The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.

— Hillary Clinton, NBC Today Show interview, January 1998.

The adoption of the conspiracy theory can hardly be avoided by those who believe that they know how to make heaven on earth. The only explanation for their failure to produce this heaven is the malevolence of the devil who has a vested interest in hell.

–Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963, p. 342.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspiracy Exposed

The exposure of e-mail messages and other documents has discredited scientists who believe anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a fact. In response, a clever but flawed defense has been mounted.

Climatologists in their thousands are allegedly being maligned, slandered and libeled as a gigantic conspiracy. And why? Because anti-AGW scientists can not explain the fabrications, manipulations of data, and faking of conclusions without positing a massive, and therefore impossible, conspiracy.

Fact: there was and is no huge AGW conspiracy. The good work of hundreds if not thousands of people was undone by a relatively small number of True Believers who were strategically positioned in the data path.

Fact: those who disagree with the concept of AGW do not have to resort to crackpot conspiracist thinking to explain the misbehavior of CRU staff and others at other institutions and agencies. Nor is a large conspiracy needed to explain the damage done by the fiddling of data. An analogy will help to make this clear.

Scientists who believe in AGW constitute a community eerily similar to the folks who believe in flying saucers.

Howso? First, there are a lot of both UFO and AGW believers. A recent issue of this newsletter noted that more people in the USA believe beings are visiting from other galaxies than approve of the doings of Congress. Second, both groups display a stubborn refusal to be sensible about objective facts. The UFO faithful cling to their beliefs in spite of a lack of hard evidence, and they cherish the soft evidence — much of which is faked — and thereby encourage the production of hoaxes. Yet, like most students of climate, most UFO researchers and study groups do not conspire to fake evidence. Some of their number are hoaxers, to be sure; they are the unprincipled members of the entire group of researchers/reporters who would not create or knowingly lend credibility to hoaxes. The larger, honest group can not be thought of as a conspiracy.

Like UFO skeptics, the folks who exposed the junk science of AGW don’t need to dream up huge conspiracies to explain how the hoaxers manage to pull it off. Small conspiracies suffice perfectly.

Here’s how. When the top level of the IPCC was handed the report of its working scientists, the political decision-makers did not get the full facts. Accordingly it was possible to present them with a temperature graph that utterly excluded important data (see the next item, “Understanding….”).

Getting rid of the vital data altered the significance of the graph. And that was not the only way the data were altered. But without lots of background information, someone just seeing the graph would not know that or how the squiggles had been manipulated, and what that meant.

The story now is that a few bad calls by a few scientists in just one research facility do not invalidate all the other research that unequivocally points to AGW. That ignores the fact that it was UEA-CRU that put a multitude of raw data through its politically correct, biased process to prove AGW, no matter what. That process — the cherry-picking of information — was not visible to the many people who had submitted their data for synthesis. A small number of people winnowed, selected, altered and crafted the raw data into a deceitful construct. They chose the uses to which information was put, setting aside data that gave the lie to the ideological thrust of the result.

The fake graph was not at all the product of an implausibly large conspiracy. It was the work of a relative few, not all of them at UEA-CRU (Mann, for example). Others in less crucial positions knew, to varying degrees, what was going on and simply kept their mouths shut. Even if you were skeptical of what the folks at CRU were up to, you realized that the work was being done by people who could see to it that your papers would not get published. You might even be denied tenure. That’s how influential the CRU team and its confederates were.

In sum, the deceit can be understood if you consider these circumstances: the history of an enthusiastic “green” movement that often involved crackpot extremism in defense of Gaia; the political correctness of the view that mankind is responsible for all that ails existence; the strategic location of a relatively few unprincipled zealots in climatology; the mindset that puts environmentalism and authoritarian political solutions in positions of utmost importance; the effectiveness of the pecking order in science that discounts the work of mavericks, newcomers and politically unconnected scholars, and finally the great reluctance of the scientific community to expose and deal with hoaxes — as described in TLB 116’s item on the cross between man and gorilla (request a copy if you did not read this important report). Science can be put in thrall to political/ideological ends, it can be bought, it can be manipulated by a tiny elite, and it loathes embarrassment.

Important addendum: Those who question the power of a small group to dominate a discipline so completely should read Michael Coe’sBreaking the Maya Code. (There was no code, of course, and what Coe refers to is the process of learning how to read Maya glyphs, not crack a system that was designed to hide meaning.) For many years, Maya studies were dominated by a single man, J. Eric S. Thompson, who misinterpreted everything and crushed dissent. Scholars literally feared the man, as he could end careers. Thompson was under the influence of a Maya charlatan who convinced him the glyphs were not written utterances, but had some unspecified, powerful mystical significance. Accordingly only those totally free of Thompson’s suffocating influence could study the glyphs as lexical phenomena and publish. The basic work was done by a man (Yuri Knorosov) who was studiously ignored and later reviled by Thompson’s sycophants in a series of insanely bitter ad hominem attacks. Coe’s book credits the genius Knorosov with the seminal breakthroughs, and documents the results that followed. It was only Thompson’s death that allowed science to prevail, however; in no sense did the inescapable logic and definitive work of Knorosov accomplish that. A mindset cannot be overcome by mere Truth. Eventually Thompson’s gang of scholarly thugs lost influence, the floodgates opened, and today the Mayan written language can, for the most part, be read.

The point bears repeating: science can be halted and corrupted by academic politics, governmental politics, and even lunatic ideology.

There is nothing all that unusual in the AGW scandal. It’s just another aspect of political correctness.

Certainly one need posit no grand conspiracy in which all climatologists are believed to participate in order to understand how AGW ideology managed to prevail over objectivity.

Understanding The Way The IPCC Report’s Data Were Manipulated

If you are interested in the concept of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and concerned about its truth or validity, you may have been a bit put off by the esoteric nature of the information you have read. What, after all, is a “proxy”? And what do some of the rather cryptic phrases in the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia refer to?

The best clarification this newsletter has seen so far appears here. Yes, like many other overviews of the unfolding scandal, it does require a certain amount of effort on the reader’s part. The reward for that effort is a clear understanding of why it’s true that the activities of the CRU crew are unscientific and unethical. That understanding will prove valuable as the proponents of AGW attempt to confuse the public with a blarney-blizzard of pseudo-science.

You should, therefore, at least take a look at what is now available. The following brief report will serve as an introduction or guide for your reading, or perhaps as sufficient evidence that AGW is junk science.

The non-specialist confronted by a graph showing temperatures over time will naturally try to perceive the overall configuration of the shape defined by the up-and-down slopes of the line. This allows us to pick out the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA), and, if we are looking at one of the two fraudulent Hockey Stick Graphs, we can see that infamous upward thrust that means mankind is in serious trouble.

As they say, the devil is in the details, and so it is with the temperature graphs that have come from the CRU and appeared in the IPCC graphs. The details are not to be revealed by simply zooming in on the graph, displaying every tiny squiggle, however. The devil in the CRU-IPCC graphs is how they were constructed. For that information, you have to read the article linked above, and when you do, you will see several main points that invalidate the graphs. They are:

1. Temperatures depicted on the graph for 1960 and later are highly questionable at best. The thermometers literally cannot be trusted, as visits to the sites have proved. Taking the earth’s temperature turns out to be a lot more complex and difficult than you might have thought.

2. The IPCC graph does not show either the MWP or the LIA, and for good reason: those ups and downs in temperature might lead the naive observer to conclude that temperatures tend to go up and down in rather irregular ways even in the absence of modern technology (!), and that such variations are not cause for alarm. The LIA in particular may suggest that since we have just come out of this very cool period, we might expect warming to continue for at least a few more years. Then the higher temperatures of the MWP suggest that if it does get warmer than it is now, that will not be a bad thing. It will be different, but not at all catastrophic.

(There is a complication. None of this changes the fact that over the last fourteen years, temperatures of the atmosphere have not displayed any statistically significant rises. Some scientists talk of a possible return of a Little Ice Age, as they did perhaps forty years ago. So the assumption or claim that things are heating up must be qualified with the observation that if it is true, it is a very, very slow and gentle increase in temperature, and quite interesting for that, because it is at present inexplicable.)

