal | The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents — posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center — that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.

The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.

Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications.

“This is horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”

Read full article

James Delingpole

London Telegraph

Monday, Nov 23rd, 2009

Here’s what the Times has had to say on the subject:

E-mails allegedly written by some of the world’s leading climate scientists have been stolen by hackers and published on websites run by climate change sceptics.

The sceptics claim that the e-mails are evidence that scientists manipulated data in order to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

(Yep – definitely an improvement on their earlier, non-existent coverage; but not exactly pointing up the scandalousness of this scandal).

And the Independent:

(Yep. Nada).

And here’s how The New York Times (aka Pravda) reported it:

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

(Yep. That’s right. It has only apparently caused a stir among ’skeptics’. Everyone else can rest easy. Nothing to see here.)

And here’s how the Guardian has reported it:

Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world’s leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.

The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

(Oh. I get it. It’s just a routine data-theft story, not a scandal. And a chance to remind us of the CRU’s integrity and respectability. And – see below – to get in a snarky, ‘let’s have a dig at the deniers’ quote from Greenpeace).

A spokesman for Greenpeace said: “If you looked through any organisation’s emails from the last 10 years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke.”

For those of you who don’t know of the blog Bishop Hill, let me say that he is a succinct and careful writer who has earned praise from many (including myself and Steve McIntyre) in taking a difficult niche subject such as the Hockey Stick and paleoclimatology and condensed into into a readable form for the layman. He’s also writing a book about it called: The Hockey Stick Illusion

In his latest post, Climate Cuttings 33, he gives a list of interesting issues he’s identified. I’ve reproduced it below for WUWT readers to consider. Be sure to visit his blog and have a look and drop an encouraging word. – Anthony

Climate cuttings 33

If you are interested in more on global warming material, check out Caspar and the Jesus Paper and The Yamal Implosion, or check out the forthcoming book.

General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.

In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I’ll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.

• Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)


• Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)


• Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!



• Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.(1075403821)


• Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)


• Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)


• Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)


• Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)



• Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)


• Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi’s paper is crap.(1257532857)


• Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)


• Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)


• Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’. (1054736277)



• Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)


• Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944)


• Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)


• Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)


• Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)



• Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)


• Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)


• Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)


• Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)


• Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)



• Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the “increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage” he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)


• Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman’s admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)


• Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)


• Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)


• Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]



• Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)


• Jones says he’s found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)


• Wigley says Keenan’s fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)


• Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)



• Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)


• Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn’t be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don’t want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)


• Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)


• Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)



• Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)


• Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)


• Funkhouser says he’s pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn’t think it’s productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)


• Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)


• Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)



• Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)


• Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)


• David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn’t be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)


• Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)


• Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr “I’m not entirely there in the head” will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)



• Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

Climate change alarmists engaged in desperate whitewash, but scandal is not going away

By Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet | In response to the astounding revelations arising out of the hacked CRU emails, Senator Jim Inhofe has stated that unless something is done within the next seven days, he will lead the call for a rigorous investigation into mounting evidence that top climate scientists conspired to manipulate data to hide evidence of global cooling while engaging in academic witch hunts to eliminate scientists skeptical of man-made climate change.

Speaking on the Americas Morning Show earlier today, Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the new revelations proved what he has been warning about for over four years, that politicians and bias-driven climate scientists affiliated with the UN IPCC have been fraudulently “cooking the science” to conform to their agenda.

“If nothing happens in the next seven days when we go back into session a week from today that would change this situation, I will call for an investigation,” said Inhofe. “Cause this thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with.”

Asked what he would call for an investigation of, Inhofe responded, “On the IPCC and on the United Nations on the way that they cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.”

Meanwhile, even some pro-man made global warming advocates have conceded that an investigation is necessary.

Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, told the London Guardian that only a rigorous investigation could clear the names of those accused of manipulating the data, admitting that the emails “created the impression of impropriety,” which is a lot further than most have gone in accepting the damning nature of the hacked data.

Indeed, the British Met Office performed the equivalent of a child sticking his fingers in his ears by merely attempting to dismiss the emails altogether, without even explaining what was meant when scientists at CRU talked about pulling “tricks” to “hide the decline” in temperatures.

A spokesman at the Met Office, which jointly produces global temperature datasets with the Climate Research Unit, said there was no need for an inquiry. “If you look at the emails, there isn’t any evidence that the data was falsified and there’s no evidence that climate change is a hoax. It’s a shame that some of the sceptics have had to take this rather shallow attempt to discredit robust science undertaken by some of the world’s most respected scientists. The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it. We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use. The peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be. It’s no surprise, with the Copenhagen talks just days away, that this has happened now.”

As James Delingpole of the Telegraph highlights, alarmists are not going to be effected by the scandal, because they will allow nothing whatsoever to corrupt their religious belief system. “They’ve made up their minds and no quantity of contrary evidence, however devastating, is going to shake their considered position of “Nyah nyah nyah. Got my fingers in my ears. Not listening. The world IS warming and it’s man’s fault. Must tax carbon now….”

However, there seems little doubt that this bombshell will go a long way to derailing, or at least delaying the agenda for a global carbon tax that will be collected by the very same elitists aggressively pushing the fraud of global warming.

Listen to the interview with Inhofe below.

By Kurt Nimmo

Infowars | Globalist minion Al Gore and the United Nations climate change shysters led by Phil Jones are in trouble. Last week hackers uncovered a pile of email and documents revealing what many of us already knew — the climate change agenda is based not only on easily debunked junk science, but outright lies and deception.

In the wake of the damning revelations exposed by these anonymous hackers, the climate change snake oil salesmen Gore and his complaisant entourage of now discredited scientists are in full retreat. Even the corporate media — guilty of peddling the fabrication of man-made climate change for years with the best propaganda money can buy — are desperately scrambling to put the best spin possible on the emerging travesty.

In the above video, Alex Jones examines the startling revelations of the CRU files and spells out what it means for the global elite who have planned to use the ruse to impose crippling carbon taxes and put the finishing touches on their global totalitarian super-state and its accompanying control and slave grid.

Infowars and Prison Planet are now feverishly going through the documents and will post the result in the hours and days ahead. In the meantime, here are a few quotes from the perpetrators:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Kevin Trenberth

I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.

Phil Jones

In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.

Mike MacCracken

Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also – relevant to your statement – A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world… (See the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published).

Tim Johns

Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don’t want to give them something clearly tangible.

Phil Jones

Looks pretty good to me. Only one issue. In our discussion of possible participants in Bern, I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong) we concluded that the last two on the list (w/ question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to concensus [sic] and progress.

Christoph Kull

Mike, I agree very much with the above sentiment. My concern was motivated by the possibility of expressing an impression of more concensus than might actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not ‘muddy the waters’ by including contradictory evidence worried me. IPCC is supposed to represent concensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence. Of course where there are good reasons for the differences in series (such as different seasonal responses or geographic bias) it is equally important not to overstress the discrepancies or suggest contradiction where it does not exist.

Keith Briffa

The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline. So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.

Michael E. Mann

By Stephen C. Webster

Raw Story | United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, in an opinion piece published by The New York Times, laid out a number of benchmarks for success in the upcoming global climate talks, planned to be held in Copenhagen.

Among them, Ki-moon argued in the Tuesday edition that a "global governance structure" must be levied to ensure that nations collaborate on how resources are deployed and managed.

The editorial, entitled "We Can Do It," urges world leaders toward the accomplishment of three key points: Curbing emissions, investing in green growth for third world nations and establishing a supranational structure to oversee resources.

"Every country must do its utmost to reduce emissions from all major sources, including from deforestation and emissions from shipping and aviation," Ki-moon wrote. "Developed countries must strengthen their mid-term mitigation targets, which are currently nowhere close to the cuts that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says are needed. Developing countries must slow the rise in their emissions and accelerate green growth as part of their strategies to reduce poverty."

He continued: "A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built."

A United Press International report referred to Ki-moon's benchmark as "a new climate change regime set to replace the Kyoto Protocol."

The secretary general's editorial comes amid doubts of the potential for a successful global agreement on the reduction of greenhouse gasses. On Monday, a U.N. official with the Climate Change Support Team said, "it's hard to say how far the conference will be able to go," according to the Associate Press. He reportedly added that it is unlikely a treaty will emerge from Copenhagen.

While the secretary general has praised the Obama administration's strong backing of global climate action, "support for climate change as a political issue is [...] declining in the United States," CBC News noted.

"[A Pew Research] poll of 1,500 adults found just over half of Americans favored setting limits on carbon emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, while 56 per cent supported U.S. participation in international agreements.

"But more alarming [...] was that the poll found only 57 per cent of Americans believe there is strong evidence that the Earth has grown hotter in the past few decades, down from 77 per cent in 2006."

"American legislation on climate change is seen as essential to reaching a meaningful deal at Copenhagen," The Guardian noted. "But the White House held up action in the Senate on a climate change bill to focus on healthcare reform. The proposed law, which now stretches for more than 900 pages, would cut America's greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over 2005 levels by 2020 and encourage the development of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. Democratic leaders in the Senate are now struggling to advance a bill - which does not have solid support even among their own party - before the meeting in Copenhagen."

Fall Of The Republic documents how an offshore corporate cartel is bankrupting the US economy by design. Leaders are now declaring that world government has arrived and that the dollar will be replaced by a new global currency.

President Obama has brazenly violated Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution by seating himself at the head of United Nations' Security Council, thus becoming the first US president to chair the world body.

A scientific dictatorship is in its final stages of completion, and laws protecting basic human rights are being abolished worldwide; an iron curtain of high-tech tyranny is now descending over the planet.

A worldwide regime controlled by an unelected corporate elite is implementing a planetary carbon tax system that will dominate all human activity and establish a system of neo-feudal slavery.

The image makers have carefully packaged Obama as the world's savior; he is the Trojan Horse manufactured to pacify the people just long enough for the globalists to complete their master plan.

This film reveals the architecture of the New World Order and what the power elite have in store for humanity. More importantly it communicates how We The People can retake control of our government, turn the criminal tide and bring the tyrants to justice.

By Joan Veon

News With Views | In 1994 when I covered my first global meeting, there was a press briefing by the Commission on Global Governance on their forthcoming report, Our Global Neighborhood. The man giving the briefing was one of the co-chairs, Sir Shridath Ramphal who was not only president of Guyana but also president of the (British) Commonwealth Association. As I read the glossy brochure, I thought he meant “global government” to which he replied “No, no, no we mean global governance.” When I asked about a global currency, he laughed and said, “No, not for a long time.”

The meeting recently held in Pittsburgh comprised the third meeting of the heads of state and finance ministers from the Group of Twenty nations: the developed countries led by the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Russia and Germany and the top developing countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey, as well as the European Union. Together, they represent 85% of the world’s Gross Domestic Product-GDP and 80% of world trade.

The Group of Eight-G8 began meeting in 1973 when Richard Nixon called together the leaders of four countries to determine how the world would be run economically now that he had put the world currencies on a floating basis when he removed the last ties the dollar had to gold in 1971. A formal meeting was held in 1975 in France with five countries and soon it was seven countries known as the Group of Seven until 1998 when Russia was officially admitted. Since 1975, whatever decision these seven or eight countries came to was law and if the rest of the countries of the world knew what was good for them, they would follow suit. In short, the Group of Eight acted as a “Global Board of Directors” for the world. Over the years, they expanded their purview to include every facet of government: labor, education, transportation, trade, housing, finance and the environment.

Under their auspices, the floating exchange between countries was perfected to the point where it was easy to raid any countries currency which did not do what they were suppose to do as mandated by the strong countries, there was the oil crises of the 1970s, and the fall of the shah of Iran who was the peacekeeper of the Middle East. The final pieces were added to the international infrastructure: the World Trade Organization, the regional groups like the European Union and the Free Trade Areas of the Americas, the International Criminal Court, and the tearing down of economic barriers between the countries of the world by calling on the U.S. to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.

In 1998, the Group of Eight decided to become more integrated as they deviated from just economic concerns to the daily concerns that each country faces: health, education, growth, trade, etc. Tony Blair talked about the need to work together on all these issues so that each country could help each other and they could learn from one another. This is called integration, not advice. The final Communiqué which the G8 issued (then the G5) in 1975 was just a few pages to over one thousand pages in some years. Indeed they became a venue of “global governance.”

As a result of the 2007-2009 Credit Crisis, it was former President George Bush who called together the leaders of the developing countries to meet with the leaders of the developed countries last November. They instantaneously became their own powerhouse. At the second meeting in London this past April, they empowered the International Monetary Fund with $1.1T including a new offering of Special Drawing Rights-SDRs and they changed the Financial Stability Forum to the Financial Stability Board and greatly empowered its structure by giving them a plenary structure and several Steering Committees. The Financial Stability Board is part of the growing architectural pieces at the Bank for International Settlement in Basel, Switzerland.

In an interview with Professor John Kirton of the University of Toronto who heads up the unofficial secretariat of the Group of Eight and Twenty, he said of global governance, “It has come to mean, steering, shaping the global order through processes. Not only government of nation-states assisted by intergovernmental organizations, but a broad array of actors that have an important and legitimate place.” When I asked about how they and their roles had changed, he responded that the G20 had “institutionalized itself in an integrated way with the G8 so that next year in Canada, there would be a coming together of the two global governance institutions.” It was announced in Pittsburgh, that next year the G20 would meet at the same time that the G8 meets on economic issues. The G8 will continue their oversight of all other issues they currently govern. This is no small feat. Does anyone really understand the magnitude of what is happening?

When I asked Professor Kirton about the evolution of definitions of global governance since 1994 when we first met, he said, “Yes, there are many definitions for a global community [to be] attracted to a global concept. [You have the] command hierarchy in sovereign nation-states, [then there is] a middle range – a guiding steering process when more formal institutions are necessary but a broad array of actors from civil society have an important place.” In other words, the global level is to be guided by civil society which includes non-governmental organizations, “celebrity diplomacy” created by the rock star, Bono, and others.

In fact, Professor Kirton was adamant that the United Nations has seen its day since they have been unable to respond to a changing world. He pointed to the UN Security Council which has the same five permanent members in today’s world and that it does not even include Japan (G8 member) or China and any of the other developing countries.

The truth of the matter is that the coming together of the major developing countries with the G8 is a turning point in world history. If Bush is copying Nixon who created the G8, the truth of the matter is that we have continued to have serious economic crises. But it also points to a stronger power over the nation-states: the presidents and prime ministers who will ask their governments to implement what they have agreed to. It does point to a world governmental structure in which the laws of the nation-states have and are being changed to conform to what is agreed to on the global level. It leaves out the poor countries of the world which have no voice in this newly empowered governance structure.

It also points to a shift in world power. As you study the economics of the G20, they have a total GDP of $47T and public debt of $29T or 63%. Now we can talk all we want about global governance, interdependence, etc. but the truth of the matter is that there is more than one way to conquer a country. In the old days, it was a physical invasion, brute force, end of story. But in today’s electronic society, it is through banking, the stock exchange, the bond exchange, and the derivatives market. Basically, there has been no physical invasion, no black helicopters and no physical carnage. Today, it is debt. What difference does it make if the house has no or little equity versus the finances of a country? The Group of Twenty is indebted to the central bankers of the world. The agenda of the United Nations, the G8 or the G20 is basically a front for the real powers that run the world: the central banks which are private corporations that lend money to governments by printing it.

The bottom line: the United Nations and the G8 have not brought or kept world peace, they have not prevented war and neither have they improved the finances of any country. Furthermore, they have not improved the state of the world either. The only thing they have done is set up an infrastructure that reduces the power and sovereignty of the nation-state. In essence they have de-stabilized the world. Who really runs the country and the world? He who has the gold makes the rules and it is not governments!