Climategate PROVES That There’s NO Science Behind Anthropomorphic Climate Change....

Perhaps the greatest public service ever done was delivered via WikiLeak by those who released over 61 megabytes of CRU e-mails from the UK’s Climate Research Unit (CRU).

Not only did they show that the people (I say “people” and NOT “scientists” because REAL scientists NEVER manipulate data to fit their preconceived views) working at those places “cooked the data” to fit the outcome they and those paying their billions in grant monies both wanted, but they proved conclusively that there’s absolutely NO real science behind the implausible theory of anthropomorphic climate change.

This exchange between two of the so-called “scientists” at the CRU show the collusion and outright fakery behind the current “climate models” substantiating anthropomorphic global warming (AGW);

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

"Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't."

"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU temperature station data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

The fact is that NONE of the proponents of anthropomorphic global warming can explain the cooling trend over the past decade or more. Remember, “One year’s merely WEATHER, a decade or more is CLIMATE.”

Australian geologist Ian Plimer has claimed, that the e-mails "show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination."

Remember the charge that proponents used to discredit opponents of AGW - claiming they were “bought off” by “Big Oil?” Well, it turns out that the money trail actually indicts the PROPONENTS of man-made global warming and NOT its debunkers. Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate was, according to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006, the recipient of some $19 million worth of research grants, a six-fold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.

The European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough — devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the nearly $100 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what’s been called "green stimulus" — largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes, the kind that Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins are hoping to profit from.

Many have noted that these “scientists” have long depended on an inherently corrupting premise, one that stipulates that the theories upon which their livelihoods depended had already been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent, including the thousands of jobs they provide ceases to exist. That’s what is commonly referred to as a “vested interest,” and such “vested interests” are the enemy of empiricism, as they bias the eye of the examiner.

Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research recently released figures that seemed to show that the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IGPCC), but since then the British experts, have noted that when their figures are adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius, or no warming at all.

None of the proponents of anthropomorphic global warming can explain that.

Nor can anyone seem to explain away the fact that higher carbon dioxide levels are actually GOOD for life on earth!

John K. Carlisle, director of The National Center for Public Policy Research's Environmental Policy Task Force has said, “Carbon dioxide is good for the environment.

“That simple fact must be restated to counter environmentalists' baseless allegations that the accumulation of man-made carbon dioxide, produced by cars, power plants and other human activities, is causing dangerous global warming.

“Indeed, far from being a poisonous gas that will wreak havoc on the planet's ecosystem, carbon dioxide is arguably the Earth's best friend in that trees, wheat, peanuts, flowers, cotton and numerous other plants significantly benefit from increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

Dr. Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, one of the nation's leading carbon dioxide research centers, has said, “Clearly, there is no way that these real-world observations can be construed to even hint at the possibility that a significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will necessarily lead to any global warming.”

John Carlisle notes, “scientists have lots of evidence demonstrating that increased carbon dioxide levels leads to healthier plants.” He noted, “Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide doesn't just make a plant bigger. Carbon dioxide also makes plants more resistant to extreme weather conditions. In a study discussed in the journal Plant Ecology, a team of scientists subjected the Mojave Desert evergreen shrub to three different concentrations of carbon dioxide - the current level of 360 ppm and at 550 ppm and 700 ppm. The plants, which were being grown in simulated drought conditions, responded more favorably in the carbon dioxide-rich environments. Photosynthetic activity doubled in the 550 ppm environment and tripled at 700 ppm. Increased photosynthetic activity enables plants to withstand drought better.”

So, in the end, the global warming hysteria seems about as grounded in fact as America’s current healthcare debate has been, which is to say that neither has had much of an affinity for the facts.

Proponents of a “Single Payer” plan for America can’t explain why America’s existing PUBLIC OPTION (Medicare and Medicaid) are currently failing badly – both are running huge deficits any more than proponents of man-made global warming can explain why there has been no warming over the last decade or more.

What both are, it seems, are poorly constructed arguments for more government control over the economy and our lives, despite the fact that less government intervention and control has historically and empirically been shown to lead to far more prosperity.