As you may remember, I have time and again written against the “global warming” scam, here e.g. – have just shown by Wikileaks publishing of George Soros´e-mails that this scam was based on bribery and deception in cooperation with the UN – with the purpose of world government – even a Communist one, as stated by UN´s Christiana Figueres, head og the UNfCCC in 2015.
The New York Times 21 Nov. 2016 wrote: Exxon (Rockefeller´s former child) accuses the Rockefellers of “WELL-FUNDED POLITICALLY MOTIVATED CLIMATE CONSPIRACY”. Today, the Rockefellers have merged into the ROTHSCHILD/ROCKEFELLER SYNDICATE!!
As I wrote, the Paris Climate Conference in Dec. 2015 was not about Climate – but about one-world government. The leaders of the world had so often seen that “climate science” was a fraud: NASA GISS` Rothschild, Al Gore bribed James Hansen promoted the CO2 global warming scam already in 2008 introduced by Edmund de Rothschild at the 4. Wilderness Congress in 1987 – and duped on 179 world leaders at the scandalous Rio Conference in 1992. – and confirmed at the Rio+2o Conference 2012 and here.
Hear Edmund de Rothschild claiming CO2 to be cause of global warming in 1987 from the 28:40 min. mark
The Jamal/Dr. Mann Hockey stick scam, and the Climategate 1, where Prof. Phil Jones wrote about hiding the fact that global temperature was falling – not infreasing!!! and Climategate 2 frauds Forbes: The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response,” said Myron Ebell, Director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center on Energy and Environment.
“Several of the new e-mails show that the scientists involved in doctoring the IPCC reports are very aware that the energy-rationing policies that their junk science is meant to support would cost trillions of dollars.”
NASA even disclosed how CO2 is saving the globe from frying through the electromagnicbursts of the sun!
And the Chief of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri had declared in the Times of India on 3 Sept. 2010: I am happy that the truth (about Climategates) has come out!!! If that was not the case, then we would be like any other scientific body that maybe producing first-rate reports but don’t see the light of the day because they don’t matter in policy-making. Now clearly, if it’s an inter-governmental body and we want governments’ ownership of what we produce, obviously they will give us guidance of what direction to follow, what are the questions they want answered. Unfortunately, people have completely missed the original resolution by which IPCC was set up. It clearly says that our assessment should include realistic response strategies. If that is not an assessment of policies, then what does it represent?
Climate fraudsters. They not only knew the “climate science” was fraud – they commanded the IPCC and its cooperators to present “CO2 man made global warming” – later changing the name to “climate change” as they saw there was no global warming.
Nevertheless, these NWO puppets undoubtedly do make global climate change: Through their poisonous and here — Chemtrails (see SPM 21 des IPCC-Berichts AR5: Solar radiation management).
Here comes what should be the lethal bomb under the global warming scam (but probably not will be, because it is the most important instrument of the mendacious globalists towards one-world governance.)
The Daily Mail 4 Febr. 2017: A high-level whistleblower, John Bates, has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
1998, 2015/2016 are el Nino-years (well-known warming from Pacific ocean water currents – has nothing to do with climate)
A final, approved version has still not been issued. None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.
Whistleblower Dr John Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.
Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, the NOAA standards were flagrantly ignored.
Thanks to today’s MoS story, NOAA is set to face an inquiry by the Republican-led House science committee.
However, the Pausebuster paper said while the rate of global warming from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113C per decade, the rate from 2000 to 2014 was actually higher, at 0.116C per decade. The IPCC’s claim about the pause, it concluded, ‘was no longer valid’.
The impact was huge and lasting. On publication day, the BBC said the pause in global warming was ‘an illusion caused by inaccurate data’.
A: The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade.
B: Dr Bates said the sea temperature increase was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.
Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. It also ignored data from satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which are also considered reliable. Dr Bates said he gave the paper’s co-authors ‘a hard time’ about this, ‘and they never really justified what they were doing.’
C: The second dataset used by the Pausebuster paper was a new version of NOAA’s land records, known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) – an analysis over time of temperature readings from about 4,000 weather stations spread across the globe.
This new version found past temperatures had been cooler than previously thought, and recent ones higher – so that the warming trend looked steeper. For the period 2000 to 2014, the paper increased the rate of warming on land from 0.15C to 0.164C per decade.
D: In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr Bates conducted a one-man investigation into this. His findings were extraordinary. Mr Karl and his colleagues had failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data.
E: Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results
F: Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’ The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.
The flawed conclusions of the Pausebuster paper were widely discussed by delegates at the Paris climate change conference. Mr Karl had a longstanding relationship with President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, giving him a hotline to the White House.
G: NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.
Last night Mr Smith thanked Dr Bates ‘for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion’. He added: ‘The Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the President’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.’
Mr. Karl admitted that the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the GHCN land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.
As for the ERSSTv4 sea dataset, he claimed it was other records – such as the UK Met Office’s – which were wrong
. Jeremy Berg, Science’s editor-in-chief, said: ‘Dr Bates raises some serious concerns. After the results of any appropriate investigations… we will consider our options.’ He said that ‘could include retracting that paper’.NOAA declined to comment.