Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Global Fraud

Ed Begley, Jr. Global Warming Alarmist

Science has been Corrupted!

There is this quite humorous story about a little eleven-year-old boy who was sent to the counselor’s office for a talking to. After minutes of manipulation by the science of mind and behavior at the hands of the school’s trained professional the little eleven-year-old boy looked up at the counselor who was well endowed with post graduate degrees and asked, “Hey are you trying to use psychology on me?”

Yes that is exactly what the counselor was “trying” to do, but apparently not very discreetly and not very effectively either. The little boy for his part had the wherewithal and the common sense to understand that he was being manipulated.

I laugh at that story every time I see an example of the “experts” trying to allay our common sense for some kind of groupthink psychological ploy which is meant to herd us into accepting the experts’ opinion over and above real world evidence or our personal experiences or our common sense.

Take the subject of Global warming for instance, for years the “experts” tried to force this kind of groupthink psychological idea on us that the earth was in danger because of the actions of mankind. (see story)

They invented a name for it by calling it “Climate Change” and they set out to use their post graduate degrees to manipulate the data, the dialogue and the laws/policies that were meant to control the entire world population.

Knowing that it is our normal inclination to defer to authorities these “experts” used that knowledge against us to refute anyone who would disagree with their professional opinions or “Scientific evidence” that Global warming was real and that humans are the cause of it. (see story)

And because they are the “experts” they think we are to mindlessly defer to their expertise on such matters of CO2 emissions and Global warming, completely foregoing the physical evidence that earth’s temperatures are dropping and completely ignoring the fact that global warming theory is based on corrupt science.

How do we know the science is corrupted? While those of us who aren’t mindlessly compliant Global warming-bots have always had our doubts, the evidence of massive conspiracy and corruption was released showing e-mails of the inter-workings of the conspirators of the Global warming hoax, the CPU at East Anglia University, UK. This CPU is the premier scientific data bank and fundamental scientific authority on Global warming. (see source)

Officials of the CPU have not refuted the veracity of the released documents on the contrary they have confirmed their genuineness. And in spite of that we are supposed to be that little eleven-year-old who was supposed to just acquiesce to the authority figure who was attempting to manipulate him. You know like this example of Actor/Activist Ed Begley, Jr. who has been so totally psycho-manipulated into groupthink about global warming that he can no longer think for himself. (see 4:23mins video)

Global warming-bot Ed Begley, Jr. went absolutely ballistic spouting the Global warming meme in the face of evidence of no Global warming. Take note Begley is an example of how Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Alarmist would have us all to be.
Not so fast Mr. Begley the science is there is no Global warming. And the peer review that you defer to is corrupt as the leaked e-mails show. So yeah we wouldn’t be listening to you Ed. But as to real objective scientific research like the following we will still be using. (see 1:50min video)

Global warming is a Fraud and Copenhagen will be a den of thieves. President Barry Hussein Soetoro will be among his peers when he arrives there on the 9th of December a stopover on his way to pick up his unmerited Nobel peace prize.


  1. Yep, people in this society are being misled by psychology all right. It's also known as social engineering and/or conditioning. After a couple
    more years of these liberal frauds, even the dumbest liberal might get a clue after all the
    money and freedom are gone.

  2. Anonymous8:55 AM

    "the evidence of massive conspiracy and corruption was released showing e-mails of the inter-workings of the conspirators of the Global warming hoax"

    Please tell us what the massive conspiracy and corruption was in the emails. Be specific.

  3. LOL you aren’t serious are you? This is like shooting fish in a barrel! So you don’t believe the released emails, the 61 megabytes of data, containing hundreds of files released in the emails from the CPU? By the way CPU has confirmed the veracity of these emails.

    Contained in the emails are tales of long sustained (over 20years) of data manipulation (1st example) and conspiracy. In the other email is an example of conspiring to defraud with the appearance of consensus.

