CLIMATE alarmism’s primary objective is to scare you and policy makers into belief such that your taxes are effortlessly diverted, with little to no scrutiny, into research grants and green schemes and scams to supposedly stop bad weather by changing the temperature of the planet. Yet, no one can ever tell you by how much the temperature will change for each dollar spent. But alas, “Saving The Planet” is far more important than how your hard-earned money is spent, right?
CLIMATE research is paid for by you in the form of government grants. And, thanks to the system of
pal peer-review, the most scary studies, prefaced by “anthropogenic” are given the green light, published in science journals with results interpreted by the compliant mainstream media and delivered back to you, to scare you even more such that you will happily donate more money to the scam research.
A google search with key words [climate research + climate change worse than we thought] illustrates 1,960,000 times in 0.45 seconds the effect that monopolistic or one-way funding has on published results…
CLIMATEGATE Related :
- ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’ | CACA
- Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation – Telegraph
- MUST READ : Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review | Fred Pearce
- The Climategate Chronicle: How the Science of Global Warming Was Compromised – SPIEGEL ONLINE
- IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud – The New American
- Climategate 3.0: FOIA – The Man Who Saved The World – Telegraph Blogs
- The CRU Mails
- Tom Nelson: 50+ Michael Mann ClimateGate emails
- Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 | Mail Online
- But I thought the ‘science was settled’ | Las Vegas Review-Journal
From: Phil Jones <email@example.com>
To: “Michael E. Mann” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !