Feb
Follow the money: BBC exposed in biggest climate racket on planet
The world is learning fast that climate pseudo-science is fraught with fraud. The best way to go to the heart of any moneymaking scam is to follow the money. Let’s go on a journey from the toilet of the United Nations to the BBC’s top floor.
For non-British readers the BBC extorts an annual compulsory license fee of £142.50 (US $200) per household via government legislation for the privilege of owning a television.
The BBC Pension Trust is worth about £8 billion while its mainstream operations are struggling to reverse an estimated £2 billion deficit as reported on last weekend by James Delingpole of the ‘Telegraph.’
The BBC’s handsome pension pot is invested in the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) alongside another 50 plus member funds. The total assets of this consortium is around €4 trillion (Euros), that in turn are invested in a larger consortium known as ‘UNEP FI’ worth about $15 trillion (US).
UNEP FI is fast becoming seriously embarrassed with its strong ties to the now discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that lurches from one climate data fraud scandal to another. Nonetheless, the UNEP FI puts on a smug face and gleefully describes itself as, “a global partnership between UNEP and the financial sector. Over 180 institutions, including banks, insurers and fund managers, work with UNEP to understand the impacts of environmental and social considerations on financial performance.”
The UNEP FI Insurance Working Group boasts of its “ground-breaking report” on its website that I well recommend reading. These swindlers advise that there is a “complex relationship” between environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, core insurance operations, and the insurance industry. Yes, and it has become so much more complex since climate scientists destroyed their fudged data and refused to obey lawful freedom of information requests for over seven years.
Despite the string of calamities that have befallen the UN since the Climategate scandal first broke last November, the UNEP FI consortium is feverishly demanding that governments impose higher fuel duties and caps on carbon emissions that will encourage scarcity and demand. Thus this profit-chasing unholy alliance of conspirators will still be able to cream off some of the loot for their green pension scams. The losers in the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time are western taxpayers and Third World poor who will likely suffer starvation and disease due to the increased costs of food and essential medicines.
The chairman of IIGCC and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe said:
“The credibility of emissions trading schemes would be greatly improved with a robust price signal as well as clear and frequent communication from the regulator on trading data and improved transparency over direct government participation in schemes.”
Yes, you did read that correctly: “IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe…”
The BBC is in the chair of this carbon trading driven investment scheme. Now you know why the BBC’s thought police have been censoring climate skeptics shamelessly for years.
UKIP’s Member of the European Parliament, Godfrey Bloom was vilified by the warmist press for refusing to back down from his attack on the BBC in the UK’s fine Daily Telegraph, in which he said:
“The BBC has blocked skeptics of climate change for four years now, no debate is allowed on the BBC. It is biased reporting and it is censorship.”
Speaking to Left Foot Forward, Mr Bloom continued:
“I absolutely stand by what I said. This is one of the most important subjects since the war. The whole thing has been a complete farce and a cover-up. Name me one instance of an informed debate on the subject?”
But Godfrey Bloom is now being entirely vindicated as we see that the BBC has been shamelessly plugging its own profiteering agenda and ignoring any dissent even when it involves news stories of great interest to its viewers and listeners. And all for the so-greater good of that ‘Low-Carbon Economy.’ The statement reads:
“it is imperative that efforts advance this year to negotiate and conclude a legally binding agreement with ambitious greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.”
The BBC’s Peter Dunscombe, as Chair of the IIGCC, endorses (he may have even written) that in his pension trust’s policy statements that:
“Without government actions, however, private-sector investment will not reach the scale required to address climate change effectively.”
You got that? Climate change has to be addressed “effectively,” i.e. effective for his pension pot. With a shameful hidden agenda like that its no wonder viewers are abandoning television and coming to the internet for impartial news reporting. This self-serving hypocrite baloney goes further:
“….we remain firmly convinced that climate change presents both material risks and significant opportunities for investment portfolios…”
The ‘risks” it seems are wholly upon gullible taxpayers, the incentives for BBC newsreaders, environment correspondents, journalists, planners, schedulers, documentary program makers, etc. is enormous. No wonder the BBC produces the best environmental television in the world–a BBC employee would think: ‘investment portfolios!’
Meanwhile, something for all our readers in North America: a story waiting to be written concerning that other vast consortium in the U.S. known as the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR). INCR has over 80 members and $8 trillion in assets across its network of North American private funds and very much tied up with UNEP FI. So for anyone wondering why the American mainstream media has done diddly to report on the great climate swindle, I’m betting it’s something to do with INCR.
For U.S. readers looking to know more about what INCR is doing you may contact:
Mindy Lubber at lubber@ceres.org
Web: www.incr.com
For European readers would like to know more about the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) we suggest you contact:
Stephanie Pfeifer at spfeifer@theclimategroup.org
Web: www.iigcc.org
Those British organizations tied into IIGCC who may have a conflict of interest when they communicate with you include the following:
-
Baptist Union of Great Britain
Bedfordshire Pension Fund
BT Pension Scheme
Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church
Corporation of London Pension Fund
Environment Agency Pension Fund
Greater Manchester Pension Fund
Kent County Council
London Borough of Hounslow Pension Fund
London Borough of Islington Pension Fund
London Borough of Newham Pension Fund
London Pensions Fund Authority
Merseyside Pension Fund
Roman Catholic Diocese of Plymouth
Roman Catholic Diocese of Salford
South Yorkshire Pensions Authority
The Church Commissioners for England
The Church in Wales
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth
United Reform Church
Universities Superannuation Scheme
West Midlands Metropolitan Authorities Pension Fund
West Yorkshire Pension Fund
Possibly related posts:
Well done JohnO, this shows the “conspiracy” goes on and on!
Who else is filling their boots while defending global warming?
Tens of trillions? That overshadows any ‘oil money’ argument that alarmists use against skeptics. Finance > Oil.
Another fine article from John O’Sullivan. UK readers should note that you need a ‘licence’(permit) – and get this “..to watch or record TV programmes as they are being (broadcast) shown on TV..” You can watch anything (not streamed live) on the internet and anything on BBC iplayer….and anywhere else.
The BBC pensions and conflict of interest… well, they are the arm of the Labour Warmist Government aren’t they….
Telegraph:Why the BBC will always be wrong on Climate Change
link:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023145/why-the-bbc-will-always-be-wrong-on-climate-change/
“Anyway, the BBC is clearly very het up about the notion that it’s in breach of its code of impartiality – as it most definitely is in its science coverage. But trying to explain to the BBC why its coverage is skewed in a painfully left-liberal, eco-fascist direction is bit like trying to tell Attila the Hun that he errs on the side of pillage and rape: for both Attila and the BBC it’s all just instinctively right and normal.The BBC’s current policy on its climate change coverage was discussed in a recent report (June 2007) by the BBC Trust – Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century:..”
More excellent comments.
An organised campaign not to pay licence fee is needed. I would happily donate it to a fighting fund for legal fees, perhaps against the Beeb for ignoring its charter or fraudulent statements or research by the ‘warmist” community.
“it is imperative that efforts advance this year to negotiate and conclude a legally binding agreement with ambitious greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.”
No doubt. Does anyone ever wonder why they try to get these agreements so quickly? It’s always interesting to me that it’s always imperative to reach these agreements NOW, even amid the most controversial time since the AGW “theory” began.
Thanks so much for this incredibly important information. Lock up all of them and throw away the keys.
As those of us with both knowledge and conscious stagger from one bloody crime scene to the next, we expect that we will no longer be shocked. But look what John has found under this rock !
The ‘East Anglia Even Horizon’ has given us the keys to the castle and we will expose every detail. Stay tuned, the climate sceptic websites are far more interesting and informative than any of the BBC bologna….Veritas Vos Liberabit ! ! !
Thanks for the tip about INCR and ceres.org. Ceres of course a Soros group behind the US Securities and Exchange Commission requiring companies to state how exactly they will deal with (man-made) climate change.
Great piece of work John. We are living in The Scam Age. Is the entire 8 billion in the IIGCC fund or only a portion?
All of it, Tom. Every penny here goes towards ‘green’ investments.
Floating UNEP FI and it’s underlying structure is a massive taxpayer bailout which folks should know more about. Perhaps the “The Quiet Bail-Out” or “Silent Spring Bail-Out”, ” The Great Green Bail-Out” The word is out that Gordon Brown has recently shelled out 60 million pounds for carbon off-sets on UK government buildings and NATO bases in Europe. That money is meant to bail-out the carbon trading market and those who have invested in it. A financial scandal which must be reported to the people who are paying the bill.
This is an excellent point you make, Tom. I fear we will see the whole carbon trading fiasco subsumed within the banking crisis bailout so that scammers like Pachauri and Gore never lose a cent. But more importantly, the public will be denied access to see where the bailout money was spent. All we get out of all this is higher taxes!
Not having looked closly at the money before I am blown completely away.
I’ve always maintained that this AGW scam and the related carbon trading scheme was one to fund the government and qango’s as well as the UN pension funds etc.
It’s the means by which the parasites of society, especially in the Western world, will generate money in order to live.
The the Australian conservative party’s policy of a different scheme – but all about securing the financial future of the bureaucracies.
Can I ask your opinion as to what is going to happen to all that money? Say that hypothetically everyone renounced AGW tomorrow, what would happen to that money and it’s investors?
Investing at it’s heart is a form of gambling. The gamble is that you will be able to predict the future. UNEP FI is an international betting pool which has placed a massive bet on government carbon controls driving capital into pre-selected channels. IF that fails to happen the capital behind UNEP FI will either rush or leach back into more traditional investments. We have all seen the daily exposures of malfesance in climate science driving down the odds on strict carbon controls. To stem the flight of capital from climate change bets governments around the world have doubled down on public spending in this sector and recommitted themselves to reaching the required agreement in Mexico City 2010. By doing this they hope to freeze the gamblers until they sort things out. To some extent this will be effective with the more ideologically committed gamblers but some have already begun to shift funds out as a hedge against total collapse. We have an opportunity here to show millions of retirees how their financial security is being jepordized by ideological zealots driving a scam. This is bigger than the mortgage scam which crashed the world’s largest financial institutions. If it breaks all at once it would sink international markets back to late 2008 levels. Poof go the retirement funds of millions around the world.
The scam is akin to the first great Ponzi scam I remember learning from my school history; the South Sea Company Bubble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company
In these such schemes investors get sucked in on a wave of over-optimism on promises of high-yield dividends. Then when the underlying ‘facts’ supporting the scheme are finally exposed as hogwash, the whole house of cards collapses. History will likely repeat itself with horrific consequences, especially with so many western nations running their national annual borrowing over 80% of GDP. There’s no room for bailout – we will see worldwide hyper-inflation or mega debt write downs. All very ominous, I’m afraid.
The national media’s continued silence on ClimateGate and increasing revelations of outright fraud and wrongdoing at all levels of government, academia and the media itself, tells the truth of the tail. That truth is there’s a lot more to this ClimateGate story than what little is being reported. The small (2 to 3 dozen) international cabal of climate scientists could not have possibly gotten to this point without extraordinary funding, political support at virtually all levels of government, especially at the national level and unparalleled cooperation from the national and world media. This wide-spread networked support continues even as we-the-people puzzle over what this is all about. I ask you, “What are you seeing and hearing from our national media on the subject?” Anything? What are you seeing and hearing from all levels of our government, local and regional newspapers and media outlets? Anything of substance? At all of these levels the chatter has remained remarkably quite on the subject, wouldn’t you say? Why? What points and positions are you beginning to hear on the radio and see on the television? This cabal of scientists has an unprecedented level of support given the revelations contained in the emails, documented in the computer software code and elaborated in the associated programmer remarks (REM) within the code. And —- this has gone on for years, AND continues even in the presence of the most damning evidence one could imagine, or even hope for. Watergate pales in comparison, given the trillions of dollars in carbon offset taxes, cap & trade fees hanging in the balance and the unimaginable political control over people’s lives this all implies. The mainstream media’s conspiracy of silence proves the point. Their continued cover-up is as much a part of this crime as the actual scientific fraud. ABC, CBS and NBC are simply co-conspirators exercising their 5th Amendment rights.
I think I’ve mentioned it before but David Bellamy had almost identical things to say about the BBC after they shunned him for showing skepticism.
Excellent article. Climategate.com is in itself morphing into a mainstream news source on the internet. Early days, yes, but with traditional MSM becoming obsolete Climategate.com is poised to become a major news service on the internet. Climategate was always much more than climategate(CRU, UEA), climategate is about the biggest political hoax and the biggest scientific blunders in history and Climategate.com will be the news service to remind ourselves how close we came to destroying ourselves as a people, by allowing the Orwellian movement of big government railroad us using the veil of corrupt environmentalism.
Yep, follow the money. Where does it end? GE is to make gazillions, and they own NBC and MSNBC (home of Rachel Sir Smirk-a-lot Maddow and Keith Over-the-top Olbermann, just two of their propagandist puppets). Siemens, Shell, Al Gore’s Silver Springs (which is to monitor our homes for carbon use.)…
The number of companies frothing at the mouth to enact cap and trade seem endless. And the crazy money involved makes the green whiners who cry “big oil supports the skeptics” look pathetic.
It’s really pathetic how ignorant these “skeptics” are. Even if you take these arguments at face value, no “skeptic” has come up with actual science proving that it’s OK to burn fossil fuels. So what they are saying is that we are using an energy system that all scientists are saying is very bad for the planet but because everybody is corrupt, somehow we don’t even need to prove that it’s in fact OK to use it. It’s a really stupid argument. Are these ppl all 6 year old?!
Funny I haven’t seen any actual science to prove AGW either.
It there was I would think they would have sent it here and got $500,000 bucks in their bank account.
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
the fact that you haven’t seen science is no proof of it not existing. Besides, you completely ignored my point which is that if in fact there was no science on either side, that’s a perfectly good argument for stopping CO2 emissions ASAP!
I got your point. Why would you want to stop something if there is no proof it’s causing a problem? Just because you got a feeling in your ass but there is no proof?
LOL! I just see that you have to send in $15 to that website to participate?! Ok, did anyone say “internet scam”. I hate to break it to you but the Nobel Prize is an actual prize and that ship has sailed, there were actual winners announced who successfully answered that “challenge” scientifically
http://nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=795
Sam…Giving the Nobel to Gore and Obama tells me that it’s absolutely worthless.
Would you stop breathing because you can’t see what’s in the air? (Same stupid logic, different thing).
Also if you’re so sure of AGW what is wrong with a $15 investment to get $500k? I’d say it’s a good ROI and keeps idiots from sending in “answers”.
you would stop for the same reason people usually stop their car when they realize they can’t see what’s in front of them: to avoid catastrophe. It’s called common sense.
I would try and stop if I realized that people are getting sick around me and there was a way I could hold my breath until i get out of that room, yes absolutely! Of course this is not like stopping breathing, it’s more like switching one type of oxygen tank with another.
About ROI: internet scams usually don’t pay $550k, I am sure you noticed that when your check never arrived from Nigeria
Sam…you’re making people sick in this room, please leave. I didn’t say hold your breath, I said stop breathing, which means you’d die, not hold your breath. Now go ask mommy for another argument (and please go brush your teeth).
Part of the problem with authoritarian personalities like yourself JOHN is that you have no sense of facts or reality or a minimum standard of intellectual honesty. Of course if you had any of that you’d concede that switching to renewables is not going to kill mankind. Instead you respond with the typical childish temper tantrum I see from members of the anti-reality community when faced with facts.
Cheers
You need to look in the mirror about childish temper tantrums. You bring no facts, you come in here and about the best you can do is cast aspersions. The old belittle the deniers because we belivers have no facts to back up our bullshit. I also guess you’re a psychiatrist? “Authoritarian personalities?” I’d again say look in the mirror. You come in here and try and be a bully boy and I’m the one with the “authoritarian personality”? You are great for an afternoon laugh.
I’ll add that I never said I was pro-pollution, you also a mind reader? If you think you are you should get a new crystal ball becuase yours is broken.
Why, did we stop burning fossil fuels?! We haven’t since the industrial revolution. No skeptic with any scientific credential denies that doing so today increases CO2 concentration by 2 PPM every single year. The burden of proof was on the other side for centuries. Where is the proof that grabbing buried 100 million year old carbon molecules and re-injecting them into the global carbon cycle is a safe way to grow our economy?! Cap and Trade is not even in effect yet! How can you make any judgments about it, I thought you guys are supposed to be skeptics
2 ppm per year isn’t jack. It’s not an emergency, so why don’t people like you sit down and shut up and stop all this crap until some REAL scientists come along and prove things one way or the other? What’s the rush? You sound like Obama, Pelosi and Reid trying to rush Obamacare through before the general public woke up to the scam. In case you haven’t noticed there’s a great preponderance of evidence that AGW is not happening, that it’s a scam. Did you even read anything on this website before you started shooting your mouth off?
Your comment on cap and trade is bizarre. We are being skeptical about it, so why ask if we’re skeptics?
Please put the crackpipe down.
Sam, no one is arguing against good planetary housekeeping. We all want a cleaner, healthier, brighter future for our children. I’m just sorry for you that you believe “all scientists” support your jaundiced view of technological progress. We are all net beneficiaries of fossil fuel usage and yes, we need to develop more advanced systems of energy production because fossil fuel is not infinite. But if you are seriously advocating that the 0.5 degrees temp. rise known to have occured in the last 150 years is somehow ‘bad’ for the planet so that we must now compulsorily de-industrialize, then you truly are ignorant of both the paleoclimatic history and of the will of the people.
John, I don’t literally argue that 100% of all scientists believe what I do, only that a vast majority of them do and the best ones who actually study the field do so since the mid 50s.
But that’s irrelevant for my argument here: all skeptics since Pyrho or the Sophists believed in suspending judgment until factual evidence is presented to support a theory. In this case that human CO2 emissions are catastrophic for the planet. Ok, but that doesn’t mean you guys proved the opposite that it’s just fine to keep doing what we are doing.
I understand that hydrocarbon molecules pack energy very efficiently and we all benefit from burning them, but where is the climate model proving that it’s OK to keep doing that, and if you don’t have such model is it really the grownup thing to do to keep nitpicking on real science while you have nothing that comes even close to being a viable alternative?! Are you a real skeptic, or are you just a sophist gun for hire?
Sam
Quote: “all skeptics since Pyrho or the Sophists believed in suspending judgment until factual evidence is presented to support a theory”
“Suspending judgement” means you do not go one way or the other until it’s 100% proven. So you are contradicting yourself. Based upon what yoy say we’re supposed to support the AGW theory and continue on with cap and trade, but not support the No AGW theory and stop all this AGW related silliness?
Sounds one-sided to me.
Oh, have you stopped breathing yet? You never know what might be in that air. Better to die than breath bad air yannno.
Finally I love the Sophist comparison. “The Greek words sophos or sophia had the meaning of “wise” or “wisdom” since the time of the poet Homer, and originally connoted anyone with expertise in a specific domain of knowledge or craft.” That would certainly apply to many of the deniers on this site. Thank’s for the complement.
Sam, let’s keep this simple: the AGW theory was posited as an explanation for the rise in temps that appeared to be linked to the rise in levels of atmospheric CO2. This was all fine and dandy up till 1995. Since 1995, according to this weekend’s admissions by disgraced ‘expert’ Prof Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant global warming. However, CO2 has been increasing exponentially. Thus by scientific principles: without correlation there can be no causation. Game over!
Sadly, you are seeking to obscure your political agenda within the realms of science- it has been exposed as a fraud. Life therefore can proceed as normal- no impending catastrophe awaits us. No sophistry here.
John O’Sullivan:
I am afraid you are still not getting the VERY SIMPLE point I am making here. I understand that you think there is no correlation between CO2 and warming because apparently you are under the impression that there is no warming. FINE! Even though For every Phil Jones I can list thousands who think the data is conclusive, my point is that you have no climate model or theory of any kind to prove your side.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html
Phil Jones and others are not saying they can prove that CO2 has nothing to do with GW. That would be moronic since CO2 is a well known greenhouse gas accumulating due to human activity as you admit yourself and there is no science today that can prove such thing. I suspect because it’s not true, but again, that’s beside the point.
What they are saying is that they can’t explain certain data which is what my point here is: neither can anyone else! So we are back to square 1. If you can’t explain how dumping CO2 will effect climate 20-100 years in the future shouldn’t we stop doing that until we can?! It’s not enough to say that since science is not 100% and there are always questions in cutting edge science we should just keep doing what we are doing. That’s suicidal!
Sam must be one of the lemmings who’s getting paid to BS.
No, here in America conservatives are bankrolled by the oil industry and spread misinformation. Murdoch’s News Corp for instance:
http://rawstory.com/2009/2009/12/murdochs-news-corp-cements-ties-saudi-prince/
The US pays $500bn /yr for foreign oil It is bankrupting them, yet conservatives bankrolled by saudi oil billionaires are all surprisingly anti green energy.
Read this idiot-boy.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine/7
Talk about corruption….and morons like you gleefully ignore everything and anything….you make ostriche’s look like informed creatures.
John,
BTW, could you give a link to the actual words of this “admission” you refer to: “there has been no statistically significant global warming”. I can’t find it.
Sam, are you serious? Here is Jones’s admission:
Question: ” Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”
Jones: “Yes, but only just.”
Your blatant refusal to accept the man’s clear admission betrays your blinkeredness.
John,
What I have a problem with is this gotcha politics around science where out of context words are twisted to suit a political agenda. Jones is clearly saying that it’s hard to get statistically significant data from a decade since climate changes have a much longer time horizon, (ie. that the question is silly):
“Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Global-Warming-shocker-Climategate-scientist-admits-no-warming-since-1995-84337497.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
thanks for playing. My earlier judgment still stands: intellectual honesty is in short supply with you guys. But I understand: it’s hard to go up against the facts and be honest about it too
Wow Sam you must be impressed with yourself. Not one fact in your reply yet you feel so smug pointing the finger at us. Funny that if it suits the warmers any period of time including the last 5 minutes is valid, when it doesn’t suit your purpose it’s a different story. What a loser.
