under the guise of so-called Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Since the release of the e-mails and documents from the
Hadley Center Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) in England, there has been an outpouring of rage, disbelief, and excuse making. They revealed that a small group of scientists, acting as a “clearinghouse”, have been leading many of the world’s researchers, climate-modelers, and data-gatherers toward a result that had been planned since the beginning of the Clinton administration, then feeding their “science-based projections” to the United Nations to make long-term policies that will have an effect on all the world’s population. These scientists have been given a goal, and other than a few setbacks, they have been carrying it out successfully… until now.
While this may sound like a conspiracy that might be found only on obscure websites, and midnight talk-radio, the evidence is clear. The names, e-mail addresses, organizations, and government agencies that have been involved in this are clearly put on display within the leaked documents and e-mails. The data-manipulation is made bare, and the methods of how it has been presented to the public is clear, along with how they have squashed anyone who might question their “science”. The stakes are too high for them to be sidetracked by actual facts, or realistic solutions.
The specific acts of data manipulation, and falsified results are now being disseminated across the Internet by regular citizens, known skeptics, and by intrepid reporters. Over the past week, and in the coming weeks, many people, and even the press, will publish these findings. Climate scientists who have found themselves ostracized will have been vindicated, skeptics will find new and curious supporters, and politicians will find themselves on the street, and possibly in a witness stand.
In this essay, I will not delve into the actual data that was manipulated, except to provide context. These particular disclosures are being done by thousands of people while I compose this, and will be seen by millions more. Those with a higher visibility have already surpassed the small samplings I’ve given here on Flopping Aces, and the most egregious of them made public by those more qualified than I am in analyzing the actual science behind it. More will undoubtedly be released as the thousand some-odd e-mails and documents are gone through by the “Army of Davids”, as Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has termed us (in a book by the same title).
My research has been focused on getting “inside” the process itself, and to make the connections. To do this, I have read over 1000 individual e-mails, and every document released by the still unknown “hacker”. They were first converted from a difficult-to-read Notepad format with associated10-digit identifier date-codes, to a M.S. Word document titled by actual dates that were within each e-mail header. During this time, many were deemed “not useful” to the larger goal or redundant, were put aside. The others were separated by relevance and impact. The e-mails cover a time period from 1996 through 2009. I now know how “sausage” is made.
The “Documents” section of the release consisted of PDF’s, Word-docs, and included files that contain software code in Fortran and C++, and gathered raw data from the field. I did not have the means to re-assemble the codes, but there again, people more knowledgeable than I certainly will in the near future and disclose their findings, as some already have. My hope is that through this data, we can gain from a better understanding of the world’s actual climate history and possible future. Real and harmful pollution should be decreased, and no one on either side of the political spectrum wants to drink bad water or breathe smoggy air.
The seeds to this scandal were planted early in the Clinton administration, when emerging abilities to measure and track temperatures on a global scale, revealing what scientists saw as a rise in temperature, corresponding with a rise in CO2. The long-established proof of the ability of initial amounts of CO2 concentrations to hold heat, and to also let heat pass into space has not been questioned, nor is it questioned now in light of the hacker’s release.
The sole focus should be if human-added CO2 is the main driver for the increase in reported temperatures, and if so, what to do about it.
In all reality, those questions remain, and might have even been resolved by now had the scientists with the most visibility not been given a different mandate in those early days, and other scientists not been crowded out, or their views discounted simply because they were not part of the self-named “Community”. The released e-mails have shown this “us verses them” mentality over and over (1256765544), and the reasons have little to do with large egos or territorial aspirations as can sometimes be seen in every scientific discipline. Science is more competitive than many realize.
The editors of numerous environmental publications (1237496573) worked closely with the scientists of this “Community”. There was a symbiotic relationship between them, the reviewers, and the scientists in-question. They conspired to reject or delay submissions from outside scientists, or accepted them if they were seen as being on the same page. Some were accepted only after jumping over hurdles that members of this Community never had to, and skeptical editors like James Saiers from the University of Virginia fired (1106322460). The level of disparagement and vitriol within the e-mails that the Community scientists espoused toward the “outsiders” is akin to what one might hear on a 2nd grade schoolyard (1255100876). They actually expressed relief, bordering on joy, when a skeptic had died (1075403821), and expressed the same sort of emotion when a high-level scientist had left the Community “hive”( 1256765544). In many instances, un-reviewed data and conclusions were released to their self created public outlet known as realclimate.com without any outside input whatsoever (1102687002).
The high-level software modelers were also part of this scheme. They knew what inputs, curves, smoothings, and adjustments were needed to keep the temperature-level increases where the managers “needed” them to be (1254108338) in order to keep the Project moving forward, and the money flowing in from taxpayers and foundations from all over the world.
Bishop Hill has a collection of the most incriminating evidence, and is where the above links are from.
The hundreds of lower-level scientists, programmers, and especially the thousands of folks including college students, who do the hard work of gathering data from all corners of the globe, are as much victims of this charade as any of the rest of us. Most have dedicated their lives to furthering the knowledge of our planetary home, and I feel very badly that they might end up being put into the same corner of shame that the conspirators might find themselves in if justice is ever done. They deserve more than this, and should be commended for their dedication.
We now return to the beginning of the 90’s: the Wall had fallen, Germany was united, and the former Soviet Union countries were in political, economic and environmental shambles. The Middle East was smoldering from the first Iraq war, and looked like it might be ripe for long-term peace. The paradigms of the previous 40 years had been forever turned upside down, and for the first time, those who came of age in the 60’s had attained the power of the Presidency, and Congress. The threats of the previous generations were suddenly gone.
There was much to do, for they had dreams. But they needed a new “cause”.
Corporations that had carried on in a more or less predictable manner suddenly had very different market out-looks all over the world, along with different commodity sources. Russia had oil, diamonds, and an educated population, China and the newly free Soviet states had potential customers, and a cheap labor pool, Military spending was seen as drying up, and the now-recovering economies of America Asia, and Western Europe was seen as stable for as far as forecasts could be made.
There was much to do, for they needed new plans. But they needed a new “stability”.
Both of these entities may seem very different on the surface. At first blush, 60’s dreamers and international corporate leaders look and act diametrically opposed. But they do have one thing in common: They both seek the power, planning and predictability over others.
Enter global warming: the new enemy, the new market, all wrapped up in one.
The first iteration was “Agenda 21”. A program proposed to alleviate all things bad happening to the world’s poor. It never really got off the ground, primarily because we already had lots of programs to help the poor, and it was seen by most as redundant. Meanwhile following the Europeans, some environmentalists had turned up the volume on CO2 concerns, aided by Jim Hansen of NASA, who added credence to this clarion call. At the time this was not seen as pressing, because the science itself seemed sketchy. Sure CO2 can have an effect, but a runaway effect? This needed more research, and the environment-loving Clinton admin was right there to help, with Al Gore as their inside man. Many others now work within the Obama admin.
The first thing the international oil corporations smelled of course was their butts on a spit. They all knew that they would be the logical target of any CO2 reductions. They had to act fast, and along with the corporate-friendly Republicans now controlling the Senate, they also had an inside man within the Clinton admin: The heir to the Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Albert Gore Jr.
According to the released e-mails and documents, one large international company brought forth a grand vision in early 90’s. That company was a new division of Royal Dutch Shell International of Holland and England. It took only a few more years to solidify their hold on the agenda, and begin to steer it.
E-mail # 0894639050
(Dozen’s of CC’s and e-mail addresses of large companies, schools, think-tanks, government officials, environ groups, and UN members, all removed by PV)
Subject: RE: IPCC SRES Scenario Guidelines for Authors
Date: 08 May 1998 10:50:50 +0100
Find below guidelines on how to present the IS99 storylines and scenarios. Could you the nominated authors send me your first drafts as soon as possible?
