December 23, 2009.  In science, theories are supposed to do two things: explain past observable facts, and predict future observations before they come to pass.

If a theory does both, you have something valuable.  If not, you go back to the drawing board.

In the case of the manmade global warming theory (anthropogenic global warming or AGW), there is a problem right away.  The range of past facts is huge and involves temperature measurements made at different tracking stations around the world.  As has been shown (and I’m paraphrasing here from a pithy comment made at The Air Vent blog), many of these measurements are dubious, because the stations are monitored by volunteers, the instruments are error prone, there are historical gaps in the record, and, all in all, there is a lack of control.  In other words, measurements may be wrong.

So how can you construct a theory to explain data whose reliability is in doubt?

It would be like saying you want to build a theory to explain the worldwide appearance of ghosts over the last six hundred years.

Former meteorologist, Anthony Watts, and his band of volunteers have looked at US stations that measure temperature.  Here is the summary of his now-famous report title “Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?”:

“We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

”In fact, we found that 89 percent of the [US] stations—nearly 9 of every 10—fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/ reflecting heat source.

”In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited. It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.

”The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7° C (about 1.2° F) during the twentieth century. Consequently, this record should not be cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the U.S. during the past century. Since the U.S. record is thought to be ‘the best in the world,’ it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.”

In the case of global temperature theory, the problem would be of little concern if the whole field were merely of academic interest; but this research is being used to launch drastic political and economic action that would affect every nation in the world.

The Watts report has its critics, and there has been a great deal of back-and-forth on it, but it appears that he has punched a huge hole in the reliability of US temperature measurements.

What about satellite data on temperature?

Claims that surface measurements aren’t really needed to see that AGW is real—we can go to satellites and weather balloons—well, it turns out that these atmospheric methods have their own problems and turn out questionable data.  Again, there is debate on both sides of the satellite-data issue…but I see no conclusive evidence that these instruments show a warming trend.  And satellites for measuring Earth’s temperature have only been in use since 1979.

AGW science is admittedly not precise enough to predict temperatures in the next year, five years, or ten years.  The projections are of the “possible” “maybe” “could-be” variety.

Therefore, there is no real science of manmade warming.  There is certainly not enough to say, “The world is ending unless we wreck industrial economies from one end of the planet to the other.”

However, this uncertainty has not stopped the researchers.  They have constructed models that purport to fill in temperature-record gaps and avoid the problem of varying dependability of station measurements.  These models, we are to believe, solve issues like replacement of instruments at stations, physically moving stations, and the emergence of (warmer) urban construction at stations located in once-remote regions.  These models also purport to overcome questions about the usefulness of atmospheric measurements.

These models are not theories.  They’re complex and hard-to-access systems for summarizing reams of data.  They spit out conclusions about warming based on cryptic assumptions that are largely unstated.

“Trust us.  We’re the experts.”

The propaganda spewed by such warming front men as Al Gore doesn’t even begin to touch on the very serious problems in the “science.”

Issues have arisen that throw this science into further doubt.  For example, the so-called Medieval Warming Period (MWP).  MWP contradicts the notion that warming is now greater than it has ever been.  But researchers have built graphs that smooth out and flatten the MWP and make it seem inconsequential.

With the recent release of emails from the CRU at East Anglia University, we have seen that key researchers there have been scheming to avoid releasing their raw data to people making FOIA requests.

In fact, the Harry-Read-Me emails show the enormous frustration of a technician brought to the CRU to clarify the raw data.  He could make no sense of it.  It was a complete mess.

How do you build a theory using that data as a prime reference point?

Still, the massive propaganda campaign on behalf AGW presses on.  The train has left the station, and there is no way the proactive scientists will stop it or turn it around.  If they did, they would be admitting to fraud and incompetence on a gargantuan level.

As a final capper, consider this recent message from the UK Met Office, a repository for absolutely vital underpinning temperature-measurement data used by East Anglia climate scientists.  The message explains why these underlying data sets are not available for inspection:

“The data set of temperatures, which are provided as a gridded product back to 1850 was largely compiled in the 1980s when it was technically difficult and expensive to keep multiple copies of the database.

“For IT infrastructure of the time this was an exceedingly large database and multiple copies could not be kept at a reasonable cost. There is no question that anything untoward or unacceptable in terms of best practices at the time occurred.”

In other words, they threw all that data out.  They couldn’t have kept the paper files stashed in a storage locker.  No.  They had to throw it out.  (Or they still have ONE complete copy and they won’t release it or copy it now.)

This is like saying, “We’re completely insane, and insane is better than admitting we’re criminals.”

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

DECEMBER 18, 2009.  At the core of the false science of manmade global warming is a project to transfer wealth.  However, precisely to whom this wealth would be given is unclear, and the question of how the money would be used is, at this stage, up in the air.

We know it’s a con and a fraud and yet another money-making proposition, but the details need to be spelled out.

This post (below) at EUREFERENDUM is a start.  It tells a very interesting story about power and money in the game of climate-change—the plan to build up developing nations through green technology.

The billions (trillions?) of dollars to carry out the job would come from governments (taxpayers) of wealthy countries. 

Lest you imagine vast garden paradises springing up in the Third World, read the EUREFERENDUM post carefully, and note some of the backers of this scheme.  It’s clear that transnational corporate control of agri-business and resource mining would go on unabated.  The green revolution may look nice on the surface, but it’s far from the whole story.

Here’s the article:

No one but the utterly naïve greenies believe that the Mann-made global warming hype is anything to do with climate – much less saving the planet. It is, as always, about power, influence – and money.

Out of literally thin air, the money-men have been able to conjure up a brand new product on which to increase their riches, the fabulous “carbon” which in less than a decade will – they hope – underpin an “industry” worth more than $2 trillion a year.

That alone justified the enormous effort which is being made to cement global warming as an issue in the public consciousness and, more importantly, in the legislative systems of the world. And it is the latter which is most important. Once the elimination of “carbon” is locked into enough legislative systems, it does not matter what people think – the revenue stream will be secure.

Bearing in mind that the issue is based on the central deception that the life-giving gas carbon dioxide is a “pollutant”, behind the push to create this multi-trillion dollar industry is a vast nexus of influence, at or near the heart of which – it is emerging – is the chairman of the UN’s IPCC, Dr Rajendra Kumar Pachauri.

Carefully cultivating the image of the concerned “scientist”, he has on the back of the global warming hype not only been able to amass a considerable personal fortune (about which he is extraordinarily shy) but has also built a powerful global organisation under the brand-name “TERI”, as the front for his lobbying and power-broking activities.

And, as one might expect, part of the Pachauri empire is a branch office in Washington DC, based at 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, within sight of the Capitol. Called TERI-NA (The Energy and Resources Institute, North America), it was set up as a “501(c)(3) company” (non-profit) in 1990, it is not even very discrete in its objectives, telling us that:

Its activities have centred around conducting research and organizing workshops/conferences to sensitize the decision-makers in North America to developing countries’ concern about energy and environment.

With Dr Pachauri as its president, it is being headed by a United Nations official, supposedly an impartial public servant, in charge of advising government on climate change. What is stunning, therefore, is to see the number of oganisations which are paying fees (sponsorship) to Pachauri’s Washington operation.

US readers, for instance, might be intrigued to learn that their tax dollars take a four-way hit. No less than four US government agencies pay into Pachauri’s pot, the US Agency for International Development, the US Department of Energy and US Environment Protection Agency. plus the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, a US Department of Energy National Laboratory, which also pays a contribution.

They are joined by the Norwegian Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency. We also have the World Bank and the World Bank Institute listed.

Indirectly, US taxpayers take another hit, being the major bankrollers of the United Nations. Four UN agencies contribute to the pot: the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Development Programme (GEF), the United Nations Office for Project Services and (strangely) the United Nations, Procurement Division, Missions and Project Procurement Service (MPPS).

Given Pachauri’s background, it is no surprise to find Big Oil represented, with Amoco Oil and Oman Oil listed amongst his sponsors. Then there is an outfit called FACTS Inc, described as “leading consultants in global energy”. They, no doubt, sit easily with the giant defence contractor Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation and Science Applications International Corporation, the ninth largest defence contractor in the United States.

Then there is the company specialising in pesticides and GM crops, Monsanto Enterprises Limited, plus Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited. It was incorporated in 1967 in financial and technical collaboration with the US Steel Corporation to manufacture urea. In 1973, Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited set up Goa’s first mega industrial undertaking.

This collection though, surely represents a greenie nightmare, which makes it all the more surprising to see the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) on the sponsor list.

Another interesting sponsor, the Econergy International Corporation. Founded as a consultancy firm in 1994, Econergy became a world leader in Carbon Credit generation, the General Manager of a $20 million clean energy investment fund in Latin America, and through its public listing on AIM (a market operated by the London Stock Exchange), an investor and project developer in clean energy projects in Latin America, the Caribbean (LAC) and other emerging economies.

In the same line of business, we also have GCSI Global – Global Change Strategies International – which has been taken over by Natsource Asset Management Services. This operation calls itself “a leader in the rapidly growing environmental markets, with a focus on the carbon market.” It has approximately $800 million in assets under management and commitments and attempts to assist its industrial clients reduce the cost of complying with emissions targets and provide superior returns to its investment clients.

