Climategate: Al Gore Lied to Us

If there ever was a time to prove the existence of media manipulation and the dissemination of information, it is now. Thanks to some Hackers or an Insider at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in Britain we have been shown the dark-side of the pseudo-science behind the myth known as Global Warming / Climate Change.

The US and Canadian Mainstream media is either not even mentioning this or sloughing it off as a non-issue  (One exception I found thus far was Glenn Beck and the video is as the end of this posting). The big thing I have heard so far is “The data was stolen and the hackers changed it” or “It is taken out of context”

I have posted some emails verbatim and nothing is taken out of context. One has to ask why MSM is avoiding this like the plague. Simple the same people/corporations that own MSM own corporations that stand to make billions off of cape-and-trade.

So onward we go:

On Friday, November 20, 2009 someone stole over 1000 emails and over 3000 documents from the CRU and posted them on the Internet for download and on a new searchable site.

When one reads these emails it is plain to see that these people change algorithms and hide data that does not support their theory that Global Warming is human caused.

For example:

— From Kevin Trenberth, a lead author with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to Michael Mann, on Oct 12. 2009. The email, titled “BBC U-turn on climate,” laments a BBC article that reversed its long-held position on man-made global warming.

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. … Our observing system is inadequate.”

— From: Michael Mann, Oct 27, 2009

“Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post… As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.”

— From: Edward Cook, June 4, 2003

“I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. … If published as is, this paper could really do some damage … It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (…) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review — Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”

— From: Tom Wigley, Sep 27, 2009

“So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 C, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these).”

— From: Phil Jones, Feb 2, 2005

“The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

— From: Phil Jones, May 29, 2008

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment -minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

— From: Keith Briffa, Sep 22, 1999

“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming.”

— From: Michael E. Mann, Mar 11, 2003

“I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”

— From: Tom Wigley, Apr24, 2003

“Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc.”

— From: Phil Jones, July 5, 2005

“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”

So what’s the problem Ape? Some people fudging the data to support their theory. It doesn’t affect…does it?

Umm yeah it affects us. It is because the authors of these emails just so happen to be the people who are directly responsible for providing the science to the United Nations. From that science the UN wants to implement a ‘Cap-and-Trade’ system on the entire world. With Cap-and-Trade big business will be earning billions if not trillions of dollars in carbon credits. Think of it this way:

Cap-and-Trade will force every business and homeowner to accept a carbon allotment. If you go over your allotment then you pay taxes on it. Forget the bad science for a minute because this is a scam in its own right.

For example: ‘Company A’  is a big polluter had will overspend its carbon allotment. ‘Company B’ does not. Company ‘A’ buys the excess from ‘B’ and then can say that they are ‘green’ even though they still pollute.

Now add in to that a guy like Marvin Odum, President of Shell Oil, who says:

For Shell, the debate about whether climate change is real is over. As an energy-company executive, I see this as a clear call to action. ln fundamental ways, this redefines what it means to be a good corporate citizen and a good businessman.

Inherent in the concept of cap and trade is the recognition that, along with the compelling need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, we need energy… and more of it. Estimates are that we may well need to double energy production by the year 2050 if we are to support strong economies of developed countries like our own and account for improved standards of living in the developing world.

There is broad support in this nation for providing more of our own energy and transitioning as rapidly as possible to a green-energy, low-carbon economy. I support that wholeheartedly.

But we hove to be honest about what defines a realistic transition. To account for technology development, a realistic pace of new investment, protection of economies and the competitiveness of individual nations, we will need to produce energy from all sources, renewable and conventional, at significantly higher levels than today. To
succeed, we will need lo open up access to new sources of energy: wind on the great
plains, sun wherever feasible, and oil and gas both onshore and on our outer continental
shelf. Our economy, our security, and our future all depend on it.

While the debate over climate change is over, the debate over doing something meaningful
about it this year is not. Consensus for action is again giving way to individual interest. The
framework for putting o price on carbon is needed now lo begin the desired change in
public and private investment. The application of this price on carbon must be sufficiently
phased in lo allow for progress on reducing CO2 emissions at the lowest possible cost, while
providing the necessary protection of certain competitive industries, our own economy,
and consumers. Delay in making this decision is simply a delay in the ultimate transition.

A world with more energy and less carbon is achievable.

WOW…doesn’t this guy seem like a guy you just want to hug. Imagine a big oil executive wanting to be part of the carbon scam. Why? One word: MONEY. This is all double-speak and you can see it between the lines in the quote from above.

1) Suppose Shell builds windmill farms and solar panel farms all over the world. They can use the carbon credits from those businesses and send them to the petroleum arm of the company so they can keep on polluting while claiming green. Remember they are going to increase energy production by about 50% and my guess the bulk of that will come from oil, simply because they can divert their carbon credits back to themselves.

2) This is the one that takes the cake. Shell is calling for derivatives on carbon trading.

”You have to allow a secondary market to develop,” David Hone, Shell’s climate change adviser, told reporters at an energy conference in Singapore today. ”You don’t want to have a carbon market that’s restricted from doing what other commodity markets are doing.”

Derivatives huh? Derivatives are what is going to implode the economy. A derivative is a bet placed on a commodity or another financial instrument. A derivative adds nothing to society. In fact the world is awash in trillions of bad derivatives right now. When these come crashing down, and they will, kiss your derivative investments good bye.

Shell, just like any other large corporation see HUGE $$$$$ in this New World Order. If the cap-and-trade takes root there will be a wealth transfer from middle class to corporate oligarchs on a scale that is unimaginable. In Shell’s case energy will only be a secondary source of income. This cap-and-trade scam will be there sugar daddy with a little bit coming from each and every one of us.

Think about this for a second. A whole generation of youth has been educated and brainwashed to believe that carbon dioxide, an essential building block of life, is a bad thing. It is good that this scam has now been exposed. That the whole thing is based on deliberately falsified data.

The Blood and Gore Parasite

David Blood and Al Gore stand to make billions off of this scam. They are the only approved carbon credit swap company that has been approved by the World Bank. Every time a carbon credit is swapped, they make a commission as middle men. Blood and Gore seems appropriate for these parasite con artists!

The inconvenient truth about Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth is that is is bullshit, a lie, a scam, a farce that is being used to set us up for trillions of dollars of tax collection the world over.

If you want to continue reading on this subject, there is an excellent blog on it at The Telecrapurinal.

Technorati Tags: climategate, blood and gore, Al Gore, David Blood, Climatic Research Unit, CRU, of the University of East Anglia, scam, cap and trade, cap and trade scam, Phil Jones, CRU Hacked, New World Order, mainstream media, Shell Oil, Marvin Odum

>>>>This is every silver investor's wet dream<<<<