The Greatest Fraud in History

GlobalWarmingFraudby Michael Greer   8/14/14
The first time I heard the claim that man was causing global warming, I thought it was a joke. When I realized that not only weren’t they joking, they were deadly serious, I had to know why. They claimed CO2 was responsible for all kinds of evils, but I knew that CO2 was a nutrient necessary for life on our planet. I also knew that CO2 is emitted by every living creature in nearly everything we do. Reducing CO2 would require de-industralizing our country, destroying our economy, and reducing crop output. It would lead to deaths of living creatures. I determined to learn as much as I could about “global warming”, and find out what was behind it. For the last ten years or so, I have been reading, researching, and listening to actual scientists who study these disciplines.

This July I spent three days with hundreds of scientists at the 9th International Conference on Climate Change. These are experts in their fields, and they showed us a myriad reasons why Anthropogenic Global Warming is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on man. You can watch videos of the Conference here. I recommend it highly.

One of the first things I discovered when I started researching global warming was a petition signed by more than 31,000 scientists in response to the Kyoto Accord. This petition said that warming and cooling cycles were normal for the planet, and that man’s activities have very little, if any, effect on climate. This demonstrated to me that there is no “consensus” of scientists on the matter. The petition was circulated only in the United States, so I would imagine the number of signatories would be even greater in the worldwide science community. You can see the petition for yourself.

I printed out the 31 pages of California scientists who signed the petition. I like to show it to people who try to tell me that “97% of scientists agree man is causing global warming”. They never fail to be shocked.

I was excited to meet the scientists who created and circulated the petition when they received awards at the conference. One of them, Dr. Willie Soon, has PhD’s in astrophysics and geoscience. He sat at my table at the conference. The group explained that when they circulated the petition, many leftist forces tried to sabotage it by sending in petitions signed by bogus people. That way, they could point out these fake signatures, and cast doubt on the petition’s validity. Too bad for the spoilers – the authors of the petition are no dummies! They caught every fraud, and vetted every signer!

Shortly before the conference the news broke that NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) had been manipulating temperature data. Here is one of the articles that I read about it: Global-warming skeptic says government manipulated temperature data.

We tend to trust information from agencies such as these, but, remember, they are hired and funded by our government. If our government has an agenda, they would certainly not allow NOAA to deviate from it. NOAA seems to forget that other scientists across the country have been keeping data logs of their own. Several of the speakers showed us the data released by NOAA before and after 2000. It shows NOAA lowered the temperatures from the 1930s (the hottest period in US history) and raised the temperatures from the 1990s, just so they could claim 1998 as the peak hottest year. 1998 was not at all the hottest year, but since there weren’t any SUV’s to blame in the 1930s, that decade’s true data didn’t fit their narrative.

The Conference started with a reception where we met and mingled with the speakers. Lord Christopher Monckton is the rock star of climate change “skeptics”, and he was surrounded by admirers and reporters at every turn. The reception was followed by dinner with speakers such as Patrick Moore, PhD, founder and ex-member of Greenpeace, and John Coleman, former weatherman for “Good Morning, America” and former CEO of the Weather Channel.

Patrick Moore spoke about founding Greenpeace and protesting against nuclear power, whaling, and the killing of baby seals. He is still an environmentalist, as are all of us who want clean air and water (which we currently have). Dr. Moore now agrees that nuclear power is the cleanest, safest form of energy. He pointed out the tactic of scaring the public to serve a political agenda. The movie “Clear and Present Danger” scared America away from nuclear power. Dr. Moore showed us pictures of his early years in the movement. He resigned from Greenpeace when they started pushing the Global Warming meme, which he knew wasn’t true.

John Coleman spoke about starting the Weather Channel, and then resigning from it when the rest of the board voted to change data to support the Global Warming agenda. This was a theme that ran all through the Conference, and was emphasized over and over. The data we are being given has been manipulated to fit a political agenda. For us to make intelligent decisions, we have to have factual information.

