• 
• 
  • Arts & Culture
  • City Hall
  • Environment
  • Housing & Displacement
  • Immigrant Rights
  • LGBQT
  • Poverty
  • Youth & Schools
• 
  • Features
  • News Briefs
  • Newswire
  • Headlines
• 
  • Mailing Lists
  • PhillyIMC's Wiki
  • LAVA
  • Contact us
• 
• 
• 
• 

Recent Similar Articles

• > Deadly Irene Politics: Climate Change and Prisoners Abandoned to Die
• Taxing Carbon: A Simple Solution to the Climate Crisis --A Talk by Charles Komanoff


• > U-Penn graduate stopped Massey Energy strip mining machine, jailed
• > On Global Warming: Response to FT Gideon Rachman's 'And now for a world government'
• > Open Letter to Steve McIntyre : The 'Highest Order Bit' of Climategate is being ignored by Scientists – WHY?

• > Bretton Woods 2.0: Soros New World Order Conference
• > On Global Warming: Response to FT Gideon Rachman's 'And now for a world government'
• > Open Letter to Steve McIntyre : The 'Highest Order Bit' of Climategate is being ignored by Scientists – WHY?
• > President Obama and the End of History - But Beginning of a New One!
• > debate on world politics, finance by Zhibin Gu, Johnson, and Frank: globalization wrong?

Letter to a 'co-conspiracy theorist': Reflections on Modernity, Climategate, Pandemic, Peer Review, and Science in the Service of Empire

Dear 'co-conspiracy theorist' M – Hi.

What Dr. Tim Ball stated in his concluding remarks in the following climategate video also captures my sentiments:

“... but you know what, finding out that what I was saying was true there is no pleasure in that whatsoever. No pleasure in 'I told you so' because this is a deeply troubling time not only for climate-science, but Science in general.” -- Minute 9:30, Climategate: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails, November 21, 2009 on corbettreport http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac

And as sweeping as that “deeply troubling time” statement is, I would say Dr. Tim Ball still didn't go far enough. He did not unravel the overarching agenda and the galactic extent it permeates its corrupting tentacles as noted in this Letter to Editor: Understanding the Political Science behind Global Warming February 07, 2009, and in this Response to Financial Times Gideon Rachman's 'And now for a world government' December 11, 2008.

And neither did Senator Inhofe examine the 'WHY' of “cooking that science” in this exchange on Fox News back in June 2009:

Fox News Anchor: “Does it appear to you that the EPA buried evidence that would have made the President's climate change bill unnecessary”?

Sen. Inhofe: “Oh absolutely Greg. They have been cooking that science since 1998. ...”

Fox News Anchor: “And here is what Alan Carlin said [Author of EPA 98-page study on climate change]: 'My view is...there is not currently any reason to regulate carbon dioxide. Global temperatures are roughly where they were in mid-20th century. They're not going up. If anything, they're going down.' In other words, if there is no endangerment, there is no need for a Bill.”

Sen. Inhofe: “The thing is phony. I feel so good about being redeemed after all these years... all of those scientists that Al Gore had lined up... all of them used to be on his side, they all said wait a minute, this science isn't right, and that's exactly what Alan Carlin said...” -- Minute 0:30, Sen. Inhofe On Global Warming: 'This Thing Is Phony', Fox News, June 29, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skf8bpl8WSg

The following is an interesting map of global temperatures – I am not sure of the source or accuracy of the specifics of the data from which it is constructed, but the planetary level temperature cycles are quite empirical:

Whereas, not unlike the many previous diabolical mantras deployed by the ruling establishment as pretexts for different facets of its “imperial mobilization” agenda, the following is the famous “hockey-stick” science graph used for promoting the mantra of Global Warming:

Canadian Professors Ross McKitrick and Christopher Essex deconstructed that hockey-stick science along with their notable non-conformist collaborator and businessman from Toronto, Steve McIntyre, in their 2003 book Taken by Storm, long before climategate. But Prof. Ross too, circumspectly, only called it “bad science”, judiciously refraining from calling it Science in the Service of Empire which it is:

'Michael Coren: “What's all this about a hockey-stick?”

