Now that global warming is dead, what was it all about anyway?

Consider Melanie Phillips writing in the UK Spectator.

Melanie cites this e-mail about the Medieval Warming Period from Phil Jones, the director of the now disgraced Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.The Medieval Warming Period is a period during the Middle Ages when the Earth’s temperature was higher than it is today.

Phil Jones writes:

Bottom line – their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.

The first graph has no MWP, and the second graph (the real temperatures) has the MWP.

What happened to the Medieval Warming Period?
What happened to the Medieval Warming Period?

(Source: UK Telegraph)

Melanie comments:

In other words, despite the fact that science (or history) tells us that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, thus destroying the basis of the AGW myth that we are living through an unprecedented warming of the climate caused by carbon dioxide arising from industrialisation, it cannot be true – because the Hadley CRU Director’s ‘gut’ tells him so.

All the manipulation, distortion and suppression revealed by these emails took place because it would seem these scientists knew their belief was not only correct but unchallengeable; and so when faced with evidence that showed it was false, they tried every which way to make the data fit the prior agenda. And those who questioned that agenda themselves had to be airbrushed out of the record, because to question it was simply impossible. Only AGW zealots get to decide, apparently, what science is. Truth is what fits their ideological agenda. Anything else is to be expunged.

Which is the more terrifying and devastating: if people are bent and deliberately try to deceive others, or if they are so much in thrall to an ideology that they genuinely have lost the power to think objectively and rationally?

I think that the terrible history of mankind provides the answer to that question. Nixon was a crook. But what we are dealing with here is the totalitarian personality. One thing is now absolutely clear for all to see about the anthropogenic global warming scam: science this is not.

They had so much blind faith that they just knew that the real temperatures were wrong – so they felt justified in manipulating the data. They had faith that they were right and that the objective world was wrong.

Why they did it

Now consider this article from Pajamas Media. (H/T Muddling Towards Maturity)


Global warming was a fraud, and it has now been exposed.

That little fraud would have cost the taxpayers of the world trillions of dollars, not to mention wrecking their economies with carbon taxes and penalties.

But that’s not even the worst of it. The most important take home lesson is that global frauding was the clear and conscious work of a political machine aiming to steal your money,  your liberties, and your country. It was a massive, worldwide attempt at a coup d’etat, and the victims were going to include all the free and prosperous peoples of the world. Hitler had his Reichstag fire. Today’s transnational left had its global warming fraud. The political goal was exactly the same: maximum power through maximum fear.

Now that we know for certain that global warming IS false, I think it’s time to ask why the global warming alarmists pushed it so hard. I think the best answer is that the government wanted to control the free market and the production and consumption of individuals. They thought we were using up too many resources doing stupid things like driving. They thought we were having too many babies. They thought that there was no sovereign God in the universe, so they had to step in and take control.

So, they took a bunch of taxpayer money and paid a bunch of arrogant scientists to invent a compelling myth, complete with fabricated data. They paid unionized teachers to teach that myth to vulnerable children in government-run schools. Some of them bought shares in companies that stood to gain from the hysteria they were manufacturing. And they used that myth to deceive people into voting them into power so they could override our fundamental liberties. They thought we were too stupid to run our own lives.

8 thoughts on “Now that global warming is dead, what was it all about anyway?”

  1. Your source, Christopher Monckton seems to be an extremist, and I don’t trust his data. See:

    “Appearing on The Alex Jones Show yesterday, Lord Christopher Monckton went further than ever before in his vehement opposition to the elitists running the climate change scam, calling for the UN to be shut down and for fraudulent peddlers of global warming propaganda like Al Gore to be arrested and criminally prosecuted.

    Monckton said that those who are threatening to shut down economies, bankrupt nations, and deepen the problems of the third world by implementing draconian policies in the name of global warming should be indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned “for a very long time”.

    “The fraudsters and racketeers from Al Gore to the people at the University of East Anglia who have been making their fortune at the expense of taxpayers and the little guy,” should be criminally charged, said Monckton, in response to the climategate scandal.”

