The leading advocate of global warming and unquestionably the next recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Mad Magazine's Alfred E. Neuman has better scientific credentials than university advocates of global warming. In January of this year I blogged about climate change. It seemed evident that those arguing for climate change were not functioning as scientists because they had not established criteria for the rejection or falsification of their claims.
Now it turns out that Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize for repeating the claims of frauds. This should put the credibility of the Norwegians and their preposterous "Peace Prize" to bed. Giving it to Barak Obama added concrete shoes to the dead victim of the Swedes' and Norwegians' politicized institution. Mad Magazine's Alfred E. Neuman will probabaly get it next year. His scientific credentials are better than those of Benjamin Santer, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, and Phil Jones.
First:
>A speaker for Mensa, the high-IQ-society, has called "global warming" "junk science" (h/t Jim Crum):
Sam’s Summary on the issue posted May 4th 2007
"However weak the argument for global warming, it does not diminish the need for intelligent protection of the environment. There are many things we can do to improve the environment without resorting to junk science. In the end I think the global warming hoax will hurt legitimate environmental causes."
Second
Jim also forwarded this article by Timothy Ball, adding that global warming is not a hoax, but a fraud. I added the bold.
>Hacked files of the Climatic Research Unit, Global Warming a deliberate fraud
The Death Blow to Climate Science
By Dr. Tim Ball
>Saturday, November 21, 2009
>Global Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.
>Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia. A very large file (61 mb) was downloaded and posted to the web. Phil Jones Director of the CRU has acknowledged the files are theirs. They contain papers, documents letters and emails. The latter are the most damaging and contain blunt information about the degree of manipulation of climate science in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular.
>Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists
>Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).
>I had the pleasure of meeting the founder of CRU Professor Hubert Lamb, considered the Father of Modern Climatology, on a couple of occasions. He also peer reviewed one of my early publications. I know he would be mortified with what was disclosed in the last couple of days.
>Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn’t and it is enough to destroy all their careers. Jones gave a foretaste of his behavior in 2005. Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” He has stonewalled ever since. The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century. The emails obtained are a frightening record of arrogance, and deception far beyond his 2005 effort.
>Another glimpse into what the files and emails reveal was the report by Professor Deming. He wrote, “ With publication of an article in Science (in 1995) I gained sufficient credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said. "We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The person in question was Jonathan Overpeck and his even more revealing emails are part of those exposed by the hacker. It is now very clear that Deming’s charge was precise. They have perverted science in the service of social and political causes.
>Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other’s work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names. They threatened to isolate and marginalize one editor who they believed was recalcitrant.
>Total Control
>These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC...Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.
>CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected, now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.” ( emphasis added )
