Meltdown of Global Warming Hoax
Global Warming For Dummies in 1:21 seconds….
Those who think that the United Nations will protect human rights,
Sunday, November 22, 2009
This archive presents over 120Mb of emails, documents, computer code and models from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, written between 1996 and 2009.
The CRU has told the BBC that the files were obtained by a computer hacker 3-4 days ago.
This archive includes unreleased global temperature analysis computer source code that has been the subject of Freedom of Information Act requests.
The archive appears to be a collection of information put together by the CRU prior to a FoI redaction process.
DOWNLOAD/VIEW FULL FILE FROM
http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009 or http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94
Climategate: Investigation Demanded
Climategate – CRU Source Code Confirms AGW Fraud From Hacked Documents
In every call for more power for
government there should be a reminder that nothing in the
measure will abrogate the constitutional rights of American citizens.
We must not destroy freedom in the name of defending freedom.
It is explained here:
WATCH THIS VIDEO:
“And Not a Shot is Fired” by Jan Kozak,
This is the manual for taking power through crisis.
These techniques have also been revealed by “defectors” such as Eric Blair, who wrote “1984”, under the pen name of George Orwell.
Nineteen Eighty Four (1984) by Orwell
The book called “Tragedy and Hope” was written by Dr. Carroll Quigley. Carroll Quigley claimed that he was not a “defector” but that he wrote “”Tragedy and Hope”” to PROMOTE what he called the “network”. Dr. Quigley is an authority on the world’s secret power structure because HE IS ONE OF THE INSIDERS. He boasts that he has been a part of this network for most of his life. He writes approvingly of their power, and influence. To assure his readers of his own qualifications for the writing of this book, Dr. Quigley states:
“I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies. . . but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”
Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time
Liberal university college professor Carroll Quigley praises the efforts of “an international Anglophile network” whose goal is to rule the world. He boasts of having been permitted “to examine its papers and secret records,” and confirms the existence of an over-arching conspiracy, and details the origin and eventual power of the CFR and allied groups. (1997 ed, 1348pp, hb)
How to become a dictator
The creation of “emergencies” is a part of the totalitarian agenda. The creation of “emergencies” gives the government an excuse to “crack down”. Then the creation of tyranny becomes justifiable and inevitable.
When “emergencies” erupt the population accepts totalitarian measures as “the
only alternative to the chaos”. The action is in the REACTION.
This tactic is called “pressure from above and pressure from below”.
The Communist book, called “And Not a Shot is Fired” by Jan Kozak , explains this entire strategy. Jan Kozak, who was then a member of the Czechoslovak Communist Party Central Committee, explains how a free government was actually transformed into a totalitarian dictatorship – legally. “And Not a Shot Is Fired” originated as an internal Czechoslovak Communist Party strategy paper.
“And Not a Shot is Fired” is a “‘how-to’ manual for takeover of a free and elected system of government, through legal means. Kozak’s discussion is not theory about what “might” be possible to accomplish the seizure of power. It is a history of a technique that was actually proven, by its implementation.
And Not a Shot Is Fired by Kozak –
Jan Kozak explains
Pressure from above is what Jan Kozak called “revolutionary parliamentarianism”. “Revolutionary parliamentarianism” means working INSIDE of the system to change laws in such a way as to increase the power of government.
Pressure from below consists of the creation of the “emergencies”; which are then used as the excuses to increase the power of government. Karl Marx referred to pressure from below as “the proletarian struggle”. Pressure from below might involve violence, or it might simply be the creation of the appearance of popular support for the increase in the power of government.
Our government leaves our border WIDE OPEN to illegal aliens, but then claims to “protect” us, by creating totalitarian measures against law abiding American citizens.
WASHINGTON TIMES EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling
EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling
Junk science exposed among climate-change believers: Terrorists use Democratic talking points
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.
It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.
Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline [in temperature].”
Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that “scientists often used the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem ‘and not something secret.’ ” Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming “to hide the decline.” Given the controversies over the accuracy of Mr. Mann’s past research, it is surprising his current explanations are accepted so readily.
There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone” and, “We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report]?”
In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: “I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”
At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, “I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails.” He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that “IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on.” Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn’t be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.
Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones’ institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it’s difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.
We don’t condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain’s Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.
Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.