Another scientist at my table was William M. Gray, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, and expert in tropical meteorology. His specialty is hurricanes. In his talk on “Climate Change and the Hydrosphere”, he showed us evidence that there are actually fewer hurricanes now than in the last 30 years. Here is a great video on the topic: Climate Change Driven by the Oceans — Not Humans.

The claims Al Gore made in his “Inconvenient Truth” film about there being more hurricanes were never true. In fact, an English court ruled that the “factual inaccuracies” (aka: blatant lies!) in the Al Gore documentary must be pointed out to the audience whenever the film is shown.

Many of the speakers brought up the fact that CO2 is only a little over 3% of the “greenhouse gases”, and that man contributes about 2% of that 3%. It is beyond statistically insignificant. No one is saying man isn’t contributing any CO2, but his contribution isn’t significant enough to change either temperature or climate.

Anthony Watts, a meteorologist, is the founder of the most-viewed climate website, Watts Up With That. He is also a three-time winner of the Best Science Blog award. I found his website years ago. When he founded it, he posted a list of all the temperature stations across the country, and asked people living near them to go photograph them, and see if they comply with the regulations for their locations and upkeep. What he learned is that a majority of the stations are located in areas that affect the readings. They are in the middle of parking lots, near air- conditioning or heating units, over waste treatment plants, etc. Mr. Watts even tested the type of paint used on the stations, and found that it affected the temperature readings. His point is that if we can’t trust the temperature readings to be accurate, why would we destroy our economy, and completely reorder our lives?

90-climate-temperature-models-v-observatons-628x353

This graph was shown by several speakers. It shows all the climate change projections. None of them take into consideration the effects of sun or cloud cover. They all predict warming, but the actual data (in blue and green at the bottom of the graph), shows just how far off they are. They don’t even match the actual data from previous years!

There were so many interesting speakers! Astronaut Walt Cunningham and Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, expert in solar physics and solar terrestrial physics and head of space research at the Pulkovo Observatory in Russia, as well as head of the Selenometria Project on the International Space Station, spoke about how solar activity has the greatest influence of all on temperature and climate. Oddly enough, it isn’t included in any of the climate models.

Larry Bell is an endowed professor at the University of Houston, where he directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture. He has written nearly 300 articles for Forbes magazine, and the book “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power behind the Global Warming Hoax”.

There were dozens of experts in the fields of atmosphere, climate, and related sciences. The entire list of speakers is on the Heartland website, for those who want to learn more.

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California gave a very entertaining talk on all the scary government claims of the last 30-some years, which have all been wrong. Yes, every last one. The government loves to scare us and spend billions of our tax dollars
to combat some phantom threat. However, when said threat is inevitably proven false, we never get an apology or an explanation. So many people are left thinking the government actually solved something. I’ll bet some of you once believed hair spray caused holes in the ozone layer, didn’t you?

One of the highlights of the Conference was Lord Monckton, Lady Margaret Thatcher’s science advisor. He is always entertaining. He goes to all the UN Earth Summit conferences, where he is one of the few voices of reason. The press never tells the public the contents of the agreements the UN always wants all the countries to sign. Lord Monckton does his best to inform us. He travels the world, trying to educate people about the consequences of these agreements. Several videos of his speeches have gone viral, and were in great measure responsible for our Congress not signing
UN agreements that would compromise our sovereignty. He showed us a recent video that had almost three million hits in two days, but the views mysteriously dropped off the day after that. He learned that someone paid over $250,000 to have searches for his name redirected to fake websites! The global warming alarmists can’t prove him wrong, so they keep trying to silence him.

Lord Monckton was kicked out of the Durban Summit, but he is not one to be deterred – he and Craig Rucker parachuted in! Last year’s climate summit proposed reducing CO2 by 100%. Yes, 100%! This would require all living things to stop exhaling. What a perfect example of how insane the alarmists are! It’s worth noting that most regulations and penalties are levied against America, and not any other country. One of the agreements strove to invalidate all American patents. These things would be laughable, if they weren’t so deadly serious, and if our own representatives didn’t keep trying to sign these moronic agreements. Like Agenda 21, which Congress signed with nary a peep.