Jones is NOT saying that there was no warming between 1995-2009. In fact he is saying there was:
“This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level.”
What he is saying is that looking at only 1 decade (even though there is a clear warming ie. positive trend) you are just zoomed in too close to see a statistically significant trend. That is misquoted and disingenuously misconstrued to somehow mean that there is no evidence for global warming.
In fact climate trends play out in geological timescales, ie. tens of thousands of years. The fact that there is a 0.7 C degree warming for the last 100 years is very alarming for this very same reason: even a 100 year time-frame should only give you white noise, not a clear trend.
You guys really don’t understand basic science and it’s used against you by shoddy media outlets like the Daily Mirror. The correct way to pose that same question is: “If you average out the mean surface temperatures between 1995-2009, can you find a previous period of 14 years that had a higher number?” My guess is you can’t. That’s similar to what NASA found.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html
You need to understand some basic concepts if you want to participate in any scientific discussion. That’s the bottom line…
NASA cooked the books, too, their data is tainted. So your point was?
You forgot to include in your edited quote the words “but not significant”
You should give up here and go lecture elementary school children who might be naive enough to belive you
FAIL!.
LOL! I guess NASA should just pack up and go home
that’s Ok, I find it amusing actually.
JOHN, you are really not giving me a chance here, are you ?!
My point was that the same interview also contains this:
“E – How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?”
“I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Taking words out of context is an old trick, you shouldn’t fall for it so easily. The most important question when ppl try to sell you an opinion is where is the actual quote?! Did you read the context?! It’s called SOURCING. You should always be able to source before you believe anything!
With data like that they (NASA) should pack up.
You are basing an entire argument on statements from a person who has lied, cheated, altered data, and has an investigation hanging over his head. At this point in time whatever he says is moot. The man can’t even find his records to back up what he’s saying!!!
Were I you, I would not be on this board arguing about what Phil Jones said, or what the context of it was until someone of authority clears him 100%. Then perhaps an argument based upon a Phil Jones statement might carry some weight.
You should pick your battles better and how you wage them. Your presentatons here are tantamount to going to a gunfight with a pocketknife.
You also seem to confuse Global Warming with Anthropogenic Global Warming, there’s a difference. We’re coming out of an ice age, there’s been warming, it’s a normal cycle. Man caused? Certainly not.
Sam-that’s an idiotic argument to make but you probably don’t realize that. Having you on the other side simply complicates our already difficult struggle to remain humble. Please Sam, stop trying to undermine us by appalling displays of stupidity. You’re killing us.
Tom, as we see there are some people who are way beyond reason when they cannot admit to what’s in black and white. Like me, I’m sure you’ve got better things to do with your time than waste it on pig-headed fools.
Another way to follow the money.
http://www.probeinternational.org/carbon_credits
Article from Rolling Stone on how Goldman Sachs is going to rape everyone. (not to mention them screwing Greece and possibly the EU big time). Someone should start a website on busting them!
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine/7
Guess who Obama’s puppet masters are and why he decided to have this new BS climate department???? Hmmmmm?????
Great article John. I’ve got lots of friends on all sides or no sides of this thing who see Goldman Sachs as a gang of highwaymen. But like the author says “they haven’t gotten used to being robbed in sunlight although they know it’s happening” Like a halibut after being smaked on the head with a bat: they’re stunned.
Thanks Tom I hoped people would find it of interest.
[...] to pressure policy makers // Follow the money in socialist Britain re climte change scam. Follow the money: BBC exposed in biggest climate racket on planet | CLIMATEGATE The best way to go to the heart of any moneymaking scam is to follow the money. Let’s go on [...]
Carbon Trading Market in the Tank!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/business/energy-environment/15rentrade.html?pagewanted=1
Solid article. Kudos. On a side note, hard to believe the BBC TV licensing fee has survived so long. Time for a political party to advocate its removal, and BBC to live on ad revenues. A good source of links of worldwide articles on climategate in http://www.NewsWatchCanada.ca/climategate.html which is where I found the link to this article. Thanks for pulling back the curtains…
[...] sound like? A nice little article about this by John O’Sullivan at Climategate can be seen here. Mr. O’Sullivan goes on to name names of organizations such as some Catholic Diocese’ [...]