0xdecafbad.com

There is a breaking news story about a group of hacker types that broke into a computer system, obtained some emails (about 200 megs worth) and released that information to the public.  The institution that was broken into was the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, who provided the key data for the UNs IPCC, shows they suppressed evidence that for the last 10 years climate change is not occuring.  They also discussed ways to discredit and silence dissenters who do not agree with the IPCC report or in climate change on various levels.

This is good news because if it is proved true, and so far confirmations are starting to pour in that the data is in fact true, then all of the doom that was predicted for the planet is completely false.  This means that we are not facing total extinction, sea levels will not rise and flood the coastal areas, crops will not die, we will not experience droughts of epic proportions leading to lack of water and food causing wars (why Al Gore won his nobel peace prize, for helping to prevent hundreds of wars over resource exhaustion related to climate change), and more.

It is bittersweet in that some people wanted a global governance, one government to rule all others.  The recent G20 talks had an agenda items specifically to talk about global governance, the Copenhagen agreement that is to be discussed Dec 7-8 of this year also has global governance as a big part of what it does.  Others that do not want one small group to rule the world can rejoice somewhat knowing that a major blow has been dealt to their arsenal of “reasons” why global governance must occur.

Then we have other issues, such as the cap & trade legislation that is being discussed in the United States.  Obama said that “under my plan, energy costs would necessarily skyrocket”, and this plan will be much harder to pass if it is accepted that climate change is a farse.  It means that we do not have to kill jobs, kill the economy, and ensure that individuals are unable to afford electricity to provide cooling in the summer and heating in the winter.

There are some unintended consequences of this, and already the opposition is afoot creating article after article pushing to go forward with the climate change legislation, now more than ever.  This shows that the agenda is not really about climate change but rather about control over the people by controlling the economy, jobs and more.  If the science is doctored as admitted by the Climatic Research Unit, then there is no compelling science to pass this legislation, which leaves only the side effects of passing it as the primary motivation.

Now lets look at what the CRU did.  They massaged the data to hide cooling trends, all the while reporting that the Earth is warming.  They doctored temperature data, in essence lied about it, to create totally fabricated reports indicating a problem exists, and money should be paid to them and others to fix a problem that does not exist.  They engaged in character assassination of anyone who disputed these findings.

What does this mean?  Well it shows me that the UN IPCC is corrupt, and I do not believe they did not know that the data was doctored.  The UN refused to let the raw data become available, even to the IPCC scientists, as such they had to rely on CRUs massaged data, why?  Well in my opinion it is because the UN knew that the data was bogus.  Of the 2500 names on the IPCC report on climate change, most were politicians or clerical staff.  Looking only at the scientists, there are two groups largely, those that supported the notion of climate change, and those that opposed it.  There was never a consensus over this, anyone who did not agree that 1. climate change is real and 2. man is to blame, was silenced, and anything they contributed was discarded.  Scientists who were not listened to in the creation of the IPCC reports have sued to get their names removed from the report.  The IPCC knew there was dissent in the scientific community and suppressed it, showing to me that they knew that the science was not settled, and that things may not be as they appear.  This tells me they probably knew or should have had reasonable cause to know that the data they were getting from CRU was less than accurate, especially after a decade of failed predictions regarding weather.

The UN also is the sole creator of carbon credits, they get a fee for each carbon credit that is created.  As a result they have a financial desire to perpetuate the scam.  The Copenhagen agreement gives them even more powers over financial markets, allowing them to regulate, shutdown and even tax 2% on those transactions.  This gives them an incredible amount of power over the finances and thus job creation in any given country.  By arbitrarily being able to restrict how much manufacturing can occur in one country vs another they have an immense level of power, what large business or government would not exchange favors for preferential treatment under such a system?

It is my belief that more actually knew that the science was bogus, and massaged data to coincide with the findings that climate change was real.  There is certainly a huge governmental desire to use this “crisis” as a tool to gain even more power over areas of the world they did not previously have power.

Climate change is less about the environment and more about business.  General Electric (owner of NBC) is poised to make billions if cap & trade passes in the United States.  Al Gore, who went from $2 million to $100 million in a few years all relating to climate change is posied to make billions, possible become the richest man in the world, surpassing Bill Gates and the owner of Ikea.  They clearly have plenty of motive to support known doctored information, and indeed Al Gore has been caught doctoring information relating to climate change in his book/movie.

It is my hope that the UN looses credibility, I have not believed they have been credible for decades.  They have had problems with corruption, with no bid contracts to family members, to a great many things.  I also hope that those who are pushing climate change as a means to create a global governance also lose credibility and their other angles to achieve this political goal can be quashed.

This is however a developing story, until people go back and remove the “tricks” used to suppress cooling trends and recalculate the data this can go either way.  The biggest thing that will happen out of all of this is transparency with the data, and more ability to be a dissenter and present your own findings and conclusions.  This means a return to real science instead of pseudoscience working only on pre-processed spoonfed data sets with self review instead of peer review.