Home Attacks on Scientists Climate Facts Climate Briefs Alarmist Rebuttals Failed Predictions Historic News Clipings News Reports Russian Money Cost of renewable How They Lie to YOU Its OK to Lie! Not A Conspiracy CO2 Facts Warm Periods Lack Of Data Electricity Cost Climate Is Normal Heat/Cold Deaths Wild Fires Green New Deal No Rapid Waring Sun - Cause of Climate Alarmist errors C13/C12 Isotope Ratio oregon_climate_plan Tipping Points Fail: Climate Predictions IPCC Says Our Best Data 22 Inconvenient Truths Medieval Warm Period Extinctions Propaganda Fossil Fuel subsidies Who's Lying? What is Real Science Peer Review Adjustment Example proxies Climate Papers Debunking Claims NASA Debunk Antarctic Loss Renewables Corals Trillion Dollar Industry Big Money Scaring green money Paid by fossil fuel Warming Stopped Media Lies People are Dying History (politics) Extreme Weather? Its Warming,But Acidification IPCC_Flawed IPCC Prediction Fail IPCC_Disproved IPCC_PeerReview IPCC Scientists IPCC&CLouds WWF Infiltrated the IPCC Harming People misconduct Data Adjustments Major Data Tampering Cooling since 1945? Drought, hurricanes etc. Arctic History Selected Emails Selected Quotes Fraud Of Century? 97 percent of scientists 97% is meaningless 25% of AMS / 50% JonesInterview An OK Prediction Data Sources Record Temperature Energy Facts GridStorage CostlyEnergy Michael Mann Mann's Book Wegman on Mann paper styn_vs_mann Peer Review Error Statistical Errors The Sun Solar OceanHeat Ocean Heat Polar Bears OK AlGore's Errors Ask Questions Climate Models Record Highs Local Food Threats Why I'm a Skeptic GreenhouseMoon Alternative Energy 1350+ realist papers Conflict of Interest? Muzzeled Scientists How To Argue Common Ground Hurricane No Proof NW Snow Pack James Hansen Consensus The Hockey Stick 650 Dissenters Easy Solution DataQuality Heat Island Is Science Settled? Ocean Level Sea Level sea_&_islands Glaciers Ice Sheets Greenland Gore's Mentor OGWC Articles Summary FinancialPapers OtherMotivations PeakOil Ozone Hole Fracking Acid Rain No Limits Videos Printables Links EcoTretas Selected Emails Briffa et al (1998) data

Debunking the Climate Scam

Billions of Dollars -  Fudged Data  -  Corrupt Scientists

Greedy Green Corporations - Trillion Dollar Prize

No Warming For Two decades - Illiterate Media

Bought and Paid For Organizations

5000 Years Of Climate Change From Greenland Ice Cores

Some quotes from Jim Hansen’s former superior at NASA:
He was never muzzled ...
He thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988..
 ...some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results...
They have resisted making their work transparent ...
Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy...

PDF of this Page

1. Al Gore:  I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions.  Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are... Al Gore in Grist, 09 May 2006, bold added.

A British court found a number of inaccuracies in Gore’s film (“over-representation of factual presentations”?)

Washington Post:  U.K. Judge Rules Gore's Climate Film Has 9 Errors

Al Gore Used Fictional Video to Illustrate ‘Inconvenient Truth’

Even Al Gore’s college mentor has changed his mind
Inconvenient Truth is full of mistakes

2. Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research described the scientists' dilemma this way: "On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but-which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but; human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.  DISCOVER  OCTOBER  1989, Page  47, Bold Added (Steven Schneider is now Editor of Climate Change Journal)

3. Jim Hansen: (He controls NASA’s historical climate records):
Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. (bold added)
Climate Change --They Think It’s OK to Lie to Us!

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."  —  Henry Louis Mencken

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

Other Lies

In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99  to be somewhat obscure and incomplete ... Normally, one would try to select a calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis.  (From: 07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf, page 4)

The criticism in MM03/05a/05b  pointed out a number of flaws such as:

The whole field of climate prediction is fatally flawed because

most of the field uses the same data and methods - they are not independent.

Wegman: page 4:  Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus “independent studies” may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.   (From: 07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf, page 4)

“The Civil Heretic” was a perfect example of what Freeman Dyson disagrees with: blatant and unfounded exaggeration. Dyson is not a “global-warming heretic”; he does not dispute the science. He simply says, and rightfully so, that the science is both uncertain and very much exaggerated. It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.


Applied Mathematics and Atmospheric Sciences

Harvard University

Cambridge, Mass.

The  above is the complete letter as published in the New Your Times,  April 12, 2009

Lying is Necessary!

Peter Gleick lied, but was it justified by the wider good?
James Garvey , guardian.co.uk, Monday 27 February 2012 (Bold added):

What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action. Was Gleick right to lie to expose Heartland and maybe stop it from causing further delay to action on climate change? If his lie has good effects overall – if those who take Heartland's money to push scepticism are dismissed as shills, if donors pull funding after being exposed in the press – then perhaps on balance he did the right thing. It could go the other way too – maybe he's undermined confidence in climate scientists. It depends on how this plays out.

[Read the whole article at the above link]

Peer Reviewed paper in

American Journal of Agricultural Economics Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.

http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/24/ajae.aau001.abstract?utm_source=CFACT+Updates&utm_campaign= bbcbae0cf5-Peer_reviewed_paper_It_s_OK_to_lie_about_climate4_&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a28eaedb56-bbcbae0cf5-270045225

Fraud Allegation Against Key Foundation of Warming Data Accuracy

Allegations of fraud at Albany - the Wang case

Professor Wei-Chyung Wang is a star scientist in the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center at the University at Albany, New York. He is a key player in the climate change debate (see his self-description here). Wang has been accused of scientific fraud.

The fraud allegation against some climatic research of Wei-Chyung Wang”.