Climategate – The Hoax Of The Century

Anthropogenic Global Warming is the hoax of the century, where science has been corrupted for personal and institutional gain, perverted by the politics of one world government and wealth redistribution and garnished with a unhealthy dose of fear and guilt.

Al Gore and his disciples at the Church of Climatology are not the first to try and pull a fast one, though nobody has ever tried to pull a scam on such a vast scale as Climate Change before, $45 trillion is after all a lot of money.

With publication of “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, the hunt was on for the “missing link.” Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.

In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.

“Darwin Theory Proved True,” ran the banner headline.

It wasn’t until 1953, after generations of biology students had been taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to look older and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been filed down to look human.

The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the century

Hat tip to Patrick J. Buchanan at Humanevents for the story which goes on to compare the Nebraska man hoax which followed Piltdown Man and then on to Climate Change which is the hoax of the 21st Century.

About Tory Aardvark

Climate Realist, Conservative and proud NRA member. I don't buy into the Man Made Global Warming Scam, science is never settled. http://toryaardvark.com @ToryAardvark on Twitter ToryAardvark on Facebook

Posted on March 3, 2010, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Church Of Climatology, Climategate, Green Lies, IPCC, ManBearPig, Social Engineering and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. Darwins missing link has been found and yes, you guessed it, Al Gore. He sure is the missing link between a monkey and a man.
    How many times does this climate change theory have to blown out of the water before so called intelligent politicians get the message. How long before they come out of their hibernation? What a spectacle they make of themselves, these bloody bufoons.

  2. Cold Fusion was a good one too…for about a week. Pons and Fleischmann actually told people what they did and no one could replicate it.
    Guess that’s where Phil Jones got his ideas about sharing data.

  3. It is the politics that is currently affecting people’s lives! At this juncture it’s the politics of Labour, Conservative and LibDems via the “Governmental Public Policy” documents these parties have developed their policy documents from, not the arguments over the contested science, which now should be addressed!

    When the true facts and the views of the significant wider scientific community that appears to have been maligned and ostracized by the actions of the CRU and that of its affiliates are aired, those challenges can be considered and voted upon by the electorate and then expressed by their elected representatives in the House!

    CONSENSUS EXPOSED, PART 2 March 2, 2010
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=207f77ef-802a-23ad-4b5b-0622bba3da4a&Issue_id=
    “….As noted, the CRU controversy features emails from the world’s leading climate scientists-emails that show behavior contrary to the practice of objective science and potentially federal law. We note at the outset an important distinction between, as Stephen Hayward put it, “utterly politicized scientists,” such as those at the center of this controversy, and “more sober scientists” doing important work in the field of climatology……”
    I really am appalled at the prospect of paying higher taxes (and increased costs estimated at 25% to 30%) only to fuel the “Carbon trading derivatives scheme” a euphemism for a Scam, with those costs hitting those already in fuel poverty and the elderly etc whilst lining the pockets of the financial industry. In addition to the loss of UK jobs, estimated to be two current jobs for the gain of one green job, if policies, as they are currently proposed (which almost appears to be collusion) are pursued by David Cameron, Gordon Brown and/or Nick Clegg!
    The real issue causing such concern is the doubt raised in the Climategate emails and the disclosures that many of the IPPC report statements (and Lord Sterns Review) are erroneous and rely on advocacy group (and non-peer reviewed) findings.

    Governmental “Public Policy” documents [and Conservative, Labour and LibDems policy documents] have been largely drawn [up using compiled output from the CRU] from IPPC [and Lord Sterns Review – itself “riddled with errors” http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2010/01/stern-report-riddled-with-errors.html%5D documents.

    The doubt and concerns raised are because the veracity of its [CRU’s] figures [CRU data is one of four key data sets used by the majority of climate change researchers – 2 ground based, 2 satellite data based (to which said calibrations have been applied) – in essence up to 75% of the climate data in use is at risk of being shown to be invalid if CRU are found to be in error. http://www.ecowho.com/articles/42/Climategate,_what_is_going_on?.html] its methods and output is questioned and it did not provide;

    a. Data (until forced)
    b. Methodologies (to verify and ensure accuracy of output [for peer review] and testing by others who contested it.
    c. Computer code (to ensure it was not introducing error and masking inconsistencies.)

    PUBLIC POLICY DOCUMENTS are at the heart of this issue now and in the Parliamentary Investigation (Science and Technology Committee) submissions
    referenced below the scientific methods have been called into question so we need to move on, put policy on hold and allow all scientists to get on with their job, develop the science and prevent them from becoming a lobby group or being politicised by those with their own agenda [by proper controls and processes] in the future!

    Memorandum submitted by Richard Thomas CBE (CRU 53) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc5302.htm

    Says :
    “3.3 It can also be said that failure to fulfill FOIA obligations undermines the development of public policy. The CRU is a leading climate research centre and its work has been incorporated into the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “

    “3.5 This is especially the case in new areas of science such as climate change research, where it is clear the results are directly influencing the development of public policy. (Indeed, FOIA makes special provision for the easier disclosure of statistical data where the section 36 exemption could otherwise apply – see section 36(4)). Access to the original data, computer models and an explanation of the analytical methods used is necessary to ensure that results are reproducible. Any attempts to limit peer review, to omit or distort scientific data or to limit access to data sets, models or methodologies used and thus frustrating any review of the science would lead to legitimate questioning of the conclusions asserted. In the wider context of public sector transparency, there is a risk that attempts to withhold the disclosure of information without good reason will increasingly be characterised in terms of “something to hide.”
    AND
    Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)
    The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
    1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context…………….

    For the full lambasting by the Institute of Physics
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

    Royal Society of Chemistry backs 36,000 physicists in condemning Climategate
    Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society of Chemistry (CRU 42) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc4202.htm

  1. Pingback: 2010 The Decline Of The Global Warming Scam Part 3 March « Tory Aardvark

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: