Agenda 21 (40 Mb pdf)

100 videos on climate change science and economics (click on 1^st, 2^nd, or 3^rd Conference Link)

800 Scientists reject man made climate change (1.2 Mb pdf)

The globally accepted myth of man made climate change has as its major source of supposed evidence the UN reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC. They state in their reports that they created a computer model of Earth’s atmosphere allowing variation of several key components and then ran those models with ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gasses, particularly carbon dioxide. They say that they then collected actual climate data from sources around the globe showing actual surface temperatures, temperatures aloft, and ocean temperatures and that these actual data correlated with the output of the models. The results? Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing a swift and significant rise in Earth’s average temperatures and that this trend will continue to the point of being disastrous if we don’t work to drastically limit carbon dioxide emissions immediately.

Well, besides the fact that CO2 is not the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, despite the fact that CO2 is only 33 parts per million in our atmosphere, despite the fact that there has been a slight temperature decrease every year since 1997, the IPCC insists that recent records validate their model’s predictions. They don’t and the reason is their model is seriously flawed and was grossly misused and manipulated to give a set of desired output data.

Since climate modeling was a major component in their research the computer model needs a bit of scrutiny to determine the validity of its creation, usage, and resulting accuracy, or lack thereof. A computer model is a program that simulates all aspects, or at very least all major aspects, of an environment or situation and allows for the manipulation of important aspects to determine the change caused by these variations for the purpose of predicting the future characteristics or to train people in the changes caused by these variables. One example of a computer model is a flight simulator program. Would be pilots are able to learn the basics of piloting by studying the effect of their actions on a reliable, consistant set of data that reacts like an airplane would according to changing input. To be able to expect reliable output from computer models, the program needs to be as close to identical to the real life environment being modeled as is possible. All known aspects of the environment must be closely replicated in the modeling software or the model is just that much more inaccurate and incapable of giving reliable results. If a flight simulating program left out the ability to adjust engine power, a major subject in flight training, your piloting skills learned from the program would be severely lacking to the point of being dangerous, even deadly. Likewise, if a model of Earth’s atmosphere were to ignore the fact that precipitation exists, and thereby ignore all of precipitation’s effects, you could not reasonably expect an accurate depiction of Earth’s actual atmosphere. Also, if a model includes assumptions or beliefs that are not substantiated in reality or accepted theory, the output is corrupted and is not usable. A model should, by definition, be just that, an accurate, all inclusive, reliable duplicate of that which is to be modeled. The less a model exactly portrays reality, the less it can be expected to give valid output. If properly designed, the output of a model should reflect real observable data when real data is input. This verifies the ability of the program to accurately model the climate and changes caused by varying the input data.

The climate model created by the IPCC disregarded many aspects of Earth’s climate, such as the existance and effect of precipitation, the existance of CO2 sinks such as the oceans, and the energy output fluctuation of the sun and its effects. The IPCC model also made assumptions that could not be documented in historical records or by scientific practices, and used other cause/effect mechanisms that they knew to be false such as programming their model to create a larger temperature rise with increase in altitude than at the surface which has been known to be the opposite for decades. They also assumed that certain aerosols acted as greenhouse gasses in trapping certain frequencies of sunlight in the atmosphere when they have been proven to actually reflect those wavelengths back into space. They also completely ignored the fluctuation of solar energy that occurs with the cycles of sunspot activity. They disregarded H2O doubling where two water molecules combine to effect the atmosphere in a radically different manner, they disregarded the fact that CO2 tends to absorb pollutants such as carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide, and they puposely reversed the cause/effect action of warming air temperatures and the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Needless to say, the climate model used to bolster the claims of man made climate change was not, in any sense of the definition, a valid model of Earth’s climatology, and is, therefore, useless in predicting not just present climate conditions, but especially future predictions of Earth’s climate status and the cause thereof. To achieve some type of correlation between modeled and observed data, charts of recorded temperatures and rates of rise were edited, some data was removed, data from different locations were cherry picked for their compliance, and a lot of techno-babble was used to confuse others while attempting to retain the semblence of scientifically deduced results.

Many of the scientists and technicians who collected actual observed data for use in the IPCC study, and those who made contributions to the model’s creation, have expressed great dismay and outright indignation at the results and interpretative reports issued by the IPCC and have publicly come out in direct opposition to the IPCC, the theory of man made climate change, and have called into question the motives, methods, and capabilities of those doing the analysis and writing the reports for the IPCC.

All other factors aside, the old computer addage of, "garbage in garbage out" certainly seems to apply to the IPCC climate model itself and thus to the results and their interpretation, and certainly lends creedence to those experts who disagree with the theory of man made climate change who happen outnumber the climate change proponents by a factor of over 15 to 1.

The UN, in response to the outcry from scientists worldwide, implemented a "control" or validation factor into their research by creating a second panel of scientists to analyze the same data used by the first panel and come to an independent conclusion. This panel, the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change, or the NIPCC, was not told of the results of the first panel and were not given any specific mission except to study the data and form a conclusion. Their result was that there is not enough understanding of the workings of the climate, not enough empirical data, too many assumptions, and a model that is incomplete and seriously flawed to be able to reach any kind of reliable decision on whether man is the cause of any change in the climate, or, even if he is, if it is a detrimental effect to Earth and its inhabitants. In short, they just can’t make any valid conclusions because the science is lacking. When told of the IPCC’s results and conclusions, the NIPCC issued an opinion that 1. The IPCC, being a government subsidized organization, were pre-disposed to prove that climate change is both man made and disastrous in nature, 2. That in order to come to the conclusions they did, the IPCC had to have engaged in non-scientific, unethical practices of manipulation and fabrication of data, and 3. The IPCC can not and should not be considered an authority on climatology or its causes. You will not, though, see this second panel’s results being promoted or widely publicized because they don’t support the agenda of the UN for global dominance and power.

The UN, the IPCC group of publishing scientists, and those who have promoted so many extreme social changes and financial expenditures in the name of an unprovable, apocolyptic theory should all be publicly exposed and prosecuted for their incompetance and reckless imposition of harm and needless life and social changes on the world population, and stripped of whatever authority they exercise.

Glenn Flowers

There is mounting evidence and scientists telling their true role in the study that leads one to the conclusion that the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, the group that created the study and report that really started the stampede toward acceptance of the global warming fear, not only handpicked evidence that would tend to prove global warming exists, but fine tuned certain variables used in their climate modeling, and totally eliminated other major variables, all in an effort to keep the cushy, all expenses paid jetset lifestyle paid for by the U.N. You see, these scientists were hired by the U.N., not to find whether or not global warming was real, but to study the effects it would have. Forget the basic question giving the world the scare, just accept the premise and tell us what's going to happen.

After the release of the report that doomed us all, the U.N. did the right and proper thing, for once. They put together a B team to act as a proofer for the theory. This second group of scientists were not paid, nor did they travel the globe gathering data as the original team had. The B team was given the same data used by the A team but were not told of their conclusions. The B team also had the ability to contact the associated scientists and agencies worldwide that had collected the data and participated in the first report and question them on their involvement. The B Team Report is an expose of the first teams bias, incompetence, and willingness to go to the ends to prove their claims and retain their lucrative positions. Read the team B report here...

http://mysite.verizon.net/res7zx3v/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/nipcc_final.pdf