August 25, 2012
According to its official website, the Bilderberg group is composed of "leading citizens on both sides of the Atlantic" from the spheres of government and politics, finance, industry, labor, education and communications. Closely working together since 1954 to solve problems of critical importance, their ranks include high government officials, the royalty, media representatives, bankers and CEOs of corporate giants. Rather than 'leading citizens', they are better described as prominent members of the global elite. In congruence with this fact, their meetings are kept strictly private.
The manner in which this clique of the ruling class makes decisions affecting the rest of us is largely a mystery and as such has been target of speculation among alternative thinkers and writers. While it is unclear how high on the planet's hierarchy the group is, it is safe to say that their influence is considerable and they have access to raw data not necessarily shared with the population. For these reasons, it is significant that their last meeting was announced as follows:
"The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 - 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations. Approximately 130 participants will attend of whom about two-thirds come from Europe and the balance from North America. About one-third is from government and politics, and two-thirds are from finance, industry, labor, education, and communications. The meeting is private in order to encourage frank and open discussion."
Specifically, the reference to Global Cooling - unlikely to be a simple mistake - appears to be an astonishing admission that the decades-long official discourse on climate is propaganda. (Indeed, at the time of writing, Polish and Russian forecasters are predicting the coldest European winter in 1,000 years.) Furthermore, it speaks of the contempt with which our leaders regard the masses, and reminds us of the level of corruption that has prevailed in the production of what now appears to have been a 'Global Warming' scam.
The first public revelation that climate data has been cooked took place last year, not long before the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen from the 7th to the 15th of December. Thousands of files and email exchanges were stolen from a server of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (Hadley CRU) - a stronghold of scientists who support the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming theory - and published on the Internet, sparking the scandal now referred to as 'Climategate'. Hadley CRU's record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The authors of the emails compose a small group of key scientists who have been most influential in driving the global warming agenda for years.
The emails suggested manipulation of data to support their thesis. There were also private admissions that the globe is not warming as expected; as well as indications of peer pressure to exclude global warming skeptics from the debate. A great deal of animosity against their opponents was also evident - all of which suggested a significantly less than scientific approach to the issue.
Perhaps the most damning email was the one written by the now former CRU director Phil Jones, which read:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998."
Phil Jones claimed that the word 'trick' was used "colloquially", as in "a clever thing to do" and that it "is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward." Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, defended Jones by arguing that "scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something - a short cut can be a trick." While this may be technically correct, it does not explain why a scientist would make use of a 'clever short cut' to hide the decline of temperatures.
Another interesting email read:
"...Phil [Jones] and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH [Northern Hemisphere] records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back - I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP" [Medieval Warming Period], even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back..."
What is being discussed here is extending the record back another 1,000 years in order to 'contain' the Medieval Warming Period. By emphasising that the MWP was limited to a certain period of time and that it was preceded by a cool period, it could be portrayed as a minor anomaly in the overall trend, allowing them to buttress their case that recent warming is unique and man-made. However, they had to face the problem that the Northern Hemisphere records from beyond 1,000 years ago up to 2,000 years ago was sparse and therefore not as robust as the last 1,000 years. They were not trying to 'hide' the MWP as such, but to downplay its significance by relying on the 'dozen' records which represented global temperatures that just happened to be cooler than the MWP in the preceding 1,000 years - the only data available to these scientists. In short, they were cherrypicking data and fixing it around their pre-established 'fact' that the planet has experienced an overall increase in temperatures and that this increase can be linked to human activity.
The following, by Kevin Trenberth (from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research) was particularly revealing of the way in which the flow of information gets corrupted:
"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."
Although at first glance this appears to be evidence of another 'trick', Trenberth - who has in the past written articles wondering why the planet is not warming as the models predicted - might have simply been expressing an honest concern. He is writing that the data coming from the satellite CERES (the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System), points to more warming, but that this is not being measured by thermometers on the ground. CERES is part of the EOS program (Earth Observation System) and it is used to "study the energy exchanged between the Sun; the Earth's atmosphere, surface and clouds; and outer space." Trenberth claims that the data measured by the satellite shows a global energy budget that should be warming the planet when in fact it is not. He then adds "the data are surely wrong" because they do not correlate with the fact that the Earth is cooling, therefore the observing system - of the satellites - is "inadequate".
What makes his observation interesting is that it shows how a small group of scientists responsible for key data - such as satellite data - have the power to influence the scientific community at large that and there is little or no oversight to guarantee that their data is correct. Given the inconsistencies in the Global Warming discourse, we are tempted to ask if such key pieces of information are not subject to intentional manipulation from parties with agendas other than strictly scientific. The scientific establishment is similar in structure to any corporate or military establishment: it's bureaucratic, hierarchical and each field of study is compartmentalized, rendering honest and open communication between scientists across fields difficult.
There were a few other emails of interest as they showed how the extreme lack of professionalism that appears to dominate in scientific circles and the little respect these scientists have for their colleagues. One climatologist expressed his desire to "beat the crap out of" skeptics, another gloated over the death of one of the first climate change skeptics, commenting: "In an odd way this is cheering news." In another example we find a scientist emailing the journal Climate Research to tell them "I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor" who had published articles that were skeptical of Global Warming.
The leaked emails were followed by further inconvenient truths at the beginning of 2010, when the scientists behind the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which alarmingly claimed that the Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035, admitted that the claim was taken from a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) document, which in turn was based on an article in the New Scientist magazine published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report. The 1999 New Scientist article was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then stationed at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Hasnain has since admitted that his claim about the Himalayan glaciers was "speculation"; not supported by any formal research. Furthermore, he had only been referring to a portion of the glaciers. Here we see the process by which suspect science can make its way up through various channels to the point of being cited as 'hard evidence'.
The 2007 IPCC Himalyan glacier report is one of the documents that CRU 'Climategate' scientists in England and the United States had discussed when they proposed destroying their communications as a way to preempt freedom of information requests to turn over files that would have exposed how they manipulated the facts around the theory. Despite this, today Dr. Hasnain leads the glacier research team at an Indian environmental think-tank run by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC.
Why do these scientists seem to care so little about scientific truth? F. William Engdahl has observed that the glacier scare was a major selling point for the IPCC agenda, given that meltdown of the Himalayas implies massive flooding in India, China, and the entire region surrounding the Tibetan Plateau. The company at which Dr. Pachauri is director-general and Dr. Hasnain is a senior member of staff, the Delhi-based Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), has won a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from a US charity, the Carnegie Corporation, along with a share in a €3 million study funded by the European Union. These were awarded largely thanks to Dr. Hasnain's glacial speculation.
The 2007 IPCC report contains serious math and factual errors. It claimed that the Himalayan glaciers shrank from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers, when they in fact only cover 33,000 square kilometers in total. It specifically states that the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840 meters in 120 years at a rate of 135.2 meters per year, when the real rate is only 23.5 meters per year.
Furthermore, Dr. Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the report's chapter on Asia, has admitted that the glacier claim was only included in the report to heap political pressure on world leaders. In his words:
"It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in."
The IPCC report goes on to incorrecty state that 55% of the Netherlands lies below sea level, when the correct figure is only 26%. In another inaccuracy, the report cited the WWF as claiming that climate change could endanger "up to 40 per cent" of the Amazon rainforest. The author's of the cited WWF report claimed their findings were based on an article in Nature. However, the focus of the paper was not global warming but the effects of logging.
Computer programmer E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo have investigated the manipulations of data at the NASA Goddard Science and Space Institute at Columbia University in New York and the NOAA National Climate Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina. What they found is that data pertaining to the rural and high altitude temperatures taken from the ground-based stations around the world had been ignored and only the data from stations located in urban and coastal areas were used; in this way, scientists edited out 75% of the data from stations used before the 1990s. Since cities and coastal areas are naturally warmer, the resulting numbers give the incorrect impression that the globe has been warming in the last decades as compared to previous decades. Notice that the East Anglia Institute which was at the center of 'Climategate' is fed data from those two US agencies, NASA and NOAA.
More recently, the global warming campaign has suffered yet another embarrassment after an anonymous member of the public spotted satellite data that showed a handful of temperature records for the US Great Lakes had been hiked up by hundreds of degrees to substantially inflate the average temperature range for the northeastern US. As a result, the average temperatures for the whole country are shown to be 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit above what they really are. It was on the basis of these readings that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported a succession of "record warm summers" in recent years. The story of the incorrect data has now been confirmed by NOAA's Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis, and the original heat map removed from their website.
Since it is unlikely that all of the above are a simple series of honest mistakes, we must ask if there is an agenda other than a strictly scientific one driving the discourse of Global Warming as a whole. In searching for possible motives the $2.7 billion carbon emissions market overseen by the UN appears as a plausible candidate. This scheme effectively permits polluters to continue with their less than optimal practices as long as they pay money for it. The hype over reducing the 'carbon foot print' of industry is also set to make certain individuals very rich. Al Gore for example is a founder of Generation Investment Management a UK based company that has substantial interests in 'green technology'. Gore is also heavily financially invested in Silver Spring Networks, a US company that has contracts with utilities that in October 2009 received a combined subsidy of $560m from the US energy department.
'Global warming' is also a najor money-making opportunity for the financial establishment. JP Morgan Chase, Bank America Merrill Lynch, Barclay's, Citi Bank, Nomura, Société Générale, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are actively involved in carbon trading. According to a Guardian report of late 2009 "the carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market if the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU's emissions trading scheme have their way". The speed of the growth of the market depended on the success of the Copenhagen summit. The fact that 'Climategate' eclipsed it demonstrates the monumental importance of a well informed public.
The agenda of the 'Global Warming' scam artists notwithstanding, the facts are indisputable: our planet is cooling, and cooling at a far greater rate than expected. Within the past few years, China has had its coldest winter in a century, Baghdad and Dubai saw their first snow in recorded history, South Africans woke up to their first white mantle, North America has seen the most snow-cover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin experiencing the highest levels since record-keeping began and Texas receiving an unprecedented 2 inches. Added to this, record levels of Antarctic sea ice have been recorded, with extreme cold in Minnesota, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, Spain, Argentina, Chile, Peru...the list goes on and on.
Last year, William Patterson of the University of Saskatchewan in Canada analyzed mud deposits form Lough Monreagh in Country Clare, Ireland and discovered something remarkable. Until now, scientists had believed that the last mini-ice age (about 12,800 years ago) took about 10 years to settle over Europe. Patterson's findings however have shown that it took as little as three months: It would have been sudden for those alive at the time. It's the equivalent of taking Ireland and moving it to the Arctic over the space of a few months, or a year at most", he said.
As never before in our modern history, we are being lied to on a persistent and massive scale about everything of any importance to humanity and our future. My advice is to take with a very large grain of salt somewhere in the region of 100% of that which issues from the mouths and keyboards of big-government-sanctioned scientists, media pundits and former Presidential candidates, to name but a few. Alternatively, you can just assume that they are self-interested pathological liars, ignore what they say, do your own research and, of course, keep reading the Dot Connector Magazine.
This article was originally published at SOTT.net. She original article for related links and important documentation.
Andrés Perezalonso has been a contributing editor for Signs of the Times (SOTT.net) since 2007. He holds a PhD in Politics, an MA in international Studies, a first degree in Communication, and has a professional background in Media Analysis. He is passionate about understanding current events and believes this can only be achieved through an interdisciplinary approach.
The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...
The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors. Please make a tax deductible donation today.
The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...
The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a tax deductible donation today.