Hackers have exposed emails from the CRU (Climatic Research Unit) at the University of East Anglia. These emails reveal shocking things. And what we’re learning should cause us to pause, instead of rushing through the cap and trade bill.
Please send Congress another letter opposing cap and trade.
You can copy or borrow from my letter to Congress to write your own . . .
Revelations of anti-scientific behavior at the CRU (Climatic Research Unit) undermines the justification for cap and trade.
The case for human-caused global warming depends on claims made by the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which in turn depend on so-called research by the CRU. But please take note . . .
Emails hacked from the CRU reveal that key advocates of the global warming hypothesis may have knowingly corrupted the scientific process. For example…
CRU researchers may have manipulated temperature histories in order to get the results they wanted. They have systematically refused to expose either their data or their manipulations to testing by the wider scientific community. This kind of testing is a crucial component of the scientific process.
Real scientists wouldn't behave this way.
CRU researchers have also demonstrated a keen desire to silence critics, as well to devise tactics to rebuff and resist Freedom of Information requests. The scientific process requires peer critiques.
Real scientists wouldn't behave this way.
The hypothesis that rising atmospheric CO2 should lead to global warming seems plausible. But it’s not an open and shut case, and the scientific process is famous for refuting seemingly plausible ideas. Now the practices of the CRU have set back the global warming hypothesis many years – perhaps to its starting point. The C02 hypothesis needs further, OPEN testing. It can’t be taken for granted because it sounds reasonable, nor because it came from people with titles and degrees.
Your responsibility in this matter seems clear . . .
You must reject the cap and trade bill, and craft no further policy until you have better evidence from which to work.
I will be watching to see if you behave responsibly, and I will be discussing your re-election with fellow voters in light of how you handle to this issue.
END OF SAMPLE LETTER
You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System
And spread this message to your friends.
Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
1. The CRU has a bibiliography of published articles that takes up 197 pages. They are not just "one little group of scientists."
2. The people at the CRU actively spoke about "redefining the peer-review process." In fact, they were instrumental in forcing the Editor of Climate Research resign after an article that challenged the concept of man-made global warming.
3. Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, was sent a manuscript that was written by two of his colleagues. In other words, the review was not blinded. Phil Jones communicated regularly with Michaeal Mann, the Editor of Science, the journal to which the article had been submitted. There were no other referees reviewing the article. Phil Jones accepted the article for publication within three weeks of submission----and that is light speed for acceptance.
4. The CRU is intimately involved with a variety of non-governmental agencies. Reading the Purpose Statements of these agencies reveals a contempt for capitalism and a proclivity for big government, big research, etc. These NGO's are often funded by the United Nations.
5. The CRU worked closely with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-----an arm of the United Nations. The IPCC has an agenda, and part of that agenda is global warming. Without it, the IPCC would have no reason to exist. The IPCC, in turn, has sought to become a repository of "wisdom," publishing research they believe if imporant. The real question underlying the IPCC, is how much of their commitment is to the environment, how much is political, and how much is nothing but finance-driven self-interest.
6. The CRU has connections in many major universities throughout the world.
7. One of the principles in the email scandal is Tom Wigley. He is the developer of the computer programs SCENGEN and MAGICC. These programs are used worldwide for climate "research." But the underlying code may very well be rigged to give a pre-determined result. This statement is made on the basis of the programmer's notes----notes he wrote to himself "behind the application" as is standard practice so that the programmer can find out quickly how he has programmed various components of large, complex systems. The programmer openly talks about ignoring certain variables EVERY TIME if they apply to data from the calendar year 1600 forward. Hmmmmm. Sound a bit funny?
8. The CRU was in contact with various political organizations that are advocates of world government, global wealth redistribution, high taxation, extreme limits on the use of automobiles, etc. They are involved in UK politics as well as politics in this country.
9. The CRU largely hangs its hat on the widths of tree rings even though other factors (dominant verus non-dominant position in a stand of trees, soil and water conditions for the tree that is measured, altitude, and sunlight all affect how fast a tree grows----and there is no way to factor those things out of the equation.
10. The friends and associates are people like the ones from Sussex Energy Group who gave this presentation: http://www.hhh.umn.edu/center...
Download that PowerPoint program and watch it. Ignore the technical stuff. Look at what they say about "individualists" on about Slide 25. To use an English phrase, these are very naughty boys---and I've only gone about 20% of the way through these emails.
I do not know if the link for the PPt will be hot or not. If you find it does not work, use "sussex energy dr. ockwell ppt" as a search term. You will be able to find more than one place to get that presentation. Also, for more insight into Dr. Ockwell, go http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sussexenergygroup/1-2-16.html. These people have nothing more-----or less-----in mind than a world government, an international taxation scheme that would be particularly punitive for Americans, and the taking of your liberty. VERY DANGEROUS.
That was very interesting. Please keep our team informed of additional findings you might have at Feedback@DownsizeDC.org.
Jim Babka