    1. Now, do you trust James Hansen, the former director of NASA’s Goddard Space Institute?

      James Hansen, the leading climate change scientist who made a ground-breaking speech about global warming exactly 20 years ago, will today reprise his seminal address when he calls for fuel companies to be tried for crimes against humanity.

      You’ll recall that NASA had to change the temperature data in response to Steve McIntyre’s discovery that their numbers were all wrong. We have hard evidence that NASA and CRU made errors in their data that gave people the impression that the warming was more alarming that it really was in fact. What evidence do we have that there is anything wrong with Monckton, other than that some people don’t like him? I only care whether what he says is true or false.

  2. I trust Hansen more than Monckton. However, I do have some reservations about Hansen, in that he is clearly passionate about the topic, which means his judgment could be off a bit.

    I’d never listened to Alex Jones before, but I am listening to him as we speak. This is Ron Paul craziness, anti-war right, 9-11 truther. Crazy stuff.

    I don’t have time to download spreadsheets and look at data points. I have to delegate this work to people who are specialists, and I trust scientists rather than far-right politicos to do this

    1. Do you trust scientists like Phil Jones who hide the decline by using Mike’s Nature trick? Do you trust computer simulations that cut out the data in the 1960s and later? Because that’s what far-left “scientists” do. Do you trust NASA to say that 9 of the last 10 years are the hottest on record, and then go back and revise their data when a single blogger calls them out on it?

      See the difference between you and I is that I am concerned with factual errors and misrepresentations, and you are concerned with the company people keep and their credentials and their personal lives. There is a technical name for this phenomenon. It’s called the ad hominem fallacy. On your view, it seems to me that you agree with who you find personally appealing. On my view, I agree with people who are not caught lying about science.

      I like consensus and credentials, too, but not when people are caught in lies. Then I would update my worldview. You should update your worldview, too. Scientists are paid based on government grants. To get a grant they have to show a need. To show a need, they need to appeal to the desires of those in power. Those in power want more power, and they would get that power – power to regulate business and constrain individuals – if global warming were perceived by the majority of the population as being true. So scientists went along with global warming to get more money, and government gave them the money to get more power.

      A similar story can be told about evolution. Many people wanted to believe it for reasons of wanting to discredit religion and morality. And when we look at the data, like finch beaks and peppered moths and origin of life experiements, we see that the data isn’t there. Motive, means and opportunity.

    2. These “crazies” have been right, Alex predicted 9-11, and almost everything that has happened since. You need to wake up and smell the coffee and stop buying the lies and propaganda of the controlled media before it is too late.

  3. Melanie cites this e-mail about the Medieval Warming Period

    It would seem that the moral of this story is that we can ditch the data and all the actual work and just read people’s emails, with bonus points if it’s been stolen by a hacker, and contains the words “hide” or “trick.”

    1. (OK, I’m fixing my comment to be more serious)

      The issue is that the data was fixed, that skeptics were attacked, that the media was influenced, etc. The graph’s a fake, Boo. They deleted the data and manufactured the hockey stick graph from their own imaginations. Those are the facts. Care to attack the facts?

      1. No, I don’t have a dog in this fight and never have. And I don’t just jump on any bandwagon that happens along.

        Years ago when I lived in South Africa we were told of a hole in the ozone layer that had been caused by too many CFCs being released into the atmosphere. Made us all nervous to use deodorant. 25 years on and you never hear of that hole anymore. So I decided long ago to take these things with a big pinch of salt.

        But a few things are obvious to me. It is getting warmer, whether we are causing it or not, and we will run out of many natural resources the way we are consuming them. Alternative energy sources (including nuclear power) make sense for this reason even if AGW is bunk. Further, Al Gore might have made a lot of money out of his movie (how un-American of him) but please don’t tell me that these climate scientists are all multi-millionaires.

        I also try to look at both sides of an issue and then make up my mind. So if anyone is ineterested in balancing out their daily intake of so-called contrarianism, they could look here or here. The comment threads on both sites are worth a read too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s