3. The way in which the CRU scientists fitted multiple lines together was not objective, but expressive of their desire to obtain specific results. Even their choices of which lines to use in the final graph will be seen to have a motive. As the discussion of various modifications and selections of data continues, the reader can only conclude that the chart is anything but a mechanical, objective result of hard data being presented graphically. The data were, in fact, shaped by computer software that is anything but adequate (it’s “buggy”). Fitting proxy data to post-1960 temperature observations was a creative endeavor, not a simple process that could have been done by a secretary — as would be the case if the data were objective and accurate to begin with.

At every step, judgment and interpretation were employed in the collection, selection, and interpretation of the data. The desired outcome was always a guiding principle. Bad data, derived from faulty thermometers and bad software, were stitched together after being ironed out to eliminate evidence that disputed the claims made by AGW alarmists.

These guys really cooked the books, and detailed proof of that is now available.

So the hoaxers will have to defend their junk science, and we know what to expect. Dealing with the clotted, sticky mass of contradictory, irrelevant and opaque information they plan to dump on their accusers will be a Herculean task.

As just a tiny indication of how much effort will be required to filter out the nonsense, TLB accepted the challenge of the author of the article linked above (“…good luck finding that newsletter”), and tried to locate a reference cited by one of the CRU bigwigs. The object: locate volume seven, number one of a newsletter called PAGES, said to have been published in March of 1999. Its home on a website was given, so TLB went to the URL provided and began searching. Nothing was located. That called for a Google search of the website, and some one hundred thirty possibilities were produced; after inspecting all of them, TLB gave up and concluded that the supporting evidence that was claimed to exist either never did, or has been swept away.

It won’t take much effort at all for defenders of the hoax to smother their critics in fake references of this sort. As always, a liar can say in sixty seconds enough to require an honest man to talk for an hour to clarify the facts.

Long ago, this newsletter called claims of AGW junk science. Now you have at your beck and call proof (the link above) of the truth of that claim. If you doubt it, spend a few hours in a careful study of the many references now available (such as the recent work of Lindzen and Choi). Back issues of this newsletter are yours for the asking.

AGW links:

The “Copenhagen Report” is an extreme AGW argument designed to promote the international treaty favored by the cult. “Who would have ever guessed that forty-six percent of the authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis belong to the Climategate gang?” Answer: any reader of this newsletter. Contrary to Obama administration claims, the guys behind the recent scandal that erupted at the University of East Anglia (“Climategate,” a term this newsletter hates) are not just a few inconsequential hoaxers who don’t matter in the greater picture. On the contrary: they worked very congenially with the other folks who crafted the “Copenhagen Report,” a fact that indicates they are all, the lot of them, unscientific believers in AGW. If they weren’t, the likes of Weaver, Steig, Mann, Kaser and more would never have consented to collaborate. The “Copenhagen Report” is more AGW junk science, and not up to the standard of one authoritative and genuinely helpful summary of the major issues.

Lots of links here.

AGW high priest Hansen looks into his crystal ball…and sees fantasies. This guy really is nuts.

Related: Gore speaks, and Truth is banished.

What are these AGW fanatics, and what principle or role model animates them? Why do they believe it is their sacred duty to fake evidence, hoax the public, and intimidate decent scientists? This newsletter has no fully-fledged answers, and can only refer you to what others have already said. In so doing, TLB can not fully endorse the first link above. You make the call.

More: AGW cultists threaten journalists.

Related: serious thoughts on peer review in the sciences.

If things like this become common, it will be because principled scientists do not want to be tainted by the scandal.

— This is a big one, and it will be talked about quite a bit. — People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data are OK” are wrong. The data are very, very often lousy. The rationale for that statement is to be found at a place called Darwin Zero. There is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data show cooling. Those who believe that is all there is to the fakery are whistling past the graveyard.

The AGW Chef’s Special turns out unpalatable, even for the chef.

“I think this is about the most credible piece of science that there is out there,” said Yvo de Boer, the U.N.’s top climate official, referring to the CRU’s contribution to the IPCC report. Of course you do, Yvo. Of course you do.

The Money In AGW

You may know of Paul Krugman. He knows everything, because he’s a professor at Princeton and also works for the New York Times. He especially knows everything about money, because he’s an economist. He can tell you all about AGW and the UEA-CRU documents that were recently exposed. For example, he can tell you that when it comes to AGW,

There is tremendously more money in being a skeptic than there is in being a supporter.