This is what Lord Monckton had to say about the conference: The climate consensus is not 97% — it’s 100%.

Many of the scientists and experts explained that temperatures haven’t risen in 17 years and 10 months. Even the IPCC, Phil Jones, and other climate alarmists have had to concede that fact. CO2 has been rising, but that is a good thing – it has made the earth more lush and green and created greater crop yields. One of the panels showed greenhouse plants injected with CO2 as compared to plants that didn’t receive injections. The CO2 plants were about five times bigger, with bigger root systems and more leaves. CO2 is the life’s blood of plants, just as oxygen is for man. CO2 is not, and never has been, a pollutant. It is a nutrient necessary for life. Reducing CO2 will lead to lower crop yields, and, eventually, widespread famine. The Jurassic period had 17 times more CO2 than we do now, and there was abundant plant life. More CO2 is better!

Not one prediction the climate alarmists have made has come true. Al Gore said we’d be flooded by the year 2000. That didn’t happen. He said polar bears were dying. There are more polar bears now than 30 years ago. They can swim for 60 miles, and live half their lives in the water. They are in no danger whatsoever. He said there would be more hurricanes and tornadoes, but there are fewer. He said the glaciers were melting, but they aren’t. He said CO2 increases cause temperature increases. Current data proves that false beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Temperature and climate are affected by solar activity, ocean currents, cloud cover, and several other factors (some of which I wasn’t previously aware of). Climate has been changing since the beginning of time, and will continue changing. Man may contribute CO2 to the atmosphere – all living things do – but that’s a good and healthy thing!

The life’s blood of our economy is energy. Cheap, abundant energy is what made this country the richest, most successful country in the world, one with the highest standard of living, and the cleanest environment. Rich countries are always the cleanest. Shipping our industries to places with fewer environmental regulations doesn’t affect the environment one iota, but it does destroy our economy by redistributing our jobs and wealth to other countries. Why are so many countries so poor? Because they don’t have access to cheap, abundant energy. This isn’t because they lack resources, it’s because they signed Earth Summit agreements that don’t allow them to use fossil fuels, and they can’t afford wind or solar power, which is ten times more expensive. The agreements force Western countries to pay for poor countries’ outrageously expensive wind and solar energy.

The good news is that we are winning the debate. Five years ago, Global Warming was one of the top concerns of American citizens. Today, it isn’t even in the top 15! As the years pass, and all the dire predictions fall flat, people stop believing the lies. When the alarmists keep claiming if it’s hot, it’s global warming, If it’s snowing, it’s global warming, rain?, global warming, drought?, global warming, impotence, car accidents, post-nasal drip, and a thousand other things, it’s laughable. It’s Chicken Little on steroids.

Do you wonder, if the actual data shows no significant warming, and human activity has little to no effect, and more CO2 is a good thing, why, then, do our president and the progressives keep pushing laws that restrict our consumption of energy? Why are they trying to force us our of our cars, and into smaller homes? If they got their way, what would our country be like? Would we still be free?


Michael Greer blogs at Madderthanhell’s Blog. • (3503 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Essays and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to The Greatest Fraud in History

  1. Glenn Fairman says:

    Outstanding

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I thought so as well, Glenn. I appreciate Michael’s generosity in allowing us to share this article here and get the word out on this fraud. I plan to pick her brain (or pocket) on a few more of her articles if she’s willing.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    A very nice detailed account, though I must point out that the greenhouse effect is hardly a new concept. The Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius discovered it around a century ago, and Isaac Asimov discussed it an article over 50 years ago. The mistake they make regarding the greenhouse effect is that carbon dioxide simply blocks off certain wavelengths of infrared — and water vapor blocks the same ones. Thus, the incremental effect of carbon dioxide is actually minor.

    Thus, global warming started out as a reasonable scientific concept, worth research. But as many of its advocates realized the political benefits they would get from the restrictions imposed to (supposedly) prevent it (which happened around 30 years ago), and as the scientists who pushed it became too emotionally committed to the theory to back down (cf. Pierre Blondlot and N-rays), it gradually transformed from a genuine scientific theory (one that was never proven) to a blatant fraud. This change is now pretty much complete.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    It has been pretty clear for some years now, that the whole Global Warming hysteria was a scam from the beginning. Like all things political, this is really about power and money. Life really is that simple, sometimes.

    Many thanks for the very informative piece. Also, thanks to Brad for spending the time to go out and find such articles, so people like me can have easy access to them.

    ST is becoming a good reference library for our fight against the encroaching powers of darkness.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    It’s worth pointing out (once again) that Laura Ingraham calls it “The Church of Global Warming.” One of the basic Sacrements or tenets of the Religion of Leftism is environmental wacko-ism.

    And there’s nothing wrong, of course, with factoring in environmental concerns in the total picture.

    But what I think we see happening is a shallow, narcissistic, and uninformed populace that has become like Jack Nicholson’s worst nightmare. (You can’t handle the truth!). These low-information-voters, as Rush calls them, are prone to letting someone else (via sloganeering) do their thinking for them. They otherwise seem incapable of complex thoughts. The only thing they need to know is that they are commendable people for raising the alarm of “global warming.”

    So surely you see the self-absorbed, narcissistic aspect. And this if from the side (“Progressives”) who think they are the paragon of scientific reason. What they have at stake is their image of themselves as the self-anointed. They can never admit that they were wrong about this, especially when they’ve bought into the idea that those who oppose this fraud are “deniers” or want to plow the rainforests under.

    It’s probably a bit unfair to call this environmental wacko-ism (or The Church of Leftism) a religion. A religion (such as Christianity) isn’t inherently about losing your mind and believing someone else’s political nonsense. So what we do have here is sort of a secular state religion which inherently mixes in the political and tries to take it to a redemptive stature. Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” is, again, a good reference for this state of mind.

    And that’s just talking about the lower level, the “useful idiots,” those who really do believe the marketing message of those at the top level who are the real movers and shakers on this issue. And it is not care for the environment that drives them. It is hatred of capitalism, of free markets, of business, and of America. The fraud of global warming is simply a method to expand their socialist-statist control over more and more of our lives. Their end goal is a socialist paradise with them in control and the rest of us doing what they say — as well as telling us what to think.

    And for those who do not think this Orwellian prospect is possible, just look how easily a relatively few people have gotten much of Western civilization (and even many in the East) to parrot the fraud of global warming. This really is the sign of a culture losing its mind and losing its ability to government itself.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This refusal to admit error is an important aspect of liberal psychopathology. Since their life revolves around running other people’s lives, and they justify this on the basis of their (self-professed) intellectual and moral superiority (which ultimately simply means that they’re liberals and we’re not), it follows that any criticism (especially any well-supported criticism) of either is a serious blow to their personal sense of self. This makes it intolerable.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Indeed. And there’s an aspect of playing God in the enviro-wacko view. In the Judeo-Christian concept, the earth was created for us and we are to be its mindful stewards. That may or may not be the way things are, but there is no sense in that of nature itself being the end-goal, to preserve it at all costs. It has its own inherent quality, of course, but it’s also there for our use.

        For the Church of Global Warming advocates, there is nothing higher than nature, so one’s reverence (pagan-like though it may be) goes to the highest object conceivable. That is certainly not the only reason for the irrationality surrounding global warming. But it’s part of it. It grounds the rest of it, and is an excuse for it.

  5. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    This is a piece on the Corner today, which shows the EPA’s proposed new regulations would cost tens of billions each year, but reduce the temperature by virtually nil.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/385432/proposed-epa-regs-would-affect-climate-eighteen-thousandths-degree-2100-and-cost-us

    • Timothy Lane says:

      People have known for some time that the various proposed restrictions would have almost no effect. But they would enable the goodthinkful well-doers to feel good about themselves for having Done Something, while simultaneously increasing their control over the public (and reducing mass consumerism), and those are what matter to them.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        But we must keep hammering away at this. The more data we can release which shows the corruption of the Global Warming crowd and the Obamanation, the better it is for all of us.

