With #NOAAgate & the gagging order, more or less proving NOAA have something to hide on their warming adjustments to global temperature, with NASA having been pulled up time and time again for their own warming, and now with the same NASA’s study showing that Antarctic ice is increasing, the “Dead Parrot Talks” as I’ve been referring to them, might not be the “dead parrot” I had imagined!
Because, far from not coming to agreement to do something, it is fast looking possible that the talks may focus less on future warming, and more on past fabricated warming. Less on what will happen to Antarctic Ice and more on why the world was so emphatically told that Antarctic ice was melting when it does not appear to be (if the latest study is any better than other NASA work).
And let’s put it this way, if you put a lot of people together, many of whom have been promised billions in “compensation” … and then they are informed that actually there is nothing to compensate them about … knowing human nature, they have probably already earmarked that money for some new luxury air-conditioned palaces and they will not be at all happy. And, who can everyone, both west and east, north and south, blame without any concern? The “climate extremists”. In other words the west will use the excuse: “it was not us gov … we was misled!”
So, one potential, albeit still unlikely outcome (as yet … but what else will appear??) is that the talks may actually come to an agreement … to open investigations into “those responsible” for misleading all these politicians. If so, it could be one of the most dramatic swings ever seen, potentially, going from self-proclaimed: “Nobel laureate” and darling of the gullible=green rich, one year, to “in the penn” the next.
Addendum
I forgot to mention the Phillipe Verdier scandal, sacked for the audacity of being honest that global warming is a scam.With NASA’s Antarctic study and NOAAgate, that decision now looks foolish. Just to keep tally here are the latest strands to this developing scandal:
- Phillipe Verdier scandal
- NASA caught adding warming to the historic temperature.
- NOAAgate: NOAA’s refusal to defend their own upjustments
- NASA’s Antarctic ice study showing that Antarctic ice is growing (at a time global sea ice is back to “normal”).
- RICOgate & the $63million in questionable funding.
Then there’s the way IPCC lead authors are politically active. There’s the Hockeystick scandal. The false “Nobel laureate” scandal (not scientific, but it shows the kind of mindset within the subject). There’s the failed forecasts, the hate campaigns against sceptics, etc.
It would be wonderful if this did happen, but it won’t. Too many vested interests, too many snouts in troughs, too many politicians with too much to lose, and the MSM determined to uphold the religion.
It’s difficult to see how the “talks” can “achieve” anything, though (I put “achieve” in inverted commas, given that anything they do manage to agree won’t be an achievement in the conventional sense of being a positive and useful development. I put “talks” in inverted commas too, since it’s difficult to see how 40,000 people enjoying a bunfight can have any sort of meaningful discussions).
The big problem is that we just don’t have the precedent for this kind of thing. Obama/Clinton are going into an election. The Republicans are gunning for them and Climate is one of those issues where he is really weak.
A few years ago this latest NASA study on Antarctic ice would have been repressed and never seen the light of day. That suggests that the Republicans have friends in NASA. But also NASA continue with the global temperature fraud. This suggests to me that NASA are in the middle of a turf war – which means the Republicans may have some high placed friends in NASA who may just be able to deliver something else really juicy to humiliate Obama at Paris.
Likewise, other agencies will have up and coming people, who see an opportunity for progression through the Republicans. Or possibly more exact – they see the end of their careers unless they play ball with the Republicans.
Let’s put it this way: how did they know to subpoena the emails, unless they already had sight of them?
Is it my imagination or is the phrase ‘Climate Change Risk’ appearing more often, and in more bizarre contexts, on BBC programming as Paris looms ?
You make very interesting observations. I was surprised they released the Antarctic study undermining CAGW.
Just look at the fate of someone like Professor Salby or Philippe Verdier. In light of the prevailing “Climate Extremist” culture we’ve seen in NASA, a report like this couldn’t have been produced without hugely powerful support.
And to be entirely cynical – I suspect someone supporting this at NASA is in line for a top job under the Republicans.
Thanks. I don’t listen to the BBC any more, so I’ve little idea what they are saying, so it’s useful to hear that.
It would be interesting to watch the BBC. They will no doubt have bought into the Guardian “Jahad” leading up to Paris – they will have scheduled a lot of Climate Extremists propaganda. But at the very same time the rug is being pulled from under them by NOAAgate, NASAgate, gagging orders, Philippe Verdier, etc.
It has echoes of the Saville affair! (Xmas spectacular in the midst of criminal allegations)
It’s still everywhere on the BBC, insidiously being dropped into any and every programme. Tonight on Look North, quite gratuitously, they had an article about puffins, apropos of nothing, it seems. It was a puff piece of no significance, a time filler, so far as I could see. In the introduction, they said that puffin numbers are declining and they are now on the “at risk” register (or some such) and the introduction trotted out “climate change” as a factor in this. The body of the piece didn’t mention climate change again, nor did it mention how climate change and the alleged decline of puffins are connected. It doesn’t matter to the BBC – show some cute birds, say they’re at risk, blame climate change. The barrage is relentless.
The best thing is to just stop watching the BBC. Then after a couple of months have another look and you’ll notice that almost everything they broadcast is biased in one way or another. My wife often turns the radio on – I don’t think I’ve listened now for more than 5minutes without hearing overt bias.