Steady there, Pilgrims. It’s hard to know when Krugman is correct, in error, talking about something he knows nothing about, or lying. It all looks pretty much the same, so you have to check what he says before you believe him. Like all economists, he pretends that his field is a science, so everything the man says is pronounced with the same authoritative tone.

This is not the first time the AGW cult (yes, Krugman is a member) has stated flatly that “skeptics” are whores, or at least have a good gig. In case you care, here are three excellent sources you should consult:

The Boston Globe published a prescient commentary in 2007.

Regarding Phil Jones, head of the UEA-CRU, The Detroit News says this (among other things — read it all):

“A lot is on the line. Jones, according to the disclosures, has collected about $22.6 million in research grants since 1990, a money pit that could — and should — dry up with the disclosure of the deception by him and his co-conspirators.”

Finally, this article puts the facts into perspective and shows how uninformed/untruthful Krugman can be. Make a mental note.

You Will Ignore This As Nonsense

How many times has this newsletter told you not to use Microsoft products on the internet? And you don’t believe it matters, do you? Did you see that item in TLB 118 telling you that using Microsoft on the internet is “not patriotic” of you? If you did, the smart money says you did not ask why TLB would say something stupid like that, which means you did not look into it.

OK, look into this, and then go back to Nr. 118 and do your homework.

Fact: for several reasons, Microsoft products are not your wise choice for use on the internet, and there is a distinct possibility that if wisdom prevails (huge “if,” admittedly, considering whose wisdom is under consideration), the government may start a shift away from Microsoft. That should happen, heaven knows, and in a rational world, it would have happened already. But TLB is afraid the bureaucrats will just carry on without doing the right thing…which is what you have done and will almost certainly do, no matter how often and how loudly TLB warns you.

Your refutation of the many warnings will be, “I don’t have a problem, never have had, and nobody I know has had any trouble. I use anti-virus software. It works fine.” The catch: you will never know you have been victimized, and that your computer has been used in who knows how many criminal conspiracies or Chinese or Russian cyber-attacks on the USA.

Sophisticated criminals and enemies of the USA are working full time, improving their skills and developing new exploits. Face it, when it comes to the digital world, these people are far sharper than you are or ever will be. Yes, you took a course, or you are a computer specialist, and you even know how to spoof an IP address. That may impress a lot of folks, but you are kidding yourself, because you are still a novice, a beginner, a lost babe in the woods, compared to the Bad Guys. You don’t stand a chance against them…as long as you use Microsoft.

Excellent advice you won’t take: keep your holy Microsoft software, but restrict its use for the non-internet tasks you have. Use Apple, FreeBSD, or some version of Linux for e-mail and browsing the internet.

Don’t even start with that “Any operating system can be cracked” nonsense. That’s like saying that because thieves can break into a bank vault, you refuse to put locks on the front and back doors of your bungalow. This is earth, not heaven; do what you can, and don’t childishly do nothing at all because utter perfection is theoretically unattainable.

In both theory and practice, Apple, FreeBSD and Linux are inherently much safer than Microsoft. It’s not simply a matter of the fact that Microsoft is used by almost everybody, meaning there are plenty of potential victims for the criminals to exploit. Microsoft draws malicious attention because its fundamental design makes it easy to crack.

In TLB’s view, the entire Apple system offers superb hardware (some of the laptops are amazing!), the best tools available for working with graphics, and a safe, reliable operating system. It’s not cheap, but it’s excellent for Redmond refugees. Perhaps the ideal solution would be to retain your Windows computer, unplug it from the internet, and add a gorgeous Apple notebook/laptop to your system.

While Linux is more flexible and offers more options than Apple, it may challenge former Windows users a bit more than they like. That said, TLB staff gave up on Windows as hopeless over ten years ago, and has been using various versions of Linux (SUSE, Red Hat, Debian, with test drives of Mandriva, Slackware and a few others) ever since. For an informed opinion on Windows vs. Linux, have a look at this weblog post. If you want to try Linux, Ubuntu is the customary newcomer’s choice, but TLB thinks you should ignore the hype and install Debian’s Stable version, called Lenny. It’s likely to be more reliable than Ubuntu. Info here.