In writing up your contribution could you cover the following areas, ideally structured as follows:
1. Scenario family narrative to discuss main themes, dynamics and a diagram showing ‘grand logic’
2. Key Scenario Family Drivers and their Relationships
Topics you should cover include the following:
* technology developments
* governance and geopolitics
* economic development
* communication and settlement patterns
* environmental concerns/ecological resilience
3. Scenarios, include reasons for branches: this section should state clearly the reasons behind selection of scenarios and review the key highlights of the scenario quantification
* energy resources/technology, include resource availability
* land use and agriculture
* scenario quantification, include snowflake
* CO2 emissions
There may be other factors you wish to add to the paper.
Shell International Limited, London
Scenario Processes and Applications Div.
So what did Shell and their dozens of “friends” have in mind?
Easy: Long-term stability of markets based on a cause. And not just the oil market.
They even have a nice website that sounds so nice, but reveals little:
Notice the name of the school it’s run through.
This particular e-mail does not look like much, and says even less, but does anyone think, (especially you environmentalist’s) that Shell Oil, or any other multinational cares about CO2 or global warming?
So what might be the long term “plans” and “scenarios” you ask?
E-mail # 0889554019 from Anne Johnson of the IIAS coordinated this “gathering of the minds” for the Shell division, and they came up with 4 scenarios, one of which (A1) is the preferred one. The E-mail is very long, so I will only quote-out the one they most want to see happen by the year 2100:
That section is titled:
Golden Economic Age (A1): a century of expanded economic prosperity with the emergence of global governance.
This is what they envision happening if they can use your CO2 taxes and fees to pay for it:
3.Golden Economic Age (A1)
This scenario family entitled “Golden Economic Age”, describes rapid and
successful economic development. The primary drivers for economic growth and development “catch up” are the strong human desire for prosperity, high human capital (education), innovation, technology diffusion, and free trade.
The logic of successful development assumes smooth growth with no major political discontinuities or catastrophic events. The scenario family’s development model is based on the most successful historical examples of economic growth, i.e., on the development path of the now affluent OECD economies. Historical analogies of successful economic “catching up” can be found in the Scandinavian countries, Austria, Japan, and South Korea.
“Intangible” assets (human capital, stable political climate) take
precedence over “tangible” assets (capital, resource, and technology
availability) in providing the conditions for a take-off into accelerated
rates of development. Once these conditions are met, free trade enables each region to access knowledge, technology, and capital to best deploy its respective comparative economic and human resource advantages. Institutional frameworks are able to successfully sustain economic growth and also to handle the inevitable volatility that rapid economic growth entails.
The “intangible” prerequisites for accelerated rates of economic growth
also offer long-term development perspectives for regions that are poorly endowed with resources or where current economic prospects are not auspicious, such as Sub-Saharan Africa. There, for instance, fostered regional trade and capital availability enhance the pull-effects of a strong South African economy. In other regions, growth may be fuelled by domestic know-how and high human capital valued at the international market. An example of this is the thriving software industry of the Indian subcontinent. In yet other regions, growth could be stimulated by the expansion of regional economic partnerships and free trade arrangements (e.g., extensions of NAFTA and the European Union).
The main difference with the historical OECD experience is a certain
acceleration in time and space, (i.e., “leapfrogging”) made possible by
better access to knowledge and technology, a consequence of the high-tech and free trade characteristics of development. Successful catching up becomes pervasive; all parts of the “developing world” participate, though with differences in timing. The final outcome is that practically all parts of the world achieve high levels of affluence by the end of the 21st century, even if disparities will not have disappeared entirely. The current distinction between “developed” and “developing” countries will in any case no longer be appropriate.
As in the past, high growth (a “growing cake”) eases distributional
conflicts. Everyone reaps the benefits of rapid growth, rising incomes,
improved access to services, and rising standards of living. The economic imperatives of markets, free trade, and technology diffusion (i.e., competition) that underlie the high growth rates provide for efficient allocation of resources. Efficiency and high productivity are the positive by-products of the highly competitive nature of the economy. They also provide the economic resources for distributive and social measures required for a stable social and political climate, vital for sustaining high growth rates in human capital, productivity, innovation, and hence economic growth.
