The Climate Fraud

by morton_h, the blogger

Due to a huge interest on this blog, a translation process from Danish to English began some time ago. This is one of the blogs. We choose to relaunch it rather than just adding to the old blog. You will find quite a few translated by now. 

This subject is, unfortunately, still very relevant.

[læs på dansk]

A story of politicized science
In 1988 the message the message for the World was: Now would we definitively have solved the puzzle of climate change. This was before the forming of IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel). Natural climate change was and is and will always be essential for human living conditions, so apparently this was an important step. But when the first reports came out on the Agenda, it was already derailed announcing that it was to be about man-made climate change, and thus the exclusion of all factors of natural climate change.

It surprised many researchers, since the research world was becoming highly aware that in Earth's history a number of crucial and sometimes violent climate changes had taking place. Studies in ice cores, seabed sediments and dendro-chronology was beginning to talk and confirm each other or play against each other. There was a lively, productive and constructive debate. In the 80s, however, entered a completely different and not very scientific agenda and began to mingle: politics. This agenda behaved in such an aggressive way, that in the course of a decade it completely took over the arena.

It was reported in the decade before and around the turn of the millennium the politicians of the discussion was over, that everything was now settled, and that the science now completely agreed that there was: consensus. But the problem then and today is a very significant problem: the debate is just beginning, that nothing has been resolved, and that science deeply disagree with itself. Science had 30 years ago and today has only just embarked on the study and understanding of the complex. Scientists did not reject that people had some kind of influence on the climate, but the forced and totalitarian consensus that suddenly arose, was never on their menu.

Consensus is an alien word for scientists. Science is never about negotiating or enforcing an aggreement. It is all about questioning, experimenting, testing, proving right or wrong. Until no more stones can be turned and no more questions can be made, there is no consensus, which would be utterly counter-productive. Theories and hypotheses are only intermediary steps and not the final. And the science, real science that is, does not talk about consensus but always about proven facts.

The topic of climate change is pretty unmanageable for people who have not obtained a minimal understanding of what creates such a huge phenomenon as climate. We understand that people who are in a small room with smoker in one corner, a person with a bad stomach that constantly escalated in the second, a brow that burns on in the third and windows that can not be opened in the fourth, can create inconveniences. We may need to understand the extent of smog and pollution in urban environments because they are in a kind of confined space, where we can feel the problem directly. But when it comes to something as gigantic as a global climate where the players are oceans, vast tundras, vast rainforests and incredible volcanoes, then we lose the overview. And totally, TOTALLY wrong it goes when you have to consider the earth's climate in a solar or cosmic context.

The money men
Amidst this tangled box of understanding arrived there people with quite a lot of money in their back pocket, and they were certainly not afraid to use them. The major investments were made. Science was basically bought to produce results and statements that could support an already planned conclusion: that it was more or less human beings that controlled the cosmos and the climate! A completely unbelievable statement, if you think about it - and we often do not think but tend to refer to people that claim to have thought! The solar system was parked in a cryptisized and thus irrelevant field. The UN Convention on Climate Change, which preceded the IPCC, presented their plan: to reduce the research committee for the purpose of the study of anthropogenic climate. Exit Cosmos, exit Nature, intro politics.

This shift of 'debate-climate' was a very smart and very inflamed move. People who allowed themselves to advance the now non-politically correct view that human primary responsibility for global climate perhaps could and even should be questioned, were exposed as wasteful. These statements suddenly and strangely enough came out of the mouths of people who before had condemned all talk about environment and pollution. There arose a weird kind of confusion where the public discourse flipped 180 degrees. Simultaneously, environment and pollution in general was washed out of the debate now almost exclusively to be about: climate. While talking about climate, there was to be a constant emotional and moral taste and smell of guilt, shame, debt and correctness in opinion. The alert listener and reader might here note a pattern that has been seen quite a few times in history. An 'operating system' materializes. Science with a magical artificial trick had turned into religion. Knowledge was washed out of the tub, and faith was poured in, faith in the sense of lack of knowledge forming a vacuum now filled up with a prefab system of belief.

The content of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.3% of the Earth's atmosphere. In man's industrialization period, we have increased concentration of 80-90 ppm. There are so researchers who have allowed themselves to ask if this is significant or as claimed even disastrously, but their cautious question was run over with buldozer strenth by IPCC, which also claimed that the C02 in the atmosphere before industrialization had been stable over 100,000s of years. 

Consensus - what a glorious word!
Now it just so happens that science not at all about consensus. We may repeat ourselves here, but this is so important. Science is not democratic, it is not about servicing the majority and certainly not about wiping out differences and nuances. True science is only about full respect of doubt, differences unresolved issues and nuances. Science is about curiosity. The more, the better. It is politics and religion, which is about consensus. Science is about critical thinking, and the word consensus is totally meaningless in this context.

IPCC, and we must give them that, had summoned a huge panel of scientists who worked on a huge range of issues on climate. But when you read their reports, there is immensely little consensus. Consensus itself, in contrast, suddenly appears in the summaries organized by bureaucrats and presented to politicians and decision makers. Here they were told what should be read by this, what should be concluded and extracted by this and most importantly: what should be decided based upon this! Here comes the inflamation. That was the first report. In the next report the summary was even published beforethe real report, meaning that they had written their politician-synopsis months before the report came out, and then demanded that the report should be aligned with the summary!

This kind of prefabricated consensus is a genuine Agenda 21 concept. It is advisable to study Agenda 21 and political correctness. Without a basic piece of homework it is actually hard to comprehend what is going on. NGOs also play an important role in this mega-spin. Agenda 21 is a very comprehensive and very well prepared piece of social-mental-ideological engineering and crowd-management.

Facts
Human industries each year send 5.5 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere. It sounds like a lot, but it must be related to the soil surface in itself delivers 1,500 gigatons of CO2 every year, the atmosphere itself is 750 gigatons of CO2, the plant world produces 610 gigatons of CO2 the oceans store 38,000 gigatons of CO2, and that sea sediments save about 100,000,000 gigatons of CO2. How has so much carbon dioxide ended there? The reason is that our age is abnormally cold compared to previous periods in Earth's history. The content of CO2 in the air has been 10 times as high in periods (Zenosoic, Mesosoic) and vegetation then was overwhelmingly fertile, which the study of plants and their segmented debris clearly has shown.

There are extremely detailed data on the composition of the atmosphere for the last 200 years. These data are documented in solid pier-reviewed literature that is fully accessible. When Al Gore as a representative of the 'agenda' did his show 'Inconvenient Truth', ALL these data were excluded. This led to a comprehensive protest and a document signed by 31,000 scientists calling the show for abuse and falsification of scientific data - this in itself being one 'inconvenient truth' that returned like a boomerang. But no one discovered it, the media aspirated and choked the story. The media were complicit through their ownership. The same who 'owns' science also owns the media.

But ownership of the media of the Western World is a huge story in itself deserving its own blogpost. 

An inconvenient thruth is, that fraud probably will not be sufficient
for surviving a new Ice Age in bare ass.

Climategate
Then came the weird affair, the big leak in two rounds consisting of 1000s of emails circulating in a group of researchers from East Anglia University in England, which confirmed that the data were distorted and scientists and research were manipulated. The statement that the temperature in the course of 10 years had increased in a manner that was unique in the 1000s of years revealed a highly selective use of data which are not adequate with real science.

Temperature measurements are based on three factors:

• ground-based measurements, meteorological stations, airports
• weather balloons
• satelites

The ground-based measurements show an increasing temperature in a 30 years span. The satellite measurements, which is considered the most accurate, show no increase. On the other hand they show a slight cooling in the last 10 years. The American continent, for example. had unusually harsh winters the last few years.

IPCC climate panel based their statements on pre-industrial measurements exclusively on ice cores and very little on dendrochronology and seabed sediments. They build their conclusions mostly on ground-based measurements in the age of industrialization. These measurements are the main problem is that they are composed of many forms of pollution, especially from urban sites.

The inconvenient truth of leaked emails from East Anglia University shows a deliberate effort to hide the fact that the recent climate did not cooperate with the predictions, namely that the curve would rise disastrously and that Doomsday was in sight. The landscape did not behaved according to the map. All the predictions well into the 21st century were based on the fact that this curve was waterproof. But water went through the hull.

However, heavy political decisions were already taken, taxes were implemented, lots of jobs and careers were created in this new 'industry'. The train was running and it had its own inertia. It would now be a big loss of prestige to align theories and statements with the realities and match the map with the landscape. And even worse than that, it would be a disclosure of lying and manipulating science, which by written law in all Western countries is considered a criminal offense. In the emails, the group discussions of certain researchers from East Anglia reveals - and lets just bluntly use the c-word - a conspiracy of how they through statistics could hide their miscalculations. Or their pre-defined results, because it is difficult to say exactly whether it was the chicken or the egg, that arrived here first.

Especially one scientist, Phil Jones, shines through. He was one of the leading climate scientists at East Anglia and provided the IPCC with most of their material. Independent researchers who were not under Phil Jones' supervision and control, had for years called for the raw data, upon which he and his circle based their conclusions. But in vain, for the data were never put forth. In the University's internal mail was revealed the discussion on how to directly avoid The Freedom of Information Act, so that other researchers would not have access to see the raw data. Phil Jones said directly in an interview: 'Why should I give my data to someone who is just out to disprove that I am right?' Well this is not what the whole concept of 'pier review' and scientific integrity criterion is all about?

The whole story is embarrassing for Science as a whole. It is embarrassing when people, who at first are anxious to get as many papers out for pier reviewing in order to promote their career and prestige and to get them funded later are whimping and whining as they turn out to be shit scared of actually being pier reviewed. And now comes the really embarrassing part: as Phil Jones and co. finally had to drop their data, these data had ... disappeared!

We could procede with stories of all the threatened scientists, and all the heads of university departments for climate research, that were fired for just expressing doubts about the inflammatory mechanisms in academia, but it's just too sad, and we shall not go there.

What happened to substance?
However, there is a strange phenomenon in the whole debate that we have to observe. When someone who cares seriously about the matter tries to produce something that has substance, something that has to do with actual knowledge and facts, then another strange something happens. The propagandists for anthropogenic climate completely avoid discussions with substance. They run all sorts of spurious arguments that critics are 'paid by the oil industry' that 'a conspiracy' that they are 'mental disturbed dreamers'. Al Gore called critique 'a form of racists' drawing the typical neo-trotsyist (= neo-con), culture marxist political-correctness card.

The propagandists will use all the classic logical fallacies ad Hominem as their favorite. Dagbladet Information, the Danish former critical and independant newspaper (now just an organ for political correctness), and their climate propagandist, Jørgen Steen Nielsen, said when the second major leak (these people do not get it, do they?) from East Anglia got out that 'the opponents are very well organized in their propaganda'. He called them 'climate deniers' and other politically correct epithets meant to belittle them, and very important: by never getting into substantive facts. One logical fallacy after another will be flying through the air.

As statistician Bjørn Lomborg published his careful and extensive calculations, his opponents never spoke of substance. Especially the political-correctness-infected left neither dared nor were capable of that. They demonized and ridiculed him - typical of culture marxist manipulation tactics - while at the same time avoiding substance. It ended up in the most vicious form of populism and manage back-slapping, and you bewitness the Danish intelligentsia spitting out their sarcasms over a glass of red wine by the dinner parties. Lomborg became a scapegoat and was even accused formally of 'scientific unreliability'. When his accusors had to withdraw the accusation, which in itself was disingenuous, it was swept under the carpet and he was never given a proper redress so that the doubt would hang onto him and not onto them.

It is argued that there are $ 200 million a year donated by the oil industry as support for climate research. Fair enough, it gives reason to look more closely at whether the research sticks to the subject. That does not prove anything, but it says that you have to keep an eye on a possible bias. What apparently does not count for bias is the arrival each year of 30 billions from governments for climate research (American figures, globally it is much larger), and it is apparently not considered a reason to look for an agenda. And politicians have otherwise plenty of those agendas. When made socalled intelligent people stop thinking? 

Wonderful Copenhagen
16,000 delegates flew to the beautiful city in the small state where according to Shakespeare something is rotten. They arrived on first class and in private jets, emptied the entire capitol for limousines, caviar and expensive call girls. And as part of the standard concept the asphalt was cooking, and the parliament of the street including completely random passersby were run in armed vans to the local Guantanamo, an intermediary detention camp in Valby, Cph. NSA tapped into all that they could get close to, we now know. The whole matter was and is so deeply politicized that it makes you vommit wishing for a political detox, an ideological cold turkey in order to get back to real science. Global warming today is a hijacked science.

CO2-commerce is now a derivative industry. It is deeply linked with the 'sub-prime interest rate-industry'. Global warming is the financial industry undertaking an yet another investment. They spit part of their endless billions into trade and reap the ten fold. Did we forget to say that they have themselves pressed their billions (quantized easing)? The day they are revealed - which is happening right now - they vanish from the Earth's surface and in the process of fabricating a new piece of scam. Lack of water, for example, and it is already on the way. They know that they will not be held accountable, for they are 'too big to be prosecuted', just as banks are 'too big to fail'. The CO2 predators have positioned themselves as a gigantic intermediary who pulls 'green taxes' out of this artificially applied trade field.

Al Gore and co. like the sub-prime interest credit industry created a milking machine, that according to this industry does not produce anything other than a trained magician produces on stage: illusion and amazement. The concept is parasitic. Financial Industry produces nothing but feed on all other producing something. It's a crafty industrial cancer, a parasite, a vampire. These people are incredibly rich, but the climate change that a branch of their finance industy on, will not take place - and this is one of the never-discussed facts - by CO2 creating climate change. Climate change and rising temperature creates as a side effectmore CO2 content in the atmosphere. Al Gore deliberately swapped around the curves for the sake for establishing the guilt complex. 

The 'stable' climate
Let's walk-the-talk and get into more facts about global climate. The statement that the climate has been resistant, but then suddenly have changed can very easily be rejected, and quite categorically! If you want to see an example of natural global warming, then study the abrupt shift that happened at end of the last ice age. Here you can, my foot, talk about global warming! In the early Middle Ages, there was even so hot in Europe that you could grow wine close to the Scottish border. A few hundred years later, we see echoes of the Ice Age called 'Little Ice Age', where people could walk across the English Channel. The CO2 fart that was spewed out of Hekla a few years ago and stopped air traffic across northern Europe, delivered more CO2 than the entire planet's total industry makes in 10 years! In light of these tough facts, it must be noted that the term 'climate denial' which the propagandists heap upon, gets quite a self-target-like significance. They in fact are denying essential facts about climate and the causes for its constant change.

The end of the ice age shows severe fluctuations in temperature. It would rise by as much as 15 degrees in just three years, then fall again, and rise again and so on. And it was hardly because there were a bunch a stack of cave men down in Central Italy frying wild boar over an open fire, while they farted and belched. Nature is immense and often violent. The arrival of the ice ages have been equally abrupt. Ice core drilling in Greenland show that all ice ages in the past 250,000 years has arrived over at least 20 years and sometimes over three years! There are even examples of large animals like. mammoth has been snap frozen. Their bodies are caught in motion, they are not just fallen on old age. Some of them still stand up with food in their mouths! If you freeze slowly cell changes and spoilage will occour, but these bodies are so fresh that even the dogs eat them if they are fed. They were simply surprised by a sudden icing combined with intense volcanic activity. * 2 Heat and cold have a close relationship. Science paleo-climatology shows again-and-again that the earth's climate has been extremely dynamic. In the past 2.5 million years the earth has shifted from an almost full-icing to a habitable climate around 40 times. We repeat right again: 40 times!

Volcanic activity on Earth is recognized by science to its full extent. There are a number of, approximately 20, so-called 'super-volcanoes' scattered over the ground. If just one of these went by, there would be a great ice age in the course of a few months. So volcanism, dust, lava, warming would cover the sun, and an ice age would occur immediately. Yet another reason to shake your head listening to these commercial ravings about CO2 and global warming. The situation is 100% completely opposite!

The activity of sunspots is today very low, althougt recently some rising activity has been observed. Talking about the sun as having no importance for the Earth's climate is absolutely frivolous and junk scientific, so we will simply ignore that. There is a close link between the Sun and what is happening on the Earth. A glacial scenario is much more likely than a heating period. And none of these have anything to do with human activity. Exept for the sum of geo-ingeneering and weather modification projects, that the same cabal that has trumpeted the climate fraud is up to, and that draw strange streaks across the sky these days filled with barium, strontium and aluminum. The organizers of this particular form of deliberate anthropogenic climate are very reluctant to tell us about it.

There are many misconceptions about what an ice age is, and what creates the kind. Most people think that it is something that it is just the weather being goddamn shit cold. Not so. It takes only about five degrees colder than average, before the spring grows longer and the autumn shorter and there will be a gradual buildup of ice. There will be more precipitation in the winter and will gradually be lying. The disastrous will not consist in human beings freezing to death in the streets, but more in the fact that we can not get seeds in the soil in the spring, and the cold sets in, before they can reap. We would starve rather than freeze.

Set back in the history of civilization, the mini-ice ages would last about 125 years, been synonymous with civilization's downfall. The Roman Empire fell at such a mini-ice age. Genghis Khan moved free in such a time. Sumer coincided in such a time. What would be the Empire bound to fall this time?

What happened to the environment?
Simultaneously with this curious fraudulent smokescreen the World is floating with serious environmental problems: rivers flowing with poison and shit, the air is crowded with irrelevant stuff, wars in the Middle East resulting in large areas of land flowing with depleted uranium (and no, you do not hear about it on TV ...). The food we eat contains tons of irrelevant products from the petrochemical industry. Fracking destroying underground and fresh water, and endless list of sad, sad calamities. And what is being debated? Climate, CO2-poisoning (as if CO2 actually was a poison), global warming, guilt, shame, debt, taxes, 'carbon-trade'. The politicized junk-science has delivered a huge distraction - on purpose? You don't organize a huge spinn project without it being a multi-pronged maneuver. The environmental movement never saw what hit them, and their naive acolytes did not notice that they were deceived. The immediately adopted climate change adapting to the priorities of the concept. How smart was it not? How convenient un-truthful was it not? Environmental movements allowed themselves willingly to be corrupt and disarmed. Exit environmental debate.

What is very sad is, that the subject of natural climate change meaning EVERYTHING in all of human history for the lives as humans on Earth now is disappearing from our view due to some greedy and petty political agenda, so that we are rendered totally helpless when and if it occurs. Or rather: not if, but when. When the trend goes in the opposite direction, and a new ice age starts, the industrialists will begin to waffle on this being 'due to global warming', and we would be witnessing the sickest of pseudo logics. In fact, they have already started this logic, so take a deep breath.

If you have to describe the living conditions of people in Northern Europe, North America and most of northern Asia 13,000 years ago, the nearest comparison: Antarctica around the South Pole. So take the soil surface, you see today with cities, trees, streams, forests and fields covered with a layer of ice two miles! In approximately 1000 years, which is equal to nothing in the geological history, this ice in the Northern Hemisphere completely disappeared. Speaking about global warming!

Real science is not in any way that stupid and arrogant politicians demand us to agree on. Challenge: if you or someone belonging from the group that has manipulated the minds of millions of people seducing or threatening them to confess to climate religion, then spend 2-3 months out of your life to seriously and unprejudiced studying what science has in fact learned in the last 30 years about the Earth's climate. And then let us hear how confident and dogma-sure you or they will be. It will prove that the problem is far more complex than the mainstream media has presented it.

The above blogpost is based on an interview with Stephen Thomas from realitySandwich.com and Randall Carlson * 1: 
ClimateChangeInterview_01
ClimateChangeInterview_02
ClimateChangeInterview_03 
ClimateChangeInterview_04

* 1
The blogger is a student of Randall Carlson.
I have carefully chosen him because of his huge and incorruptible knowledge of what he is commenting. Another good bet would be to listen to Robert Felix. Both 'renegate'-researchers happen to be architects. The undersigned blogger has strangely enough worked for architectural firms doing CAD drawing. Keeping in mind not to fall into the ditch of religion on the other side of the road. Follow the clues, follow the links, cross-check, verify, think-think-think! You will find lots of references here to the big boys in serious climate research.

* 2
The blogger has as Flash designer had a two-year professional collaboration with the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute, where I programmed and visualized the extensive knowledge-site isarkiv.dk (Danish text only) working in particular with a younger researcher and center coordinator at the department and a geographer from former Danish Polar Center. As the agenda of global warming arrived, I asked one day what the Niels Bohr Institute's position was, and they said, 'We do not want to comment. We are doing research, not politics, and we do not want our opinions to be twisted and abused by journalists and politicians'.

I got the point in this subtle understatement.

Talking about conspiracy theories

by morton_h, the blogger 

If we want to discover, to learn or to know something, we need to have a hint, a feeling, a sensation, a recognition of patterns, maybe a suspicion. When we become aware of what creates this sensation and these patterns, we call it knowledge.

[scroll for at læse på dansk]

Put in a more academic way:
All sound evidence collection and processing of information to a state of knowledge - in its purest form called science - need a certain phase of creating theories. Without powerful, dynamic theories, no answers to any questions.

When the necessary and benevolent phase of theory making = our perceptions, sensations, pattern recognition, suspicions - is blocked, it becomes an act of sabotage of the creative and inquiring phase in any healthy knowledge process whereby actual knowledge is delayed or directly fails to arise.

A theory is a stepping stone on the road, not the other shore. If you are not allowed to step anywhere, you are doomed to fall in the water. Unless you know the Jesus-stunt.

Without theories, informed guesswork, temporary answers to the questions (+ a heck-of-a-lot of questions!), stopovers and summaries of acquired knowledge and the results obtained by putting the knowledge parts together for the first time, there will be a desert of chaos, stupidity and fear. The so-called 'Dark Ages' was a period when this desolate prevailed. The reason - the simple version - was because the church had monopolized knowledge and prevented ordinary people to take part in actual knowledge. And more important: had taken away the right and incitament for the people to seek knowledge by asking questions telling them, that faith, belief and hope was all there was. We, the cleracy, will talk to the Universe for you and see to that you get the 'right' version.

The Dark Ages seem to have returned in a new costume. The term 'conspiracy theory' and its use in public discourse is a taboo and religion-style denigration of curiosity, honesty and inquisitiveness and an attack against all sound knowledge processes.

Healthy theory should not contain too many assumptions. This corresponds to too many and too weak indices in a legal inquiry. A recent study showed surprisingly that people who were frequent users of the word 'conspiracy theory' made many and quick assumptions and that those they called 'conspiracy theorists', in turn, asked many questions and made fewer assumptions. However, one must of course be careful with so-called studies, but it was still strange. Almost Biblical in its psychology (you can actually find some good stuff in the Bible): 'And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (sorry, I couldn't help taking the old dusty King James' version ...'. Or just plain: 'It takes one to see one'. Or in psychological terms: projection.

An example of that would be, when the term exploded into public discourse, which is after 9/11. Everyone questioning the pre-fabbed official version were called conspiracy theorists ... for asking question alone, because they did not put theories fourth in those days. The government and its true believers on the other hand promoted, lo-and-behold: a genuine conspiracy theory! And a grossly absurd one too: The theory about a man in a cave in Afghanistan with long beard and a laptop outsmarting the most advanced defence system of the world with the help of a bunch of pupils that had just learned to fly a one-engine Cesna, who made seven buildings fall to the ground in the most beautifully organized way violating a dozen laws of physics, aso ... Oh sorry, according to the Bush theory there were only twobuildings. After a while and because of the theory the Iraq War started on a(nother) thick Bush-lie about WMD's - even the dumbest people knew that after a month - but right before the guy was telling us the truth!

This is just one example of how the c-word works: it mades us stop all proper thinking. In the case of Bush it was accompanied with a certain amount of religious clichees like: 'Either you are with us, or you are with the 'terrorists', the concept of terror as you remember being another new speak concept that blossomed vigorously during the same campaign (VNAC: Vocabulary for the New American Century). The fear of conspiracies being exposed (pov: the conspirators) and the fear of mentioning conspiracies and thereby insulting the conspirators (pov designed for: the people) is similar to what the dark-age religion, the Catholic Church, created. God, the great auto-conspirator, works in mysterious ways. And should any mortal = employee in the human branch of the cosmic body (the Corporation) question whether this usurpatory god, who has taken credit for the creation of the Universe, is competent for the job based on the very same gods rather poor business case, then burning logs will fall from the sky.

If we stripped the c-word for its malicious intent, 'conspiring' would just mean 'to be inspired in each other's company'. Question is, can you destile words from their historical context? Actually yes, and here you will see clearly, in what way and what extent words can be weaponized and a spellcan be cast.

The historical load is: a small group of people in fora outside the attention of the many are making decisions about actions that will hace significant implications for the many, without asking them for advice or permittance. These measures have large, decisive and far-reaching consequences for the many and their descendants. Give me an example of an important historical event, where this was not the case! The use of conspiracy as synonymous with 'fanciful rubbish' is therefore highly non-historical. It is the norm, not the exception.

The opposite of conspiracy is either 'pure chance' or 'evolution'. Darwinism's main theory is all about chance and mutation as the guiding force in evolution = history, since social-darwinists 'biologizes' history. The British and later the Anglo-American elite scientific support - they use even the word of why exactly THEY had the right and duty to rule over other people in the world, called Darwinism or 'social-Darwinism', same-same. Where hace I heard this before, 'Thou shalt rule over the creatures of the Earth'? Oh, but darwinism was opposed to Christianity, so it can't be from Genesis, can it?

Not surprisingly the specific concept of 'conspiracy theory', the combination of the two words, came from one of the Anglo-American / Transatlantic elitist think tanks, the paramilitary organization called The Rand Corporation. A senior executive from this corporation recommended a CIA director to respond to the persistent and annoying questions that crescended after the Warren Commission's cover-up of the Kennedy assasination by simply and without the blinking of an eye denying everything and label all inquisitive citizens and journalists with the hybrid term: conspiracy theorists! Just after 9/11 another big scale cover up took place, and the c-word was aquired once again.

?? And here we go again: these irresponsible parasites on human culture - an ancient business - are simply scared of questions, and the c-word is their venomous defence against questions. Re-spons-ability: the will and ability to answer questions, as for instance: 'What are you up to? Is that beneficial to others than yourself?' The global parasite class is responsable impotent.
 
The Law of Jante (well known to all Scandinavians) and statements about conspiracy theories work so well together, that we could consider them as synonymous. The second can be formulated in terms of the first:

• Do not think you can form an overview over theories
• Do not think you can ask questions
• Do not think you get answers by asking questions
• Do not think that there are answers to those questions
• Do not think you have the right to ask and theorize
• Do not think you have the opportunity to know
• Do not think you have the right to know
• Do not think that thereis  a bigger picture, for everything is random 
• Do not think that you can find the bigger picture since it is not there
• Do not think that if you find it anyway, that people are going to listen
  (and if they do, we have certain measures and methods ...)

Laws are formulated by those in power in order for them to keep their power. They always claim the deep concern of the people, but people normally just need common sense. How come we go around af ordinary people censoring and policing each other, wouldn't you expect decrees to go out a from Caesar Augustus that all the world you know ...? (good old King James again) Yes, but the scary, non-human and virus-like with this word is, that it comes out of the mouths of non-powerful people and without hesitation is spit in the face of other non-powerful people. The word has contaminated peoples speech organs globally, now infecting human being like AIDS, SARS, H1N1 or Ebola. And people do not even know that they have the infection.

By the way: All four viruses bear peculiar and distinctive traces of being developed in laboratories, and seem like the verbal virus to be designed to poison their particular spheres. Just to mention this fact will cause the verbal virus to take effect immediately. If you are getting this information for the first time, it is advisable to seek information on just H1N1, where the laboratory eugenicists in the military segments of BigPharma screwed up and were unveiled. They contaminated the huge amount of vaccines, that they had stored long time before anyone heard of this socalled flue with ... the flue itself! If you study things like that because you are worried for you and your childrens health and life, you can be sure that you are called ... guess what?

The toxic, viral c-word is a piece of 'shut-up-candy'. Like any newspeak it can never be taken for its direct value. And now to poetry. The mindset behind the use of the c-word goes with the following monologue:

• What you say now irritates me.
  I do not know why, but it does.
• Well, now I know why, but I won't say.
• I used the word, and I had a real authority in the back.
  I can't remember which one ...
• I skip all substance and arguments, because it is too difficult - and tiring.
• OK, I'll say it: You make me feel guilty when you pose questions I can't answer - guilt is something that I am trying to get rid of.
• And you suggest that I haven't done my homework, which is a lie! ... But why would I want to do that? I have a TV.
• Since you now present something different from what we learned in school, it must therefore be You that is wrong. See, this is logic!
• I once heard this word on television, or where was it? Anyway: You are one of those con-whatever-theorists!
• I've had it, are you now questioning the word itself!? Do I have to understand and explain all words in order to use them?!
• We weren't suppose to think buttom-up. I said that the Russians and their president are bad people, because they are! So we are the good guys and they are the bad guys, and why? Because we were told, top-down! We don't have to think deeply about that and don't tell me about circular arguments! .. what is that anyway?
• You can poke your airy theories of Edward VII and an big conspiracy to start 1st World War up yours! It may well be that you can refer to a few thousand historical documents, but in my history book from first year high school it said, that it was all coincidence and that the Germans did it. And so do the guys in Oxford and Cambridge, and they are objective, for they were hired by the British Establishment with the serious task of writing war history, so they must know it.
• And the thing with Dresden and the allies exterminating 200.000 Germans civillians I don't give a shit about! They deserved to be fried.

The good news to all fellow conspiracy theorists of the world is, that every time the dragon spits venom in your face - be it from its own mouth or from all the automatons of the civilian world copy-pasting its venom - every time we are getting there, we are hitting the dragons nerves. It is almost a truth-o-meter.


Almost. There are in fact some crappy conspiracy theories out there floating around in the alternative communities. And some of them will have no doubt been implanted to create confusion and discreditability ('look what the fools have come up with'). Which only shows, that we need to metes: the truth-o-meter and the crap-o-meter.

Al den snak om konspirationsteori

Hvis vi vil vide noget, er vi nødt til at have en fornemmelse, en sansning, en genkendelse af mønstre, en mistanke. Når vi bliver klar over, hvad der skaber denne sansning og fornemmelse og disse mønstre, kalder vi det viden. 

Sagt på en mere akademisk måde:
Al sund vidensopsamling og -bearbejdelse – i sin rendyrkede form kaldet videnskab - har brug for i en vis fase at skabe teorier. Uden teorier, intet svar på noget spørgsmål. 

Tabuiseringen af teorifasen = vores sansninger, fornemmelser, mønstergenkendelser, mistanker -  er derfor sabotage af den kreative og spørgende fase i enhver sund vidensproces, hvorved egentlig viden udsættes og udebliver.

En teori er en trædesten på vejen, ikke den anden søbred. Hvis man ikke må træde nogen steder, er man dømt til at falde i vandet, medmindre man er Jesus.

Uden teorier, kvalificerede gætværk, midlertidige svar på spørgsmål, mellemlandinger og opsummeringer af opnået viden og resultater, der fås ved at sætte vidensdele sammen, hersker der et øde af kaos, dumhed og frygt. Den 'Mørke Middelsalder' var en periode, hvor dette øde herskede, for kirken havde monopoliseret viden og forhindret almindelige mennesker at få del i egentlig viden. Og ikke nok med det. De havde gjort det syndigt på egen hånd at skabe viden ved at stille de rette spørgsmål. Behøver vi at genfortælle, hvad de gjorde ved folk, der tænkte lidt for meget over tingene?

Begrebet 'konspirationsteori' og dets brug i offentlig diskurs er en tabuisering og nedgørelse af nysgerrighed, hæderlighed og spørgelyst og et anslag mod alle sunde vidensprocesser.

Sund teoridannelse må ikke indeholde for mange antagelser. Det svarer til for mange og for svage indicier i en juridisk bevisførelse. En nylig undersøgelse viste overraskende, at folk, der var flittige brugere af ordet 'konspirationsteori' gjorde mange antagelser, og at dem, de kaldte for 'konspirationsteoretikere' til gengæld stillede mange spørgsmål og gjorde færre antagelser.
 
Man skal nok være forsigtig med såkaldte undersøgelser, men det var dog alligevel sært. Og det svarer fuldstændig til, hvad man kan observere. 

Man kan fx. foretage sin egen stikprøve -test. Her er opskriften for dem, der har brug for den slags: Gør en måneds seriøs research om 'menneskeskabt global opvarmning', om den manglende videnskab bag, om svindlen i IPCC og East Anglia University, om hvad CO2 egentlig er og især: hvor enorme klimaforandringerne har været i Jordens historie. Fyr den så af i et lummert middagsselskab blandt akademiske æggehoder og politiske korrekte, især på venstrefløjen og insistér på at tale substans. Spørg fx. hvad de rent faktisk ved om CO2. Spørg dem om de ved, hvor meget CO2, der blot slap ud sidste gang vulkanen Hekla slog en prut, der stoppede flytrafikken i Europa i en uge. Spørg dem om det konkrete tal for, hvor meget CO2, der lagres i havene, i isen og i jorden og bed dem om at sammenligne med de mængder, som mennesker udslipper. Spørg dem om, hvorfor gartnere bruger CO2 i drivhusene, og om det er for at slå livet der ihjel. Spørg dem om den lille istid, spørg dem om solcykler, spørg dem, hvad det ville betyde for landmænd i Afrika, hvis CO2-indholdet blev fordoblet. Spørg dem om, hvor man milliarder, Al Gore og co har scoret på svindelnummeret. Fuldfør regnestykket for dem spredt over hele den kræftbyld, vi kan kalde klimaindustrien (humanister kan ikke regne...), spørg dem, hvad der blev af miljødebatterne og miljøbevægelserne, da hele klima-stuntet blev rullet ud. Spørg dem, spørg dem, spørg dem. Så skal du se dem diske op med antagelser i den helt store stil.

Frygten for konspirationen og den foreløbige viden, vi har om den, er som det mørke, religionerne skabte. Guds, den store auto-konspirators, veje er uransalige. Og skulle nogen dødelig = ansat i menneske-afdelingen af den kosmiske krop (korporationen) stille spørgsmålstegn ved, hvorvidt denne usurpatoriske gud, der har taget æren for Universets skabelse, er kompetent til jobbet baseret på selvsamme guds ret dårlige business-case, så falder der brænde ned fra himlen.

Hvis man fraregner den ondsindede intention, betyder 'at konspirere'blot 'at blive inspireret i hinandens selskab'. Men det vil være svært helt at barbere historiens mærkning bort fra ordet.

Verbal-historisk set betyder det snarere, at en gruppe bestående af ganske få personer i fora uden for de manges bevågenhed tager beslutninger om tiltag med afgørende konsekvenser for de mange, uden at spørge disse til råds. Disse tiltag har store, afgørende og langtrækkende konsekvenser for de mange. Giv mig et eksempel på en afgørende historisk hændelse, hvor dette ikke har været tilfældet!

Det modsatte af konspiration er enten 'ren tilfældighed'eller 'evolution'. Darwinismens hovedtese handler netop om tilfældighed og mutation som den styrende kraft i evolutionen = historiens gang. Den britiske og senere anglo-amerikanske elites videnskabelige underbygning - de bruger selv det ord-  af, hvorfor netop DE havde ret og pligt til at herske over andre mennesker i verden, kaldes darwinisme eller 'social-darwinisme', same-same.

Ikke overraskende kom begrebet 'konspirationsteori' netop fra en af den anglo-amerikanske / transatlantiske elites tænketanke, nærmere bestemt den paramilitære organisation ved navn The Rand Corporation. En ledende medarbejder herfra anbefalede efter Kennedymordet en CIA-direktør at svare på de ihærdige og nærgående spørgsmål, der ankom efter Warren-Kommisionens cover-up, ved simpelthen og uden at blinke: 'at benægte ALT og kalde alle spørgelystne borgere og journalister for konspirationsteoretikere'. Der var den minsandten igen: disse uansvarlige parasitter på den menneskelige kultur - en ældgammel gesjæft - er simpelthen bange for spørgsmål, og k-ordet er deres giftige forsvar mod spørgsmål - an-svar-lig-hed: evnen og viljen til at svare på spørgsmål, fx. 'Hvad har I gang i? Er det særlig godt for alle andre?

Janteloven og udsagn om konspirationsteori er synonyme. Det andet kan oversættes til det første:

• Du skal ikke tro, du kan danne overblik via teorier
• Du skal ikke tro, du kan stille spørgsmål
• Du skal ikke tro, du får svar ved at stille spørgsmål
• Du skal ikke tro, der findes svar på den slags spørgsmål
• Du skal ikke tro, du har lov til at spørge og teoretisere
• Du skal ikke tro, du har mulighed for at vide
• Du skal ikke tro, du har lov til at vide
• Du skal ikke tro, at der findes sammenhænge, for alt er tilfældigt 
• Du skal ikke tro, at du kan finde sammenhænge, der jo ikke findes
• Du skal ikke tro, at hvis du finder dem, at nogen vil høre på dig
  (og hvis de gør, har vi visse metoder ...)

Love er formuleret af magthavere. Det samme gælder janteloven og dens opdatering om konspirationsteorier. Skulle love og befalinger ikke udgå fra Kejser Augustus? Jo, men det skræmmende, ikke-menneskelige og virus-lignende ved dette ord er, at det kommer ud af munden på ikke-magtfulde folk og udåndes lige i ansigtet på andre ikke-magtfulde folk. Ordet har kontamineret tale-organet på ét menneske og smitter nu et andet menneske som AIDS, SARS, H1N1 eller Ebola. Og smittebæreren ved ikke selv, at vedkommende bærer smitten.

Alle fire vira bærer i øvrigt besynderlige og markante spor af at være udviklet i laboratorier, og synes ligesom den verbale virus at være designet til at forgifte deres særlige rum. Blot at nævne dette forhold vil bevirke, at den verbale virus straks træder i kraft. Hvis du på læsende tidspunkt ikke har hørt om den slags, så kan det anbefales at søge oplysninger om netop H1N1, hvor de selvsikre militære laboratorie-eugenikere, der kopulerede med BigPharma, dummede sig og blev afsløret. Og hvor de måtte hive i nødbremsen og aktive Plan B (hvad gør vi, hvis vi bliver afsløret...?). Så kan du være helt sikker på, at du bliver kaldt for ... gæt hvad?

Det toksiske, virale ord (og det var jo 'konspirationsteori', hvis ud har glemt det) er et 'hold-kæft-bolsje'. Som alle ordet i Ny-Sproget kan det aldrig tages for direkte pålydende.
Det kan oversættes til dansk som følger:

• Det, du siger nu, irriterer mig. Jeg ved ikke helt hvorfor, men det gør det altså.
• Jo, nu ved jeg det, men jeg siger det ikke.
• Jeg fyrer ordet af, som om jeg havde en ægte autoritet i ryggen. Jeg kan ikke lige huske, hvad den hed ...
• Jeg springer hele substans- og arguments-feltet over, for det er alt for besværligt - og jeg orker det heller ikke.
• Du giver mig dårlig samvittighed, når du spørger på den måde - samvittighed er noget, jeg i øvrigt prøver at slippe af med.
• Du antyder, at jeg ikke har gjort mit hjemmearbejde, det er fanderme for dårligt! … men hvorfor skulle jeg også det?
• Siden du nu siger noget andet end det, vi lærte i skolen, må det derfor være dig, der er gal på den. Lyder det ikke vældigt sundt og logisk?
• Jeg hørte en gang det her ord i fjernsynet, eller hvor var det lige, som jeg ikke kan huske? Nå-men: det er i hvert fald sådan én, du er!
• Nej nu stopper vi: begynder du også at stille spørgsmål ved ordet!? Kan man nu ikke længere fyre ord af, som man ikke kan gøre rede for?!
• Du skal ikke komme her og ødelægge den gode stemning. Det var jo ikke meningen, at vi skulle tænke. Jeg sagde jo bare, at russerne og deres præsident er onde mennesker, for det ved vi jo! Altså vi er de gode og de er de onde, og så skal du ikke komme her og snakke om cirkulære argumenter … !
• Du kan stikke dine luftige teorier om Edward VII og en omfattende konspiration om at starte og gennemføre 1. Verdenskrig op i røven! Det kan godt være, at du kan referere til et par tusinde historiske dokumenter, men i min historiebog fra 1. G stod der altså, at det hele var tilfældigheder. Og det siger de også i Oxford og Cambridge, og de er objektive, for de er ejet af det Britiske Establishment og fik det ærefulde hverv at skrive krigshistorie, så de må jo vide det.
  Og det dér med Dresden gider jeg overhovedet ikke at høre om !!

Den gode nyhed for alle med-konspirationsteoretikere er, at hver gang gang Dragen spytter gift i vores ansigter - det være sig fra egen mund eller fra alle de automatoner i den civile verden, der har indoptaget dens gift - så er det fordi tampen brænder, så er det, fordi vi har ramt dens nerver. Det er en slags sandheds-indikator.

En slags. For der flyder virkelig konspirationsteorier af ringe substans rundt i de alternative netværk, hvoraf de fleste af dem uden tvivl er implanteret for at skabe forvirring og diskredibilitet ('se bare, hvad tåberne nu er kommet op med ..'). Det viser os bare nødvendigheden af at bruge sandhedsindikatoren og kritisk tænkning i begge retninger. 

 

Klimaløgnen, bakspejlet og forruden

In English

af morton_h, the blogger

Historien om en politiseret videnskab
I 1988 kom meddelelsen: nu ville man løse klimaforandringernes gåde. Det var før, IPCC (FN's klimapanel) blev dannet. Naturlige klimaforandringer var og er og vil altid være af afgørende betydning for vores livsbetingelser, så det var tilsyneladende et vigtigt tiltag. Men da de første meldinger kom ud om agendaen, var denne allerede afsporet, da man annoncerede, at det kom til at dreje sig om menneskeskabt klimaforandring og dermed udelukkelsen af naturlig klimaforandring.

Det undrede en del forskere, for forskerverdenen var ved at blive klar over, at der i jordens historie havde fundet en række afgørende og til tider voldsomme klimaforandringer sted. Studier i bla. iskerner, havbundssedimenter og dendro-kronologi var begyndt at tale sammen og bekræfte hinanden eller spille op mod hinanden, Der var en livlig og produktiv/konstruktiv debat. I 80'erne trådte imidlertid en helt anden og ikke særlig videnskabelig agenda ind og blandede sig: politik. Og denne agenda førte sig frem på en så aggressiv måde, at den i løbet af et årti fuldstændig overtog arenaen.

Det forlød i årtiet før og omkring årtusindskiftet fra politisk hold, at debatten nu var omme, at det hele nu var afklaret, videnskaben var nu fuldstændig enige, at der var konsensus. Men problemet dengang og i dag er et meget markant problem: at debatten først lige er startet, at intet er afklaret, og at videnskaben er dybt uenig med sig selv. Videnskaben havde for 30 år siden og har i dag først lige taget hul på undersøgelsen og forståelsen af komplekset. Videnskaben afviste ikke, at mennesker havde en eller anden form for indflydelse på klimaet, men den forcerede og totalitære konsensus, der lige pludselig var opstået, var der på ingen måde tale om.

Emnet er temmelig uhåndterbart for folk, der ikke har skaffet sig en minimal indsigt i, hvad der skaber et så stort fænomen som klima. Vi kan godt forstå, at mennesker, der befinder sig i et lille lokale, hvor der sidder en ryger i det ene hjørne, en person med dårlig mave, der konstant fiser i det andet, en pande, der brænder på i det tredje og vinduer, der ikke kan åbnes i det fjerde, kan skabe et dårligt indeklima. Vi kan til nød forstå omfanget af smog og forurening i bymiljøer, da de er en slags afgrænsede rum, og da vi kan mærke problemet direkte. Men når det kommer til noget så gigantisk som et globalt klima, hvor aktørerne er verdenshave, umådelige tundraer, enorme regneskove og ufattelige vulkaner, så mister vi overblikket. Og helt, HELT galt går det, når man er nødt til at overveje jordens klima i en solar eller kosmisk sammenhæng.

Pengemændene
Midt dette spegede forståelsesfelt ankom der folk med temmelig mange penge i baglommen, som bestemt ikke var bange for at bruge dem. Der blev foretaget store investeringer. Videnskaben blev grundlæggende købt til at frembringe resultater og udsagn, der kunne støtte et i forvejen tilrettelagt facit: at det primært var mennesker, der styrede kosmos og klimaet! Et fuldstændig utroligt udsagn, hvis man tænker over det (det gør man sjældent)! Solsystemet blev parkeret i et kryptiseret og dermed irrelevant felt. De Forenede Nationers Konvent for Klimaforandring, der gik forud for IPCC, fremlagde deres plan: at nedsætte forskningsudvalg til studiet af menneskeskabt klima. Exit kosmos, exit naturen.

Der skete et meget smart og meget betændt skred. Folk, der tillod sig at fremføre det herefter ikke-politisk korrekte synspunkt, at der måske kunneog endog måske burde stilles spørgsmålstegn ved menneskers hovedansvar for det globale klima, blev nu udstillet som miljøsvin. Disse udsagn kom pludselig ud af munden på folk, som før havde fordømt al tale om miljø og forurening. Der opstod en helt særlig og underlig form for forvirring, hvor det hele flippede 180 grader rundt. Samtidig blev miljø og forurening udvasket af debatten og nu talte man stort set udelukkende om: klima. Mens man talte om klima, talte man i øvrigt vældig meget om emotionelle og moralske koncepter som skyld, skam, gæld og korrekthed. Den vågne lytter og læser vil måske her bemærke et mønster, der er set en hel del gange i historien. 'Styresystemet' indfandt sig. Videnskab var med et behændigt magisk kunstgreb blevet til religion, viden var blevet skyllet ud af karret, og tro var hældt i. Tro er mangel på viden og hengivelse til troens vakuum.

Indholdet af CO2 i atmosfæren er 0.3% af jordens atmosfære. I menneskets industrialiseringsperiode har vi øget koncentration med 80-90 milliontedele. Der er så forskere, der har tilladt sig at spørge, om dette er signifikant eller som hævdet oven i købet katastrofalt, men deres forsigtige spørgsmål blev kørt over med buldozerstyrke af IPCC, der også hævdede, at C02-indholdet i atmosfæren før industrialiseringen havde været stabilt i 100.000'er af år.

Konsensus - hvilket herligt ord! 
Nu er det bare sådan, at videnskab overhovedet ikke handler om konsensus. Videnskab er ikke demokratisk, det er ikke flertalsbestemt, der handler ikke om at udradere forskelle og nuancer. Det handler NETOP om fuld respekt for tvivl, forskelle, uløste problemer og nuancer. Videnskab handler om nysgerrighed. Jo flere, jo mere, jo bedre. Det er politik og religion, der handler om den slags. Videnskab handler om kritisk tænkning, og ordet konsensus er totalt meningsløst i den forbindelse.

IPCC, og det må man give dem, havde hidkaldt et enormt panel af videnskabsfolk, der beskæftigede sig med et kæmpe felt af emner, der hidrører klima. Men når man læser deres rapporter, er der uhyre lidt konsensus. Konsensus optræder derimod pludselig i de opsummeringer, der præsenteres for politikere og beslutningstagere, og som er tilrettelagt af bureaukrater. Her fremgår der, hvad der bør læses af dette, hvad der bør konkluderes og ekstraheres af dette - og hvad der derfor bør besluttes på baggrund af dette! Her sker det betændte skred. Det viste oven i købet før den seneste rapport, at de havde skrevet deres politiker-synopsis måneder før rapporten kom, og derefter forlangte, at rapporten skulle rettes ind efter den!

Denne form for præfabrikeret konsensus er et Agenda 21-koncept. Det kan anbefales at studere Agenda 21 og PolitiskKorrekthed. Uden en basalt stykke hjemmearbejde er det faktisk svært at fatte, hvad der foregår. NGO'ere spiller også en betydningsfuld rolle i dette mega-spinn. Agenda 21 er et meget omfattende og meget velforberedt stykke social-mental-ideologisk ingeniørkunst.

Mennesker sender hvert år 5.5 gigaton CO2 ind i atmosfæren. Det lyder som meget, men det skal sættes i forhold til, at jordoverfladen i sig selv leverer 1.500 gigaton CO2 hvert år, at atmosfæren i sig selv er der 750 gigaton CO2, at planteverdenen producerer 610 gigaton CO2, at havene lagrer 38.000 gigaton CO2, og at hav-sedimenterne gemmer omkring 100.000.000 !! gigaton CO2. Hvordan er så meget CO2 havnet der? Det skyldes, at vores tidsalder er unormal kold i forhold til tidligere perioder i jordens historie. Indholdet af CO2 i luften har været 10 gange så høj i perioder (Zenosoisk, Mesosoisk), hvor planteliv har været overvældende frodigt på jorden, hvilket studier af planter og deres segmenterede efterladenskaber har vist.

Der findes ekstremt detaljeret data for atmosfærens sammensætning for de sidste 200 år. Disse data er dokumenteret i solid pier-reviewed litteratur, der er fuldt tilgængelig. Da Al Gore som repræsentant for 'agendaen' kørte sit show 'Inconvenient Truth', blev ALLE disse data udelukket. Det førte bla. til en omfattende protest og et dokument med underskrift fra 31.000 videnskabsfolk for misbrug og forfalskning af videnskabelig data - en 'ubelejlig sandhed', der returnerede som en boomerang. Men ingen opdagede det, for medierne opsugede og kvalte historien. Medierne var medskyldige qua deres ejerskab. De samme, der 'ejer' videnskaben, 'ejer' medierne.

ClimateGate
Så kom hele affæren, altså det store læk i to omgange bestående af 1000vis af emails med rod i en kreds af forskere fra East Anglia University i England, der bekræftede, at data blev forvredet og videnskabsfolk og forskning blev manipuleret. Udsagnet om, at temperaturen i løbet af 10 år var steget på en måde, der var unik i 1000'er af år, afslørede en særdeles selektiv brug af data, der ikke er forenlig med egentlig videnskab.

Temperaturmålinger baserer sig på tre faktorer:

• jordbaserede målinger, meteorologiske stationer, lufthavne
• vejrballoner
• satteliter

De jordbaserede målinger viser en stigende temperatur over ca. 30 år. Sattelitmålingerne, der regnes for de mest præcise, viser ingen stigning. Derimod viser de en let afkøling i de sidste 10 år. Det amerikanske kontinent har fx. haft usædvanlig hårde vintre de sidste par år.

IPCC, klimapanelet, bygger deres udsagn om præ-industrielle målinger udelukkende på iskerneboringer og meget lidt på dendrokronologi og havbundssedimenter, og så bygger de ligeledes for størstedelens vedkommende på jordbaserede målinger efter industrialiseringen. Disse målinger har det hovedproblem, at de er udsat for mange former for forurening, især fra de urbane sites.

De ubelejligt lækkede mails fra East Anglia-universitetet viser en bevidst bestræbelse på at skjule, at klimaet ikke samarbejdede med forudsigelserne, nemlig at kurven ville stige katastrofalt, og at Dommedag herefter var i kikkerten. Landskabet teede sig ikke ifølge kortet. Alle forudsigelserne og fremdateringerne langt ind i det 21. århundrede baserede sig på, at denne kurve holdt. Men det gjorde den ikke. Der var imidlertid allerede truffet tunge politiske beslutninger, der var udskrevet skatter og afgifter, der var skabt job og karrierer. Toget var kørt og havde sin egen inerti. Det ville nu være et stort prestigetab at rette teorier og udsagn ind efter virkeligheden og matche landkortet med landskabet. Ja endnu værre end det. Det ville være en afsløring af, at man havde løjet og manipuleret med videnskaben, hvilket er en seriøs forbrydelse, der i alle de vestlige samfund regnes for strafbart. I mail'ene diskuterede gruppen af forskere fra East Anglia, hvordan de via statistik kunne skjule deres fejlberegninger. Eller deres prædefinerede resultater, for det er svært at sige helt nøjagtig, om det var ægget eller hønen, der først ankom her.

Især en person ved navn Phil Jones, der var en af de ledende klimaforskere ved East Anglia, og som forsynede IPCC med det meste af deres materiale, skinner igennem her. Uafhængige forskere, der ikke var under denne Phil Jones' opsyn og kontrol, havde i årevis efterlyst de rå data, som han og hans kreds baserede deres konklusioner på. Men forgæves, for de blev aldrig lagt frem. I universitetets interne mail diskuteredes der direkte, hvordan man kunne undgå loven om aktindsigt (Freedom of Information Act), og at andre forskere fik adgang til at se de rå data. Phil Jones sagde direkte i et interview: 'Hvorfor skulle jeg give mine data videre til nogen, der bare er ude på at modbevise, at jeg har ret?' Jamen er det ikke det, som hele begrebet 'pier review' og videnskabens hæderlighedskriterie går ud på?

Hele historien er pinlig for videnskaben. Folk, der det ene øjeblik hyler op om pier reviewing, når det stiver deres autoritet af, er, når det kommet til stykket, hunderædde for at blive pier reviewed. Og her bliver det for alvor pinligt: da Phil Jones og co. endelig var nødt til at slippe deres data, var disse data sørme forsvundet!

Vi kunne gå ud af strengen med alle de truede videnskabsfolk, alle lederne af afdelinger for klimaforskning, der blev fyret for at udtrykke tvivl, mere om de betændte mekanismer i akademia, men det er simpelthen for sørgeligt.

Hvor blev substansen af?
Der er dog et underligt fænomen i hele debatten, som vi er nødt til at observere. Når nogen, der bekymrer sig seriøst om sagen, forsøger at fremlægge noget, der har substans, altså noget der har at gøre med egentlig viden og facts, så sker der noget mærkeligt. Propagandisterne for menneskeskabt klima undgår fuldstændig at diskutere substans. De kører alle mulige forlorne argumenter frem om, at kritikerne er 'betalt af olieindustrien', at der 'er en konspiration', at de er 'mentalforstyrrede fantaster'. Al Gore har kaldt dem for 'en form for racister', han trak politisk-korrektheds-kortet. Altså alle de klassiske logiske fejlslutninger med ad Hominem som deres favorit. Dagbladet Informations klimapropagandist, Jørgen Steen Nielsen, sagde, da det andet store læk (these people don't get it, do they?) fra East Anglia slap ud, at 'modstanderne er meget velorganiserede i deres propaganda'. Han kalder dem for 'klimafornægtere' og andre politisk korrekte skældsord beregnet på at nedgøre dem, men substans tales der aldrig om. Den ene logiske fejlslutning efter den anden flyver gennem luften. Da statistikeren Bjørn Lomborg lagde sine omhyggelige og meget omfattende beregninger frem, blev der aldrig talt substans, for det turde især den politisk korrektheds-inficerede venstrefløj ikke. Man dæmoniserede og latterliggjorde ham for herved at undgå substansen, for 'fløjen' havde hverken brains eller nosser til andet. Det endte i den mest ondsindede form for populisme og lede rygklapperi, hvor man kunne høre den danske intelligentsia sidde og fyre selvfede sarkasmer af over deres rødvin. Lomborg blev syndebuk og blev oven i købet anklaget formelt for 'videnskabelig uvederhæftighed'. Da man måtte tilbagekalde anklagen, der i sig selv var uvederhæftig, var man til og med så feje, at man ikke gav ham ordentlig oprejsning, men lod en tvivl hænge.

Der fremføres, at der kommer 200 millioner dollar om året fra olieindustrien som støtte til klimaforskning. Fair nok, det giver grund til at kigge nærmere på, om forskningen holder sig til emnet. Det beviser ikke noget, men det siger, at man skal holde øje med evt. bias. Hvad derimod ikkeregnes for bias er, at der hvert år ankommer 30 milliarder fra regeringers side til klimaforskning (amerikanske tal, globalt er det langt større) regnes derimod ikke for årsag til at lede efter en agenda!? Og politikere har ellers rigeligt af den slags. Hvornår var det, at intelligente mennesker holdt op med at tænke?

Wonderful Copenhagen
16.000 delegerede fløj til den skønne stad i den lille stat, hvor der iflg. Shakespeare er noget galt. De ankom på 1. klasse og i private jetfly, tømte hele nationen for limousiner og kaviar. Og som en del af standarden i konceptet kogte asfalten også, og gadens parlament inklusive helt tilfældige forbipasserende blev kørt i fedtefade til det lokale Guantanamo i Valby. NSA tappede ind til alt, de kunne komme i nærheden af, ved vi nu. Hele sagen var og er så dybt politiseret, at det er til at brække sig over, og man kunne ønske sig et politisk detox, en ideologisk kold tyrker og så komme tilbage til egentlig videnskab. Global opvarmning, whatever that is, er i dag en kuppet videnskab.

CO2-handel er nu en derivat-industri - en afledt industri. Det er dybt lænket sammen med 'subprime-rente-industrien'. Den globale opvarmning er et finansindustrielt foretagende, en investering. De spytter en del af deres uendelige milliarder i handlen og høster det mangedobbelte. Glemte vi at sige, at de i øvrigt selv trykker deres milliarder (kvantiseret udjævning)? Den dag, de bliver afsløret, er de forsvundet fra jordens overflade og i færd med at fabrikere et nyt nummer. Mangel på vand, for eksempel, og det er allerede på vej. De ved, at de ikke bliver straffet, for de er 'too big to be prosecuted', ligesom bankerne er 'too big to fail'. CO2-predatorerne har skabt et marked, hvor man har skyld og gæld, hvis man rammer et vist loft. De har placeret sig som en gigantisk mellemhandler, der hiver 'grønne afgifter' ud af dette kunstigt påførte handelsfelt. Altså finansindustrien og bankernes hovedindtægt: pengeoverførsel. For hver lille overførsel hældes der noget over i spanden, der lige om lidt er et ... ocean.

Al Gore og co. har ligesom sub-prime-rentelåns-industrien skabt en malkemaskine, som ligesom denne industri ikke producerer noget som helst andet, end hvad en rutineret tryllekunstner producerer på scenen: illusion og forbløffelse. Konceptet er parasitisk. Finansindustri producerer intet, men fodrer sig på alle andre, der producerer noget. Det er en udspekuleret industriel cancer, en parasit, en vampyr. Disse folk bliver ufatteligt rige, men den klimaforandring, som de ævler om, finder ikke sted, for - og det er en af de aldrig omdiskuterede facts - CO2 skaber ikke klimaforandring. Klimaforandring og stigende temperatur skaber som bivirkning højere CO2-indhold i luften. Al Gore byttede med vilje rundt på kurverne, uden hvilket skyldkomplekset ikke ville kunne etableres.

Det 'stabile' klima
Udsagnet om, at klimaet har været bestandigt, men så lige pludselig har forandret sig - pga. mennesker - kan meget nemt afvises, helt kategorisk! Hvis man gerne vil se et eksempel på naturlig global opvarmning, så vil vi foreslå folk at studere det abrupte skift der skete, da den sidste istid ophørte. Her kan man saftsuseme tale om global opvarmning! I den tidlige middelalder er der endog så varmt i Europa, at man kan dyrke vin helt op til den skotske grænse. Et par hundrede år senere ser vi reminiscenser af istiden kaldet 'den lille istid', hvor mennesker spadserer over den Engelske Kanal. Den kæmpe CO2-prut, der blev spyet ud af Hekla for et par år siden, og som standsede flytrafikken i hele Nordeuropa, leverede mere CO2 end hele klodens samlede industri gør på 10 år! Set i lyset af disse benhårde facts, må man konstatere, at begrebet 'klimafornægtelse', som propagandisterne strør om sig med, får en ganske selvmåls-agtig betydning.

Slutningen af istiden viser voldsomme fluktuationer i temperatur. Den kunne stige med hele 15 grader i løbet af blot tre år, for så at falde igen, og stige igen, og falde, osv. Og det var næppe, fordi der sad en stak hulemænd nede i Midtitalien og stegte vildsvin over åben ild, mens de pruttede og bøvsede. Naturen er voldsom. Ankomsten af istiderne har været lige så abrupt. Iskerneboringerne på Grønland viser, at alle istider i de forløbne 250.000 år er ankommet i løbet af minimum 20 år, og nogle gange i løbet af tre år! Der findes endog eksempler på, at store dyr som fx. mammutter er blevet lynfrosset. Deres kroppe er fanget i bevægelse, de er ikke bare faldet om af alderdom. Nogle af dem står stadig op med mad i munden! Hvis man fryser langsomt, sker der celleforandringer og fordærv, men disse kroppe er så friske, at selv hundene æder dem, hvis de bliver fodret med dem. De blev simpelthen overrasket af en pludselig overisning kombineret med heftig vulkansk aktivitet *2. Varme og kulde har en nøje sammenhæng. Videnskaben paleo-klimatologi viser igen-og-igen-og-igen, at jordens klima har været ekstremt dynamisk. I de seneste 2.5 millioner år har jorden skiftet fra en næsten fuld overisning til et beboeligt klima omkring 40 gange. Vi gentager lige igen: 40 gange!

Vulkansk aktivitet på jorden er anerkendt af videnskaben i sit fulde omfang. Der findes et antal, ca. 20 såkaldte 'super-vulkaner' spredt over jorden. Hvis blot en af disse gik af, ville der opstå en stor istid i løbet af et par måneder. Altså vulkansk aktivitet, støv, lava, opvarmning ville dække for solen, og en istid ville opstå omgående. Endnu en grund til at ryste på hovedet over disse kommercielle fantasterier om CO2 og global opvarmning. Det forholder sig 100% stik modsat!

Aktiviteten af solpletter er i dag særdeles lav. At tale om, at solen ingen betydning har jordens klima, er så useriøst og junk-videnskabeligt, så det vil vi simpelthen se bort fra. Der findes et nøje link til aktiviteter på solen, og hvad der sker på jorden. Et istids-scenarie er langt mere sandsynligt end en varmeperiode. Og ingen af disse har noget med menneskets aktiviteter at gøre. Det skulle da lige være summen af de geo-ingeneering-projekter, vejrmodificering, som den samme klike, der har udbasuneret klimaløgnen, har gang i, og som trækker sære striber over himlen i disse dage fyldt med barium, strontium og alluminium. Arrangørerne af denne særlige form for bevidst menneskeskabt klima taler meget nødigt om det.

Der findes mange misforståelser om, hvad en istid er, og hvad der skaber den slags. De fleste tror, at det er noget med, at det blot er skidehamrende koldt. Det passer ikke. Der skal kun være omkring fem grader koldere i gennemsnit, før foråret bliver længere og efteråret kortere og der sker en opbygning af is. Der vil komme mere nedbør om vinteren, og den vil efterhånden blive liggende. Det katastrofale vil bla. bestå i, at landbruget ikke kan få frø i jorden om foråret, og at kulden sætter ind, før de kan nå at høste.

Set tilbage i civilisationens historie, har disse mini-istider, der sidste gang varede ca. 125 år, været ensbetydende med en civilisations undergang. Romerriget faldt ved sådan en mini-istid. Djengis Khan rykkede sig løs i en sådan tid. Sumer faldt sammen i sådan en tid. Hvad er det lige for et imperium, der falder sammen denne gang?

Hvor blev miljøet af?
Simultant med dette besynderlige røgslør, flyder verden med seriøse miljøproblemer. Floderne flyder med gift og lort. Luften er overfyldt med irrelevant stads. De krige i Mellemøsten, som stormagterne iværksætter, medfører store landområder, der flyder med afberiget uran (og nej, det kan man ikke høre om i fjernsynet...). Den mad vi spiser, indeholder tonsvis af irrelevante produkter fra den petrokemiske industri. Og hvad tales der om? Klima, CO2-forgiftning, global opvarmning, skyld, skam, gæld, afgifter, 'carbon-trade'. Det er blevet til en kæmpe afledningsmanøvre. Man sætter ikke så stort en spin-projekt i værk, uden at det er en flerstrenget manøvre. Og miljøbevægelserne opdagede ikke, at de blev forført. De omproriterede straks klimaforandring til deres førsteprioritet. Hvor smart var det ikke? Hvor belejligt var det ikke? Miljøbevægelserne lod sig villigt korrumpere og afvæbne. Exit miljødebat.

Hvad der er uhyre sørgeligt er, at emnet naturlig klimaforandring, som i hele menneskehedens historie har betydet ... ALT! for vores liv som mennesker på jorden, nu helt er forsvundet fra synsfeltet, så bliver vi totalt hjælpeløse, når og hvis den optræder. Eller rettere: ikke hvis, men når. Et bud vil være, at hvis trenden går en helt anden vej, og en ny istid starter, så vil industrialisterne begynde at ævle om, at det skyldes 'global opvarmning', og der vil fremkomme de sygeste pseudologikker til at bortforklarede. Faktisk er de allerede startet, tag en dyb indånding.

Hvis man skal beskrive en tilbageskrivning af livsbetingelserne for folk i Nordeuropa, Nordamerika, det meste af det nordlige Asien til for 13.000 år siden, så er den nærmeste sammenligning: Antarktis omkring Sydpolen. Altså tag den jordoverflade, du ser i dag med byer, træer, vandløb, skove og marker dækket af et islag på halvanden kilometer! I løbet af ca. 1000 år, som er lig intet i geologisk historie, var dette islag på den nordlige halvkugle fuldstændig forsvundet. Tal venligst om global opvarmning her!

Videnskaben er på ingen måde, som politikerne stupidt og arrogant hævder, enige om, hvad der skabte disse voldsomme klimaforandringer. Udfordring: hvis du eller nogen tilhører den gruppe, der har trukket den hord af mennesker med sig, der bekender sig til klimareligionen, så hiv 2-3 måneder ud af dit liv til seriøst og fordomsfrit at studere, hvad videnskaben har fundet ud af i de sidste 30 år om jordens klima, og lad os derefter høre, hvor selvsikre og dogmesikre, du eller de er. Det vil vise sig, at problemstillingen er langt mere kompleks, end mainstream-medierne har fremlagt det.

Ovenstående tager sit udgangspunkt i et interview med Stephen Thomas fra RealitySandwich.com og Randall Carlson *1:
ClimateChangeInterview_01
ClimateChangeInterview_02
ClimateChangeInterview_03
ClimateChangeInterview_04

*1
Undertegnede blogger er personlig elev af Randall Carlson.
Jeg har omhyggeligt valgt ham pga. af hans enorme og ubestikkelige viden om det, han udtaler sig om. Et andet godt bud vil være at lytte til Robert Felix. Begge 'renegate'-forskere er i øvrigt arkitekter. Undertegnede blogger har selv arbejdet for arkitektfirmaer som CAD-tegner. Husk i den forbindelse ikke at falde i religionsgrøften på den anden side af vejen. Følg sporene, følg linkene, krydstjek, verificér, tænk-tænk-tænk! Du vil finde masser af henvisninger her til de tunge drenge indenfor seriøs klimaforskning.

*2
Undertegnede blogger har som flash-designer haft et to-årigt professionelt samarbejde med Center for Is & Klima på Niels Bohr Instituttet, hvor jeg har programmeret og visualiseret det omfattende videns-site isarkiv.dk i samarbejde med især en yngre forsker og centerkoordinator på afdelingen og daværende Dansk Polarcenter. Da agendaen med global opvarmning ankom, spurgte jeg direkte, hvad Niels Bohr Instituttets holdning var, og de svarede: 'Vi ønsker ikke at udtale os. Vi laver forskning, ikke politik, og vi ønsker ikke, at vores udtalelser bliver misbrugt'.

Klima - hedder det ikke miljø? 
Facts om global opvarmning 

PS! en strøtanke:
Mens alle er afledt at tanken om global opvarmning, er der faktisk en ny istid på trapperne. Hvad betyder den slags for indtjeningen hos olieselskaberne?
Desværre er det for disse, som manden der tissede i bukserne for at holde varmen om vinteren: først blev det dejlig varmt, og siden blev det temmelig koldt ...