World climate scare propaganda rely on faulty computer programs via United Nations IPCC

A Copenhagan newspaper describes this picture as people 'Al Jazeera and Fox News' do not care about. The news media often run pictures such as this and describe the people as "climate refugees," meaning all the fault of the US (and sometimes the Saudis, I guess). photo from Berlingske, Bangladesh flood victims.

• People rendered homeless by floods are victims of bad weather, poor building standards and other problems, not of evil, 'United States man made global warming' as international press promotes 24/7 with the object of shaking down US wage slaves to give an additional $400 billion a year to foreign crooks, potentates and assorted girly-men.

UK Telegraph: "Ultimately the whole case for a Copenhagen treaty rests on the projections of the

• computer models relied on by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC).

These show that, as CO2 levels continue to rise, so temperatures must follow, leading inexorably to catastrophe -

• unless mankind takes the most drastic action to cut down on its emissions of CO2.

But as more and more eminent scientists have recently been pointing out, the only reason why the computer models predict that rising CO2 must cause temperatures to rise is that

• this is what they were programmed to show.***

What world-ranking physicists such as Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT and Professor Will Happer of Princeton have been arguing is that the models are fatally flawed because they do not take proper account of all sorts of

• other factors which play a key part in shaping the world’s climate - such as shifts in ocean currents, the effects of magnetic activity on the sun and the

• ‘feedback’ from clouds and water vapour, far and away the most important greenhouse gas in our atmosphere,

which counteracts any impact from the rise in CO2.

The greatest ally this growing army of ‘sceptical’ scientists can point to is what has actually been happening to the climate in recent years. No one can predict with certainty where temperatures will be in 100 years time,

• But the one thing that is indisputable is that, as CO2 levels continue to rise, the trend in global temperatures

• has not recently been rising as the computer models predicted, but has been flattening out

• and even dropping.

In other words, it becomes increasingly clear that the models were wrong - because their programming was biased according to a theory which now looks ever more questionable.

• Yet it is on their projections that the world is now faced with by far the most
• expensive set of measures
• ever proposed by politicians in history.

For months in the run-up to Copenhagen we have been subjected to an unremitting bombardment of scare stories: how the ice caps and glaciers are melting much faster than predicted, how sea levels will rise much higher than anyone imagined, how we face ever more

• hurricanes, droughts, floods and heatwaves.

Yet every time one of these scares is subjected to proper objective scientific examination it can be found either that these disasters are not happening as claimed or that they have been exaggerated far in advance of anything the evidence can justify....

Despite our having for years been assured by politicians from Al Gore to President Obama that

• ‘the science is settled’,

it is now obvious that it is nothing of the kind. Not least has this been confirmed by ‘Climategate’ and the leak of that ‘dodgy dossier’ from the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, for years at the centre of

• driving the scare over global warming as
• the most influential source of temperature data in the world.

• Far from Copenhagen being the end of the debate, the real debate is only just beginning."

from article by Christopher Booker, 12/8/09, "Blindfolds are hiding the crucial issues at Copenhagen"

• ***Computer codes (ie the program itself created by the 'scientists') in the emails show the data are not available, cannot be reproduced, unless connected to the original program input by the 'scientists'/anti-US ideologue shakedown artists. This negates the validity of their proclaimed 'settled science.'

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon