First published @ Celestial Junk
The “it’s all about oil” crowd constantly remind us that where profit is to be made … trust can’t be had. What they don’t tell us, is that the green industry, especially the AGW industry … has become a multi-billion dollar tax hore … dwarfing just about any other government funded “scientific” initiative. Essentially, tax payer’s dollars have created a gold mine … for gold digging “greens” and scientists who wish to trade in that Chev Impala for an Escalade.
Laughably, behind it all is a cabal of globe trotting billionaires who, although they’ve made their riches through good’ol capitalist means, are nothing but utopian socialists bordering on the insane. Our own Canadian member of the club, Maurice Strong, is chief among them.
A recent paper titled, The Greatest Scientific Scandal of our Time, written by
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., takes swath after swath out of the farce that has become the scientific underpinning of the Global Warming Myth.
Jaworowski’s credentials are as good as any, so in the least, AGW believers should give Jaworowski some consideration. The paper is long, so settle in for a good read … or save it until you’ve got some time.
Here’s a taste of the political landscape, as Jaworowski sees it:Â
This obviously is not the case with the IPCC, which is stuffed with money, and in agreement with the UN politics, which are dominated by greens and misanthropic fanaticism. During the past six years, the President of the United States devoted nearly $29 billion to climate research, leading the world with its unparalleled financial commitment (The White House 2007). This was about $5 billion per year, more than twice the amount spent on the Apollo Program ($2.3 billionper year), which in 1969 put man on the Moon. A side-effect of this situation, and of politicizing the climate issue, was described by meteorologist Piers Corbyn in the Weather Action Bulletin, December 2000: “The problem we are faced with is that the meteorological establishment and the global warming lobby research bodies which receive large funding are now apparently so corrupted by the largesse they receive that the scientists in them have sold their integrity.â€
[…]
We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions inscience, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Meanwhile, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between1812 and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than 3%), were arbitrarily rejected. These measurements had been published in 175 technical papers. For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements,recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropo-genic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time.
For the most part, the paper is a wonderful read that hits hard at the fakery and just plain bad science behing the AGW myth. It is just in time for the latest IPCC fear mongering, and in time to lay just one more stone into the box that is slowly drowning Anthropogenic Global Warming lunacy.
And finally, if what Jaworoski and a growing number of astro and solar scientists are predicting is accurate … I’d be looking for a place in Mexico if I were you … not sun tan lotion for the Canadian summer that won’t be.
Cheers!
ht: BBC Biased
3 users commented in " The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackback19,000 studies — I repeat 19,000 studies — were reviewed by countless bureucrats representing 130 countries of every political stripe. It is a minor miracle that these counties could come to any concensus at all, but they did and that should tell you that the science and observations for global warming is overwhelming. You may trot out the occasional scientist and attribute to him any number of statements, but I have as yet seen one piece of peer-reviewed evidence to refute what these 2500 scientists have said.
Drew Phillips obviously is a Kool Aid drinker – pay him no mind. The CRU whistleblower has changed the game; even the uninformed are beginning to go “huh? watts up with that?”. Copenhagen is reeling from the airing of the truth behind Globull Warming, that is , that there is none. It’s all fraud perpetrated by Jones, and Mann, and Hansen et al. There will be lawsuits, and some of these false scientists will be heavily fined or do jail time for their part in the scam. The 19,000 studies that Phillips relies on are all dependent on the cooked temperature figures [oops, I mean “adjusted”] from the CRU and GISS and even NOAA. Check out the Earth Radiative Balance Experiment results; the demonization of CO2 is disproved. The computer models are a joke [read HARRY_READ_ME.txt]. Please, educate yourselves at Watts Up with That, Climate Audit, smalldeadanimals, ICECAP, Climate Depot and others. Then write your MLA, MP, Minister Prentice, and PM Harper, and demand that they disavow this Euroweenie power play.
Mike McEwen
It was interesting watching the nobel prize winning scientists be interviewed at a round table by the BBC. The interviewer stars with “Are there ant skeptics here?” On e of the scientists pointed out that they were all physicists and chemists and economists and that none of them were climate scientists. However as scientists they had a belief in the scientific method and so were prepared to believe what other parts of the process put forward by using this process.
We are all in this position of ‘who to believe’ . Personally I know that I hope that the skeptics will be proven right but the science is not looking good. The Ernst-Georg Beck graph has been roundly discredited and it’s only peer review was in E&e which is also rather dubious
cheers
Leave A Reply