Saturday, December 5, 2009

Global Warming Was a Fraud and Is Still a Fraud.

When I was working at Riverbend Stables in Rockford Minnesota in the 90's, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its report, (based on the data out of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia), that 2000 scientists had come to the "consensus" that "Global Warming" was a real and urgent problem brought on by human industry.

The debate was over, so they said.

I found that interesting and did some research. You see I am a member of "The River Warren Research Committee" (RWRC).

I am the editor of "The Warren Report" the official newsletter of RWRC. You can read some fun and informative past issues Here.

At that time here in Minnesota there was a great "debate" ongoing over the condition of the Minnesota River in southern Minnesota. Very much like the UN, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)had issued a report stating that the Minnesota River was on the verge of ecological collapse and that great changes were necessary to save it. The "solutions" to the "Problem" offered by the MPCA where drastic and wide ranging.

The Minnesota River watershed covers about a quarter of the state and they suggested draconian measures to address this "calamity". Greater restrictions on farmers, large fees and fines to change behavior, identify and dealing with "bad actors", and purchasing huge swaths of land by THE STATE to remove it from private hands, was just some of their plans.

For some reason they think property held by big distant governments is better than in the hands of local individual Americans and Minnesotans.

What was most interesting was the interim report half way through the MPCA and Multi-agency report on the Minnesota River. They say in it they have not reached any conclusions and then outline a whole host of conclusions and recommended policies based on them.

This is known as aprori reasoning. They already had the conclusion and were tailoring a "scientific" report to support it, much like the UN and its global warming study.

This is bad science.

Also similar, was that what was finally released in both cases was the "executive" review of the study, a overarching review of the massive multi-agency study.

In both cases the individuals in the larger study were given a small focus to address and were usually unaware of the activities of the others involved in the "global" study.

In the UN's case most of the "2000 scientist" were not atmospheric and the like, but "social" scientists, specializing in modifying human behavior, not hard scientific study of our natural world.

In both cases the executive study was written for political, rather than scientific concerns. In reviewing both, you are hard pressed to find the data in the main study to bolster the conclusion in the executive study.

The River Warren Research Committee issued a study to rebut the official MPCA (and other Federal and State Agency study) Although a little dated, it still holds up and can be read in full here.

It is very informative and is well worth the read. It also comes to some very different conclusions because it takes into account some extremely important factors ignored by the government agencies looking for more money and power.

The Minnesota River is naturally a flood prone, sediment laden stream due to its very unique geological characteristics. Not because of human farming in the watershed, contrary to the official position.

With that in mind, all the expensive, intrusive and behavior changing policies pushed by the government seem unnecessary and irrational. Just like the UN's global warming nonsense.

Now the UN is found in a situation similar to the MPCA.

Especially in light of the correspondence between the so called "scientists" at the UN that shows them fudging data, stifling debate, and denying peer review to opposing viewpoints and outright professional destruction of skeptical scientists.

The debate is over if you, like Al Gore, refuse to debate.

You can and probably should read some of these behind the scene UN correspondences here.

"On 20 November 2009, emails and other documents, apparently originating from within the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

From the link above...
"The authenticity of these emails has been confirmed by most of the relevant parties including the CRU at University of East Anglia and many of the authors. These emails contain some quite surprising and even disappointing insights into what has been happening within the climate change scientific establishment. Worryingly this same group of scientists are very influential in terms of economic and social policy formation around the subject of climate change."

Here is a little taste of the "scientists" internal conversations..."Hi Keith,
Thanks--yes, we seem to back in the days of McCarthyism in the States. Fortunately, we have
some good people who will represent us legally pro bono, and in the best case scenario,
this backfires on these thugs..."

What is the scientific method?..It is the taking of a hypothesis, generating a repeatable experiment-removing as many external factors as possible, issuing studies open to peer review.

Science is based on skepticism. Show me the data...nothing but the facts mam...repeatable experiments, and open and honest debate and rebuttal with others.

They wont show their data or computer models. Why? That's sound science?

Science is not dropping a paper on the table and saying the debate is over, no matter what your station in life. ( being an ex vice president of the United States.)

That didn't seem to matter to the ClimateKooks. They marched forward with their predictions of dire calamity. Everything from death of millions of people, flooding coastlines, fires, floods,pestilence, hurricanes, even increased poison ivy.

Here in Minnesota, we have for well over a decade, put in place policies and behavior modifying rule, regulations, and taxes to combat this phantom menace. All the while the STATE run media blares out these terrible predictions, Minnesota is under threat and we have to act NOW!!!!

These have made electricity more expensive, gasoline more expensive, automobile more expensive (and dangerous read this newsletter with information on deadly FEDERAL CAFE standards for autos.)

There is no time to wait they say. All the while HUGE sums of money are spent by governments on individuals, groups,"non-profits" and agencies.

These grants and tax dollars have, and still are corrupting.

"Our studies show a great concern and need for more studies". Of course they do.

What a racket. The MOB could only dream of such returns...then again where/who is the MOB now?

Like the MPCA, the UN is lying to take your money, property, freedom and future.

They think too many people are living, or aspire to live, the lifestyle enjoyed by Al Gore. Lots of homes, lots of cars, lots of travel, lots of wine and dine.

Speaking of Al, I was at the gala premier of his polemic "An Inconvenient Truth" what a farce. Even the United Kingdom ordered that when shown to children in school it has to first list the 17 proven factual errors in the propaganda film poured into the minds of these poor kids.

Our leaders are telling us to do with less. Turn down the thermostat, eat less meat, unplug your cell phones, drive less, buy less, use less; or we will all fry and the polar bears will die.

What a bunch of nonsense from the do as I say, not as I do crowd.

It is sad to see a whole generation of Americans (the 60's crowd) so blithely give up their and YOUR (and your children s) freedom for such irrational claptrap.

Sensing a little problem the eco-freaks, true to form, want to change the rules in mid game. Now they want to talk of "climate change", as opposed to the discredited "global warming". What a farce.

They seem to put little value in Liberty, at least yours that is. They demand theirs.

Freedom is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others.

Hopefully, this worldwide deadly delusion has started to come to an end.

As they say at the River Warren Research Committee, "Truth is an Alternate Form of Expression".

The folks in the media should give it a try some time.


  1. Hey,

    Nice post. You might find my latest at
    of interest,

    but this:
    is even better.


  2. Better still, you can find a four-part series at:

  3. Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AGCC) advocates constantly tell us the scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports the theory of climate change. When phrased this way, they are absolutely correct. No one with more than half a brain would argue that the climate is continuously changing. The dispute arises when the know-it-alls say CO2, especially human-produced CO2, is causing it.

    There are tens of thousands of credible scientists doing valid research and analysis, the results of which do not support the claims of AGCC.

    In fact, much of the case for AGCC is tautological in nature. What AGCC proponents basically say is: The climate is changing. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing. Therefore, CO2 is driving climate change. Further, human industry creates CO2 as a waste gas. Therefore, human industry is the cause of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Ergo, human activity is driving climate change. From this we get AGCC.

    Bear in mind, the term global climate change replaced the term global warming, but it is still global warming that is the concern expressed by the Algorian Doomsayers.

    Two things to consider.

    1. It is almost universally accepted that the global climate was markedly warmer 700 years ago and people then seemed to like it that way. Researcher Michael Mann of "hockey stick" graph fame found this to be problematic and carefully massaged his data to hide this warm period on his graph. He then did his best to stonewall anyone that wanted to check his work.

    2. AGCC alarmists tell us that, in the last 150 years, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has climbed from 280 parts per million to 380 ppm. So what exactly does this mean?

    It means that, as a percentage, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has climbed from .028% to .038%. If we were to double the CO2 concentration as currently reported, we'd still be talking about less than one percent.

    I recently developed the concept of the "two percent solution." I have found that when do-gooders decide to attack a "problem" they find objectionable, they almost always go after a "cause" that actually accounts for less than five percent(and is usually 2% or less) of all inputs leading to said "problem." The one common denominator in all this do-gooder activism is that the 2% they go after is always some aspect of human behavior.

    Beware the attack of the two percenters.

  4. Correction.

    In the first paragraph it should say climate isn't continuously changing.

  5. Another correction (sorry).

    In the second to last paragraph, it should say less than one tenth of one percent.