How Global Warming Really Works



LEONID GOLDSTEIN
Plaintiff
v.

CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK, CERES INC., ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND INC., GENERATION INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LLP, FORD FOUNDATION, THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS, GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL CORP., ENVIRONMENTAL GRANTMAKERS ASSOCIATION CORP., THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY CORP., THE SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION CORP., WORLD WIDE FUND FOR NATURE TRUST, US CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK CORP., GLOBAL CALL FOR CLIMATE ACTION CORP., GENERATION INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT US LLP, ALLIANCE FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION CORP., FENTON COMMUNICATIONS CORP., WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC., GREENPEACE INC., GREENPEACE FUND INC., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH INTERNATIONAL CORP., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH US CORP., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH (ACTION) INC., ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INC., ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ACTION FUND CORP., NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC., NRDC ACTION FUND CORP., SIERRA CLUB CORP., EARTHJUSTICE CORP., THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC., THE PEW MEMORIAL TRUST, J. HOWARD PEW FREEDOM TRUST, MABEL PEW MYRIN TRUST, J.N. PEW JR. CHARITABLE TRUST, THE JOHN D. AND CATHERINE T. MACARTHUR FOUNDATION, THE WILLIAM & FLORA HEWLETT FOUNDATION, THE DAVID AND LUCILE PACKARD FOUNDATION, TIDES FOUNDATION CORPORATION, TIDES CENTER CORPORATION, CLIMATEWORKS FOUNDATION, THE ENERGY FOUNDATION, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-99
Defendants


Leonid Goldstein writes:

“I have filed a civil RICO complaint against the Climate Alarmism Enterprise – Climate Action Network, Generation Investment Management, Ceres, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Rockefeller Brothers Funds etc. – 40 corporations in total.

The alleged criminal Enterprise has been in existence since 1988. Alleged predicate offenses:

– Retaliation against witnesses

– Tampering with witnesses

– Bribing witnesses

– Bribing public officials

– Theft / Embezzlement from pension and/or welfare plans, including Social Security, and the ongoing attempt at embezzling up to $36 Trillions (with ‘T’) – see www.ceres.org

It reads in Parts:


“1. This is a civil suit against Climate Action Network and other corporations, who engaged in a long-term criminal scheme, involving a false claim that anthropogenic release (or emissions) of carbon dioxide caused a dangerous “global warming” or a dangerous “climate change”, and persecution of the dissidents or demanding government actions, based on this false claim, including money transfer. In fact, the anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide significantly increases agricultural production worldwide. The surface warming, theoretically caused by increased concentration of carbon dioxide, is insignificant and almost undetectable, and is expected to be globally beneficial.


2. Beginning in early 1988 and continuing through the present (the “Scheme Period”), the Defendants and other enterprise members acted in concert with each other in order to further their criminal scheme (the “Climate Alarmism Enterprise”). Each defendant has participated in the operation and management of the Enterprise, and has committed numerous acts to maintain and expand the Enterprise.




7. Plaintiff sues for injury inflicted by the Defendants on him directly, and, additionally, based on standing of victims of racketeering activity to act as “private attorney generals” in prosecuting that racketeering activity (Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 556; 2000).

8. Unless stated otherwise, alleged below actions by Defendants were committed in the 10-years period from September 15, 2006 through the date of filing this Complaint.




13. Plaintiff Leonid Goldstein is a permanent resident of the United States of America, a resident of Texas, and a citizen of Israel. Plaintiff has Master of Science degree in Mathematics, more than 20 years of experience in software engineering, and multiple patents and publications in peer-reviewed literature in a certain renewable energy field. Plaintiff performed a peer review for some journals. Because of his education, professional experience and knowledge, Plaintiff is qualified to give expert testimony on certain questions of physics, mathematics, and computer modelling, relevant to a bone fide climate research and to the so-called “climate science.” Plaintiff also has additional knowledge and life experience that might qualify him to give expert testimony on the corrupt activities of the climate alarmism bodies. Plaintiff is willing to testify on these subjects in front of the US Congress, the Texas Legislature, the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Supreme Court of Texas, without compensation. Plaintiff has been paying into the Social Security for more than 15 years, and has savings in a retirement plan, protected by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974...



 
If global warming is such a big deal why are they predicting a below average temp winter for us...not that i'm complaining
 
Sun spots

The Maunder minimum will control the weather for the next 80 years.
How can science ignore this truth, and accept human causes for the weather.
 
The Maunder minimum will control the weather for the next 80 years.
How can science ignore this truth, and accept human causes for the weather.

Because you are dealing with Political Science and pop science...

Everything from healthcare to climate is an issue in which the elites can interfere with and ruin, er, I mean, run our lives.

~Frisco~
 

For god's sake, ask them why they believe the historic temperature record data is reliable enough to use to judge whether there has even been any global warming.

Ask them why they've been so wrong.

Then, ask them why they don't admit that climate sensitivity is such a complete unknown.

Given the demonstrable lack of a relationship between levels of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature over the last eighteen years, why don't they admit that there is little evidence of an anthropogenic cause of "climate change."

What evidence is there of something other than perfectly normal, natural climate variability?

Lastly, when are they going to admit that there is virtually no evidence to support the dangerous anthropogenic global warming conjecture.






...Those compiling the global averaged surface air temperature record have not only ignored systematic measurement error, but have even neglected the detection limits of the instruments themselves. Since at least 1860, thermometer accuracy has been magicked out of thin air. Also since then, and at the 95% confidence interval, the rate or magnitude of the global rise in surface air temperature is unknowable. Current arguments about air temperature and its unprecedentedness are speculative theology...
-Pat Frank, Ph.D.​









The engineer tells the climate scientist that he used their modelling to predict design temperatures for 50 years in the future. The climate scientist laughs and says, "You believe those numbers?"
 

...and you didn't think activists are attempting to hijack climate "science" in an effort to attain political objectives ??


A wikileaked email to John Podesta asking him to use his position to influence media reporting:



https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/podesta-email-pressure-tv-networks.jpg





When all else fails and the facts aren't cooperating—
just make them up.



This kind of crap represents a disgusting politicization and abuse of science.


 
Who is this Vanessa Feedback? Let's all string her up. :rolleyes:

Want to see some of the actual criminal e-mails I get in my Inbox?
 


The lowlife slimeballs who intentionally politicized climate in the hope of attaining political objectives through the misuse of science have come perilously close to committing a crime against humanity.


 


The lowlife slimeballs who intentionally politicized climate in the hope of attaining political objectives through the misuse of science have come perilously close to committing a crime against humanity.



It's all about the money!
 


The lowlife slimeballs who intentionally politicized climate in the hope of attaining political objectives through the misuse of science have come perilously close to committing a crime against humanity.


Tell it to the lowlife slimeballs at Exxon Mobil, who researched climate change in the 1980's, then suppressed it.
 
Tell it to the lowlife slimeballs at Exxon Mobil, who researched climate change in the 1980's, then suppressed it.

Nice to see you applying the same legal standards of proof that you applied to the clintons
 
Nice to see you applying the same legal standards of proof that you applied to the clintons
Maybe you can explain exactly what an e-mail addressed to John Podesta is supposed to prove. I think you need to find an e-mail from John Podesta before casting aspersions.
 
Maybe you can explain exactly what an e-mail addressed to John Podesta is supposed to prove. I think you need to find an e-mail from John Podesta before casting aspersions.

I was casting aspersions at John Podesta?

I was addressing your castigating ExxonMobil because they've been served with an order for Discovery there are no specific allegations,there is a hunt for anything that can possibly be construed as withholding information from investors.

What is your legal theory is here as to why any company is obliged to disclose to the world the results of their research into any subject that they choose to employ scientists to study?

This is an investor fraud fishing expedition case it has a zero to do with actual climate change science they're up. The theory is if they knew the climate change is real and they knew that it was likely to happen soon then they should have known that there would be an impetus to restrict fossil fuels and they should let their investors know that hey in the future fossil fuels are probably going to be outlawed. All of which is entirely speculative.

Even if they knew for a fact that your version of climate change was real, it is not their job to let out information that would hurt their investors keep in mind that this is an investor fraud case.
 
Last edited:


★ SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure.




In the long run, the movement will never completely go away, the religion will transmogrify. The freeloaders will find other ways to enrich themselves off the public purse and people who are not-too-good-with-numbers will seek alternatives to feel useful, and assuage their guilt for living in the best countries on Earth.

-JoAnne Nova​
 



...On November 19, 2009, an internal whistle-blower or hacker downloaded more than 1,000 documents and e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University (United Kingdom)... these documents were soon accessed by websites around the world.

These e-mails were a subset of confidential communications between top climate scientists in the UK, the United States, and other nations over a 15-year period. Those involved developed surface temperature data sets, promoted the “Hockey Stick” curve, and wrote or edited the core of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports to that time.

The incident was branded “Climategate” by British columnist James Delingpole. These e-mails provide an insight into practices that fall somewhere between bad science and fraudulent science. Bias, data manipulation, dodging freedom of information requests, and efforts to subvert the peer-review process were uncovered.

Some of the more salient quotations follow:


Man-Made Warming Controversy


“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.”
—Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Sep. 22, 1999.
“Keith’s [Briffa] series…differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s [Jones] does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series).”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Sep. 22, 1999.​

“…it would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP’ [Medieval Warm Period]…”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, June 4, 2003​

“By the way, when is Tom C [Crowley] going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Aug. 3, 2004.
“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility.”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 30, 2008
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming… The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
—Dr. Kevin Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Oct. 12, 2009.



Manipulating Temperature Data

“I’ve just completed Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s [Briffa] to hide the decline.”

—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Nov. 16, 1999.

“Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were….”
—Dr. Tim Osborn, Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Dec. 20, 2006.
“If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s warming blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean—but we’d still have to explain the land blip….”
—Dr. Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, on adjusting global temperature data, disclosed Climategate e-mail to Phil Jones, Sep. 28, 2008.
“We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”
—Climatic Research Unit web site, the world’s leading provider of global temperature data, admitting that it can’t produce the original thermometer data, 2011.​


Data Suppression; Freedom of Information (FOI) Avoidance


“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it.”
—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, email to Warwick Hughes, 2004.​

“I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act.”
—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Feb. 21, 2005.
“Mike [Mann], can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Trenberth] re AR4? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his e-mail address…. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”
—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 29, 2008.
“You might want to check with the IPCC Bureau. I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 [the upcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment Report] would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember it.”
—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, on avoiding Freedom of Information requirements, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 12, 2009.​



Subverting the Peer-Review Process


“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
—Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, July 8, 2004.​



____________

“Climategate was a turning point,” Professor Judith Curry remembered, where “pronouncements from the IPCC were no longer sufficient.”




 


Energy Department Refuses President-Elect Trump Request for Information


...this outrageous response is the very epitome of a government department which is out of control. Refusing to provide information to the new administration about what staff do with their work time, to me suggests the US Department of Energy believes they are a law unto themselves – they think they are above politicians and political cycles, and intend to continue wasting money on climate programmes, regardless of what the new Trump administration wants.
-Eric Worrall




________________________
ht tps://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/13/energy-department-refuses-president-elect-trump-request-for-information/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12...resident-elect-trump-request-for-information/
 


Anthropogenic Global Warming:


The computer models are full of assumptions built on guesses on top of estimates based on conjectures filled with suppositions—
which is why the forecasts have been wholly inaccurate and demonstrate no predictive skill whatsoever.




____________________________________

“Give me four parameters, and I can fit an elephant. Give me five, and I can wiggle its trunk.”
-John von Neumann​



 


Energy Department Refuses President-Elect Trump Request for Information


...this outrageous response is the very epitome of a government department which is out of control. Refusing to provide information to the new administration about what staff do with their work time, to me suggests the US Department of Energy believes they are a law unto themselves – they think they are above politicians and political cycles, and intend to continue wasting money on climate programmes, regardless of what the new Trump administration wants.
-Eric Worrall




________________________
ht tps://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/13/energy-department-refuses-president-elect-trump-request-for-information/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12...resident-elect-trump-request-for-information/


The most transparent administration ever.
 



...The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established twenty five years ago to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth.


We note that:

• The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming,
• It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2,
• Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed,
• The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments,
• Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide,
• Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans.


Calls to limit carbon dioxide emissions are even less persuasive today than 25 years ago...


-Richard H. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology




 
Back
Top