Highly Recommended: 'The Delinquent Teenager who was mistaken for the World's top Climate Expert'

There are many things wrong with the cult of science and scientism. Climate hysteria is not based on science but activism. We should not make the basic mistakes of believing scientists, nor of conflating activism with scientific enquiry. Rational free-will thought and rationality is assaulted and demeaned by the claim that science is always right, and that activist claims are now scientific fact. Science is never closed, rarely settled and oftentimes contentious.

As Churchill said, those who refuse to change their positions in the face of evidence suffer from the 'hobgoblins of little minds'. Climate fanatics are cult members who will deny reality and suspend science and rationality in their quest to remake the world. A trace chemical and natural gas necessary for life, which comprises a mere 0.4% of total gases is now a criminal element destroying the earth mother. It is ridiculous. At the heart of the GlobaloneyWarming complex and nexus is the Marxist lust for redistribution of wealth; the communal cult desire to control all aspects of life; the ability to tax and regulate ad-infinitum; and the destruction of real science, thinking and free-will. A global government is surely part of the charade. There are zero benefits for anyone, who is not feeding off of this cult scam, except perhaps a moral certitude, a purpose for living and the ability to posture and flick their hair in a show of superiority at various cocktail encounters. Mindlessness one could call it.

Enter Ms. Laframboise, a journalist and one of the few of this harlot-profession who actually does some reporting and analyzing. Journalism's role is now to cheer-lead various socialist-cultural Marxist causes. Gay sex; Islam is peace; GlobaloneyWarming; economic socialism; Great Man-Obama worship; the illegality and criminality of European culture [and of whites in general] etc. etc. Whatever the mainstream media reports the opposite is usually true. So it goes with the ClimateBaloney hysteria.

This book should be read by anyone who still values the ability to think and rationalize. Do humans really know anything about climate? Of the one million variables in climate is a natural occurring trace chemical needed by flora really causing hurricanes and climate variations ? Who are these 'scientists' ? Are activists on the IPCC-UN really scientists ? Where are the data models, logic, algorithms, testing, source information, assumptions and mathematics behind the UN's models ? Why aren't they available for review ? Is a cult which tells you that you are too stupid to understand climate to be trusted ? Aren't claims to kill off 30% of humans premised on secret meetings, database models, and outputs a little extreme ?

This book will make you angry and upset. You will learn that the entire IPCC process is a sham; that the activist acolytes who pretend to be scientists hold you in utter contempt; that the UN believes that the mass of humanity is stupid; and that the global powers behind the cult movement want to empty northern 'richer' country treasuries of some $37 Trillion and transfer the guilt money to the 'poorer' states for various reasons – none of them having anything to do with science.

Activism is now called science:

• 28 out of 44 chapters (two-thirds) included at least one individual affiliated with the WWF

• 100% of the WG2 chapters included at least 1 WWF affiliated scientist

• 15 out of 44 chapters (one-third) were led (coordinating lead authors) by WWF-affiliated scientists

It is political:

“Honestly. The IPCC was established by politicians, its experts are selected by politicians, and its conclusions are negotiated by politicians.  A predetermined political agenda has been part of the landscape for the past 20 years. For [anyone] to whine that people who disagree with the IPCC are motivated by politics is the equivalent of someone who has lived by the sword complaining that they might die by it.”

“Their overarching message has been that this doesn’t touch the science, that the basic premise that human beings are altering the climate in dangerous  ways remains unchallenged.  I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I hear this argument.  What it conveniently ignores is that we’ve been told for years that the reason we should believe in human-caused climate change is because an elaborate and reliable IPCC process had examined matters and pronounced it a genuine and pressing problem. . . We’ve been urged to believe in the end result because the IPCC’s process is itself trustworthy.”

“What does all this tell us?  It says the IPCC process is broken. It says the verdict that humans are responsible for causing dangerous climate change cannot stand.  A new trial must be held.”

“The real moral of this story is that scientists are merely human.  They can be as short-sighted and as political and as dishonorable as the rest of us.”

There is no peer review

“What goes on at the IPCC is not peer review as that term is normally understood . . . To sum up, the IPCC is inordinately proud of its review process. It expects us to be impressed by how many people are involved and by how many comments it receives and addresses.  But this process is fatally flawed.  It is not independent.  It is easily short-circuited and circumvented.  Nothing about it measures up to academic peer review.”

Regarding the impact of the IAC review of the IPCC:  “Pachauri lingers, the flagging rule [of non peer reviewed papers] has vanished, and real action on conflict-of-interest has been pushed well into the future.  [While the IPCC has established the new Executive Committee] there’s just one problem.  While the IAC report said it should contain three independent voices, including people from outside the climate community, the IPCC thumbed its nose at that  advice . . . instead gave four of its fulltime staff members seats at the table.”

IPCC does not allow dissent:

“It would appear that the relationship the IPCC has with its expert reviewers borders on the abusive.  First it asks these people to volunteer their time in good faith.  Then it gives its authors the right to dismiss their input with nothing more than a single word:  ”rejected.”  While expert reviewers are expected to comply with the IPCC’s deadlines, this organization feels no need to respect such deadlines itself.  Instead, it nonchalantly adds in, after the fact, arguments and source materials these reviewers had no opportunity to asses.”

“People who know people at the IPCC have their yet-to-be-published work taken into account, but researchers without these sorts of connections are out of luck.”

“But a problem surely arises when journals are run by IPCC insiders themselves.”

IPCC activists writing in Journals then using their own work as 'proof':

“This is a circular, incestuous process.  Scientists make decisions as journal editors about what qualifies as peer-reviewed literature.  They then cite the same papers they themselves played midwife to while serving as IPCC authors.”

“What’s happened here is that the cart was put before the horse.  The UN didn’t wait around for climate science to mature.  They’d already decided that human-generated emissions were dangerous. Back in 1992, 154 nations endorsed this premature conclusion when they became signatories to the UNFCCC. . . The fourth edition of the Climate Bible, which contains the strongest yet still speculative and qualified language, appeared 15 years later.”

“One day the IPCC may come to be seen as a textbook case of how badly things can go wrong when political amateurs are recruited and manipulated by UN-grade political operatives.”

[The] IPCC doesn’t write scientific reports for their own sake.  Those scientists are there for a purpose.  That purpose is to produce material useful to the UNFCCC.

Pachauri the IPCC chief since 2002 is an activist:

“I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible form the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development.  That’s the real issue.  Climate change is just a part of it.”

“A grotesque aspect of the malaria issue is that anyone who truly cares about this disease need not concern themselves with global warming.  A world that can’t rouse itself to do more about today’s malaria victims surely has no business using theoretical, sometime-in-the-future victims as ammunition in the climate debate.”

“The claim that 20-30% of the Earth’s species are at risk of extinction has been a hallmark of Pachauri’s speeches . . .  [That chapter] depends almost entirely on a single, highly questionable piece of research. . . five out of 10 of this chapter’s most senior personnel have a formal documented link to the World Wildlife Fund.  There is no way to know which sections of this IPCC chapter represent the opinions of scientists who’ve jumped into bed with the WWF and which sections are . . . scientifically sound.”

Hockey Stick is junk:

“The essential point here is that the IPCC aggressively promoted a graph that had been produced by a young scientist who’d just been awarded his Ph.D.  Even though that graph overturned decades of scholarship, even though it negated a widespread consensus about what the temperature record of the past 1,000 years looked like, the IPCC didn’t bother to verify its accuracy.”

There is much much more that I will post later.

The take away is this. The IPCC-UN ClimateBaloney is not premised on science. There is no human induced GlobaloneyWarming for a whole variety of reasons, one being that there are 1 million variables in 'climate' and models can't possible 'model' that complexity. Ask anyone in technology. It is an activist agenda, sold by humans who have every vested interest in its success. There is money, power, reputations, guaranteed funding and fame all at stake. Globaloneywarming is a human created hysteria, assaulting rationality, free-will and civilisation. Like other cults – National Socialism, Islam, Great Man worship – it is a sick diabolical demonic theology, ultimately dedicated to destroying the human.