Successful Cover-up and Lack of Accountability in Climate Deception

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

The headline for the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) Newsletter says, “Europe’s Green Utopians Pay Price for Green Energy Folly.” Europe is not alone. All nations who accepted the claims of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suffered the same fate. But it is not just the financial cost. Sadly, the true cost is hard to estimate because it is impossible to measure the emotional costs to people losing their jobs, their homes, and their communities. What makes these costs even more egregious is that they were completely unnecessary. My earlier comment that,

“The Kyoto Protocol is a political solution to a non-existent problem without scientific justification,”

applies to the entire political response to the AGW deception. The people pay the costs of the deliberate deception, while the scientists and politicians who orchestrated it walk away well rewarded for their crimes. As Dostoevsky wrote, it is “Crime and Punishment.”

Probably beyond any other frustration in today’s world is the complete lack of accountability and punishment of any person other than ordinary citizens at the bottom of the economic and social ladder. The political power elite and those they often use and sometimes protect are rarely brought to justice. Nowhere is that truer than in the complete and deliberate deception that humans are causing global warming perpetrated by the establishment. It is undoubtedly an original, longest lasting, and possibly largest, example of “fake news;” that is information designed to misinform with a false narrative.

It was “fake news” in the structure and procedures designed to produce a specific scientific result, but it went further. Maurice Strong and the gang at the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) built in mechanisms to restrict their discovery and exposure. As Elaine Dewar wrote in “Cloak of Green,”

“He (Strong) could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.”

A major part of this control included the creation of a separate (IPCC) group to produce a Summary for Policymakers (SPM). They limited and distorted what was examined by Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis to human causes of climate change, but that meant their Report identified all the limitations of data, method, computer models, and analysis. They knew that very few people, especially those who understood the science and the limitations, would read the Science Report. Besides it was easy to marginalize the few by labelling them as skeptics, deniers, or paid shills of the energy industry. However, the more important goal was to present an alarmist message cloaked in certainty and to make sure it received all the attention from the media and environmental groups. They achieved this by releasing the SPM months before the Science report in a very heavily promoted press conference. David Wojick, an IPCC expert reviewer, explained

Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the “policymakers”—including the press and the public—who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it.

What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.

They continued and maintained the deception despite the debacle of the hockey stick. It was a big story among the small group who knew what was going on. We foolishly thought that all this would change after the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) appeared in 2009. Many of us thought this was the undoing of the deception. How could they survive the disclosure that Mosher and Fuller summarized as follows?

  • Actively worked to evade (Steve) Mcintyre’s Freedom of Information requests, deleting emails, documents, and even climate data
  • Tried to corrupt the peer-review principles that are the mainstay of modern science, reviewing each other’s’ work, sabotaging efforts of opponents trying to publish their own work, and threatening editors of journals who didn’t bow to their demands
  • Changed the shape of their own data in materials shown to politicians charged with changing the shape of our world, ‘hiding the decline’ that showed their data could not be trusted.

Even if only half these charges are true, they are activities that would and should have resulted in academic, scientific, and legal censure, and even criminal charges.

But we are talking about politics here, and the spin doctors moved in to limit the damage. The University of East Anglia, which defended the CRU actions from the start, hired Neil Wallis of Outside Organization. University spokesperson Trevor Davies said they hired him because it was a “reputation management” problem that they don’t handle well. Instead, they chose to become part of the political cover-up. In fact, universities are more adept than most at cover up.

The favorite defensive cover-up vehicles for politicians are commissions of inquiry. Most people think they are good things because it implies the politicians are sidelined. In fact, they are the ideal weapon because the politician is off the hook but obtains much more power and control. All questions are eliminated by the answer that they cannot say anything until the inquiry is complete. The politician then works with bureaucrats to define the terms and set the limits on the inquiry. They knew how to do this in climatology because it is precisely how they organized and orchestrated the IPCC. The objective is to cover-up, and the CRU emails that undermined the IPCC was a classic example. They appointed five commissions of inquiry, all designed to misdirect, mislead. They were aided and abetted by the honed skills of academic institutions that are incestuous systems with the prisoners running the prison and the wardens being promoted prisoners to protect themselves at all costs. Even the media supporters expected some action. George Monbiot of The Guardian acknowledged the seriousness of the problem.

It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them. Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

Jones resigned briefly but was soon reinstated; meanwhile, he conveniently ‘lost’ the relevant data. To my knowledge, there has been no official “re-analysis” of the data. Monbiot continued,

“Why was CRU’s response to this issue such a total car crash?”

He partially justified the action by writing,

“Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years.”

However, he tempered that by taking the high ground.

“That’s why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science.”

In the Foreword to Andrew Montford’s analysis, Lord Turnbull supported Monbiot’s list when he wrote,

  • that scientists at the CRU had failed to give a full and fair view to policymakers and the IPCC of all the evidence available to them;
  • that they deliberately obstructed access to data and methods to those taking different viewpoints for themselves;
  • that they failed to comply with Freedom of Information requirements;
  • that they sought to influence the review panels of journals in order to prevent rival scientific evidence from being published.

Only four of the five inquiries, three in the UK and one in the US produced reports. They were

  1. The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.
  2. The Oxburgh Inquiry appointed and directed by the University of East Anglia (UEA).
  3. The Muir Russell Inquiry, technically The Independent Climate Change Emails Review (ICCER),
  4. The Penn State Inquiry.

Here is a summary of these investigations itemizing the distinct pattern I recognize from personal experience with politically appointed commissions of inquiry.

· The people appointed to the inquiries were either compromised through conflict or had little knowledge of climatology or the IPCC process.

  • They did not have clearly defined objectives and failed to achieve any they publicized.
  • Interviews were limited to the accused.
  • Experts who knew what went on and how it was done, that is understood what the emails were saying, were not interviewed.
  • Validity of the science and the results obtained as published in the IPCC Reports were not examined, yet the deceptions were to cover these problems. This was particularly egregious for the Oxburgh Inquiry that ignored specific instructions to examine the science.
  • All investigations were seriously inadequate in major portions to essentially negate their findings. It appears these inadequacies were deliberate to avoid exposure of the truth. They all examined only one limited side of the issues, so it was like hearing only half of a conversation and what you hear is preselected.

All the panels failed to reflect Hans Von Storch’s admonition.

“We have to take a self-critical view of what happened. Nothing ought to be swept under the carpet. Some of the Inquiries – like – in the UK – did exactly the latter. They blew an opportunity to restore trust.”

The truth is they all did the latter. Fred Pearce, also of The Guardian noted,

“Secrecy was the order of the day at CRU. “We find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness,” says the report. That criticism applied not just to Jones and his team at CRU. It applied equally to the university itself, which may have been embarrassed to find itself in the dock as much as the scientists on whom it asked Russell to sit in judgment.”

Clive Crook, a Senior editor at The Atlantic, wrote,

The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann – the paleoclimatologist who came up with the hockey stick – would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for lack of credible evidence, it will not even investigate them. (At this, MIT’s Richard Lindzen tells the committee, “It’s thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I’m wondering what’s going on?” The report continues: “The Investigatory Committee did not respond to Dr. Lindzen’s statement. Instead his attention was directed to the fourth allegation.”) Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers- so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.

Later Crook wrote;

“I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.”

George Monbiot wrote,

But the deniers’ campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and suppression on the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must distinguish themselves from their opponents in every way. No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last.

In fact, they were far from “unimpeachable,” as they remained silent or participated in the orchestrated cover-up. The entire corruption of climate science orchestrated through the IPCC, national weather offices, and government agencies like NASA GISS continue. Many of the people involved at CRU and other agencies cite the five commissions of inquiry as proof of their innocence.

I am unaware of any person who has been held accountable in any way for the biggest deliberate deception in history that has created completely unnecessary social and economic upheaval and wasted trillions of dollars. None of this is surprising because a lack of accountability is a pandemic among all politicians and the power elite. It parallels the destructive change in thinking associated with the belief that a person only broke the law if they got caught. Crime without punishment is no longer crime.

4 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Greg Woods
July 30, 2017 7:36 am

More than just a scam, this, CAGW, is the mother of all Ponzi schemes.

Reply to  Greg Woods
July 30, 2017 2:34 pm

Excellent article Tim, thank you.
Best, Allan
I posted the following on Saturday:
You wrote regarding the global warming scare:
“Does this have to go the way of the DDT ban where millions of the 3rd world poor had to die in order to satisfy Western middle-class eco-angst?”
Regrettably, this has already happened. Many trillions of dollars and many millions of lives have been squandered on what is clearly a false allegation of dangerous global warming.
Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 2 million per year globally.
“Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather”, September 4, 2015
by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
In the developed world, green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
In the developing world, global warming nonsense has thwarted the development of much-needed energy systems that would have greatly improved the quality of life and reduced illnesses and premature deaths due to energy poverty.
Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Furthermore, if the trillions of dollars squandered on global warming alarmism were put to good use, we could have saved many millions of lives. For a fraction of the money spent on global warming nonsense, we could have installed clean water and sanitation systems in every village in the world. About 2 million children below the age of five die from contaminated water each year. In the three decades that global warming has been a popular obsession, that is 60 million kids – more than died on all sides in WW2.
There are very serious ethical issues here that should be addressed. It’s not just about squandering trillions of dollars of scarce global resources – it is how those valuable resources could have been better allocated, and the consequences of not doing so.

Reply to  Greg Woods
August 1, 2017 7:35 am

Global Warming – Global Cooling – now just Climate Change are all simply the latest iterations of Marxism, that fondest dream of all the statists who lurk around us and dream of having all of us marching in lockstep to their spastic cadence. Hence the hysterical cries of the climate alarmists for the doubters to be imprisoned or even executed, just as did the advocates of Marxism in the 20th Century, to the tune of several hundred million doubters. Tragically, these vermin inhabit all our institutions of “higher” learning in which they can spread their poisonous doctrines among the young.

