Global Warming Industry Meets Reality

FlyingMoneyIt seems that there really is “Mann”-made global warming. It is made of fraud, data manipulation, collusion, squelching dissent, hiding data, deleting data, and punishing scientific journals that dared to publish papers challenging the carbon cabal.

The global warming industry is very big business and there is a huge vested interest in maintaining the myth that human carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous. “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” George Orwell, 1984.

The upcoming Copenhagen meeting sponsored by the United Nations had hoped for a global redistribution of wealth over the next 20 years of between $6 trillion and $10.5 trillion, according to the draft treaty, to “Compensate for damage to the less developed countries’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees.” Third world governments see dollar signs.


In the U.S., the Treasury Department estimates that the president’s cap-and-trade approach would “generate federal receipts on the order of $100- to $200 billion annually.” The Congressional Budget Office reports that a 15 percent CO2 reduction would cost an average household $1,600 a year.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a bureaucrat’s paradise that exists solely to perpetrate the myth, while enjoying frequent meetings at exotic venues throughout the world.

Many governments maintain bureaucracies just to “study” the myth. In the U.S., it’s the Global Change Research Program. NOAA, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the National Climate Change and Wildlife Center of the USGS, and the EPA are just a few other federal agencies feeding at the trough.

Over the last 20 years, the US government spent $32 billion on climate research, yet has failed to find any evidence that carbon dioxide emissions significantly affect temperature or represent a danger. Government agencies, the private sector, and universities were the recipients of this money. These organizations have a vested interest in maintaining the myth.

The feds also spent another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. Solar and wind-power generation of electricity can be a supplemental supply, but these methods could not compete with fossil fuels without a subsidy. These industries have a vested interest in maintaining the myth.

The ethanol industry is founded solely on the myth that we must reduce our use of fossil fuels, even though the U.S. has abundant supplies.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Bailout bill) contained $3.4 billion for research and experimentation in the area of carbon sequestration – burying carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuel plants. There are also, really wild schemes for geoengineering, schemes to block the sun with mirrors, or seed the atmosphere with sulfur to produce more clouds.

On the world commodities market, trading carbon credits generated $126 billion in 2008, and big banks are collecting fees, and some project a market worth $2 trillion. Al Gore’s venture capital firm, Hara Software which makes software to track greenhouse gas emissions, stands to make billions of dollars from cap-and-trade regulation. If the myth is destroyed, this market will evaporate.

Back in 2007, a coalition of major corporations and environmental groups formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) to lobby for cap & trade. The companies planned to profit (at least in the short term) from either the cap-and-trade provisions or from selling high-priced, politically-favored (if not mandated) so-called “green” technology to the rest of us — whether we need it or not, and regardless of whether it produces any environmental or societal benefits.

Corporate USCAP members include: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar Inc., Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, DuPont, FPL Group, Exelon, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, John Deer & Co, PG&E Corporation, and PNM Resources.

Has science been co-opted by greed and ideology; has government been co-opted by scientific elitists?

In his farewell address, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave this warning:

“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.”

“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

“It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

The Obama administration, which promised to “restore science to its rightful place,” is ignoring events and sailing its ideological titanic to Copenhagen.

The vested interests are strong and many. Is the global warming industry “too big to fail?” It remains to be seen whether those interests, and political ideology will triumph over truth and common sense.

We should suspend any further consideration of cap & trade schemes and carbon taxes until there is a thorough investigation and re-analysis of the science, costs, and benefits. We also need the government to re-examine energy policy. We need to examine our system of research grants to universities which seems to have been biased toward the politically correct, rather than seeking scientific truth.

The global warming industry is predicated on manipulated computer modeling rather than observational data. The touted “consensus” has been shown to be the result of suppression of dissenting voices, and fueled by greed, power seeking, and the perversion of the scientific method.

If the “warmists” have their way, the result will be suppression of freedom and a criminal waste of resources.

For more information, see my blogs on Climategate at the Tucson Citizen:


For more stories on the climate scandal see:

Climate Audit explanation of the “trick”:

Bishop Hill selected emails:


Searchable index of emails:


  1. Green technologies are bound to be the next big capitalist bubble, Jonathan; the next decade’s boom and real estate bonanza.  Fear not, any effect it has on the climate will be purely incidental and minimal.   

    1. Cap and Trade is not a green technology, however. It is an energy tax designed as a shell game. The problem with this shell game is that consumers are the ones paying to play, since all costs will be passed on to them in the form of higher prices.
      Ethanol is another shell game played by politicians and some of their family members in states like Missouri. Ethanol takes more energy to produce than it returns. This means fuel with ethanol in it gives fewer miles per gallon, causing the consumer to burn more fuel to get just as far as he did with non-ethanol fuel. There is no savings in emissions, but there is plenty of money in subsidies. That may change when ethanol is no longer corn-based, but it will be a long while before that happens.

      1. While I might take issue with some of the particulars, I will agree that, in the end, you will lose and big business will win.  Cap and trade or no, Green technology boom or no, you will pay more and they will take more.  Might as well just send it all in right now and get it over with.  Maybe Monsanto has an extra cardboard box big enough to live in that they could sell you for a price.

    1. Nasa and their moon landing frauds.

      tip, mind clarifying what you mean by that?  Exactly what kind of frauds did NASA perform, in relation to moon landings?

  2. I believe the Copenhagen Treaty Summit should be cancelled! How in God’s name can this be considered a legal agreement when a “Huge Amount” of the basis for the “Climate Change Data” has been found to be “Fraudulently Sabotaged” and absolutely “Inaccurate”? This is signing an agreement Document that has “No Legal Foundation” of Realistic conditions or elements due to “Inaccurate and Manipulated Data” as described and therefore, anything stated on this “Copenhagen Treaty Document” should be considered “Null and Void”! Why create a Pandora’s Box, subject to “Lawsuits and Misgivings” due to total inaccuracy of “Scientific Measurements”? Which “Now” is proving to be the case! This Treaty has no Legal ground to stand on and is and will be a “False Document” from day one!
    Find out what Governments are doing behind your back, go to:

  3. . . . deleting data . . .As in “The dogma ate my data.” The vested interests are strong and many.
    ot only follow the money, follow the lust for power over our lives.  This from the UK:
    Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.

  4. Great article.    We must keep the pressure up on these socialist democrats who were willing to stab america in the back in the name of global environmental socialism.  Vote them out in the next election cycles.  Stop implementation of any government programs relying on IPCC data.  Insist on investigation of  who pushed grant money to these frauds.   Write your congressman to insist that supreme court case listing CO2 as a pollutant using IPCC data as proof be re-visted and overturned. 

  5. Some of you may have heard or will hear about a computer hack of the Climate Research Unit in England. This is one of the world’s major sources for climate data and research.

    The news varies depending on the political views of the organization but some blogs and newspapers/television claim that this hack has revealed that human caused global warming has been faked. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is my opinion:

    To date, there has not been a single credible journal article that shows a natural cause for the modern day warming while also showing how record high greenhouse gas concentrations are not significant.

    NOT ONE.

    Do people really believe that the scientists at CRU are able to squelch every scientist on the planet who tried to publish this landmark anti-AGW paper? Is there no sense of the low probability and the large scale of this conspiracy for this to be true?

    If one throws out the HadCRU data and all papers by these folks, there is still a mountain of evidence for AGW.

    Do the rapidly melting ice sheets and glaciers have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy?

    Do the various climate models that show GHGs as the dominant forcing mechanism have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy?

    Do the GISS, UAH, RSS data that show global warming of approximately 0.2C per decade over the past 30 years have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy? Certainly Spencer and Christy who run UAH and are well-known skeptics of AGW would not align themselves with AGW and yet their satellite-derived measurements track reasonably with GISS, RSS, and HadCRU. (BTW, 2009 will likely end up being a Top 10 or Top 5 warmest year since 1850)

    Does the ocean read these emails and magically increase its heat content?

    Does the cooling stratosphere (even accounting for ozone loss) read the emails and join in on the hoax?

    Do the plants and animals read these emails and decide to die off and/or change their migratory habits so that they can support the conspiracy?

    I could go on ad infinitum.

    For quite a long time, we have known that a doubling of CO2 will warm the climate at least 1C and there is fairly good certainty that the resulting feedbacks will produce at least 2C additional warming with 3C more likely. We are also measuring CO2 increases of 2 ppm and climbing (except last year where there was a slight decrease due to the global recession) and we have levels that have not been seen in the past 15 million years.

    Are we to conclude that these emails deny all of this evidence?

    There are many scientists from many fields that have published data that show the effects of global warming and why humans are the primary drivers of this warming. These scientists include some of the obvious: climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, modelers, and oceanographers. Some less obvious include: biologists, marine biologists, zoologists, chemists, astrophysicists, economists, environmental politics reasearchers, and others. I am quite confident that MANY of these folks have NEVER spoken to the CRU folks nor emailed them.

    It is obvious that pre-Copenhagen, the tried and true method of “if one does not like the message then attack the messenger or redirect the conversation” practiced by Big Tobacco and now ExxonMobil and their front groups (Heartland Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, etc.) is alive and well.

    Scott A. Mandia – Professor, Meteorologist, Concerned Citizen

    1. That’s quite a straw man you set up there Prof.  combining discussion of natural cause and at the same time dismissing carbon dioxide.
      You might try these papers, the first two show that the carbon dioxide model fails, the second two discuss a natural cause of climate change:
      Douglass, D.H. et al. 2007, A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions, International Journal of Climatology DOI:10.1002/joc.1651

      Berner, R.A. and Kothavala, Z., 2001, GEOCARB III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time: Am. J. Sci., v. 301, p. 182-204.

      Friis-Christensen, E., and Lassen, K. 1991, Length of Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate, Science, New Series, V. 254, No. 5032
      Veizer, Jan, 2005, Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle, Geoscience Canada, V. 32, no. 1

  6. global warming ….. global lies ….. global crap.

    the world can take their green and shove it up their brown.

  7. scotty, lies? you betcha.

    just like a so called h1n1 “pandemic” exists. more people die every day in that nation from heart disease than die across the world of h1n1 in 3-4 months.

    May 15, 2009 … Number of deaths for leading causes of death. Heart disease: 631636 …

    WHO: Nearly 5000 H1N1 Deaths Worldwide – CBS News

    so we should worry in this nation about dying from h1n1? no. nor should we worry about the so called global warming. both hype. both garbage.

    but both generate a lot of profits and self inflating of importance for those in charge.

  8. So with it all being a SCAM what do we do? Nada? Just go on about our business, regulate nothing, continue polluting the air and the waterways and decimating the rain forests, increase membership in the “silent majority,” badmouth everybody who offers a solution to what they see as a problem and leave our children with pretty much no positive ideas regarding the far future? I mean really? “No Se Puede” is our cry?

  9. I hear the black helicopters coming for you. Better run before you are engulfed by the conspiracy. Just plain nutty.

Comments are closed.