    There are hundreds of other emails showing the same conspiratorial patterns. You’d better read them before you go popping off with your little debate tricks. It makes you look stupid! (see examples below)

    Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
    Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
    first thing tomorrow.
    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
    to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
    1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
    land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
    N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
    for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
    data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
    Thanks for the comments, Ray.
    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
    School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
    NR4 7TJ

    From: Jonathan Overpeck
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: letter to Senate
    Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:31 -0700
    Cc: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , mann@xxxxx.xxx, jto@xxxxx.xx.xxx, omichael@xxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley

    Hi all – I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign – at least not
    without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is unprecedented and
    political, and that worries me.
    My vote would be that we don’t do this without a careful discussion first.
    I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this -
    e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it’s called) on global climate
    Think about the next step – someone sends another letter to the Senators, then we respond,
    I’m not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do
    What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interest
    org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for
    scientists to do as individuals?
    Just seems strange, and for that reason I’d advise against doing anything with out real
    thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support.
    Cheers, Peck
    Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
    Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill,
    Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send this letter to various members of
    the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.
    Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing your preferred
    title and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
    Thanks in advance,
    Michael M and Michael O
    (see source) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/

    By the way who is Anonymous speaking for these days? Or did you always refer to yourself as "us"?

  4. Anonymous11:55 AM

    What's in those emails that makes you believe that global warming is not manmade?

    Why do you disbelieve the IPCC and not the skeptics?

  5. Anonymous12:01 PM

    You're just reprinting the emails. State specifically what is in any of the emails that says that global warming is not manmade.

    Just take out one sentence, of all the hundreds of emails you cite as evidence, that disproves global warming. Should be easy for you.

    And it should also be easy for you to explain why you believe the skeptics and not the IPCC.
    You seem to have all the answers. As you've said in the past, you're a birther and proud of it, but you can't produce any evidence that the President was born anywhere else besides Hawaii. Can you produce any evidence at all here that one of these emails disprove global warming -- or is this just more of your usual nonsense?

  6. Anonymous1:14 PM

    You're unable to back up your "conspiracy and corruption" claims, aren't you?

    Blogger, if the republican party is ever going to reclaim the White House and Senate, you're going to have to back up your spurious allegations with some real facts.

    You're nothing but a loudmouth birther, screaming into the wind and ranting on and on like a petulant child while real Americans and reasasonable folks laugh at you. You post your blog on Free Republic and still can't get more than a few responses. Pathetic.

  7. Duh! Yes I'm reprinting the emails because you don't want to deal with them. The emails state specific admitted falsification of data over a 20 year period of global warming data some of which the IPCC based it's global warming claims on!

    The head scientist of the CPU, Dr. Phil Jones just stepped down today and he's under investigation for his part in this scandal.

    Again no one is challenging the emails' authenticity or that the information contain on them is true.

    And then there is the data dump that the CPU was just busted doing to destroy any evidence of their wrong doing.

    What is it with you Libs? You sneak into the National Archives steal and destroy documents putting them in your socks and pants and then claim that there is no evidence.

    Yeah you've destroyed it all that's why. And furthermore just because you've destroyed evidence or are hiding evidence doesn't mean that you're right. If Soetoro was born in Hawaii why doesn't he settle the matter? Because he can't that's why!

    But you don't care about truth do you? No you care only about argumentations and debate tricks not the fact that Europe the UN and Global warmist like yourself just got busted redheaded attempting to pull the greatest scientific hoax of our generation.

    But we don't need to argue here my readers and I will watch to see the outcome of these things only then will I be proven wrong or right.

  8. Anonymous1:42 PM

    Genius --

    It's the CRU, not CPU.

  9. Anonymous2:33 PM

    If the emails state "specific admitted falsification of data over a 20 year period," then you should have no problem quoting at least one paragraph and politely explaining the falsification.

    But you can't do that. You can't even get the name of the institution right. It's the CRU (Climatic Research Unit), not the CPU.

    An I'm the one who doesn't care about the truth!

    (PS. The term is red-handed, not red-headed.
    Yeah, we'll watch the outcome of your allegations and see who's wrong or right. As for now, get the simple things right, at least.)

  10. Not if, the emails state that they have been falsifying data for over 20 years! Do you deny that?

    Do you Deny that Dr. Phil Jones has stepped down from the CRU and that Penn State Prof. Michael Mann—exaggerated or fabricated global warming data also in those e-mails and is himself under investigation.

    Yeah it's just like you to attempt to change the topic.

    You keep spell checking though Anon because that's about all you'll be worth after your little world of lies begin to fall all around you.

    Maybe you should follow your own advise you were the one who claimed H.R. bill 35 that the house passed is a law without going to the Senate process and with president's signature:

    The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2009 (H.R. 35) limits the authority of presidents and former presidents to block the release of presidential records. The bill sets deadlines for the review of records prior to release, gives the incumbent president the authority to reject former presidents' claims of privilege, restricts the ability to assert privilege claims to presidents and former presidents, and eliminates the ability of vice presidents to make privilege claims concerning vice presidential records.

    The bill also overturns Executive Order 13233,

    You remember that? After that blantant lie everything you say is pure entertainment value for me! LOL

  11. Another spell-check lib sure brings back fond memories of Slate. LOL

  12. Sure does you been there lately RC?

  13. Anonymous7:47 PM

    Look, I want to believe you. When you state repeatedly that the "CPU" (but now you know it's the CRU, it's got nothing to do with Spellcheck, it's just knowing the correct name of the institution) has emails that prove there is "massive conspiracy and corruption . . .showing e-mails of the inter-workings of the conspirators of the Global warming hoax," all I'm asking is -- what is this evidence? This should be easy for you, like "shooting fish in a barrel," to use your words.

    This is not a debate trick and I'm not changing the subject. Just print the evidence. Just one paragraph. Turn me into a believer!

  14. No you don't want to believe, you're a warming-bot and no evidence will change you. The emails are on-line for all to see have you gone to read them? Or did you just go get talking points from the Huffpost, DailyKos or you favorite lib site to refute the emails?

    The emails are the evidence of warming-bots conspiring to fix data and destroy scientist that have opposing views on AGW. For instance like the following:

    From: Gary Funkhouser
    To: Keith Briffa
    Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
    Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700
    Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I'll send it to you.
    I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions—he laughed and said that's what he thought at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have—they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is. Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I'd be optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations. Yeah, I doubt I'll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I'd like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though.
    Cheers, Gary
    Gary Funkhouser
    Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
    The University of Arizona

    Here Gary Funkhouser of Arizona University admits, to trying to juggle the chronology statistics on Kyrgyzstan material. And he indicates that he already has.

    There's over 3,000 e-mails of this kind of stuff if that doesn't make you a believer or at the very least give you pause, then the white jacket with the belts in the sleeves has to be completely on you before you realize that you have a problem.

  15. Anonymous7:15 AM

    I'm not giving you any talking points at all from the websites you listed. Just asking you to supply evidence of your strong assertions.

    You were able to print one paragraph. And if "juggle the chronology statistics" is going to be the strongest evidence you have of "massive conspiracy and corruption," I wish you and the global warming deniers all the luck in the world trying to sell your case to the American public.

  16. So you admit that there is evidence in the 3,000 e-mails of massive conspiracy and corruption.

    Unlike you I've read and I am reading over the emails and it is the preponderance of the activities of scientist like Phil Jones that show that a massive conspiracy transpired.

    I have no doubt that Jones and others begin to answer questions about destroying evidence and falsifying supposed data to support the theory of AGW the America public will take notice.

    And really the American public is not stupid they don't need me to read the e-mails for them like someone I know!

  17. Anonymous8:45 AM

    "So you admit that there is evidence in the 3,000 e-mails of massive conspiracy and corruption."

    Absolutely not. That's your assertion, not mine.

    "Unlike you I've read and I am reading over the emails and it is the preponderance of the activities of scientist like Phil Jones that show that a massive conspiracy transpired."

    Yet you're unable to cite any evidence of a massive conspiracy except a few words about juggling numbers.

    "I have no doubt that Jones and others begin to answer questions about destroying evidence and falsifying supposed data to support the theory of AGW the America public will take notice."

    You're going to need some strong evidence to support that theory as well. You don't seem to have any.

    "And really the American public is not stupid they don't need me to read the e-mails for them like someone I know!"

    If you ever uncover any serious evidence of massive conspiracy and corruption, I hope you'll post it here.