If you want to explore the security issue a bit, you might consider looking at SELinux. Perhaps its best version comes from the folks at Red Hat. Those taking this route should be prepared to do some serious learning.

Debian offers SELinux, too. A simpler but still effective approach is available, though, so for information on standard (non-SELinux) Debian GNU/Linux security measures, download the .pdf found here and give it a read. That should scare you badly enough to drive you back to a common-sense approach, namely, just start using an operating system that is inherently a lot stronger than Microsoft’s best effort, and then don’t mess with it — unless and until you have learned what it’s all about.

Finally, FreeBSD. This is a fine operating system, and best suited to information technology professionals, in TLB’s view. It is sometimes said that “Windows is for everybody; Linux is for people who hate Windows; and BSD is for people who love Unix.” If that makes little sense to you, forget about FreeBSD. If it is a slogan you understand and appreciate, you probably already use one or another flavor of BSD.


There’s a new product for all you mobile, cel, or whatever-they-are-called-now phone fanatics, and it should induce serious lust. It’s like an Apple product, but because it has no proprietary restrictions, its potential for good and evil seems virtually unlimited. Details in this article. Not that TLB approves, of course. Use ear buds and a separate microphone.

ACORN intends to carry on, which should come as no surprise to anyone. Some folks, however, are outraged. Their anger seems to be a variety of the old “there goes the neighborhood” sentiment. Today, however, we have the internet; when ACORN invades your turf, you can tell the world. As you should.

A meditation on minarets in Switzerland and governments everywhere.

Regarding what may seem to be obsessive priorities, an explanation with deep roots.

This could go in the AGW section, but actually it belongs in the “Illicit/Unethical Government Censorship” section. Unfortunately there is no such section. Yet.

“Yes we can! And lookee here, you stupid suckers — we just did!”

Interesting video for some of you: John J. Miller on “The First Assassin: History, Politics, and the Future of Publishing,” here.

“The Obama Doctrine.” Holy cow, is there such a thing? And if so, where can decent people hide?

Conservatives feel their backs are to the wall, and here come the blindfolds. It may not be that bad, Folks. It may be worse.

If this is genuine, will Obama claim credit for it, or admit that it was planned and set up during W’s administration?

Here’s a thoughtful essay on the implications of the AGW scandal — and related issues that will only concern good citizens. — Oh, his name was really Eric Arthur Blair, by the way.

Obama’s foreign policy displays a pattern: Insult the Brits. That’s just one negative pattern, unfortunately…to it can be added these goals: drive the Israelis nuts, give the “Palestinians” good reason to harden their line, convince Iran that the USA is cowardly and indecisive, and tell the Taliban that in a year or so Uncle Sam will turn Afghanistan over to them. Hooray for hopeandchange.

Related: the Dept of State continues to allow Obama to disgrace himself in relations with foreign states. Weblogger: “…the King probably doesn’t have enough accomplishments on his record yet to merit lunch with Obama.” That vicious sarcasm rates a huge ouch! — Well, State can thank its lucky stars this little mess settled itself (or so it appears at present), because it was probably the biggest single blunder of US foreign policy in the last two decades. It amounted to coming down squarely on the wrong side of the issue, aiding the nation’s enemies. And it did not get half the press coverage it should have. Naturally. Meanwhile the question remains: is Hillary behind all these gaffes, goofs and grubby goings-on? “Try to sideline me, willya, you Johnny-Come-Lately amateur? I’ll give ya What For!”

US Muslims prove they do not discriminate against women.

More on the Freedom of Information Act, with free information on Barbara Boxer thrown in just to discourage you from clicking on the link.

The Pakistanis kill some, capture some Taliban, shoot some video to prove…well, whatever. Note the level of professionalism (no, not of the video, of the soldiers or cops or whatever they are). On second thought, note the professionalism of the video.

Nevada should get rid of Harry; that can happen in 2010.

Isn’t this some kind of racist insult? “He’s like the whitest black boy you’ve ever met.” Is it anti-black, anti-white, or what? Here’s thecontext. Have fun.

“…social engineering at its absolute worst.” Because that’s a sentiment shared by quite a few, some folks are planning rallies and demonstrations. Is this the modern equivalent of the civil rights movement of the 1960s? Just asking that question should provoke a lot of anger in some quarters. That in turn should give everybody something to think about.