Conflicts of interest anyone?

Then we have organisations pushing renewables, including the Pembina Institute of Appropriate Development, and the International Development & Energy Associates, a Swiss-based organisation which has a remarkably low internet profile. And we also have ICF International. This calls itself a “global professional services firm, partners with government and commercial clients to deliver consulting services and technology solutions in energy, climate change, environment, transportation, social programs, health, defense, and emergency management.”

Another interesting sponsor is SNC Lavalin, a company with a distinctly unsavoury past, having been involved in fixing power construction contracts in India.

Alongside such stars, of course, we have the great and the good, such as the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Foundation America, The Rockefeller Foundation (on which advisory Board Pachauri sits), the John D and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Ford Foundation.

Needless to say, there is then a whole raft of greenie and quasi-greenie organisations, such as the Alliance to Save Energy co-chaired by James E. Rogers, President and Chief Executive Officer of Duke Energy, and the Global Environment Facility, chaired by Mrs Monique Barbut, formerly Director of the Division of Technology, Industry and Economics of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

There is also money from the Burns and Roe Services Corporation, Charities Aid, the East-West Centre, the Environmental Law Institute, the Global Development Network, the Health Effects Institute, the International Development Research Centre and the International Institute for Sustainable Development plus the International START Secretariat.

So it goes on. We have the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility and an outfit called Resources For the Future which aims to improve “environmental and natural resource policymaking worldwide through objective social science research of the highest caliber.” The list of its board of directors makes interesting reading.

Also counted as sponsors are the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, the SARI/Energy Small Grants Program, START (System for Analysis Research and Training) and the United States-Asia Environmental Partnership. American universities are also represented, with the University of California at Davis, the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and the University of Waterloo in the line-up.

The list finishes with the World Resources Institute, whose strategic director is William D. Ruckelshaus, a former administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the V Kann Rasmussen Foundation, Energy Foundation, which has “emphasized environmental grantmaking since it was founded in 1991.”

No one, it seems, can accuse Dr Pachauri of not having any friends and supporters. But, standing at the centre of this vast nexus of influence, he makes for some strange bedfellows, all apparently with a common cause. (end EUREFERENDUM clip)

Thus far, the notion of supplying and powering a whole Third World country with various types of alternative energy—solar and wind, primarily—has very little real-life traction.  The cost of carrying out such a plan would be staggering.  The amounts now being discussed are only a drop in the bucket.  A few years up the road, there would be further demands for more cash.  More wealth transfers.  And still the job would not be done.

And aside from this, are we to assume the dictators of some of those nations would stand aside and welcome in new green conquerors?  The bribes would reach to the stars.

There is much more to learn about the racket of the climate gods…

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

DECEMBER 18, 2009.  As a reporter, whenever I run into something that sounds, looks, feels like, and adds up to, a non-sequitur, a chunk of absurd illogic, my eyes light up and rays of eager anticipation shoot out of my head.

I’ve got one of those absurdities, as far as I can tell, and I’m chewing on it.  It has to do THE THIRD WORLD and GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS.

I know I’m supposed to assume those two items go hand in hand and are intimately connected.  I’m supposed to assume the tie-ins are obvious.  But I restrain myself from believing as I keep chewing.

So let us begin.

I keep reading about efforts to help developing, poor, Third-World nations vis-à-vis climate change.

Forgetting, for the moment, fraudulent climate science, I want to understand what this “help” means.

On the one hand, there seems to be an implication that developing countries are inordinately spewing CO2 into the air.  Really?  Nations with a tiny fraction of the industry of First World countries are major bad actors?

Oh, you mean China and India.  Oh.  Well, in that case, just say China and India.  Are there any other “developing” countries that are major CO2 producers on a level with, say, the US and the EU?  I don’t see them.  Am I missing something here?  I thought part of the definition of “developing” was “very little heavy industry.”

On the other hand, there is a big push to help developing countries avoid the effects of global warming: massive floods, contaminated water, and deforestation.

Hmm.  Lots of developing countries already feature contaminated water, which is a prime cause of illness.  The problem has existed for a very long time—and there are many companies that could go into those areas and, for very little money, clean up the water.  Apparently, the men who run those nations don’t want their citizens to be healthy.

As for the devastating flooding and deforestation—if I’m not mistaken, the doomsday scenarios being painted by the climate PR gods would imminently affect EVERYONE on the planet, right?  Seacoasts washed away, drowning of cities and towns and villages and empty land.  I mean, according to these dire predictions, who would survive?  Fish?  So why focus on Third World countries? 