July 30, 2017 7:46 am

Brilliant Dr. Ball.
The problem is, no one seems to be listening except we sceptics. The recent announcement that the UK is to be entirely EV by 2040, is patently impossible, but goes entirely unchallenged by political and scientific heavyweights.
In my opinion, the policy is designed for nothing more that to allow Theresa May’s Conservative government to shovel money into causes that will resonate with the green brigade in order to win the next general election.
By 2040, our current crop of incompetent and dishonest politicians will be long gone and someone else will have to clean up the mess. But even that’s not true as the mess will be well under way by 2030 when energy capacity in the UK dips under what is needed as government subsidised and marketed EV’s begin to proliferate.
This is where Climate gate has got us to, the damage will be much more than we imagine now as the only means, by then, of addressing our energy shortage will be to buy it from foreign countries. The energy crisis predicted in the recent past will bear but a passing resemblance to the car crash we will see over the next 20 years or so.

Reply to  HotScot
July 30, 2017 8:10 am

My hometown of Colstrip, MT is seeing the fallout from this politicization of science first hand. Companies from Washington State and Oregon own major percentages of our coal-fired power plant. They decided to fold to the political greens in their states and get their energy from “renewables” instead of reliable fossil fuels. Also, the Sierra Club and other environmental agencies won frivolous lawsuits against the plant because of their war on C02. Now by 2022, if not earlier, the two older units will be shut down costing hundreds of jobs. But, they want to put up more windmills that will “save” those jobs. /sarc
It’s insane the amount of harm these groups and their political cronies do for their belief in faulty science.

Reply to  Angela
July 30, 2017 10:00 am

My heart goes out to you and yours, Angela. I have been following the goings on at Colstrip. Those people have been providing a valuable product for decades and now it is being cast aside for something unreliable that makes many people pleased with their own virtue. I suppose it will take regular blackouts for those folks to appreciate base loaded power from coal again.

Reply to  Angela
July 30, 2017 10:21 am

Interestingly, it apparently takes 70 renewable workers to produce the same energy output as a single coal worker. It appears this cunning scheme to cover the planet in wind turbines is simply a glorified job creation scheme, to combat the threat of Artificial Intelligence, except the politicians proposing this renewable ‘revolution’ could do with all the artificial intelligence they can get.

Reply to  HotScot
July 30, 2017 8:49 am

Perhaps it was too much to expect that a mass-deception like that would disappear overnight. People find it so difficult to admit they were wrong. However, it will all come right in time : you can fool all people some of the time – you can fool some people all of the time – but you cannot fool all people all of the time.

Reply to  AndyE
July 30, 2017 10:26 am

The UK has only 23 years until the great EV switchover. The single nuclear power station that (might) be built in that period is Hinckly C, which will be lucky if it’s completed by 2030. We need at least another 7 to meet demand in 2040.
Ten years to build 7 nuclear power stations? We haven’t even managed one in the last 20 years.

Reply to  AndyE
July 31, 2017 9:48 am

Here’s a perfect example of someone who is refusing to admit he was wrong. He was backed into a corner at Queen’s Park on the last day of the session before summer break and now he’s quitting as Minister of Environment and Climate Change in Ontario and is going to take a position with the Pembina Institute.

Reply to  HotScot
July 30, 2017 9:46 am

“The problem is, no one seems to be listening except we sceptics.” Correct. As witnessed by the polls it seems nobody cares. The economic pain has been insidious to the people and business is too busy being politically correct to act…. even as some of them close their doors due to high energy and CO2 fine costs.

Reply to  markl
July 30, 2017 10:38 am

Agreed, most of the country couldn’t care less about AGW, because they can see nothing happening.
The real problem is, the UK (at least) is being swamped with, and regulated by, minority groups. One of the most insidious being the AGW faithful, pessimists who can’t wait for the end of the world so they can say ‘told you so’.

Reply to  markl
July 31, 2017 1:11 am

Or the cost is blamed on “businesses” or “capitalism” or “markets”.
I read story after story about how wages have stagnated, yet not once is the cost of energy, a key input into just about every business, mentioned. Yet the additional cost has to come from either customers or the wages of workers (by and large).
It’s not just domestic bills that are the problem.

Reply to  HotScot
July 30, 2017 2:04 pm

I agree!
Congrats to Dr Ball and his candour.

Reply to  HotScot
July 30, 2017 2:19 pm

I am amazed at how the people in the UK and these other European countries are just ruled it seems by their politicians on these matters. Maybe it is because the people support or are okay with such policies? But it’s like if the government mandates all-electric cars by X year, or forcing windmills and solar on the people, or mandating energy-efficient light bulbs, etc…the people just take it. This is no outcry or anything it seems.

Reply to  Kyle
July 31, 2017 1:15 am

The EU is a bastion of socialism, the UK has become infected. The Conservative party (that currently in power and roughly equivalent to the US Republicans) is supposed to promote small government and individual freedom. It is the very party that passed the diktat on EV’s by 2040.
You can see how far the infection has progressed.

Tom Halla
July 30, 2017 7:51 am

The usual reaction of a political party or bureaucracy to a controversy. Internal investigations are usually picking out the color and application method of the whitewash.
Most political scandals with real consequences involve insider factions who wish to deal with their internal rivals, like Watergate. Richard Nixon was despised by a large group of other Republicans. Similarly, Cyril Burt was posthumously flogged by other psychologists who disagreed with his heritability of intelligence model.

July 30, 2017 7:53 am

A brilliant summing up the climate change crime.

George Tetley
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
July 30, 2017 9:31 am

Yes Sir , + + +

July 30, 2017 7:54 am

How can we hold the IPCC to account? The conflict of interest where they require CAGW to justify their existence, yet have manoeuvred themselves to become the arbiter if what is and what is not climate science while probably not criminal by itself has certainly enabled crime. It’s like giving a 4 year old a loaded weapon. It’s not the child that would be held accountable, but the person who gave them the gun.

Science or Fiction
July 30, 2017 7:55 am

It can be added that The IAC review of IPCC was not independent!
Here are some highlights from the annual reports of IAC:
“The creation of InterAcademy Council had been requested in 1999 by the Secretary‐General of the United Nations in order to facilitate the best scientific input into global decision‐making.”
“… discussions took place between United Nations staff and InterAcademy Council Co-Chairs and staff regarding a special UN-IAC Partnership arrangement … “
“… with strong support from United Nations Secretary-General Mr. Kofi Annan, the InterAcademy Council Board decided in February 2005 to launch an in-depth study on how to achieve global transitions to an adequately affordable, sustainable, clean energy supply…”
“This InterAcademy Council study, entitled Transitions to Sustainable Energy Systems, will be an important opportunity to provide scientific input to national and global decision-making. For example, the results are expected to influence (1) the implementation phase of the Kyoto Protocol, (2) the follow-up to the July 2005 G8 Gleneagles Summit Communique on Climate Change … 
Preliminary Organizing Group. The IAC Co-Chairs appointed an Organizing Group consisting of Drs. José Goldemberg (Chair), Shem Arungu Olende, Li Jinghai, Rob Socolow, Nebosja Nakicenovic, Mohamed El-Ashry, Rajendra Pachauri, and Michael Phelps. This Organizing Group met in Amsterdam on 25-26 April 2005 and produced a brief report to the IAC Co-Chairs …“
I would expect that a real scientific review of IPCC, based on sound principles of science, would have been more negative to IPCC.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
July 30, 2017 6:08 pm

And there is much, much more information on UN activities going back to the UN 1992 Rio Summit.
UNEP FI was founded in the wake of Rio 92 and is the financial arm of UNEP. Money has to be obtained to make the transition to the green economy.
Banks, insurance companies, pension funds, mutual funds have large pools of money that can be and are being used to fund the transition to the new green economy.
For example, money to finance wind and solar projects.
This process is laid out in UNEP and UNEP FI publications.
The CO2 scare is a means of frightening people into accepting the use of their money to make the transition possible.
UNPRI/UN Principles of Responsible Investing organization (London, UK) puts pressure on financial institutions to join the cause.
Al Gore is associated with UNPRI through the Generation Foundation.
The latest caper by UNPRI in association with UNEP FI and another organization are the Roadmaps for countries such as, Australia, Canada, UK and the US.

Reply to  Barbara
July 30, 2017 6:58 pm

‘Changing Finance, Financing Change’, 2016, 23 pages
Leadership Innovations
Sustainable Banking Leadership
“Banks are the primary source of funding for renewable energy investments, and critical sources of capital for infrastructure and SMEs.”
SMEs are small to mid-size enterprises.
More on financing at:

Reply to  Barbara
July 30, 2017 8:46 pm

UNPRI / UN Principles for Responsible Investing, London, UK
Global Networks and Outreach
UNPRI Networks are geographic groups of UNPRI signatories. Includes groups in Canada and the U.S.
Team and Network managers:
There are UNPRI websites for Canada and the U.S.

Reply to  Barbara
July 31, 2017 10:48 am

Richard Branson (U.K.) and his Carbon War Room are now set-up in Colorado, USA.. The Carbon War Room merged with the Rocky Mountain Institute in 2014.

Reply to  Barbara
July 31, 2017 12:21 pm

‘A legal framework for the integration of environmental, social and governance issues into institutional investment’, October 2005, 154 pages.
a.k.a. The “Freshfields Report”
Freshfields is a U.K. law firm.
‘Legal and practical aspects of integrating environment, social and governance issues into institutional investment’, July 2009, 88 pages
“A follow-up to the AMWG’s 2005 “Freshfield Report”.
Download at:
These Reports are also available using internet search.

Reply to  Barbara
July 31, 2017 1:30 pm

‘Evaluation of the UNEP Finance Initiative (UNEP FI)’, June 2016, 91 pages
UN Environment, Evaluation Office
P. 24: Key UNEP FI Milestones From 1991-2015, List of the Milestones.
Sept. 2015: New Report, “Fiduciary Duty in the 21st Century” > Country “Roadmaps Project”
Also available using internet search., Download link to the above Report

Reply to  Barbara
July 31, 2017 4:45 pm

UN Environment
UN Environment and energy finance
UN Environments brings together ‘first mover’ financiers and renewable energy project developers to share some of the additional costs related to early stage investments and mitigate risks.

Reply to  Barbara
August 1, 2017 8:00 am

UN Environment
UNEP Newscentre, Sept.18, 2014
‘World’s Leading Institutional Investors Managing $24 Trillion Call for Carbon Pricing, Ambitious Global Climate Deal’
See: About
Includes UNPRI / UN Principles for Responsible Investing.
More at:

Greg Woods
July 30, 2017 8:05 am

It is evident that CAGW is the mother of all Ponzi schemes…

July 30, 2017 8:25 am


Bob Denby
July 30, 2017 8:34 am

The conviction that we (man) are ‘fouling our nest’ is so entrenched that it’s going to take years of this sort of ‘discovery’ to fend it off. Thanks Tim, the story can’t be told often enough.

July 30, 2017 8:40 am

The foundational relationships on which AGW is based are assumed without empirical evidence

John Robertson
July 30, 2017 8:51 am

Laws are for the “Little People”.
The Bureaus of our governments are using The Emperors New Clothes as an instruction manual.
CAGW is a wonderful fabrication.
A perfect Hobgoblin to scare the ignorant and compliant byproduct of “public education”.
To venture into these bureaucracies is to discover an alien world, these over educated nitwits are a class unto themselves.
Such combined ignorance and arrogance is impossible in private business.
Where appalled customers can walk away from such idiots.
These intrusive Do-Gooders know no limits.
And we have no legal way of excluding them from our affairs.
These kind of costs are incalculable.
On the brightside, CAGW has demonstrated the corruption inherent in government.
The overreach of those who ;Must ,for our own good,rule and regulate all,has led to disaster .
We are rapidly moving from fat and content to hungry and angry.
The delusions of adequacy from our current crop of leaders are wearing thin, the ethical standard they use,best described as Good Enough for Government, is unacceptable to any rational person.
Mass Hysteria has an upper limit and we are soon to arrive there.
Most of us know that there is no cure for stupidity, gullibility however can be reduced by the University of Hard Knocks.
As the joke goes;”What did environmentalists use for night time illumination before candles?”
Electricity being the answer, as so many poor taxpayers are coming to realize.
Naturally these things are all symptoms of full blown Kleptocracy.
For which I am yet to perceive any peaceful reform.
Governance by fools and bandits for the benefit of fools and bandits.
Such orchestrated schemes as CAGW/CC are business as normal.
Stealing from the many to enrich the entitled few.

Bob Denby
Reply to  John Robertson
July 30, 2017 9:44 am

Well said John!

Robert W Turner
July 30, 2017 9:50 am

It’s tragically comical to read the Guardian journalist’s take. They are cult zealots defending the cult leaders after they were caught doing something deplorable. They are truly brainwashed, as are millions of indoctrinated laymen in the world, and that’s why this scandal was so easily covered up.

July 30, 2017 10:13 am

the deception is similar to the war mongering, mainly by the weapon manufacturers’ lobbyists in the USA / UK
Think of the wars [ as I recall them respectively] in Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iracq, Kosova, Afghanistan again and now Syria. Does anyone really still remember what it was all about?
There is ample evidence to suggest that 9/11 originated from US defense plans discussed around the time when a war against Cuba was started…

Brett Keane
Reply to  henryp
July 30, 2017 11:57 am

Henry, that is a Marxist reversal of truth, the Big Lie.

Reply to  Brett Keane
July 30, 2017 12:02 pm

I actually forgot to mention the Falkland war and the Uk involvement in the Irack war. No weapons of mass destruction ring a bell maybe?

Reply to  henryp
July 30, 2017 1:39 pm

I assume you are young and given the state of American education are ignorant of the causes of these wars. The reason you don’t know this is the same reason many people don’t know about the truth on global warming – Communist, green, leftist (and recently, regarding Syria, Russian) propaganda.
So here’s the list:
Cuba – A revolution against Batista with a large communist element but supported by most factions of the populace. Castro claimed to be pro-democracy but once in power, killed and jailed those who were in non-communist factions, becoming a dictator. Several years later, the US helped instigate the Bay of Pigs invasion by anti-Castro Cubans, but did not support them militarily in the fighting, for which Kennedy was much criticized.
The Korean War was simply a massive invasion by North Korea, that almost completely overwhelmed South Korea. If the United Nations (militarily, mostly the US, but many countries committed troops) had not come to the rescue, all of Korea would be under Kim’s dictatorship.
Vietnam, similarly, was an invasion of South Vietnam by Communist North Vietnamese troops. There were indigenous Communist forces (Viet Cong) supplied and commanded by North Vietnam, but the major force against the government was North Vietnamese military infiltrating into South Vietnam and carrying out full military operations. In fact, during the Tet Offensive the Viet Cong were essentially wiped out as a significant military force. The North attacked again a couple of years after the peace accords with a full-scale invasion with their over a million man army and hundreds of Soviet tanks. It was a full-scale conventional war.
Afghanistan was an invasion by the Soviet Union in order to support the Soviet-backed ruler of the country. Many forces were aligned against it including the Taliban Islamic radicals who ended up taking over the country and enforcing strict Islamic law.
Kuwait was caused by the full-scale invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Essentially, he just wanted to take over Kuwait, and did. (By the way, almost all of Hussein’s military equipment was from the Soviet Union and Russia, with a small portion from France and Italy – the US contribution was insignificant.) A large coalition of countries led by the US forced Iraq out of Kuwait and destroyed much of Iraq’s military, but did not invade Iraq in retaliation. The UN put sanctions on Iraq in order to contain Saddam Hussein, but he constantly violated them. He actually killed more people in Iraq than were killed during the invasion of Iraq by the coalition forces. The result of the coalition invasion and subsequent anti-terrorist efforts was a semi-stable successful democracy with all major factions holding at least some power. This all fell apart when President Obama pulled out all US forces, resulting in Shia domination of the government, Kurd and Sunni dissatisfaction, and finally ISIS takeover of much of Iraq. It would have been far less expensive to have maintained a troop presence, as we did after World War II, as a check on dirty dealings in the Iraqi government and for intelligence purposes – where we would have had an idea of what was happening with ISIS.
There was a NATO bombing campaign to support the Kosovar rebellion against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro at this point). This followed the NATO bombing campaign against Serbia to stop the ethnic cleansing of Bosnians in that war. In both cases, the NATO bombing was done to protect muslims and there was actually little military expenses.
The Taliban was taken down in Afghanistan, where the terrorist training camps were, with very little military involvement of the US-led coalition forces. It was done mostly by the Northern Alliance – tribes opposed to the Taliban. This was done after the Taliban refused to give up Osama bin Laden. The military effort is primarily to fend off Taliban attacks to the central government, to prevent a Taliban takeover.
The US has very little involvement in Syria, at least as far as number of military personnel and equipment. There are now some soldiers and equipment there and some air strikes to protect US backed rebels. We’ll see if this grows after ISIS is pushed out of Iraq and Syria becomes the primary anti-ISIS battlefield.
As you can see, weapons manufacturer lobbyists have nothing to do with whether we go to war or not. Usually, it is because Communist countries or other dictatorships invade neighboring countries. In fact, Russia invading Ukraine and taking Crimea and Communist China’s taking and militarizing islands in the South China Sea that belong to other countries and support for North Korea may be the precursors to the next big war. It will not be lobbying by defense companies.
Sometimes US foreign policy is smart, sometimes it is not, but to say that defense lobbyists create wars is just looney tunes.

Reply to  SocietalNorm
July 30, 2017 1:49 pm

And, the Falklands war. Where Argentina’s military junta attacked another country’s citizens and land.
Another case of naked aggression.
In this case, to distract it’s people from poor conditions within Argentina.
So which weapons manufacturer’s lobbyist caused Argentina to invade the Falklands?

Reply to  SocietalNorm
July 30, 2017 2:19 pm

societal norm
clearly you do not understand that since the beginning of time: war is always for profit. Remember the Romans?
Let me make this absolutely clear: To offer the live of even just one of [your USA / UK] people to fight your stupid wars is sin. Jesus and Jewish law are very clear: you shall not kill. God will not forgive you for that unless you repent.
The weapon manufacturers needed conflict and the Cuban war was a first example. The script for this comes even back in series and movies, e.g. if you ever watched ‘Rich man poor man’ a few decades ago. There is a movie now showing that 9/11 was a typical conspiracy event that was started by the war mongers and insurers in the USA. If you want to see it, I will look the title for you so you can watch it. I found the proof of the conspiracy theory overwhelming. But you should see it for yourself. Eventually, the whole event gave Bush the excuse to start a war in Iracq.
The Korean- and Vietnam wars were clearly a waste of many US lives never mind the psychological drama and damage afterwards. For what? What has been achieved? Vietnam is a peaceful country now [they beat the USA] and [north] Korea may yet come back to haunt you. {I am glad I don’t live in the USA.}
What was the point of Afghanistan? There is nothing? I mean absolutely nothing. So the only people who made profits were the weapon suppliers….
And so I can carry on. The list of meddling and proof of the selling of weapons to both parties is endless. Also, the waging of war was many times to ensure the oil supply….
Like I said: war is for profit. Remember that. I wonder what happened to your constitution amendment that said that the USA would not get involved in wars unless it was attacked?

Reply to  SocietalNorm
July 31, 2017 7:01 am

The world goes to war because there is the needed financing courtesy of national banks. The US Federal Reserve was created in 1913. By 1914, the lads from Morgan and Rockefeller were busy underwriting the purchase of all the needed war supplies for both France and England. By 1917, that debt was enormous (and threatened) and so ensued the entry of the US on the side of its debtors. Instead of another failed European war ending in a quagmire, there was a victory. From that victory ensued Hitler and the agonizing Frankenstein of today’s Middle East.

Reply to  henryp
July 30, 2017 4:47 pm

Please remove 911 truther trash.

Reply to  hunter
July 30, 2017 8:13 pm
Reply to  hunter
July 30, 2017 8:45 pm

henryp, you asked if anyone remembered what the wars were all about. I told you. I clearly showed that US/UK weapons manufacturers do not cause wars. Wars happen because of much bigger issues. I can’t help with what you decide to do with the information.

July 30, 2017 10:17 am

As has been said of many other outrages, This is Why We Got Trump.
Normal conventions don’t apply anymore – the system, as it is, scoffs at quaint concepts such as “honesty”, “truth”, and “integrity”. They will do anything they can to gain and hold power, and will use any methods, including outrageously fraudulent ones, to make sure they get away with it.
So Trump may be crude – may be vulgar – may be completely dismissive of normal social niceties. The situation is now so bad is that ONLY someone who is crude and vulgar and who is willing to SMASH existing conventions on a whim can face off against the forces arrayed against us. We tried all the normal, respectable ways of dealing with them. Those ways all failed. Now it is time for HULK SMASH!!!

Reply to  wws
July 30, 2017 11:02 am

Good comment.

R.S. Brown
July 30, 2017 10:19 am

Dr. Ball,
There’s a dimension not fully explored in the second bullet point
summarizing Mosher and Fuller when mentioning “sabotaging
efforts of opponents”.
There have been a number of quality peer-reviewed temperature/precipitation
studies published by non-Team authors not openly trashed or refuted by
the “Team”.
The “sabotage” takes the form of ignoring to death the non-Team work by
never citing the results in “Team” approved studies, articles and reviews.
The ignored authors didn’t even know they are “opponents” of the Team.
The unexplained but deliberate lack of citations is like scenes in a film that
the actor was in but end up on the cutting room floor. They may have been
paid to act, but they don’t show up in the credits at the end of the film.
Is these some “do not cite” list established by the Team players ?

Robert of Texas
July 30, 2017 10:33 am

If you prove the climate scientists lied or covered up or deliberately mislead, then you prove all the politicians (government, university, etc) are also either lying or incompetent. Good luck getting anyone to admit to that. It is in the best interests of all these people to continue to deceive.
Honestly I think most of these people given a reboot in life would come to the conclusion that AGW is at least over-hyped, if not downright wrong. But people have their pride, reputations, and careers to save. They are invested. It takes a strong person to admit they were wrong given the backlash they will face.

The Reverend Badger
Reply to  Robert of Texas
July 30, 2017 4:02 pm

There is always the possibility of a whistleblower or perhaps someone near or past the end of their career or maybe near the end of their life who will “spill the beans” on the lies and deceit. As time passes the probability of one or more of these increases. Could be VERY interesting!
We could also make some efforts to encourage whistleblowing or set up some scheme where those so inclined can anonymously grass-up their fellow workers. Any and all data/info would be welcome, we can sort it for the “gold” as it comes in.

July 30, 2017 10:37 am

Excellent post.

July 30, 2017 11:00 am

Government scientists are not stupid, they know CAGW is a swindle, but ministers go along with it since it has positive effect on the treasury. For every billion they dole-out to the climate science, the UK treasury collects three or four in the green taxes. Governments of various colours went along with it for so long that by now the footpath going back to sanity is crammed with the dense blackthorn bushes.

July 30, 2017 11:44 am

It is good to revisit the corruption that has fueled the increasingly dangerous social madness of climate obsession.

July 30, 2017 11:58 am

The really sad thing is that the message of this excellent post will go nowhere. The mass media will ignore it. It will have no measurable impact on anything. Most of the population will continue to remain blissfully unaware of the facts about climate science. Scarce resources that should be spent on cancer research, education, healthcare, etc. will be massively squandered building windmills and solar panels, which will be obsolete before they become operational How can the messaging problem be overcome?

The Reverend Badger
Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
July 30, 2017 4:07 pm

How can the messaging problem be overcome?
Direct mail shots, leaflets, books, writing to your local paper, giving a talk in your village hall, running a course on “How Climate Really works”, making a YouTube video, getting 1,000,000 likes for “Climate Cat”.
There are dozens of ways, you just have to pick one and get on with it.

Reply to  The Reverend Badger
July 31, 2017 6:36 am

Continue to send money to and support Trump. That’s a sure way. He’s the only person not making money out of supporting the falsity of AGW.

July 30, 2017 12:18 pm

AGW, human caused global warming, is a conjecture with major problems. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evicence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that wamer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere because warmer oceans cannot hold as much CO2 as colder oceans but there is no evidence that the added CO2 adds to the warming. For those that believe in the radiant greenhouse effect, one reasearcher pointed out the the initial calculations of the radiative warming effect of CO2 are too great by more than a factor of 20 because the initial calculations neglected the fact that a doubling of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. So instead of a climate sensivity of 1.2 degrees C we have a climate sensivity of less than .06 degrees C before factoring in feedbacks. An important part of the AGW conjecture is that H2O provides a strong positive feedback to any CO2 based warming amplifying CO2 based warming by roughly a factor of 3. But the reality is that H2O is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere as evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is siginificantly less than the dry lapse rate. More H2O in the Earth’s atmosphere causes cooling and not warming so H2O provides a negative feedback to any possible CO2 warming. Hence instead of amplifying CO2 based warming by a factor of 3, H2O retards CO2 warming by a factor of three so we are left with the realization that following these calculations, the climate sensivity of CO2 is less than .02 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 which is a rather trivial amount.
A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the LWIR absorption properties of some trace gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. There is no radiant greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. It is all a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth where the Earth’s surface is warmer than it would be otherwise because of a convective greenhouse effect which is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the hight of the Torposphere, and gravity. From first principals it has been computed that the Earth’s gravity induced convective greenhouse effect keeps the surface of the earth on average 33 degrees C warmer then wihtout the effect. 33 Degrees C is the amount derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been observed. Additional warming by a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or anywere in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction and because the AGW conjecture is based on a radiant greenhouse effect, the AGW conjecture is science fiction too.

Reply to  willhaas
July 30, 2017 2:32 pm

my results on minimum temperatures show that there is no man made warming

The Reverend Badger
Reply to  willhaas
July 30, 2017 4:18 pm

IF there is no radiative greenhouse effect from CO2 would it not be a good idea to devise a relatively simple, easily repeatable, experiment to so confirm it? Ideally something you can do in schools.

Reply to  willhaas
July 31, 2017 11:00 am

Its the water vapor in the atmosphere that provides nearly all the residual warming. CO2 is a very very small player in this game. Its only around 400 ppm. The AGW crowd overstate its importance in the overall climate system. Natural variability “trumps” everything.

July 30, 2017 1:19 pm

The bottom line is no AGW , no IPCC , it really as simply as that .
So why would you expect the IPCC to behave in any other way ?

July 30, 2017 2:34 pm

societal norm
clearly you do not understand that since the beginning of time: war is always for profit. Remember the Romans?
Let me make this absolutely clear: To offer the live of even just one of [your USA / UK] people to fight your stupid wars is sin. Jesus and Jewish law are very clear: you shall not kill. God will not forgive you for that unless you repent.
The weapon manufacturers needed conflict and the Cuban war was a first example. The script for this comes even back in series and movies, e.g. if you ever watched ‘Rich man poor man’ a few decades ago. There is a movie now showing that 9/11 was a typical conspiracy event that was started by the war mongers and insurers in the USA. If you want to see it, I will look the title for you so you can watch it. I found the proof of the conspiracy theory overwhelming. But you should see it for yourself. Eventually, the whole event gave Bush the excuse to start a war in Iracq.
The Korean- and Vietnam wars were clearly a waste of many US lives never mind the psychological drama and damage afterwards. For what? What has been achieved? Vietnam is a peaceful country now [they beat the USA] and [north] Korea may yet come back to haunt you. {I am glad I don’t live in the USA.}
What was the point of Afghanistan? There is nothing? I mean absolutely nothing. So the only people who made profits were the weapon suppliers….
And so I can carry on. The list of meddling and proof of the selling of weapons to both parties is endless. Also, the waging of war was many times to ensure the oil supply….
Like I said: war is for profit. Remember that. I wonder what happened to your constitution amendment that said that the USA would not get involved in wars unless it was attacked?

Tom Halla
Reply to  henryp
July 30, 2017 5:22 pm

I wonder just where you went to school, as you have bought into most leftist conspiracy theories out there, and the fringe of leftism at that.

Roger Knights
July 31, 2017 2:19 am

Tim Ball: “Probably beyond any other frustration in today’s world is the complete lack of accountability and punishment of any person other than ordinary citizens at the bottom of the economic and social ladder. The political power elite and those they often use and sometimes protect are rarely brought to justice.”
If the pranksters on Olympus turn down global temperatures, alarmists will be left twisting in the wind, piñatas for our side.
And if temperatures stay down for a decade, establishment science, academia, and science groupies won’t live it down for a century. Or more. “Scientists say …” or “environmentalists worry …” will evoke ridicule.
(Ironically, half the time the ridicule will be undeserved. But that’s how the screw turns.)

July 31, 2017 6:31 am

Dr. Ball. Thank you. The Voice in the Wilderness is getting louder. We await the Canadian Court’s decision on Dr. Mann’s lawsuit to greatly magnify that resonance.

August 1, 2017 2:07 am

What a racket this whole debacle is and continues to be. It looks like it will run and run.

August 7, 2017 9:34 am

I would like to see the IPCC side predict something that comes true. Science needs this exercise: prediction ==> verification. So far, after 20+ years, nothing.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights