Red Hot Lies

Chris Horner shows us that those events were not coincidences. Environmentalism has become a new ideology that has replaced Stalinism and that is beginning to take over the Western world - a world that has enjoyed freedom and democracy for centuries. You will learn that Greenpeace is reading from Horner's trash, in order to obtain materials that they could find helpful in their propaganda war.




What is fearful, though, is the incident he described at the journal Climate Research, where editors resigned in "protest" of the publication of a non-alarmist paper. I had one in there a few years ago, and I saw the process first-hand. Tom Wigley and a few of his cronies demanded that the paper be withdrawn, and that the process as to how it could have been published be investigated. The message to editors is clear: if you're not with us, we're against you. That creates a scientific climate of fear.

Also touched upon is the unwillingness of scientists to open their data files to others. When Australian climatologist Warrick Hughes asked Phil Jones, the developer of the United Nations' climate history, for the raw data (he wanted to see how the error bars were calculated), Jones responded: "We have 25 years or so invested in this work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it"?

The last I heard, "science" is about finding "something wrong" with what has gone before. But that is not true in a world of Red Hot Lies. 




This is clearly apparent in this thoroughly detailed and carefully documented book about what has got to be the best orchestrated scam (thank you John Coleman for voicing that opinion) ever perpetrated on the good people of the world. It shows many powerful forces complicit in this scam including the UN, the world's governments, the now fat environmental groups, the well-funded internet alarmist bloggers, the mainstream media even in its decline, many academics and universities riding the new grant gravy train and the once professional societies for which the academics are the prime constituents. As Chris documented, Dr. Robert Corell, the Director of the Global Change Program at The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment and a Senior Policy Fellow at the Policy Program of the American Meteorological Society observed candidly and correctly to colleagues at a conference in the early 1990s "we must not miss this golden goose as this field has never before seen funding like that which is going to be involved here." 


Even though I have been close to this issue from the science side for decades, Chris's book has profoundly affected my thinking on how and why this perversion of science has taken place and who the real puppeteers controlling the strings are. It left me more worried than ever about the future reputation of our science when the truth becomes clear. I also have enhanced concern for our collective financial security as the policies under consideration can only make the global financial meltdown worse. And it will not be the heating from greenhouse gases responsible. Retirement seems so far away again. 


http://www.amazon.com/review/R37TS9GQP4W0O3/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R37TS9GQP4W0O3


Dr. Motl was for many years a physicist at Harvard and has been pointing out the scientific shortcomings of global warming theory along with Lindzen at MIT and a host of others (http://motls.blogspot.com/). I can easily provide you with the names of several hundred distinguished atmospheric scientists, paleontologists, statisticians, physicists, biologists and others who take the same view. I spent 31 years with the Meteorological Service of Canada and I do not subscribe to the view that CO2 is driving global warming. You can find a vetted list of more than 31,000 scientists who disagree with Al Gore at http://www.oism.org/pproject/ & http://www.petitionproject.org/. These scientists all signed a petition in 2007/2008 which stated:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. "