Scientists tricked into believing this lie
'People who were daring to question it didn't get funded'
The climate-change movement is ultimately designed to thin
the earth’s population, and the science behind the movement is deeply and
deliberately flawed to further a political end, according to climatologist Dr.
Tim Ball.
In his new book, “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate
Science,” Ball also lays out how he believes those perpetrating in this massive
scientific fraud managed to keep the truth hidden from mainstream scientists
and later intimidated most of them to keep them quiet.
Ball is one of the leading voices from the climatology
community to loudly condemn the conclusions and tactics of those calling for
major public-policy changes to combat the purported threat to the climate posed
by human activity.
Listen to Radio America’s interview with Dr. Tim Ball:
According to Ball, the motivation for the climate-change
movement’s leaders is nothing new. He told Radio America’s Greg Corombos it is
the latest incarnation of an effort that goes back to the 19th century writings
of Thomas Malthus, who argued that the human population was growing so fast
that the earth’s resources could never sustain it. He, therefore, advocated
population control to ward off mass disease and starvation.
Malthus and others ultimately identified industrialized
nations as the greatest consumer of resources and suggested the advance of
industry needed to be stopped. As the years went on, Ball said, the focus
narrowed to the fossil fuels powering the economy in advanced nations.
He said that obsession ultimately led the modern-day
activists to settle on carbon dioxide as the culprit for the earth’s dangerous
climate trends but required an ingenious approach to get the public on board
with the idea.
“If you can shut off the flow of fossil fuels, that will
stop the engine of those industrialized nations, but people would scream
immediately if that happened,” Ball said. “But if you could show that the
byproduct of the combustion of that fossil fuel, carbon dioxide, was causing
runaway global warming and climate change, then you could use that for a
vehicle to introduce legislation to shut down those industrialized nations.
“That’s been the whole driving force of everything Maurice
Strong is doing and, of course, underlies what Obama’s pushing,” he said.
Ball sees Maurice Strong as one of the most pivotal figures
in the advancement of what he considers the modern-day assault on
industrialized nations. He said Strong grew up in a socialist Canadian family
and rose to prominence in a way many might not expect.
“He’s a superb organizer of bureaucracies, and he made a
lot of money in the industry. That’s the irony of these people like Bill Gates.
They get money, and then they’re going to go save the planet,” mused Ball.
Strong ultimately worked his way into becoming the head of
the United Nations climate program in the 1980s. That role led to his calling
for the Earth Summit in Brazil in 1992 and the creation of a larger U.N. vision
known as Agenda 21. Later in the 1990s, Strong shepherded the creation of the
U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, where Ball said
Strong wielded immense power.
“Strong, in an interview with Elaine Dewar, in a book
called ‘Cloak of Green,’ she said what he’s doing is using the United Nations
to establish world government and total control,” he said. “When he made the
comment to her about how we’ve got to shut down industrialized nations, she
said, ‘Why don’t you run for politics?’ He said, ‘You can’t do anything as a
politician. I’m going to go to the U.N. and get all the money I want and not be
accountable to anybody.’”
Ball said the fix was in from the start and that the IPCC
was only tasked with one job, proving that global warming was caused by rising
levels of carbon dioxide.
“They did that by directing them to only look at human
causes of climate change. Of course, if you don’t know how much natural
variability there is, you can’t possibly determine the human portion. They
didn’t care about that. They just wanted to be able to say the science is
settled, and we’re 95 percent certain that human carbon dioxide is causing
global warming. That’s why they picked on CO2, and that was Maurice Strong’s
role in it,” he said.
One of the most difficult arguments for the public to
believe from climate-change skeptics like Ball is that there was, and continues
to be, some grand conspiracy to produce results concluding that human activity
is triggering higher carbon dioxide and that urgent actions to curb emissions
must be taken.
Ball said the U.N.’s climate panel was very carefully
constructed to limit who actually saw the data and who made policy
recommendations based on the research. He said the IPCC had three working
groups. One did the scientific research that was predestined to show alarming
climate change. The second group then projected how the climate would change if
new policies weren’t adopted. The third group formulated policies for
industrialized nations to follow to avoid the dire predictions.
Ball said the results were an odd combination of admittedly
bad science and a tight circle of experts turning out the finished products.
“In Working Group One, they tell you everything that’s
wrong with their computer models. They set it all out. They say, ‘Look, we
don’t know this. We don’t know that. This is wrong. That’s wrong. But they set
up a separate group called the Summary for Policy Makers, which includes
politicians and bureaucrats and a few very carefully selected scientists. Most
of these were scientists at the Climactic Research Institute (CRU), where all
the leaked emails about what they were doing came from,” Ball said.
“They controlled critical chapters (in the IPCC reports).
They controlled the chapter on data, and they manipulated the data. They
controlled the chapter on paleo-climate data, that is reconstruction of past climates,”
he said. “So they set about through that Summary for Policy Makers, creating a
completely false image of what their findings were.
“The Summary for Policy Makers, by their own rules, is
released before the science report is released and they know that’s going to
get media attention. It says the temperature is going to rise by this
much and all of the other nonsense and that is what gets the media headlines.
“Then a few months later they bring out the science report,
which of course they know nobody’s going to read,” he said.
“But when you compare the science report with the Summary
for Policy Makers, it’s more than the difference of night and day. It’s like
two completely different planets. This is done deliberately to deceive,” Ball
said. “Everything’s been manipulated to create a completely false and extreme
scenario of what their research actually shows.”
Even if Strong and his allies at the U.N. and CRU managed
to close ranks in conducting research and presenting the findings, how did such
a large consensus of scientists around the world come to agree with the IPCC
conclusions if the data is clearly flawed?
Ball said some just don’t understand the science well, and
for others the lack of public opposition pretty much boils down to money and
power.
“The vast majority of people, and even scientists, they
don’t understand climate science. That’s part of the difficulty. They might
know their own area of physics or their own area of biology, but they didn’t
know what the climate science was, so they just accepted it,” said Ball, noting
that the bulk of scientists didn’t examine the science report and merely read
through the Summary for Policy Makers.
Ball said another brilliant stroke taken by Strong and the
IPCC was to enlist the World Meteorological Organization, or WMO. That group is
made up of bureaucrats from every national weather agency. Ball said the WMO
then proclaimed the IPCC findings to be national policy in all member nations,
and the few political figures who dared to question the findings were dismissed
as lacking standing in climate science.
Independent scientists were also silenced because the WMO
and its member nations only provided money to scientists who adopted the
official line.
“Because all of the national weather agencies were involved
in this, then they directed funding only to those researchers that were proving
what the IPCC was saying,” Ball said. “As a result, people who were daring to
question it didn’t get funded.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/scientists-tricked-into-believing-this-lie/#dgD7V4cp69I50Lv9.99
No comments:
Post a Comment