AGW is counter-productive

Response to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120903860.html by Alan I. Leshner

Wow! How is it that some folks who feel compelled to comment on a topic do so without doing any background research?

1. The tobacco CEOs were not responsible for conducting the scientific explorations. The East Anglia liars and their conspirators were supposedly scientists who have now admitted that they fabricated data to prove their point because honest data did not do so.

2. We have learned that once they published their bogus data, they then conspired amongst themselves (7 allegedly significant scientists) to “review and confirm” the published data, using the same corrupted data in order to make it appear that their data was “peer reviewed”.

3. They then applied pressure to scientific journals to discourage and prevent them from publishing contradictory (honest) data.

4. The Climate Research Center at East Anglia University is the source of all climate change information used to craft the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That data has been proven to be fabricated, manipulated and bogus.

5. In 2003, expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre noted that the statistical methods used by East Anglia “scientists” were fundamentally flawed.

The e-mails and other documents recently released confirm that there was a clear conspiracy by those associated with the CRC at East Anglia University to fabricate erroneous climate data; publish and “peer review” that bogus data to give it apparent credibility; and to exert every possible influence to prevent any honest contradictory data from being published and peer-reviewed.

This conclusively demonstrates that there is no existing information to support any claims of valid link between (man-made) atmospheric CO2 levels and climate change.

As a result of Steve McIntyre’s work, it was demonstrated that there were numerous errors in the data collection methods used to claim that atmospheric temperatures have been increasing. Once the erroneous temperature data was corrected it was demonstrated that 1998 was not the hottest year on record, but it was 1934. The reported “hockey stick” of temperature rise was completely fabricated by the CRC.

For over 500 years, man has been using solar-flare activity to predict earth temperatures and their impact on agricultural production. Since 1998, earth temperatures have been declining in direct relationship to declining solar flare activity. If man-made greenhouse gases were responsible, the CRC models suggest that earth temperatures should be increasing proportional to the increase in man-made greenhouse gases produced since 1998. The actual temperature data demonstrates just the opposite.

Over 700 actually peer-reviewed scientists affirm that the earth has a natural temperature cycle of approximately 1500 years. This has been verified by examination of sediment data covering over 1 million years of sedimentation history from around the world as you noted. However, data since 1934 does not support any significant impact based on man-made greenhouse gases.

Global climate change is real. We know it has been cycling for at least the past 1 million years. However, it is caused by solar activity, not the activity of man. The claims of the Climate Research Center, used to substantiate man-made global warming and to justify the UN IPCC counter plans are completely without merit. There is no substantiation or justification for carbon cap and trade programs that do nothing to compensate for natural global climate change, and in fact aggressively interfere with the unquestionable need for additional energy production resources world-wide in order to cope with real, natural, global climate cycles.

The clearest example of this is petroleum itself. It comes from the decay of aquatic organisms. Clearly that means that the Middle East was once a large body of water. We know that during the time of the Pharaohs it was verdant and forested. Today it is a desert: all without the first coal-fired power plant, millions of automobiles or flatulent livestock.

No matter how many times you use bogus environmental data to support your claims, it remains fabricated, inaccurate, false, manipulated and manufactured environmental data.

The real crime committed here is that false scientists have perverted the truth in order that a handful of opportunists might grow unimaginably wealthy, extorting all mankind in order to “justify” redistribution of wealth; and in the process obstructing the real changes that must be made in order for man to compensate for natural temperature cycles that impact our food production and our ability to work and live.

Shame on you for supporting this egregious hoax.