  6. Rosalys says:

    We have had a pretty cool summer thus far in 2014. I know this for a fact because I’m living it. It is normal to turn the air conditioning on sometime in June and turn it off in early September. This year we’ve turned it on about a dozen times. Tomatoes and eggplant like heat. My tomatoes aren’t ripening and my eggplant are all tiny. I’m usually swimming cucumbers by the middle of July. I just picked my first three cucumbers two days ago and there are only two more on the vines. That’s it! Five cucumbers! So I don’t want to hear any more crap about global warming!

    We’ve had a handful of hot and humid days. I was watching for them because the weatherman on TV was warning us to take precaution and take cover because, “Tomorrow is going to be a scorcher!” So tomorrow comes, I go outside in my shorts and sandals, hat on to keep the sun off – and I discover that it’s a nice day! A little warmer than yesterday and a little more humid, but hardly oppressive. The weather guys just can’t seem to turn off the hysteria and they are looking like fools!

    • Timothy Lane says:

      But of course, we all know that “weather isn’t climate” — unless it’s unusually hot, of course. It has been amusing reading the Gorescammers’ defense of their fanaticism — usually by mocking skeptics as “deniers” and “anti-science” even as they have no idea how to apply the scientific method to the CAGW theory (which makes predictions that have repeatedly failed to occur, thus disproving the theory).

  7. Jerry Richardson says:

    Great article!

    Isn’t it strange that when the fasowarmists had to admit that the globe has not warmed in 17+ years they suddenly stopped talking about AGW and changed their terminology; a typical progressive maneuver, to ‘climate change’ or sometimes ‘climate disruption.’

    No one disbelieves in ‘climate change’; that has always been going on and will continue. But the fasowarmists are trying to use the word ‘climate change’ in their own special sense, and hope the gullible don’t notice that they have pulled a verbal bait-and-switch. Fraud compounded with more deceit.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This is in fact one of the key indicators that what started out, several decades ago, as a reasonable scientific theory has descended into scientific fraud. When global warming paused (which their models crucially failed to predict), they started talking about “climate change”. When people began to realize that climate is always changing (and that preventing this was akin to King Canute stopping the waves, though he supposedly did this to remind courtiers — who were clearly the ancestors of the Branch Albertians — that he really wasn’t all-powerful), they came up with “climate disruption”. In time this will have to change as well, just as “black” changed to “African-American” and then “person of color” (but “colored person” remains unacceptable, though the NAACP is grandfathered in).

  8. Rosalys says:

    I have a good friend who believes all this crap. The last time I had a conversation with her about it she said, “Ah! Bit it’s climate change!” while raising her eyebrows, nodding her head, and pointedly shaking her index finger in a knowing manner that was to show me…what? She is not stark raving mad. She is not stupid. She is quite intelligent. There are some subjects on which I will defer to her superior knowledge. But this? No! I just don’t get the total lack of acknowledgement of any bit of information or point of fact which would contradict. An absolute refusal to acknowledge that any scientists – other than a handful of of right wing wackos with a political agenda and therefore aren’t true scientists – don’t sign onto this fraud, let alone 31,000!

    • Timothy Lane says:

      One way to answer would be to start listing skeptical scientists. A friend sent me a Wikipedia entry several years ago listing a large number of them, most of them climatologists though with a few distinguished experts from other fields (such as Freeman Dyson, the Princeton physicist). These included official state climatologists in Delaware, Oregon, and Virginia (and an assistant climatologist in Washington) who all fell afoul of liberal Democratic governors, as well as a number of writers of books and articles that I have (Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, Dennis Avery, Christopher De Freitas, Roy Spencer, Tim Patterson, and S. Fred Singer. There’s also a list of 60 scientists who urged Canadian PM Harper to recheck the science.

      Then ask the friend to identify the alarmist scientists. Very few will be able to identify even a fraction of the number of open skeptics.