Then there is the “climate-change” goal of installing green energy technology in Third World nations, where, presently, relatively little energy technology and infra-structure exist at all.  Well, use all the windmills and solar collectors you want to, and the impact would be very small.  The cost would be huge.  With present green technology, you can’t make a dent in overall energy needs.  It doesn’t work.

However, you can doom those people to energy solutions that don’t pan out, and therefore you can provoke decades of continued primitive conditions. In other words, more of the same.  Grinding poverty, starvation, illness, death.

Since these issues aren’t hard to understand, I have to conclude that the real motives for (absurdly) linking climate-change and Third World “help” are different from the announced goals. 

In other words, behind these climate-change-Third-World non-sequiturs, certain people will make “green” fortunes; ultimately, depopulation in the Third World will quicken; “help for the poor” will function as a feel-good distracting cover story for the parallel weakening and destruction of carbon-based industry in the First World; the billions and trillions in money transfers from the First World to the Third World would aid in further bankrupting industrial nations, and certain perspicacious men would find ways of diverting and stealing those extraordinary sums of money in transit.

In this nightmare scenario, the agenda for a global management system (de facto world government) would advance, based on “the environmental threat.”  Save the planet by wrecking societies and economies.

Severely limit the legal ability and personal freedom to create new companies and businesses that aren’t overtly green.  Issue every citizen a ceiling-limit carbon card, from which deductions are made every time he buys energy or travels.  Base political/economic planetary control on set numbers for “total available Earth resources,” and from those numbers begin to allocate—from a central control point—how those resources will be accessed and deployed from one end of the planet to the other.

In this effort, it would be made clear that capitalism and the free market are passé, and the new wave would be “compassion for all” emanating from share-and-care world leaders who are governing and managing Earth.  You know, the people we can really trust.  The people who have no conflicts of interest.  The people who have nothing personal to gain.  The people who are kind and loving and gentle.  The people who can issue edicts and make them stick, with force if necessary.

Those people.

JON RAPPOPORT
www.nomorefakenews.com
www.insolutions.info

DECEMBER 17, 2009.  If the fraud called climate science is accepted by governments around the world, what actions will they launch?

First of all, judging by the Copenhagen Conference fiasco, the economic/political agenda has taken a hit.  But they’ll keep coming back for more, you can be sure of that.

Meanwhile, here is something I found at Watts Up With That?, a popular climate-science site.  In an article titled “Revealed: the UK government strategy for personal carbon rations,” by Tony Brown, there is a quote cited from the Environmental Audit Committee minutes, House of Commons:  

“Personal carbon rations would have to be mandatory, imposed by Government in the same way that food rationing was introduced in the UK in 1939… Each person would receive an electronic card containing their year’s carbon credits …the card would have to be presented when purchasing energy or travel services, and the correct amount of carbon deducted. The technologies and systems already in place for direct debit systems and credit cards could be used.”

Lovely.  Is there is also a deduction for the CO2 emitted during heavy breathing while watching porn?

Proposals like the one offered by the environmental audit committee stem from the imposed notion of LIMITS.  The total “safe” limit for carbon emissions on the planet.  The total limit of available resources in the world.  The limit of population. 

The Club of Rome is famous for discussing limits.  Implicit in all these boundaries is the idea that economies and governments must be planned and arranged, from the top down, based on calculations and models for “what is available on the planet.”

Some one-world thinkers also try to factor in “the pace of technical innovation,” as absurd as that guess would be.

Of course, throughout these models, we see plans for wealth/resource allocation and redistribution.  “The rich give to the poor.”

In fact, based on climate science, there is much talk of reparations to Third World nations.  For what?  The answers range from “poverty” to “loss of dignity.”  And this is connected to (fake) global warming exactly how?

If you want to repay Third World nations for insult and injury, why blame the millions of taxpayers who would shoulder the expense now?

But, I digress.  Actually, this wealth transfer and reparations scheme is just a cover story.  You can be sure that, among the miles of solar collectors and windmills in Africa, mining and drilling and giant agri-farming will step up operations—and grab some of that “reparation” to do it.  Free money is always welcomed.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

DECEMBER 14, 2009.  Many environmentalists don’t care whether manmade global warming is real.  They see the Gore movement in a positive light because it fits their agenda.

Less heavy industry, low petroleum use, the potential return to “a better time,” in which simple living in nature triumphs over urban misery.

They don’t really care what the global warming science says, in its details, or how it says it or whether it is substantiated, fake, incompetent, or politically motivated.

What’s important is the overall vision, and whoever aids that vision, by any means, is invited to the party.

If Al Gore wants to live in his mansion and burn enough electricity to power a small town, if he and his cohorts fly to conferences in private jets that consume fuel like there is no tomorrow, who cares?  Al is their friend.  He’s on the right side of the overall issue.

If cap and trade, massive carbon taxes, wealth distribution among nations, new carbon billionaires are the means to the end, so be it.

All industry is evil, so suffering in that sector is perfectly acceptable.

IPCC, the UN agency pushing for a new global economy based on the notion of manmade warming, is a hero.  It doesn’t matter whether the warming science is valid.  It doesn’t matter how much political and economic control is placed in the hands of IPCC.

Toxic pesticides, looming water shortages, genetically modified food, giant agri-business rubbing out the small farmer, industrial pollution impacting health—these and other authentic problems stand a better chance of being resolved if manmade warming is accepted as fact.

If the sudden emergence of a new Nature religion, catching on like fire across the planet, could achieve the same results as manmade warming science and its political gunmen, then it would be all hail to the Goddess of Nature.

Agendas don’t care.

This is political realism.

This is the way the game works.

Holes in the ozone, a coming Ice Age, a sweltering planet, envisioned aerosol disasters, celebrities driving hybrid cars—there is no rhyme, reason, or logic to an agenda.  There is only a pragmatic calculation about the result.  What helps to bring about that result is good.  What hinders it is evil.

If five or ten fake pandemics can place the fate of nations under the control of agencies that also promote, like the IPCC, coerced wealth distribution among nations, then these “pandemics” are good.

If medical researchers can badly assert that unstoppable epidemics are emerging out of rainforests, and therefore half the world’s industries must be heavily curtailed and air travel must be restricted on a more or less permanent basis, then these researchers are allies.

Of course, the environmental agenda, at its highest levels, has covert aspects.  Oil producers see how restricting output can put far more money in their pockets.  A few corporations that build nuclear power plants are licking their chops.  They envision the day when most of the energy on the planet will stream from their reactors.  (They still haven’t figured out how to get rid of the spent fuel rods safely, have they?  Oh well.)

Personal and business taxes will rise to extraordinary levels.  In fact, national economies will exist, eventually, under the umbrella of a global management system.  “What is needed for all” will be determined by regulators.  Production quotas and price controls will become as established feature of everyday life.  The entrepreneurial spirit will become a dinosaur of a lost age.

Share-and-care collectivism will go global, and the masters of this system will, of course, care about nothing and share nothing, because, well, they are different.

For those who do care, the actual science behind manmade warming, which is the engine that is driving the next phase of this planetary collectivist revolution—what about the science?

Cracks and gaping holes emerged long before the recent release of emails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University.  The emails confirmed these problems.

There was the pesky MWP, the Medieval Warming Period, which appeared to mirror today’s temperatures—in which case, industrial CO2 emissions couldn’t be blamed for modern warmth.

There were periods in which trend-spoiling temperature declines took place, and the watchword became: Hide the Decline.  This admonition was echoed in the East Anglia emails.

Overall, charts showing a steady historical rise in Earth’s temperature were using a mixed cherry-picking strategy.  Use raw temp data here, use averaged homogenized data there, use “proxy” data from tree rings there, etc.  Eliminate annoying data.  Lose data.  Employ data in obviously invalid fashions.  “Make a collage” that suits the objective.

The now-famous “Harry please read me” emails reveal the enormous frustration felt by a technician brought in to make sense of East Anglia temp data records.  He found such a mess, he fell to his knees before the task.  In other words, there was no way to reconstruct the data upon which the whole assertion of manmade warming was based.

The East Anglia emails revealed illegal efforts to thwart FOIA requests for temperature data, efforts to keep certain skeptics’ papers from being published in “top journals.”  Eventually, Phil Jones, head of the East Anglia team, stated that reams of raw temp data had been destroyed.  He claimed he could reconstruct this gigantic set, but the effort, he said, would be a waste of time, since the science was already clear.

Because vast numbers of separate temperature measurements had been made over many years, in many places, on land, sea, and air, there was no way to simply look at them and decide what story they told.  Therefore, various models or systems had been applied to these measurements, in order to arrive at a coherent theory.  But the models had never been subjected to real and free and independent peer review.  A model is often just a complex structure built to spit out a predetermined result.  Conclusion?  The manmade warming models are not products of true science.  They are methods favored by those who are already devoted to a claim of manmade warming.

In fact, how one actually chooses a valid model is a very thorny question, and to this day, the question is unsettled.

In any case, no model now in use is precise enough to make specific temperature predictions about next year, five years from now.  Therefore, the basic test of any model—its capacity to make accurate projections which can be confirmed—is off the table.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com