Is global warming just bad science – or is it something more, is there an actual conspiracy at work? How would you feel if you knew for certain that CO2 is not causing any harm to our planet? What if I told you that predictions of the amount of CO2, the amount of warming, and the effect on the environment have all been falling despite the fact that every year global warming is painted as “getting worse all the time” and “the greatest environmental issue” facing us in our lifetime? Did you even know scientific documents were altered to support the conclusion of anthropogenic climate change? If it’s really real, would they really need to alter scientific documents?

In this entry we’re going to examine the systematic lies and fraud carried out by the scientists and respected environmentalists that have convinced the world that there is a global problem of climate change. I will show that the deception is intentional. This fact alone will prove that there exists a conspiracy.

I am often criticized and ridiculed for my views. My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was also criticized and ridiculed for his views, and then he was flogged and crucified by the Romans. I hope Jesus forgives me when I enter heaven for my errs.

Most non-Christians have a certain respect for Christians. The same cannot be said for us Global Warming Sceptics. For us, we are looked down upon from people who rely only on media reporting of the climate issue, or worse still: politicians like Al Gore and Julia Gillard who have absolutely no concept of science whatsoever. No, we are treated as if we are “evil tobacco companies” and “holocaust deniers”.

If you have read my previous blog entries you will see I don’t write about things I simply “want to believe” because “I’m selfish”, I tackle some of the most difficult issues there are – how many people do you know who would write a blog entry exposing the child porn industry for what it is? If you read what I wrote in my previous entry on child porn, you will see that what I say is true, not “convenient”. Convenient would have been to assert that we can solve this problem with legislation. Interesting, isn’t it, that this too is an issue some people think can be solved with legislation alone?

Think about traditionally neutral ground. Neutral language, thoughts, ideas and aspirations. Medicine, Food, Health, Environment, Enterprise, Education, Leadership, Culture, Community, Rural, Urban, etc. How many of these, once neutral, words now have a special meaning for the Political Left. Who also believe they have a monopoly on words like “Ignorance”, “Polution”, “Extremeisim”, “Discrimination”, “Racist” and “Bigoted”. These things that outlaw us from the free expression for or against a culture or religion or political alliance. The most racist person I know – who believe me is very racist – has a very highly developed understanding of many cultures and to call him “ignorant of other cultures” would be very wrong. You see, although the Left paints the idea that you cannot have a strong understanding of other cultures and still be racist, it’s a lie. In the same way they paint the idea that either you have a very good understanding of environmental issues and agree with them, or you’re ignorant.

Let’s pick an “environmental” issue to show you how this can work. Sealing. Sealing is common in Canada, especially where Seal numbers are so high they endanger the fishing industry. Seals are a bit like Cattle – they have many uses once killed – including food, clothing, oil, etc. They are generally killed with a special “club” called a hakapik, which kills them instantly. However environmental organizations tell you to oppose Sealing on the basis of cruelty, or just for the sake that seals are cute and wonderful creatures. They basically make up or inflate problems and then highlight them. Another example here in Australia would be mulesing – a procedure done to sheep to prevent flystrike. Flystrike is one of the most horrible things that can happen to any farm animal, and results in either weeks of agony for the animal or death, whereas mulesing is a one-time procedure to cut the skin away to prevent flystrike. Again, environmental organizations tell us to be opposed to mulesing on the basis of animal cruelty. And, of course, if we oppose them we’re labelled as ignorant or as not caring about the environment, etc.

With Carbon Dioxide it’s even more inflated. CO2 is part of the Greenhouse Effect. But now Carbon Dioxide is being labelled as “pollution” by Julia Gillard and others. This makes about as much sense as labelling mulesing or sealing “pollution”. It shows me that the Left believe that they can label something as pollution if they want to and expect everyone to agree. Of course if we wanted to label their verbal diarrhoea, hysteria and scaremongering as pollution, we’d be in-turn labelled “ignorant” or “crackpot”. God forbid we should actually feed the hungry of the world before worrying about CO2 levels.

Climitegate implicates many of the main scientists involved in anthropogenic climate change science, namely Michael Mann from the USA, Phil Jones from the UK, Tom Wigley – an advisor to Al Gore, and others. Even climate scientists show their little faith in some of these figures, for instance palaeontologist Eduardo Zorita writes (03-05-06) “Even considering the considerable pressure that he has [sic] is exposed to in American politics, I think Michael Mann is unable of any constructive discussion.” He was writing to Tim Osborn and Keith Briffa, two very important climate scientists in the UK. Osborn’s webpage has a small note about the “hacking”.

Here is another excerpt, this time from Keith Briffa: “I really hope that we can get an atmosphere of constructive discussion that , I believe, must include some discussion of the sceptics .”

Climategate to sceptics like myself, is the smoking gun of deliberate collaboration and deception. We have them admitting that it was their own doing in encouraging sceptics to submit papers to peer-review, and then collaborating to say things to the extent of “we’ll tell the media we don’t read those papers because as far as we’re concerned it’s not peer review” as well as emails demonstrating that they’ve been trying to have submitted peer review papers removed. If they really have nothing to worry about, then it shouldn’t matter to them what’s being submitted to peer review and they could refute it scientifically, rather than trying to have the documents removed from peer review or declaring that they’re not actually peer review.

The problem here is that it highlights the abundant errors and omissions in their own so-called science. The scientists involved in Climategate have already made their minds up that global warming is caused by human activity, and do see any problem with manipulating the data to support their conclusions. And in the next entry I will take you through much of the science to show you exactly how it was manipulated to make it look like we are facing the worst trend of global warming in over a millennia.

I don’t hope that you’re convinced one way or the other on Global Warming, I just hope that you are ready to start from a neutral ground. The onus of proof is on the person making the claim – in this case, the climate scientist who tells you that climate change is anthropogenic. Next time we tackle the science head-on.