      • Rosalys says:

        Back in the days when I was still on Facebook, There was a good discussion going on my FB page about AGW. Finally my friend weighed in with that old canard about all reputable scientists having a consensus. My brother then posted a link to a very large list indeed, hundreds of names. My friend never responded to it. The ball was dropped, discussion over, nothing. But this topic will come again sometime and I will ask her to give me some specific names. Good idea! Thanks!

        I did ask her once at a party, when she was going on and on about how the earth was going to be destroyed, “Are you really living in fear about global warming? I mean are you truly afraid?” In spite of endlessly telling us how terrified they are, none of these people ever act as if they personally are afraid of the earth boiling away and them with it. And few of them change their own behavior. I offer up Algore the Nut Job as exhibit A! She then admitted that she didn’t expect the effects to happen any time soon – maybe in a hundred years.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I can also cite a number of good skeptical works if you’d like. Many were listed as sources in my articles on the subject for The Encyclopedia of Environmental Issues from Salem Press.

          • Rosalys says:

            That would be appreciated, thank you!

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Books written by climatologists and used as sources for my Salem Press articles: Climate of Extremes by Patrick J. Michaels and Robert Balling; Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery; Climate of Confusion by Roy Spencer; The Two-Mile Time Machine by Richard B. Alley. In addition, I will note 2 others used as sources by Christopher De Freitas in his article on “Climate Change Skeptics”: Shtudown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media by Michaels; and Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming edited by Michaels. Another source is The Heated Debate by Balling, but that’s over 20 years old (though still somewhat useful).

  9. ronlsb says:

    One doesn’t have to wonder why the global warming scaremongers do what they do. The reason is the same as the promotion of Obamacare against the will of the American people. The statists NEVER quits trying to grow the state. In so doing, he cements his position of power, whatever that position may be, and along the way is able to either enrich himself and/or his friends as the growing state dispenses the hard earned money confiscated from its citizens. And, as we can see from our current president, any and all lies are acceptable in order to accomplish their goals. The impediment meant to stop this from happening, the Constitution, is meaningless to this crowd as well as they march forward, trampling the rights of the citizens they were meant to serve. Sadly, we have an opposition party in which far to many of its members, especially in leadership, value their power there positions afford them over the citizens they serve as well. Thus the need for a radical change in Washington or else we will continue to become simply wards of the state.

  10. Thanks so much for the comprehensive overview — I will share and share and share. I know we’ve all had these discussions with our fear-filled liberal friends and this is an excellent go-to article that covers it all. Terrific.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Note that some time back I combined my own Salem Press articles on global warming here, which I think you would also find useful. The article can be found by clicking on my name as an author and working down through the list of articles.

  11. When I first encountered the phenomenon, I investigated it pretty thoroughly myself.

    What I found was indeed alarming – for a different reason. I found no evidence of global warming!

    When I shared this fact with a die-hard liberal family member, I was politely dismissed with the invective, “I’m sure your data must be incorrect.”

    This person ace’d SAT’s, went through college at the top of the class and serves in the professional medical community today. No slouch in terms of intelligence here. However, this person was determined to ignore evidence to the contrary.

    Conclusion: Liberal causes attract all kinds, old, young, intelligent and not. What appears common between them is an unwillingness to consider evidence to the contrary.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Gorescam didn’t start out as a fraud, but the determination of its adherents (even the self-professed scientists among them) to maintain the theory despite the fact that its predictions have failed (thus disproving the theory) means that it has clearly become one. The failure of their theory is why they’ve had to change the name by which they seek to induce panic.

  12. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    More fraud uncovered:

    Zero Emission Vehicles Pollute

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I suspect that most liberals feel that the electricity for their cars comes from a plug on the wall, and never consider taking it a step further. Elizabeth has noted many times than, in essence, electric cars are coal-fueled cars. Of course, for liberals who own (and may even occasionally drive) electric cars as a status symbol of how much they Care, it would be very undesirable to think about where that electricity ultimately comes from.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *