Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. blog comments powered by Disqus

Letter To Obi Wan Kenobi

tom-harris
Dear friends,

I apologize for addressing you so impersonally but time is short if we
are to mount a significant counterpoint to the scientifically invalid
assertions already being broadcast by the 1,500 journalists and 7,000
environmentalists attending the UN climate conference now underway in
Qatar.

Please find below our "Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the
United Nations" to which we are inviting your endorsement.

Because we have an agreement with a major media outlet to publish the
open letter on Thursday, I will need to know of your support in the
next day if possible, please.  Endorsers may be added later for Web
versions of the letter but only those who have notified me of their
support by then are guaranteed to be included in the list of endorsers
published by the major newspaper in question.

The open letter and the list of endorsers will also be submitted to
the Secretary General with a brief cover letter from myself by e-mail
and by courier. Your endorsement of the open letter would be clearly
indicated as only applying to the “Open Letter to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations” below, not to the cover
letter or any supporting material we may provide.
Here is the text of the open letter (underlined phrases are active Web
links) that we request that you allow us to list you as endorsing (for
those of you who signed any past open letters organized by ICSC, I
already have your complete credentials and affiliations. For others, I
request that you let me know how you would like to be identified in
the endorser list):
____________________________________________________

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations
First Avenue and East 44th Street, New York, New York, U.S.A.

November 29, 2012

Mr Secretary-General:

On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme
weather due to climate change is the new normal ... Our challenge
remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to
strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a
legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the
main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”
 On November 13 you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should
waste no more time on that debate.”   The following day, in Al Gore’s
“Dirty Weather" Webcast, you spoke of “more severe storms, harsher
droughts, greater floods”, concluding: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy
struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the
reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of
dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our
dependence on carbon emissions.”

We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to
state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your
assertions.

The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been
no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years.
During this period, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations
rose by nearly 9% to now constitute 0.039% of the atmosphere. Global
warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather
of the past few years. Whether, when and how warming will resume is
unknown. The science is unclear. Some scientists point out that
near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is
also a distinct possibility.

The “even larger climate shocks” you have mentioned would be worse if
the world cooled than if it warmed. Climate changes naturally all the
time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2
have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the
evidence.

The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. There
is little evidence that dangerous weather-related events will occur
more often in the future. The U.N.’s own Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change says in its Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012)
that there is “an absence of an attributable climate change signal” in
trends in extreme weather losses to date. The funds currently
dedicated to trying to stop extreme weather should therefore be
diverted to strengthening our infrastructure so as to be able to
withstand these inevitable, natural events, and to helping communities
rebuild after natural catastrophes such as tropical storm Sandy.

There is no sound reason for the costly, restrictive public policy
decisions proposed at the U.N. climate conference in Qatar. Rigorous
analysis of unbiased observational data does not support the
projections of future global warming predicted by computer models now
proven to exaggerate warming and its effects.

The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years
or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a
discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without
warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their
creators’ own criterion.

Based upon these considerations, we ask that you desist from
exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or
properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that
human influences caused that storm. They did not. We also ask that you
acknowledge that policy actions by the U.N., or by the signatory
nations to the UNFCCC, that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely
to exercise any significant influence on future climate. Climate
policies therefore need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation
to, all dangerous climatic events however caused.

Signed by:

____________________________________________________________________

Please feel free to forward this e-mail to others who you think may
also sign the open letter with the request that they keep it as
confidential as possible until published by media (I’ll let you all
know as soon as that happens).

I hope to hear from you very soon!

Sincerely,

Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario
K2A 4E2
Canada

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org

           613-728-9200
Comments

Global Warming Hoax Identified as Military Deception

thetruthisoutthere_616
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a scientist who applies the laws of physics to the behaviour of the atmosphere must be part of a communist conspiracy to overthrow Christianity and impose a genocidal world government.

However, such consensus can be wrong and it is only now that one of the best-kept military secrets of the last 50 years is starting to unravel. As an example, writing on The Conversation, Glenn Tamblyn, restaurateur and Skeptical Science blogger, slipped up by trying to justify the IPCC view of global warming by claiming that the same physics was the key to the operation of heat-seeking missiles. Once it is appreciated that the alleged physics of global warming is clearly wrong, all becomes clear. The whole global warming hoax is simply a cover story, concocted to conceal how the so-called "heat-seeking missiles" actually work.

As is shown by the
Oregon petition, even Mickey Mouse has been able to see through the cover story. However, as is usual with military secrets, the knowledge that something is being hidden is hard to conceal. The important thing is to divert attention from what is being concealed by coming up with a spurious reason for the concealment and deception.

The "bottom line" is that
all the global warming conspiracy theories (except this one) are part of the same conspiracy as global warming.

This is clearly an Anglo-American operation: most of the impetus is coming from the USA, but the depth and diversity of the deception recalls classic British ploys from past wars. A famous example was the British cover story that the
Zimmermann telegram (offering Mexico parts of the USA if they joined the German side in WW1) had been stolen from the German embassy in Mexico city. The reality was that the British were tapping cables and had cracked the German codes. Similarly in WW2, the British force-fed their aircrew with carrots for the alleged benefits of vitamin A on vision, all as a cover for successes that were actually due to radar. Other such ploys were the false tanks in Norfolk suggesting the D-day landings would be near Calais rather than in Normandy (this was part of the plot of the book and film Eye of the Needle). And of course, there was (or wasn't) The Man Who Never Was where a body was left to float ashore in Spain, carrying a briefcase with what were purported to be invasion plans.

One of the challenges in unravelling the conspiracy to spread conspiracy theories is to identify who was "in the know". In other words who was spreading conspiracy theories knowing them to be false vs who were the gullible who were being fed conspiracy stories that pandered to their vested interests and prejudices.

In Britain, Margaret Thatcher began with the simple greenhouse hoax to misrepresent the properties of CO2 that allegedly allowed heat-seeking missiles to operate. As that story started to fall apart, a cover story was developed to explain Mrs Thatcher's role. This was presented by Nigel Calder in
The Great Global Warming Swindle, where he explained that Mrs. Thatcher had been in alliance with neo-Marxists to break the power of the mining unions. Clearly establishment figures such as Nigel Lawson who served in the Thatcher government will be in on the plot and this explains Lord Lawson's reluctance to reveal the funding of Global Warming Policy Foundation. Similarly Christopher Monckton (the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley) who was a key adviser to Mrs. Thatcher during the Falklands war would be a key part of the organisation. In this he follows the role of his father (the 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley) who rose to be head of PR for the British army. One of the key roles of such high-profile establishment figures is to make regular visits to colonies to deliver instructions to cognoscenti and drop hints to the gullible.

Similarly in the USA the "cold warriors" described in Oreskes and Conway in
Merchants of Doubt are closely linked to the military-industrial complex. Their preferred approach was to denounce AGW as a communist conspiracy and immanent threat to America, long after the remaining communist nations had degenerated into Chinese hyper-capitalism or Korean hereditary rule.

Among the gullible who readily accept conspiracy theories that have been crafted to fit their existing prejudices, Cardinal George Pell is a prime example. Pell has swallowed, hook line and sinker, the view that the aim of scientists in researching climate change is to replace Christianity with a pantheistic religion. Wannabe scientists like John McLean tend to favour the theory that the motivation is simply money, without careful thought as to why anyone would put up the money to bribe scientists in this way. Simpler folk such as Malcolm Roberts, Joanne Codling (Jo Nova) and her partner David Evans cling to more traditional anti-semitic ideas and attribute the conspiracy to "wealthy banking families".

Sitting on top of all this purported motivations, like froth on a sewage plant, is the alleged scientific content: missing water vapour feedback, corrupted temperature data, undersea volcanoes etc. All this is just irrelevant decoration, included in the narrative just to "prove" that there is a conspiracy. In this, Ian Plimer has played a central role because his views are
so inconsistent that there are bits that can be co-opted by anyone.

However producing such a barrage of irrelevant "evidence" carries the danger that the truth could be identified by what is missing-- (as in John Le Carre's novel
The Honourable Schoolboy). To counter this possibility, the true story about the radiative properties of CO2 has been fed into the network of conspiracy theories, but placed in the hand of the supremely ineffectual John Nicol. Indeed John Nicol's views are so systematically ignored by the members of the advisory board that Nicol heads for the Australian Climate Science Coalition, that some of the board members must be "in the know". Thus board member Bob Carter has testified on oath that "all competent scientists acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas".

A more telling example of the "double bluff", in another twist worthy of a Le Carre novel, is the story, clearly planted by British intelligence services, that British intelligence services are to blame for the global warming hoax. In Australia, this story has been placed in the willing hands of the Citizens Electoral Council, who, as followers of Lyndon LaRouche echo his anti-British sentiments, and revive the idea of "genocide" as the ultimate aim of their preferred conspiracy, promoted by the
drug-running british royal family. Thus the truth is concealed by linking it to to the most ridiculous back-story. This sort of double bluff is alien to American thinking. Thus the complementary claim blaming the CIA, "laundered" through mining magnate Clive Palmer, came late in the day and was never seriously promoted.

What we have seen over 2012 is increasing desperation as the scaffolding of conspiracy and counter-conspiracy starts to fall apart. Particular hostility has been focused on a paper by Stephan Lewandowsky at the University of Western Australia. Lew andowsky's "sin" is to identify a tendency for
conspiratorial thinking among those who oppose the IPCC view of global warming. The ferocity of the response reflects how Lewandowsky has come dangerously close to revealing how the intelligence services are acting in planting the counter-conspiracy ideas among those who are receptive.

Similar desperation is the attention-grabbing antics of senior opposition figures in Australia who have gone to the extreme of linking themselves to the Evans/Codling/Roberts "banking families" conspiracy theory, in an effort to distract attention from the emerging truth about the so-called heat-seeking missiles. Suddenly in 2012 we see
Evans and Roberts communicating their long-standing anti-semitic views in the mainstream media, and more tellingly having their views embraced by senior politicians.

Thus when Liberal party power-broker, former Senator Nick Minchin had the chance to present evidence against AGW in the television program
I Can Change Your Mind About Climate his first choice, and only Australian choice, was the Evans/Codling couple.

As variation, current Liberal leader Tony Abbott tends to favour the Galileo Movement (of which Malcolm Roberts is chief executive) as his preferred source of
anti-semitic anti-AGW incitement.

What remains unclear is how the end-game will play out. However our loyal readers can rest assured that we will fearlessly report on developments until the black helicopters come to get us.

Prof Dr Moritz Lorenz. Sarah Palin School of Geography, Economics and Quantum Computing, University of Narbethong, West Island Campus, NZ
Comments