Global Warming: Spinning a Convenient Lie

The unexplained, mysterious release of emails and climate modeling software from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia last November has exposed the machinery and agenda of the globalists operating through the facility of the United Nations and the mass media. In less than two decades, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has transformed Global Warming from junk science into a scientific consensus "established beyond question."

Corporate media has been a willing partner in the propaganda effort.

Now an inquiry led by Sir Muir, has begun to examine accusations that the University of East Anglia climate scientists and their cohorts elsewhere had been manipulating the scientific process while concealing their raw data and software. Just a few hours after they had begun deliberation, Ben Webster, Environment Editor for TimesOnline, reported the forced resignation of a member of the panel charged with investigating claims that climate scientists covered up “flawed data”.

Here comes the limited hangout...

The charges are much more serious and far-reaching than that. These global warming alarmists were conspiring to defraud the people of the world so that clever charlatans could manipulate the world’s economies at the expense and suffering of billions of the world’s poorest. The clique of scientists tried to cover their bias by constructing false data, manipulating data through “tricks” of computer modeling, and selecting data to fit their pre-conceived agenda. Then they conspired to restrict access of skeptical scientists to their data and computer models, hiding and destroying data, and restricting normal access to the peer review process and the publication of research that disagreed with the global warming hoax.

“Flawed data” is not the half of it. Not even close.

Times Online’s Environment Editor Webster reported that Philip Campbell, an editor of Nature, “stood down after it was disclosed that he had given an interview in which he defended the conduct of researchers at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), insisting that they had done nothing wrong.”

In his statement, Campbell had said, that he was stepping down to ensure that the ability of the review team to carry out its investigation would not be called into question. Times Online Environment Editor Webster did not wonder why Campbell had not recused himself before the panel had even met. Obviously, Campbell had a hidden bias sitting on an impartial inquiry even as Webster has a bias to spin the glaring exposure of fraud, conspiracy to defraud, violation of the traditional ethics of scientific inquiry into a tempest in a teapot.

Perverting the peer-review process, "fudging" data, “tricking” programs and "cherry-picking" temperature datasets to create a graph that showed increase in the "global temperature" is a crime against humanity. The machinery is nearly in place to utilize the perversion of science to steal from the poor to give to the rich causing enormous famines and suffering.

One of the “tricks” used to “fudge” the data was to select only the weather reporting stations in warmer areas in comparisons without reporting the bias. Russia accused the Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia of using only the warmer stations. Another report suggested that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the USA has been reducing the number of reporting stations from 6000 in 1990 to only 1500 today, keeping the warmer sites and eliminating colder ones. Similar reductions in Australia and New Zealand suggest collusion among climate scientists to manipulate the statistics showing a warming trend when there was none.

As the panel began the members said in a statement that they did not have a “predetermined view on climate change and climate science”. Soon it emerged that Dr Campbell had told Chinese state radio last year that he did not believe that the e-mails had shown any evidence of improper conduct.

“The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the e-mails there are one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong,” he had told the station.

“In fact, the only problem there has been is on some official restrictions on their ability to disseminate data. Otherwise they have behaved as researchers should.”  

With this attitude, Campbell apparently thought nothing of sitting on an impartial inquiry seeking the truth. This is not a trivial misdemeanor. Global warming cohorts have been set up on peer review panels, in government agencies, on university committees, as editors on pivotal journals, so why not on a panel of inquiry? Why not help steer the propaganda in whatever capacity is available? It seems to be the easiest way to climb the ladder of success these days. Now we should demand that Dr. Campbell step down from his job as editor of Nature.  Surely his ethics are inappropriate for such a sensitive position.

Campbell must have known that the CRU software was junk that was tricked to spew out the right graph for the propaganda of Global Warming. His delay in recusing himself from sitting on the Russell panel suggests that he is part of the propaganda apparatus and watched as these so-called scientists conspired to pervert the peer review process and collaborated in gaining awards and recognition for each other. He participated in the dissemination and control of the propaganda. In his resignation from the Russell panel, he said that he had made the remarks in good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaked e-mails. “As I have made clear subsequently, I support the need for a full review of the facts behind the leaked e-mails,” he said. “There must be nothing that calls into question the ability of the review to complete this task and, therefore, I have decided to withdraw from the team.”

Sir Muir said: “I have spoken to Philip Campbell and I understand why he has withdrawn. I regret the loss of his expertise but I respect his decision.”

Times Online reported that the University of East Anglia announced a second inquiry that would investigate the validity of the CRU’s reports, which present evidence that man-made emissions are causing global warming. While the Times Online Environmental Editor suggested that “the decision to hold a second inquiry is an admission that Sir Muir’s investigation will not be sufficient to restore trust in claims that the world is at grave risk from rising temperatures.” But restoring trust is a by-product of a no-holds-barred search for truth not a public relations goal.

More limited hangout from the well-paid spin doctors...

Significantly, the PR man at the Times Online Environment desk reported that ”The Royal Society, a fellowship of leading scientists, has agreed to help the university to choose the team that will conduct the new inquiry. However, the university itself will have the final decision on who is selected. It pledged that the members would have ‘the requisite expertise, standing and independence’”. What Ben Webster fails to report is that the Royal Society has been up to its armpits as a proponent of the Global Warming hoax. The whitewash and coverup will grind along with talented spin doctors choosing the news that you are allowed to receive.

The fraudulent climate scientists of the UN’s IPCC are being investigated by the same peers who reviewed their fudged, skewed, twisted, cherry-picked, manufactured propaganda dressed up to look like real science.

In another part of the world, Australia's ABC.net spun another story from America. "Key 'climategate' scientist cleared of wrongdoing" they coo. Dr. Michael Mann, the originator of the spurious "Hockey Stick" graph, collaborator with Phil Jones and the rest of the junk science opportunists at CRU, was pronounced innocent by the very university that benefits from the government grants Dr. Mann can command.

No conflict of interest there. Move along!