Climategate: Science fraud, pure and simple
Climate Change CO2 Corruption Caravan Continues At Cancun, Commercially: You Must Pay For Your Sins
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, December 20, 2010
Fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
Fraud: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.
A British Gas advertisement says, “The future of Britain’s low carbon energy supply is in safe hands.” ExxonMobil’s advertisement says “we remove CO2 from natural gas by first freezing, then melting it. The captured CO2 may then be safely stored, so it won’t enter the atmosphere, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” How much energy does that take? It means the product costs more and profits increase because the taxpayer subsidizes CO2 injection to increase oil recovery.
The Cancun Climate Conference and most national policies confirm equalization of wealth as the real objective. Everything is based on falsified evidence and completely unnecessary. If a private citizen practiced such deception it would constitute fraud. Despite evidence of manipulated data, corrupted science, false claims, and failed predictions the nonsense continues.
How it was done
Maurice Strong falsely identified CO2 as the Achilles Heel byproduct of industrial societies ideal for achieving the goal identified in his comment. “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” He set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with deliberate restrictions on their investigations to lead them to CO2 as the cause. The definition of climate change was restricted to changes caused by humans, which limited the potential forcing agents. They were listed in Table 1 of the 1990 Report, but appeared as a Figure in the 1995 Report (Figure 1).
Two points are sufficient to show the deceptiveness of the work. The false claim of a high level of understanding of CO2 and CH4 (methane); and the unsubstantiated statement that, “Carbon dioxide has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect in the past.” I was admonished for not listing John Houghton in my condemnation of national weather agencies as the vehicle of the IPCC. He deserves individual attention for his controlling role. He was Chief Executive of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office UKMO and became Co-Chair of the IPCC and lead editor of the First Assessment Report (FAR). All subsequent Reports were variations on the themes he established in 1990. (Source)
Figure 1: Radiative Forcing Components from IPCC Report 1995
Houghton was instrumental in the focus on CO2 from the start. He equated CO2 production and failure to reduce the levels with sin in the classic Judeo-Christian sense. As John Daly summarized “The entire global warming scare has been built to a large degree on the views of this one man, wielding enormous influence over climate science, the IPCC, the media, academic journals, and world governments (particularly the British government). In exercising that power has he been motivated all along by something other than science or even environmentalism?”
Everything done by the IPCC was designed to prove CO2 was the problem so they created new falsities or doctored evidence to that end. As Princeton Physicist Robert Austin said about Climategate, I view it as science fraud, pure and simple…” but Climategate was just a continuation.
What do we know about CO2 and how have they distorted the reality?
They claim CO2 is a greenhouse gas. One of three atmospheric gases that supposedly let solar shortwave energy in to heat the earth’s surface then delays the escape of longwave energy to space. It’s less than four percent of the total greenhouse gases so they claimed it is more “effective”. This is the Global Warming Potential (GWP) that depends on how long the gas is in the atmosphere. This residency was a major component of FAR and the central argument that it’s already too late, but you must help developing nations cope. “Atmospheric concentrations of the long-lived gases (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and the CFCs) adjust only slowly to changes in emissions Continued emissions of these gases at present rates would commit us to increased concentrations for centuries ahead The longer emissions continue to increase at present day rates, the greater reductions would have to be for concentrations to stabilise at a given level.”
The result is even if we change behavior now the problem will continue. “Even if all human-made emissions of carbon dioxide were halted in the year 1990, about half of the increase in carbon dioxide concentration caused by human activities would still be evident by the year 2100.” (IPCC)
We now know the residency time is approximately 5 years.
FAR introduced the link between CO2 increase and temperature increase reproducing a 140,000-year portion of the Antarctic Ice Core record, which became one of the most effective pieces of the early arguments. We now know the temperature increases before the CO2. The ice core record was also used to determine the pre-industrial record and set it at 270 ppm. This was reinforced by the work of G. S. Callendar who selected just a few records from a massive file of 19th century atmospheric readings. T.R.Wigley, a major participant in the 1990 IPCC Report, reinforced Callendar’s assessment with similar selectivity in a 1983 paper. Ernst Georg Beck revealed the real values were a pre-industrial level of 330 ppm and a wide variability from year to year. This confirmed what the stomata measures of CO2 showed compared to the ice cores (Figure 2). A 70-year moving average reduced levels and eliminated variability.
Figure 2: Ice Core CO2 compared to Stomata over 2000 years.
Another problem was the portion of CO2 going into the atmosphere from human activities. Dr Dietrich Koelle has produced an estimate of sources (Table 3).
Table 3: Emissions and Uptakes of CO2
Source: Dr Dietrich Koelle
The human emission of 9.5 gigatons is conveniently produced by the IPCC but it is irrelevant anyway because it is less than the error for oceans and ground bacteria. The latter is important because they needed to separate human atmospheric CO2 from natural sources. They claimed the isotopes from combusted fossil fuels were different. Dr. Roy Spenser disproved this argument.
The next problem was that even if CO2 doubled or tripled the temperature would only increase by possibly 1°C. This is because the atmosphere is almost saturated for CO2’s ability to presumably function as a greenhouse gas. Even here there is disagreement, estimates range from 0.64°C (Lindzen) to 1.46°C (Charnock and Shine). These are with clear skies. Add cloud and Lindzen’s most plausible number drops to 0.22°C So the IPCC produced another invention, a positive non-existence feedback.
They’ve done everything to prove CO2 causes warming and climate change, but failed. It is a disgraceful scientific chronicle. I challenge anyone to produce a single real, not computer generated, record that shows a CO2 increase preceding a temperature increase.
The Cancun communiqué reduced requirements for developing nations but left untouched those for developing nations. Corporations exploit the false IPCC science for its PR value as a green marketing tool, but also it gets the public to subsidize carbon reduction and sequestration. The latter is an expensive process they already use. What better benefit than a taxpayer funded subsidy to increase profit. When those you try to condemn end up getting the most benefits you have failed completely. It’s warm in Hell.