ClimateGate! Hacked CRU Data exposes Global Warming Fraud

[truthseeds]

Globalist minion Al Gore and the United Nations climate change shysters led by Phil Jones are in trouble. Last week hackers uncovered a pile of email and documents revealing what many of us already knew — the climate change agenda is based not only on easily debunked junk science, but outright lies and deception.

In the wake of the damning revelations exposed by these anonymous hackers, the climate change snake oil salesmen Gore and his complaisant entourage of now discredited scientists are in full retreat. Even the corporate media — guilty of peddling the fabrication of man-made climate change for years with the best propaganda money can buy — are desperately scrambling to put the best spin possible on the emerging travesty.

In the above video, Alex Jones examines the startling revelations of the CRU files and spells out what it means for the global elite who have planned to use the ruse to impose crippling carbon taxes and put the finishing touches on their global totalitarian super-state and its accompanying control and slave grid.

Infowars and Prison Planet are now feverishly going through the documents and will post the result in the hours and days ahead. In the meantime, here are a few quotes from the perpetrators:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Kevin Trenberth <[email protected]>

I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.

Phil Jones <[email protected]>

In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.

Mike MacCracken <[email protected]>

Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also – relevant to your statement – A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world… (See the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published).

Tim Johns <[email protected]>

Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don’t want to give them something clearly tangible.

Phil Jones <[email protected]>

Looks pretty good to me. Only one issue. In our discussion of possible participants in Bern, I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong) we concluded that the last two on the list (w/ question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to concensus [sic] and progress.

Christoph Kull <[email protected]>

Mike, I agree very much with the above sentiment. My concern was motivated by the possibility of expressing an impression of more concensus than might actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not ‘muddy the waters’ by including contradictory evidence worried me. IPCC is supposed to represent concensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence. Of course where there are good reasons for the differences in series (such as different seasonal responses or geographic bias) it is equally important not to overstress the discrepancies or suggest contradiction where it does not exist.

Keith Briffa <[email protected]>

The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline. So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.

Michael E. Mann <[email protected]>

RELATED: Global Warming On Trial: Inhofe Calls For Investigation Of UN IPCC

RELATED: “Climategate”: Peer-Review System Was Hijacked By Warming Alarmists

RELATED: Call For Independent Inquiry Into Climategate as Global Warming Fraud Implodes

RELATED: Climatic Research Unit Hacked E Mails & Data (Full File Of Hacked E Mails)

and...

Climate cuttings 33
DateNovember 20, 2009 CategoryClimate

General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.

In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I'll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.

* Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
* Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
* Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
* Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".(1075403821)
* Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
* Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
* Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
* Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
* Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)
* Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap.(1257532857)
* Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
* Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
* Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)
* Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
* Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
* Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
* Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
* Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
* Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)
* Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
* Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
* Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
* Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
* Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
* Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
* Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
* Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
* Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
* Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
* Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
* Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
* Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
* Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
* Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
* Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
* Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
* Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
* Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
* Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
* Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
* Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
* Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
* Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
* David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
* Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
* Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the head" will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
* Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)
*


Update on November 22, 2009 by Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Updated to add links to the online database of the emails at Elegant Chaos.
Update on November 22, 2009 by Registered CommenterBishop Hill

)Here's more:

* Phil Jones having problems with explaining issues over the Lamb image of global temps in the early IPCC reports. Says it shouldn't be discussed openly at Real Climate. Says better left buried.(1168356704)
* Phil Jones emails Steve [Schneider], editor of Climatic Change [plus others, editorial board of the journal?], telling him he shouldn't accede to McIntyre's request for Mann's computer code. In later email to Mann ("For your eyes only, delete after reading") Jones says he told Jones separately [presumably meaning without saying to the rest of the board] that he should seek advice elsewhere and also consult the publisher and take legal advice.(1074277559)
* Briffa says he tried hard to balance the needs of the IPCC and science, which were not always the same.(1177890796)
* An anonymous source says that robustness problems with the Hockey Stick are known to anyone who understands his methodology. The source says that there will be a lot of noise over McIntyre's 2003 paper and that knowing Mann'svery thin skin he will react strongly, unless he has learned from the past.(1067194064)
* Giorgio Filippo (University of Trieste) says that IPCC is not an assessment of published science but about production of results. Says there are very few rules and anything goes. Thinks this will undermine IPCC credibility. Says everyone seems to think it's OK to do this.(0968705882)
* IPCC review editor John Mitchell says that the issue of why proxy data for recent decades is not shown (he says it's because they don't show warming) needs to be explained. [Note to readers, this was not done Let's say that the explanation was nuanced - it said that the divergence problem, as this issue is known, was restricted to a few areas]. Also says that Mann's short-centred PC analysis is wrong and that Mann's results are not statistically significant.(1150923423)

[pritchet1]

I lost my last job because of my stance on this. Now I've been vindicated!
Climate Depot
An Elegant Chaoes Searchable list of damning Emails.
Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science

[ithink]

Globalist minion Al Gore and the United Nations climate change shysters led by Phil Jones are in trouble.

This is of epic proportions. And were we not warned about "secret combinations"? This is just as significant as would be a discovery of internal memos regarding 9-11.

THX, truthseeds.

[Col. Flagg]

I lost my last job because of my stance on this. Now I've been vindicated!
Climate Depot
An Elegant Chaoes Searchable list of damning Emails.
Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science

Pritch, you got fired over your belief about global warming? Me thinks you should file a wrongful termination lawsuit for that! GW is nothing but a fraud and a hoax designed to help politicians collect more money in taxes and to impose even more regulations on an overly-regulated world for more control, not to mention helping usher in a one world 'government'.

[NYsentinel]

http://letsrollforums.com/cia-silenced- ... 580p3.html

Checkout the postings
2 videos proving gag order on 911

http://letsrollforums.com/cia-silenced- ... 580p4.html


Posted by Paul Isaac Jr

[Jason]

more here - http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9651

[Jason]

Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies' refusal - for nearly three years - to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding "ClimateGate" scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries' freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK's East Anglia University.

All of that material and that sought for years by CEI go to the heart of the scientific claims and campaign underpinning the Kyoto Protocol, its planned successor treaty, "cap-and-trade" legislation and the EPA's threatened regulatory campaign to impose similar measures through the back door.

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/cl ... ment-cei-f

[pritchet1]

I took a job that pays less than I was getting on Utah unemployment benefits (I'm extremely under-employed, but I have a job, which more than 55% of the country does not at the moment), just to get away from the former boss harassment and his two failed attempts at trying to keep me from getting unemployment benefits. He also used me as an example in the Salt Lake Tribune in June regarding an article on "Job Loss". The official excuse for me no longer working was "economic conditions". The real reason was because I am a temple-recommend and temple attending Latter-day Saint and that just pisses off the anti-Mormon crowd to no end (David's Outcasts Yahoo Forum - don' to there unless you want to be targeted too by about 278 former members of the church with a whole lot of spiritual baggage and millstones about their necks).

His loss. Now he is back with his anti-Mormon wife (previously separated because of me, apparently) developing an "alternative energy" housing project in Utah. No Mormons need apply.

He was exced back in the '90's. Some of you know his name. He will remain un-named by me.

You will find my articles on "Global Cooling", "Anerobic Oil", "North American Oil Fields", "Downsides of Compact Florescents", etc. on peswiki.com (use the search function).

"His" new religion is Environmentalism. He thinks there is money there. I wish him well, so no, I will not sue. That is not God's Way. What my former boss did is between him and God, not him and me. I learned it is not a good idea to work for former members of the church. I also learned how critical it is to have the spirit of discernment at all times.

I exposed the ClimateGate issue before it became de reguer last year. I still have bruises from those who want to control the rest of us through depopulation mechanisms and reduce our quality of life.

[NYsentinel]

You know times are bad when forign terrorist get constitutional protection
and US Navy Seals get CourtMarshalled for catching Terrorist


Strange Days

[ereves]

Ya this really is huge news I can't believe it... Like Alex Jones says in this video, this could set a precedence for hackers revealing the truth about a lot of things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwWMMz5L ... r_embedded

2 Nephi 30:16 Wherefore, the things of all nations shall be made known; yea, all things shall be made known unto the children of men.
17 There is nothing which is secret save it shall be revealed; there is no work of darkness save it shall be made manifest in the light; and there is nothing which is sealed upon the earth save it shall be loosed.
18 Wherefore, all things which have been revealed unto the children of men shall at that day be revealed; and Satan shall have power over the hearts of the children of men no more, for a long time.

[Rose Garden]

This is good news, but will it really make a difference? The mainstream media is just ignoring it, like always. Won't they just keep going like nothing happened?

[BroJones]

Thank you for posting this, Truthseeds and also Robert P.

I'm very concerned about this "cooking of scientific data" in order to achieve political ends.

In this case, I have long argued as a scientist myself that the data do NOT show that man's actions are responsible for the "global warming" of the past few decades. I like to point out that the melting of the polar ice caps on MARS cannot be blamed on SUV's on earth. Further, the earth shows COOLING since 1998. Variation in the SUN's output of energy accounts for both of these important data... which you won't see discussed much in the media!

I think this is what's happening -- the sun's output was higher back for several decades leading up to 1998, but now the sun's output is decreasing. This is what solar physicists are saying.

I am VERY concerned that the distortion of the science, blaming global warming (lately changed to "climate change" -- very vague) on man's actions will be used in Copenhagen next month to push for a GLOBAL GOVERNMENT... read, New Global Order.


Incidentally, I recently saw a front-page article in the BYU newspaper in which a group of BYU scientists wrote a letter to the Utah legislature, supporting the "man-made" global warming argument (of Gore et al.) and urging Utah to join in doing something about it. Very sad to me... but my voice at BYU has been silenced pretty much.

Still, a BYU student recently recognized me and said he appreciated my work on 9/11, so I know there are some students there who are able to get information on their own and do the critical scientific thinking. Thank goodness for the internet! indeed, I thank the Lord that we're able to get facts out and challenge "cooking the data".

Now if we can just stop Obama from signing the Copenhagen treaty next month... or get ready for the "CHANGE" that Obama promised...
Distorting scientific data for the purpose of achieving 'global" goals really concerns this scientist!

[pritchet1]

On AGJ (American Grand Jury) last night (conference call), we were told that if the Copenhagen Treaty is signed by the POTUS (and he will), we can say goodbye to the US Constitution forever, since our freedoms will be kissed away by legal edict of the UN.

How do we stop this?

[Toto]

How do we stop this?

I just listened to Lord Mockton on Alex Jones http://www.prisonplanet.com/lord-monckt ... inals.html and it seem to me this gentleman is more of a patriot than the vast majority, and I do mean VAST MAJORITY of Americans!

In part 4 of five, 07:05 / 10:55, Lord Monckton quoted Thomas Jefferson verbatim:

"”I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

He the went on to say:

“Now what we are faced with is a tyranny worldwide over the mind and body of man and it is the duty of every red blooded United States Citizen to oppose with every fiber of his being what is being done in his name by this administration to try to sign away your Constitution at Copenhagen.”

I wanted to relate a little story. In 2002, a group of us were traveling to the District of Criminals to deliver petitions for redress of grievances when our group had in meltdown at Independence, Missouri. The secretary of state for the State of Utah attempted to swear me in as the head of the Utah Militia. Nothing official mind you; I never took an oath of office, nor am I claiming such a position. But being as dumb as a rock as I was, and still are, I wasn’t cognizant of the significance of this act until Edwin Vieira Jr. started what he said was the most important work he has ever done.

That being said, and in answer to Robert’s question, I would offer his thoughts on this issue. You can read it in its entirety here:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin201.htm

“WE THE PEOPLE need to create actual workable institutions that take advantage of the economic resources THE PEOPLE command—that THE PEOPLE are the true source of all real wealth in this country, and are in actual physical possession of most of it.”

[buffalo_girl]

For whatever good it will do, I am writing a fax to our Senators this evening. As I read it, Congress is responsible for Treaties, NOT the President.

If we do not hold Congress responsible to uphold their obligation to the Constitution then we really can't say "I fought to save the Constitution!".

I'm weary beyond words of trying to get these wooden heads in Washington to take their jobs seriously. Nevertheless, according to D&C 101 we have the obligation to 'petition the judge' and then pray that those in power awaken to their duty lest "the Lord arise and come forth out of his hiding place, and in his fury vex the nation;"

Without our appeal to those in power over us to do what is right, I'm afraid the Lord will withhold his hand. Things are going to become much worse under an international treaty. The time for us to act is NOW!

81 Now, unto what shall I liken the children of Zion? I will liken them unto the parable of the woman and the unjust judge, for men ought always to pray and not to faint, which saith—
82 There was in a city a judge which feared not God, neither regarded man.
83 And there was a widow in that city, and she came unto him, saying: Avenge me of mine adversary.
84 And he would not for a while, but afterward he said within himself: Though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this widow troubleth me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.
85 Thus will I liken the children of Zion.
86 Let them importune at the feet of the judge;
87 And if he heed them not, let them importune at the feet of the governor;
88 And if the governor heed them not, let them importune at the feet of the president;
89 And if the president heed them not, then will the Lord arise and come forth out of his hiding place, and in his fury vex the nation;
90 And in his hot displeasure, and in his fierce anger, in his time, will cut off those wicked, unfaithful, and unjust stewards, and appoint them their portion among hypocrites, and unbelievers;
91 Even in outer darkness, where there is weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth.
92 Pray ye, therefore, that their ears may be opened unto your cries, that I may be merciful unto them, that these things may not come upon them.
93 What I have said unto you must needs be, that all men may be left without excuse;
94 That wise men and rulers may hear and know that which they have never considered;
95 That I may proceed to bring to pass my act, my strange act, and perform my work, my strange work, that men may discern between the righteous and the wicked, saith your God.

[Toto]

I share in your sense of urgency B.G.! I sense this latest revelation that is the topics of this thread this may be the last opportunity to re-establish constitutional government. Lord knows there is no longer a legitimate Judge, Governor, nor President for which to importune.

I have been wondering for some years now what it is that is meant by “my strange act”? Perhaps we shall soon find out.

[Rose Garden]

For whatever good it will do, I am writing a fax to our Senators this evening. As I read it, Congress is responsible for Treaties, NOT the President.

If we do not hold Congress responsible to uphold their obligation to the Constitution then we really can't say "I fought to save the Constitution!".

I'm weary beyond words of trying to get these wooden heads in Washington to take their jobs seriously. Nevertheless, according to D&C 101 we have the obligation to 'petition the judge' and then pray that those in power awaken to their duty lest "the Lord arise and come forth out of his hiding place, and in his fury vex the nation;"

Without our appeal to those in power over us to do what is right, I'm afraid the Lord will withhold his hand. Things are going to become much worse under an international treaty. The time for us to act is NOW!

81 Now, unto what shall I liken the children of Zion? I will liken them unto the parable of the woman and the unjust judge, for men ought always to pray and not to faint, which saith—
82 There was in a city a judge which feared not God, neither regarded man.
83 And there was a widow in that city, and she came unto him, saying: Avenge me of mine adversary.
84 And he would not for a while, but afterward he said within himself: Though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this widow troubleth me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.
85 Thus will I liken the children of Zion.
86 Let them importune at the feet of the judge;
87 And if he heed them not, let them importune at the feet of the governor;
88 And if the governor heed them not, let them importune at the feet of the president;
89 And if the president heed them not, then will the Lord arise and come forth out of his hiding place, and in his fury vex the nation;
90 And in his hot displeasure, and in his fierce anger, in his time, will cut off those wicked, unfaithful, and unjust stewards, and appoint them their portion among hypocrites, and unbelievers;
91 Even in outer darkness, where there is weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth.
92 Pray ye, therefore, that their ears may be opened unto your cries, that I may be merciful unto them, that these things may not come upon them.
93 What I have said unto you must needs be, that all men may be left without excuse;
94 That wise men and rulers may hear and know that which they have never considered;
95 That I may proceed to bring to pass my act, my strange act, and perform my work, my strange work, that men may discern between the righteous and the wicked, saith your God.

Buffalo Girl, I agree with you and would add that this scripture points out a very important principle that many ignore these days. We are supposed to start with the judge. In other words, we are supposed to start close to home and only move on to the higher powers if our own state government will not protect us. How many of us have petitioned our individual state legislators for help recently? Or for that matter, even taken the city, county, and state elections seriously. The idea that we have to get Washington to change is a lie perpetuated by Satan, because the power we have over them individually is so minuscule, it's hardly worth mentioning. We need to start where we will most likely have the most effect.

[buffalo_girl]

Yes, I have been remiss in contacting our local elected representatives. Last time I went to the county commission meeting, they were more concerned about when 'dinner' (means lunch here) would be served during an emergency management exercise than about what sort of emergency a county with less than 4500 people could have.

Problem is...they didn't listen to the people who lived behind a causeway to the golf course which has served as a dam to spring flood waters in previous thaws. As some of you know, in late March between massive ice blocks and a record snow melt, that very golf course causeway served to dam those blocks & water destroying all the homes behind it . Miraculously, no human lives were lost, although 3500 cows, 200 sheep, & 500 horses were from the backup and subsequent dam burst of water & ice blocks the size of pickup trucks.

FEMA & the National Guard rushed in leaving behind unanswered questions and a good many homeless folk who had owned their homes & property. Seems like the disaster has somehow created a new federally designated flood plain which somehow doesn't factor in any compensation for the people who lost everything. The only real help I observed through it all was from volunteer groups.

I would just like the Government in all its flavors and colors to simply leave me alone! I mean LEAVE ME ALONE!

I wrote to our Senators in Washington. They have the power to oversee any treaties the President decides to sign. In this case, we need to contact our Senators. I'll post my letter as an incentive for others to do likewise.

[Jason]

Al Gore confrontation...
http://restoretherepublic.net/Gary/vid/1151

[buffalo_girl]

I have been wondering for some years now what it is that is meant by “my strange act”? Perhaps we shall soon find out.

I'm quite sure "my strange act; my strange work" refers to Temple Work. Follow the footnotes through the various scripture references. It looks to me like being temple worthy and working to bring about the salvation of the dead is what will create an obvious and visible change in those who are about the Lord's 'strange work'. That change will make it increasingly obvious who are righteous and who are not.

[Toto]

I believe roserum is correct. The change has to come from the bottom up and in practice it seems like flogging a dead horse considering the apathy on the part of the People. It would seem the People have become like the people Moses led out of Egypt who had been enslaved for so long they no idea how to govern themselves, expecting Moses to solve all their problems.

It’s an interesting game when you walk into a court room and confront the judge with the evidence he isn’t a judge at all. Either they beat you up on procedure, or else they employ guns and fists over the law. Then after you have been captured by the enemy, you get beat up in their confinement facilities, and when you seek medical attention for your wounds, the medical establishment tries to lock you away in a mental institution! In another court case we saw one judge bail when confronted with the evidence, (He must have had to go change his diaper) and the other judge wiggled his way out by letting the defendant slug it out with a banks attorney in a private room without witnesses. When the defendant prevailed, the judge said, “It does my heart good to seen two men can settle their differences.” I thought to myself, yea right, it does you ego good to know you still have your bogus job!

Heavy sigh!

The only solution I can see is to displace these imposters by holding valid election and filling the vacant positions with public servants bound by oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitution, but I’m not quite sure that is possible given the losing of consciousness I have observed. If it doesn’t happen NOW, everyone’s going to be so broke they won’t have the resources to do anything about it at all!

I’ll have to follow through on the strange act thingy as you suggested B.G. I thought the word “strange” was, well, strange?

[buffalo_girl]

I thought the word “strange” was, well, strange?

Well, yes, "strange" to the world in that the Lord is retroactively 'correcting' the destructive influence death has had on mortal history.

Anyway, if I'm correct in my interpretation of Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution which says:

"He (the President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate..."

I wrote the following to our Senators in regard to the upcoming Copenhagen, Denmark climate 'treaty' signing:

Dear Senator _______:

We must express our grave concern in regard to the internationalist treaty President Obama is anticipated to sign at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark in the next few days.

We are adamantly opposed to the Cap & Trade legislation considered by the Senate. The ‘CO2 threat’ to global climate is based on spurious research and data manipulation.

It has become increasingly evident that international financial interests who follow a globalist agenda will be the only beneficiaries of a contract which will bind and further cripple the United States - a once great industrial nation which held aloft a light of hope for prosperity and liberty to every nation on Earth.

Although the President of the United States has power to make treaties with a foreign nation – according to Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, that treaty must be approved by means of the ‘Advice and Consent’ of two-thirds of the Senate before it becomes binding.

We beg you to use every resource and energy with which you are endowed to defeat such an agreement! This nation is in a mortal struggle against a philosophy of collectivism which by its insidious process of incremental government intrusion into every aspect of our individual rights and liberties has all but destroyed Our Constitutional Republic.

Congress refused to hear the Voice of the People in regard to last fall’s Bail Out legislation. Had you listened to us then, we would not have been looted and pillaged of our wealth by an arrogant elite who now laugh at our polite requests for an ‘accounting’ of how our money was dispersed.

PLEASE counsel the President of the United States to decline signing the Climate Agreement in Copenhagen, Denmark! Should he determine to do so, we beg you to challenge his right to do so without the Advice and Consent of the Senate.

Our sincere regards,

Signing international treaties is the work of our Federal representatives and cannot be fought at the local level.

[Toto]

The tail wagging the dog…
ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY

Global Warming Hoax, Planned in 1961
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcuylMr ... r_embedded

Debt For Land Swap

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
--Thomas Jefferson

"Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people."
--Henry Kissinger



THE BANKERS HAVE A “NEW PLAN.” THEY WILL TAKE THE NATIONS LAND AND CANCEL THE DEBT OF THAT NATION. IT I CALLED A DEBT FOR LAND SWAP. THIS LAND WILL BE HELD BY A “Word Conservation Bank” owned by of course the “rich men of the earth.”. THEY WILL THEN OWN ALL THE LAND, ALL THE RESOURCES, ALL THE FOOD.

THEN THEY BECOME THE MASTERS AND THE PEOPLE THE SLAVES.

This is all pre 1991

“The process of national interests will of course have to take place…”

“International economic security is inconceivable unless related not only to the world’s environment but also to the elimination or the threat to the world’s environment…” (private property rights)

“Let us also think about setting up within the framework of the UNITE NATIONS A CENTER FOR EMERGENCY environmental assistance.”
--Mikhail Gorbachev; December 8, 1989, speech at the UNITED NATIONS


Additional Reference: http://www.freedom-school.com/truth/chapter11.htm
Home Page: Freedom School http://www.freedom-school.com/


Global Warming
The Counterfeit Consensus
An interview with S. Fred Singer
On July 24 '97, President Clinton held a press conference with a group of prominent scientists to announce that a scientific "consensus" has been reached on global warming and that the catastrophic effects of man's use of fossil fuels is now an accepted scientific fact, not just a theory. One of the most prominent voices raised in protest against this claim was that of S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the university of Virginia and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project in Fairfax, Virginia. (The Project maintains an excellent website at http://www.his.com/~sepp .) A few days after President Clinton's press conference, TIA Editor Robert Tracinski spoke with Dr. Singer about the alleged consensus for catastrophic global warming and about the real scientific facts.


TIA: At his recent press conference, President Clinton claimed that there is now a scientific consensus on global warming that it is now an accepted scientific fact, not just a theory. Does such a consensus really exist?

SFS: The answer is: No, there is not a scientific consensus. Nor is there ever a scientific consensus, truly speaking, on any issue. But in this particular case, it isn't just a small group of scientists who are holding out, or some crackpots who have a different view. It is in fact a mainstream non-consensus. The shoe is on the other foot. The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], the scientific group that advises the UN, consists of a small handful of the political type of scientists and a large number of cooperating scientists who supply information. The claim that these 2,000-odd scientists are all in agreement is sheer nonsense. They have never been polled, they have never been surveyed, and in fact when they do speak out, when their opinions have been recorded, they express grave doubt about the main conclusion of the IPCC, the main scientific conclusion.

So global warming is a theory. It has not been verified that is, it has not been shown to be as large, or even present, as the theory predicts. And the basic consensus is, as it should be, that we cannot at the present time at least verify the theory. Now the theory of course will change, it will be improved, and there will come a time when the theory and the observations and the facts will agree. But I predict that this will happen only after the theory scales down its predictions of future warming.

TIA: Scales down from a disastrous warming to a small warming?

SFS: Yes. I think most scientists believe that there should be a small warming produced in the next century. It may be so small that it will not even be detectable because of the natural fluctuations that will hide it. And certainly it will not be consequential it will not have any important consequences. I think that's the mainstream view now.

TIA: But there is a widespread perception that there is a consensus in favor of catastrophic global warming.

SFS: The word "consensus" is being used politically to hide the fact that the observations do not agree with the theory, or that the theory has not been validated. And you have to understand that all of the predictions of a future warming a major warming are based on theory. Since the theory has not been validated and cannot be validated, those who have a political agenda are trying to get around the scientific facts by claiming a consensus which in fact doesn't exist.

TIA: By what mechanism, then, has the appearance of a consensus been manufactured?

SFS: That's a very interesting question. As I said, the IPCC reports do list 2,000-odd names of people. By far the majority of them are not in any way, shape, or form climate scientists. The fact that should make one suspicious is that they include people all the way from Albania to Zimbabwe. And, you know, it is hard to believe that those names nobody's ever heard of are in fact climate scientists. These are people who are listed as "contributors," which means only that their name was used or their work was used in the report, but not that they were responsible for any part of the report. Or, most often, they are so-called "reviewers." The reviewers are given a part of the report and asked to express their opinion on it. If they give a negative opinion, they're still listed as a reviewer. And I recognize many names in this list of people who had negative opinions or skepticism expressed about the report, or parts of it, and they are still listed as reviewers and counted among the consensus.

TIA: That even includes some people who have prominently spoken out against the global warming theory?

SFS: Yes. They include such people as Pat Michaels, Robert Balling, Richard Lindzen, John Christie, and others.

TIA: Do you find it significant also that many of these reports are sponsored and funded by government agencies, so that you have people involved who have an interest in making it look like there's a need for regulation?

SFS: Well, you have to understand that government agencies get their money from Congress by telling the Congress that this is an important, vital problem affecting the future of the united States, and the future of our children, grandchildren, etc., etc. In other words they have a vested interest in stating that this is a serious problem.

Once they have done this and obtained the money, they then pass it on to scientists who make proposals, or to scientific groups that want to do certain projects and get grants or contracts. You can well imagine that they would be reluctant to give money to someone who comes up and says: I can show you by research that this is not a problem, that this is a phantom problem, or it is not a serious problem. So inevitably the money is spent on people who can convince the bureaucrats in the granting agencies that this is a problem and that their research will establish it.

TIA: Do you think this has the effect of suppressing people who might otherwise speak out and challenge the alleged consensus?

SFS: Yes, I think it has an effect, particularly on younger researchers in universities. You have to understand that the young researchers, assistant professors, let's say, who do not have tenure, get tenure generally by showing that they've done important publications. To do important research publications, you have to do important research. To do research, you have to have funds. To get funds, you have to write proposals that get funded. So you have a chain of events here that predisposes these people to go in for research that looks as if it supports a global warming catastrophe.

TIA: There are a number of voices--you, Patrick Michaels, Hugh Ellsaesser--who have spoken out against global warming. Do you think that there are enough people and that they have a significant chance of being heard?

SFS: I think that the number of people who have spoken out is growing. And you can also tell that they are becoming fairly influential by the fact that they are being attacked everywhere. I see attacks on Pat Michaels and others everywhere. Some of these attacks are scurrilous, ad hominem some of these tell lies.

A classic attack has come from an author by the name of Ross Gelbspan. He has written a book called The Heat Is On, in which he attacks individuals who have expressed skepticism. Of course, it doesn't go into the science at all. All of these attacks avoid the science and concentrate on smears. Gelbspan's book, for example, attacks me also, and claims I did not deny, for example, getting support from the Reverend Moon. Of course, if he'd asked me, I would have told him that we do not get support. But he bluntly states that I did not deny this you know, this is a wonderful way of letting the reader think that he's actually talked to me.

TIA: I saw on the Science and Environmental Policy Project's website a review you wrote of a similar book by Paul Ehrlich.

SFS: Paul Ehrlich has also attacked people. His book is called The Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future. It's a particularly bad book because it also hands out pseudo-science. At least Gelbspan just attacks people. He doesn't pretend to do any science or to get involved in science. But Ehrlich thinks of himself as a scientist, although he has no credentials in climate science whatsoever.

TIA: I like the point you made in your recent Wall Street Journal editorial ("A Treaty Built on Hot Air, Not Scientific Consensus," July 25), that "science doesn't operate by vote"--that even if there were a consensus, if the consensus contradicts the facts, it's wrong.

SFS: I think that's well established, among scientists certainly. We know that scientific advances are usually made by a small group, sometimes just a few individuals, sometimes just one individual, who disagrees with the accepted wisdom, and states his arguments, and eventually his view wins out.

TIA: What are the facts concerning global warming? What does the scientific evidence support?

SFS: In a nutshell ... I think the crucial observations are those made from weather satellites, which show no evidence of any global warming in roughly the last 20 years since we've had data available. Independently, we have data from weather balloons, which give exactly the same results. So this is very strong evidence, because it is independently supported, showing no warming. Whereas the climate models predict a very strong warming taking place right now as a result of increasing carbon dioxide. There is no question that carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere, but we do not see a corresponding warming. So we have to accept the fact that even though carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, for some reason the warming does not appear.

Now there are many ideas as to what may be causing this discrepancy, but the fact that there is a discrepancy is important and needs to be stressed. If you look at the IPCC report, you will find that they hide this fact, that they do not even mention the existence of satellites. And they certainly ignore the satellite data. So they only list the data that would tend to support their view. And one piece of data they list is the fact that the climate has warmed in the last hundred years, by one degree Fahrenheit. Well that's true, but it warmed before 1940. Now you see how they cleverly distort the evidence, because if they told you that the warming took place before 1940, you would immediately realize that it had nothing to do with human activities. Industrialization took hold mainly after 1940, after World War II.

I think the important thing is to be scientifically correct, because if you don't have a problem, you shouldn't be looking for solutions.

The above originally appeared in the print version of TIA, September 1997.

Copyright © 1997, by TIA Publications, Inc. Permission to distribute this article in electronic form is hereby granted provided that the article is reproduced whole and without modification and is accompanied by this notice. This editorial originally appeared in the The Intellectual Activist and is posted in the TIA web pages at http://www.IntellectualActivist.com. The Intellectual Activist is published twelve times per year; for a one-year U.S. subscription, send $48 to: TIA Publications, Inc., PO Box 262, Lincroft, NJ 07738. (Student, foreign and multi-year rates may be obtained from the TIA subscription page or from the preceding address.)

P.S. I think an informed populous would hold constitutional elections and displace all the pinheads supposedly holding positions of public office at the local, followed by the national level.

"Gentlemen, Comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep."
-Mikhail Gorbachev, in addressing the Soviet Politburo in November of 1987

[Toto]

Dear Senator _______:

We must express our grave concern in regard to the internationalist treaty President Obama is anticipated to sign at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark in the next few days.

That was most excellent! Thanks so much for all you do B.G. You’re a genuine peach!

[Toto]

Well, yes, "strange" to the world in that the Lord is retroactively 'correcting' the destructive influence death has had on mortal history.

In a strange way that makes sense to me. I suppose we should have hope that those who have been deceived into worshipping the god of this world, Lucifer, will wake up, realize their eternal progression hangs in the balance and repent of their evil ways as there is no salvation on the road they are traveling. They should be included in our prayers.
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 8&p=103069