“Scientists believe carbon dioxide used to comprise less than 0.03% of the atmosphere – 280 parts per million – prior to the industrial revolution. Currently, at 390 parts per million, it's approaching 0.04%. Barring emissions reductions, by the year 2100 that number could reach 0.06%. All this fuss is based on a hypothesis that says our planet is so unstable a slight increase in one particular trace gas will trigger disaster.”

There is little science to Globaloneywarming or ClimateBaloney. Co2 is a trace chemical and follows climate of course. Canadian journalist LaFramboise has done the world a service in exposing the lack of rigor, science, and the clear activism within the UN-IPCC and its derivative institutions such as East Anglia and even NASA. Activism is not science. Originally reviewed here, Laframboise presents the following facts which should enrage any biped who enjoys living in a modern world:

-The 'we use only peer reviewed science' claim is a lie. Of the 18,531 references in the 2007 Climate Bible, 1/3 was non peer-reviewed. Keep in mind that the rest is peer reviewed by people in the Green 'industry' and not be outside 'skeptics' or people who want to see original source material, information and code.

-Among sources used by the IPCC were newspaper and magazine articles, unpublished Masters and Phd theses, Greenpeace and WWF documents, and press releases.

-21 out of 44 chapters in the 2007 Climate Bible have so little peer reviewed literature that they are simply unscientific.

-Greenpeace controls in large measure many aspects of the 'Climate Bible' which purports to explain to the peasant mass how 'climate works' and what is happening with the climate. For example the IPCC Chair, the former Indian railroad engineer Pachauri, has written for Greenpeace funded publications.

-Greenpeace executives such as Bill Hare fill or have filled prominent IPCC roles.

-Greenpeace activist Ove Guldberg had 'nine chapters of the 2007 Climate Bible base their conclusions [on reefs] partly on his work....Between 1994 and 2000 he wrote four reports about coral reefs and climate change that were funded, vetted, and published by Greenpeace.'

-78 high profile IPCC personnel in high positions were or are World Wildlife Fund members and activists including activists Richard Moss [WWF VP] and Jennifer Morgan [WWF chief spokesman and now Director for the World Resources Institute].

-120 of the top personnel in the IPCC are from the NOAA [National Oceanic Atmosphere Administration] – an activist group dedicated to the myth that humans are causing global warming.

-No independent peer review occurs. It is activists reviewing the climate 'models' and claims of other activists. No independent review of the computer models and their code has ever been conducted [garbage in, garbage out]. This is called a conflict of interest and activism, not science.

-A quasi independent committee investigating the IPCC's quality assurance process found 'significant shortcomings in each major step of IPCC's assessment process.' But of course the science is closed.

-Computer models assume 'positive feedback only'. In nature you have counter-reactions not only positive reactions. “Incredible as it sounds, therefore, the only reason climate models tell us we are at risk of eco apocalypse is because the climate modelers believe our climate system behaves in a manner that is opposite to the way most natural systems behave.”

The IPCC scam reminds me of the Gay Gene myth which greatly profited its founder Dean Hamer, even though not one shred of science constituted his claims [which begs the question of why the lamebrain media would report it as fact....]. The Climate swindle should enrage anyone who believes that scientific truth is only revealed by testing hypotheses and having transparent informational sources given to other experts in the field who are not activists, but people searching for hard facts and truth, who can confirm or deny the hypotheses and testing procedures. Activism is not science. Science is never closed. For fair minded people not blinded by eco-theology and drunk on communalist dogma, this book will at least make you question the real purpose of the UN-IPCC, and those politicians and bureaucrats so enthusiastic about 'human created climate disruption'. Political programs and cults are not science.