The economic development focus explains its central metric: the degree of economic development as reflected in per capita income levels (GDP at market exchange rates as well as at purchasing power parity rates). The principal driver is the desire for prosperity, all major driving forces are closely linked to prosperity levels, with actual causality links going in both directions. For example, demographic variables co-evolve with prosperity: mortality declines (i.e. life expectancy increases) as a function of higher incomes (better diets and affordable medical treatment).
In turn, changes in the social values underlying the fertility transition
also pave the way for greater access to education, modernisation of
economic structures, and market orientation. These are key for innovating and diffusing the best practice technologies underlying the high productivity, and hence economic growth, of the scenario.
It goes on into more detail, but you get the point… “Nirvana” as only the left could define it, all paid for by benevolent corporations. It shall all come to pass when we give them control, or they take it.
Scenarios B1, A2, and B2 are further down the “nirvana-scale”, but all are “better” than today.
As a side-note, I could not get over this sentence: As in the past, high growth (a “growing cake”) eases distributional conflicts.
-Shades of the man the left still hates, Ronald Reagan, and his “A rising tide lifts all boats.”
Do any of you still wonder why the Left went nuts when Gore didn’t get elected?
-It slowed down the “Plan”.
Do any of you still wonder why Obama had to be elected?
-To make up for lost time.
Look back and remember the only Bill that Obama ever submitted while he was a Senator.
“Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.
For a crime to take place motive, means, and opportunity come into play. But is there more evidence within the hacked release? Glad you asked. A certain PDF document is there.
In June of 2004, a draft of a document titled: Adaptation And Mitigation strategies: Supporting European climate policy. (ADAM 2nd order draft) There is a red-lined entry within it, obviously to be added by the coordinator Mike Hulme of the Tyndall Centre, on line 676 through line 682. It reads, in his words exactly how I present it here:
We believe that one worked example should certainly relate to the design and implementation of a post-2012 global climate regime. Here, we would develop a portfolio of global design principles (e.g. burden-sharing, blah, blah…) and EU policy options (e.g. compensation measures, blah, blah…) which could deliver a 2100 global climate consistent with Article 2 of the UNFCCC and consistent with other international goals, treaties, and conventions (e.g. Millennium Development Goals, WTO Biodiversity and Desertification Conventions). These options would be such to nan options appraisal using the ADAM PAF.
To those who have been paying attention all these years, we see familiar phrases within this open-ended bureau-speak, such as; “Global design principals”, “Compensation measures”, “Burden sharing”, “Millennium Goals”, “WTO”, etc.
All the proposals to supposedly lower the earth’s temperature, inevitably end up being a multi-tentacled redistribution scheme from those who have earned what they have under a sovereign Constitution, and handing it over to those who do not share our values nor our laws, all under the auspices and management of the “benevolent” United Nations, and time is of the essence.
Very little is mentioned within these documents about the use of solar, nuclear, or any other non-CO2-emitting technologies to fix the “problem” of AGW.
Within the PDF, one notes that the very first name listed is the list of participating organizations to implement the ADAM/UN goals, is the University of East Anglia UK and the Tyndall Centre.
The Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia is where these documents and e-mails came from, and who supply the climate numbers to the UN. The Tyndall Centre is a huge advertising and market research company based in England.
The “settled science” is but a tool, and the Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (UN/CISS), the IIAS, the Commission on Global Governance, and anyone else we have no means to elect, should be kept as far away as possible to our great country, no matter the issue.
Being the son of a programmer/astronomer, I have always loved the sciences, and have kept abreast of this AGW topic since the beginning. I have always been eager to continue adding to my own knowledge of how and why “things” work, regardless of the “what”. I’ve worked many years alongside chemists and engineers in the semiconductor industry, and I am very familiar with vacuum, pressure, gas phasing, radio frequency induced plasma, and many other physical sciences. I can appreciate the tasks involved with science, especially because it was I who in many occasions did the hands-on part of experimentation, and data collection, and in other cases wrote up the drafts for submissions to journals, and patents. I have also been a political junky since Watergate, and a nut for history for as long as I can remember. This life-experience is why this revelation has intrigued me the way it has, and is why I think I can shed some light on it, in a way that may not be apparent to the average person trying to follow all of this.
That, and I have 3 children whom I love dearly, who will have to pay for all this.