Climate Distortions Were Achieved. National Weather Agencies Are The Trojan Horses

[Sandra]

Maurice Strong, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, World Meteorological Organization

Climate Distortions Were Achieved. National Weather Agencies Are The Trojan Horses

By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, December 13, 2010



Maurice Strong set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide a powerful vehicle for almost complete control of climate science. Each national weather office perpetuates the deception that human CO2 is causing climate change. He controlled the science through the IPCC and the political and propaganda portion under the umbrella of the Rio Conference (1992) and the ongoing Conference of the Parties (COP). By peopling the IPCC with representatives of national weather offices, he attained control of the politics within each nation and collective global control. They’re the Trojan Horses from which funding and research emanate to deceive the politicians and public into achieving his goal of destroying the industrialized nations.

Funnel For Funding

No surprise that control was through funding of research, which was almost all through government. Canada is a good example of how they bypassed normal efforts to prevent political interference. Most scientific research funding goes through the National Research Council (NRC) or the National Scientific and Engineering Council (NSERC) to reduce political interference. However, virtually all climate research funding went through Environment Canada (EC). An article published on December 2, 2010 authored by Gordon McBean says, “This month, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences celebrated a birthday that could be among its last. After 10 years as Canada’s main funding agency for academic weather and climate science, the foundation will soon cease to exist if there’s no further support from the Canadian government.”

The author’s history reveals the hypocrisy of his letter. It’s a perfect example of how they controlled climate science through the WMO and the national agencies. McBean chaired the 1985 meeting in Villach, Austria at which the IPCC was created. Tom Wigley, former Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and his successor Phil Jones attended. Both were major participants in the corruption revealed by the ClimateGate leaked emails. McBean was Assistant Deputy Minister, the second highest-ranking bureaucrat at Environment Canada. His tenure in that office was relatively brief and appears deliberate. It’s apparently related to Maurice Strong’s personal friendship with Canadian Prime minister Paul Martin. After securing funding of $61 million for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS), McBean took early retirement in 2000. A month later he was appointed as chair of CFCAS. He was also the lead author of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), a report of pure speculation that became a major source of information for the 2007 IPCC Report.

US funding has mostly come from government (Figure 1). NOAA, NASA GISS, NCAR, DoE (including large amounts to the CRU) have all worked to distort the data record, promote IPCC Reports and downplay the errors.


Figure 1: US Funding Source:

A huge irony exists because the research was used to undermine western development and economies, while funding was justified with claims it would advance development and economies. “The study of global climate change is perceived as one of the key strengths of the UK’s environmental research base, and heralded as a growth-point in the context of a competitive, globalized sphere of research activity.” In most countries they claimed the centre of elite climate research already existed in government weather agencies so they were the logical ones to be in control of research and funding. “In the meteorological and climatological fields, that elite has centred principally around the UK Meteorological Office (UKMO) and the Royal Society.”

Bureaucratic scientists immediately confronted any politician that challenged the science. It was easy to produce global threatening requests for internal funding stamped with the authority of the IPCC Reports. Besides, politicians were eager to don the cloak of green.

Tunnel Vision

As a result, almost all funding went to one side of a theory. Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite.

This did enormous damage because it completely defeated the scientific method. Science works by proposing a theory, which other scientists work to disprove. As Karl Popper explained, “One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.” The IPCC consistently work to prove the theory, but as Popper notes, “It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory – if we look for confirmations.” The search was easier because of the singular direction of funding.

This created a momentum so Foundations and other agencies added support to singular research. Tax incentives and legislature reinforced peripheral areas such as alternate energies so they all became supporters and purveyors of the false science.

Major arguments used to ‘prove’ the science were outside the falsities in the IPCC Reports and the Summaries for Policymakers (SPM). They existed because of the singular funding and directed research. The vast majority of articles supported the IPCC claims and this was used in a circular argument as proof. Most articles listed as proof were actually about the impact or consequences coming from IPCC Working Groups II and III that accepted the false science of working Group I. Similar impact research was funded by national weather agencies.

Most sensational reports in mainstream media used these speculative articles in an exploitive type of pyramid scheme. Naomi Oreske produced a classic totally unprofessional single-sided article to claim a search identified 928 articles, none countering the climate science. It exploited the problem everyone encounters when an Internet search is limited by the keywords used.

Oreske’s work was another form of the consensus argument. Change the keywords and hundreds of articles appear, despite attempts by the CRU gang to stop publications.

Falsity In Numbers

The consensus argument appeared early using the IPCC, but the majority are bureaucrats from government weather offices, not scientists. As John McLean notes, “The evidence shows that the claim of “4000 scientific experts supported the IPCC’s claims” is dishonest in almost every word. There were not 4000 people, but just under 2900; they were not all scientists; and it seems that they were not all experts.There is only evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported the claim, although that might not mean much given the vested interests and lack of impartiality of many authors and reviewers.”

Scientists funded through their governments were more than willing to support the consensus argument. But as Michael Crichton eloquently explains; “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.”

Maurice Strong built the Trojan Horses around material provided by national weather agencies. Too many scientists and bureaucrats were willing carpenters complicit in the construction and operation. Some of the cladding has been pulled off, but the skeleton remains. National weather agencies continue controlling the IPCC and all climate issues. They also continue to fail miserably with their forecasts. Despite millions spent on a new computer the UKMO predicted a mild winter and were quickly proved completely wrong. They were equally wrong in previous winter and summer forecasts with cheaper computers. They did the IPCC ‘trick’ by saying they don’t do long term forecasts, they are “outlooks”. Environment Canada has similar spectacular failures for which they invent 1984 type newspeak. A Globe and Mail headline last week announced, Environment Canada admits to ‘underforecasting’ snow by 1,000 per cent.

The Trojan horse’s all have broken legs; it is time to put them down.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/31012