Ross McKitrick: “Well, the hockey-stick graph. This was back in 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], it's a UN body that every five years puts out a big assessment of the science. And they are especially alert to any evidence that really promotes the Global Warming story and they give it lots of promotion. And in 2001, they latched onto this result that was fairly fresh in the literature, that had to with what's called paleoclimatology. The study of the behavior of the climate from way back before we had thermometers.

Now, for decades the standard view has been that over the past thousand years, there is a Medieval era, which is very warm compared to the present. You know, the Greenland, the Vikings were able to have farms in Greenland. All over the world there is evidence that it was warmer, and basically better for people. And then things got cold for about 500 years, up to the 1800s, and then we were in a warming phase coming out of the little ice-age as it was called.

In the 2001 IPCC report, they changed all that and presented a graph that looks like a hockey stick lying on its side. So the mean state of the climate is almost constant, up until the year 1900, and then suddenly the temperatures started rising rapidly.

And this was very dramatic. It was an extremely effective graphics for getting people worried about global warming.

And it featured prominently in the debates over Kyoto, the government of Canada had it on its website. Actually the government of Canada quoted from it in a pamphlet they sent out to households across the country, and governments around the world did the same thing. Al Gore features it in his movie.” -- Minutes 0:23 to 2:20

Michael Coren: “... Hold on, you are being very generous here. The hockey stick was used time and time again, and in fact, it became almost iconic within the Global Warming movement. As you say, movies, and pamphlets sent out to people across Canada. And you are not saying to me, it was never genuine, either because there was weak research, or even dishonest research, this is kafkaesque.”

Ross McKitrick: “Well, what we found along the way was there was statistical errors, but one of the big problems was they'd used a contaminated dataset. They had about 400 input data series of these temperature proxies, but they way they were analyzing them was most of the data was thrown out, and there is one little segment of the dataset that all the results depended on, and they are called bristle cone pine series. It's a funny looking tree that grows mostly in Western United States and they grown very old. Thousand years old.

But, people have long known, and the National Academy of Science has repeated this warning: you shouldn't use them for temperature reconstructions, because they have this hockey-stick shape that's got nothing to do with temperature.

Well, it turned out that the hockey-stick graph was formed by taking these bristle cone pines and just putting all the weight on them.

And the original author had redone his analysis taking this small number of bristle cone pines out, and the whole shape changes. The graph just loses its shape, it just becomes sort of noisy and nothing. So, they knew when they published this study.”

Michael Coren: “They lied!”

Ross McKitrick: “I wouldn't say they lied. I think what they did was they didn't disclose the fundamental weakness of the original result.” ' -- Minute 4:42 to 6:20, conversation with Professor Ross McKitrick, The hockey stick is wrong and result of bad science, on Michael Coren Show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1k4mFZr-gE

As the above narratives brazenly disclose, one can't expect any effective policing of empire by those fed from the crumbs of empire, never mind unravel the hidden agendas! Just look at even Professor Ross McKitrick's apologetics on behalf of his fellow-scientist whose fraud he himself exposed, as being mere errors of omissions and not outright lying despite the acute probing by the interviewer. That modus operandi of crafty omissions and half-truths, as is examined later in this letter, is a full lie and the vulgar propagandists' key mechanism for manufacturing mantras, dissent, and consent for empire.

In any event, as the political science thesis contained in my aforementioned Letter to Editor argues, there is indeed a prime reason for “cooking that science” of climate-change. It is, quite un-surprisingly, along the same global axis as the prime reason for “cooking the science” of Swine Flu as already unraveled in The Swine Flu Chronicles 2009: Why to say ‘No’ to the Swine Flu Vaccine. See its Preamble for a succinct examination of the principle modus operandi in the globalists' own handwritings. In this case, it is to fabricate plausible sounding justifications for legally ushering in the architecture of 'carbon credit', regardless of whether there is global warming, global cooling, or no significant temperature change. That is the real heart of the matter and the focus of heated debates for the past ten years being whether or not there is global climate change, as now in the climategate that there isn't, is a gigantic red herring.

The point of focus shouldn't be the unraveling of the deception, but the unraveling of the crucial agendas behind the deception for which mantras are so painstakingly fabricated and consent manufactured.

As both, Zen wisdom and forensic science dictate, these revelations are “like a finger pointing away to the moon – don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory"!

That Letter to Editor noted above examined the 'why' question, quoting from an earlier analysis of Global Warming:

'And as is entirely obvious from Mr. Gideon Rachman's article why this is politically motivated, the reasons become clear why this confusion is deliberately being created. If you accept the Capitalist conspiracy for world government, as I have described it, and if you accept the NSSM-200 agenda for population reduction as I have also described it, tying in the hand of Rockefeller to the UN and their agenda for population reduction (citations for these statements are in my various essays), then you must realize why the ruling elite wants to control 'life activity', and carbon-credit is their architecture of control!

It is somewhat akin to acquiring control of a nation's money supply in the guise of managing the economy better. Few in the public understand why such a control is bad anyway, but those who do try to understand it are thrown layers upon layers of obfuscation. Something similar is happening here. Think of acquiring control of 'carbon-credits' almost equivalent to acquiring control of a nation's money supply! This will control every aspect of sustaining life, just as control of money determines every aspect of sustaining the economy. You name it, between the two of them, it will control it in a world-government. And the first recipient of these controls, the carbon-credit specifically, is the developing world, the Global South, because that is where development must be arrested, and populations thinned out! Just as control of money was first exercised where there was a superfluity of industry and commerce, control of 'carbon-credit' is intended to be exercised where there is a superfluity of populations aspiring to grow their nascent economies!' -- NB: On Global Warming December 12, 2008

And it is instructive to juxtapose all of that perspective with the motivation for population control expressed by David Rockefeller at the UN Ambassadors dinner, as transcribed in Project Humanbeingsfirst's Monetary Reform Bibliography:

“Ironically however, the very innovations that are making possible dramatic improvements in human well-being are also creating new problems which raise the spectre of an alarming and possibly catastrophic disaster to the biosphere we live in. And herein lies the dilemma that we all face. Let me illustrate. Improved public health, has caused the world's infant mortality rate to decline by 60 percent over the last 40 years. In the same period, the world's average life expectancy has increased from 46 years in 1950s to 63 years today. This is a development which as individuals we can only applaud. However the result of these positive measures is that the world population that has risen during the same short period of time geometrically to almost 6 billion people, and can exceed easily 8 billion by the year 2020.

The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary eco-systems is becoming appallingly evident. The rapid growing exploitation of the world's supply of energy and water is a matter of deep concern. And the toxic by products of widespread industrialization and increased atmospheric pollution to dangerous levels. Unless nations will agree to work together to tackle these cross-border challenges posed by population growth over consumption of resources and environmental degradation, prospects for a decent life on our planet will be threatened. The recent UN meeting in Cairo is appropriately focussed on one of these key issues, population growth.

But the controversies which have erupted at the conference illustrate the problem of coming to grips with issues that are deeply divisive and which have a profound moral dimension. The United Nations can and should play an essential role in helping the world find a satisfactory way of stabilizing the world population and stimulating economic development in a manner that is sensitive to religious and moral considerations.

Economic growth is of course an inevitable corollary of a growing population, and is essential to improved standards of living. But without careful coordination, unrestrained economic growth poses further threats to our environment.

This was a major subject of discussion at the conference in Rio de Janeiro on the environment two years ago. The focus then was on sustainable growth, and global development. It was pointed out at the conference that growth is most efficiently managed by the private sector, but regulation of the process by national governments and international bodies is also needed. And once again, United Nations can certainly be among the catalysts and coordinators of this process.” -- David Rockefeller, United Nations Ambassador's Dinner, hosted by the Business Council for the United Nations, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqUcScwnn8

So many learned people betray shock and surprise by climategate that they betray their own pathetic ignorance of the doctrinal craftsmanship of empire. Yes, and among them are the most brilliant scientists on the planet – a phenomenon I call the “ignorance of the learned”. Some are pleased or have the 'told you so' reaction, and some just pooh-pooh it as insignificant, but few betray any deep forensic comprehension of the full import of the Machiavellian agenda behind the mantra now becoming unraveled. I haven't bothered studying these leaked materials since the confirmation they proclaim is a waste of my time. As the good Dr. Tim Ball candidly stated, it also gives me absolutely no pleasure to receive confirmation that I see the tortuous reality for what it is. I'll examine their details when it becomes pertinent to some analysis I am doing. These climategate leaks contain no profound knowledge which can benefit me – and that's because Hari Seldon's statecraft of 'psychohistory', I mean Machiavellian political science, predicts the hijacking of hard-science as well as social-science accurately. It is manifest across the board.

And Dr. Tim Ball acutely put his finger on the precise modus operandi used in imperial science today as its key loci of control for conferring credibility and respectability to priesthood for inclusion into empire's officially approved churches: the peer-review process. I call it “incestuous science”! The peer-review process cannot approve or adjudicate, by definition, anything outside of the conventional wisdom endorsed by the peers of empire if the science ever goes against the principal interests of empire. So, while it can work well for science which does not challenge empire's interests or entrenched prevailing wisdom, peer-review has undeniably become a bloody scam to promote establishment's own agendas, to issue grants, to authenticate pseudo-scientific plausible-sounding justifications for pre-determined outcomes, and to see who falls in line for further reward and who qualifies for ostracization.

This should be self-evident irrespective of the climategate brouhaha. Page 101 of John Perkins 2004 book “Confessions of the Economic Hitman” for instance, also reveals an example of the perverse respectability gained from peer-review publishing of entirely bogus mathematical econometric-theory in furtherance of the hegemonic agenda for diabolically acquiring control over developing nations and their natural resources. This is what John Perkins confesses on pages 101-102:

'Bruno came up with an idea for an innovative approach to forecasting: an econometric model based on the writings of a turn-of-the-century Russian mathematician. The model involved assigning subjective probabilities to predictions that certain specific sectors of an economy would grow. It seemed an ideal tool to justify the inflated rates of increase we liked to show in order to obtain large loans, and Bruno asked me to see what I could so with the concept.

... By 1977, I had built a small empire that included a staff of around twenty professionals headquartered in our Boston office, and a stable consultants from MAIN's other departments and offices scattered across the globe. I had become the youngest partner in the firm's hundred-year history. In addition to my title of Chief Economist, I was named manager of Economics and Regional Planning. I was lecturing at Harvard and other venues, and newspapers were soliciting articles from me about current events. I owned a sailing yacht that was docked in Boston Harbor next to the historic battleship Constitution, “Old Ironsides”, renowned for subduing the Barbary pirates not long after the Revolutionary War. I was being paid an excellent salary and I had equity that promised to elevate me to the rarified heights of millionaire well before I turned forty. True, my marriage had fallen apart, but I was spending time with beautiful and fascinating women in several continents.

... [With that as background] I brought a young MIT mathematician, Dr. Nadipuram Prasad, into my department and gave him a budget. Within six months he developed the Markov method for econometric modeling. Together we hammered out a series of technical papers that presented Markov as a revolutionary method for forecasting the impact of infrastructure investment on economic development.

It was exactly what we wanted: a tool that scientifically “proved” we were doing countries a favor by helping them incur debts they would never be able to pay off. In addition, only a highly skilled econometrician with lots of time and money could possibly comprehend the intricacies of Markov or question its conclusions. The papers were published by several prestigious organizations, and we formally presented them at conferences and universities in a number of countries. The papers – and we – became famous throughout the industry.'

And specifically, returning to climategate, in the case of the first author of climategate sciences in the service of empire, John L. Daly wrote the following of Michael Mann in The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science:

'Michael Mann

At the time he published his `Hockey Stick' paper, Michael Mann held an adjunct faculty position at the University of Massachusetts, in the Department of Geosciences. He received his PhD in 1998, and a year later was promoted to Assistant Professor at the University of Virginia, in the Department of Environmental Sciences, at the age of 34.

He is now the Lead Author of the `Observed Climate Variability and Change' chapter of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR-2000), and a contributing author on several other chapters of that report. The Technical Summary of the report, echoing Mann's paper, said: "The 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest year."

Mann is also now on the editorial board of the `Journal of Climate' and was a guest editor for a special issue of `Climatic Change'. He is also a `referee' for the journals Nature, Science, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, JGR-Oceans, JGR-Atmospheres, Paleo oceanography, Eos, International Journal of Climatology, and NSF, NOAA, and DOE grant programs. (In the `peer review' system of science, the role of anonymous referee confers the power to reject papers that are deemed, in the opinion of the referee, not to meet scientific standards).

He was appointed as a `Scientific Adviser' to the U.S. Government (White House OSTP) on climate change issues.

Mann lists his `popular media exposure' as including - "CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, CNN headline news, BBC, NPR, PBS (NOVA/FRONTLINE), WCBS, Time, Newsweek, Life, US News & World Report, Economist, Scientific American, Science News, Science, Rolling Stone, Popular Science, USA Today, New York Times, New York Times (Science Times), Washington Post, Boston Globe, London Times, Irish Times, AP, UPI, Reuters, and numerous other television/print media" [17].

Mann's career highlights a serious problem with the modern climate sciences, namely the `star' system where high-profile scientists are promoted swiftly to influential positions in the industry. Such a star system reduces a science to the level of Hollywood.'

Unfortunately, the last passage in the aforementioned complete quote is where John L. Daly too failed to appreciate the import of Science in the Service of Empire, narrowly pinning the problem as only plaguing “modern climate sciences”.

It should be evident to all men and women of science that neither Darwin nor Galileo would ever have passed peer-review. The fact that genuine scientists seeking the peer review process don't seem to care about this blatant obviousness which is even rooted in historical precedence, suggests that they wisely choose to remain within the allowable confines of acceptable research, i.e., funded research, even when they have no diabolical or mal intent of their own. The control in science is exercised in a manner not too dissimilar to permitting vigorous and contrarian social debate within an allowable spectrum to give the illusion of free speech and freedom of thought! Those falling outside the allowable limits are of course variously labeled and marginalized.

Thus, while no one may challenge the sacred-cow Holocaust^TM narrative in the EU or Canada without going to jail as everyone already knows, debating and developing competing theories on Islamofascism and maligning Islam and its Prophets is greatly encouraged as the epitome of freedom of speech and profound intellectualism. But challenging the very premise of Osama Bin Laden or 'Radical Islam' is frowned upon, and will likely soon be labeled 'terrorism' if it isn't already. Rendition can't be that far behind. Nevertheless, it is still easier to survive being marginalized in the social discourse arena. But quite impossible to do so in science which has become a big budget operation requiring institutional support and endorsement.

That abuse of science, the “incestuous science”, in the present vaccination drive for the swine flu forms the underpinning of this Note on Vaccination which expresses a unique concern that is still largely outside the many paradigms of concern expressed by many of the nay-sayers in their own formulations of why they are against the swine flu vaccine, or against vaccination in general:

'My immediate concern is the latter which includes an entire gamut of political abuse, from eugenics to GMO foods to epidemics – which harvests justifications and techniques from science and technology – all for population culling and elimination. It's akin to abusing Islam to create the fabled enemy of 'Islamism' for a war-making agenda – whether or not there is some inherent deficiency in the religion is irrelevant and orthogonal to its political abuse for “imperial mobilization”.' -- The Swine Flu Chronicles 2009: Why to say ‘No’ to the Swine Flu Vaccine

The aforementioned concern is even more eloquently voiced by the polymath Spanish Benedictine nun at San Benet of Montserrat's Monastery in Barcelona, Dr. Teresa Forcades, with the peerless credentials: Physician specialist in Internal Medicine, Ph.D. in Public Health, and Degree in Theology from Harvard University.

English Transcript BELL-TOLLING for Swine Flu PDF Here

And that full spectrum abuse of science, the “incestuous science” in the service of empire, is the crucial heart of the matter today.

The fact that we see it occurring repeatedly across the board – from the government sanctioned official but absurd NIST report on how the WTC towers catastrophically collapsed into their own footprints on 911, to the fraudulent climate-change science of Global Warming, to the brazenly criminal medical science of swine flu pandemic promulgated by government sanctioned official bodies like WHO and CDC – minimally shows how science is being perversely used in the service of empire. What a tortuous implementation of Sir Francis Bacon's drive to inter-link the pursuit of the nascently emerging Western science in the 17th century with imperial funding from the superpower du jour, in order to more effectively deploy the harvest of science in the service of humanity (and of course empire): “human knowledge and human power meet in one”! 

[...]

CONTINUED at:  http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/let-co-conspiracy-theorist-climategate.html

Zahir Ebrahim

Project Humanbeingsfirst.org