WHY DID NANCY PELOSI AND DIANNE FEINSTEIN LIE ABOUT 'CLIMATE CHANGE"? ANSWER: TO PAD THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS!
Why Did A Small Group of California Politicians Lie To The World About Climate Change Data?
By E&E Investigations
The answer: For Profiteering At The Expense of The Public!
There is no doubt that the climate changes. No sane person can argue that. You can’t argue that the sky is not blue or the grass is not green either. You don’t care either way.
If a group of people told you that climate change will kill you, or that if they sky turns too blue it will deform your children or that if the grass gets too long it will eat your dog, then you will join your neighbors to proclaim that “something must be done!”
What if those assertions, by famous politicians, were outright lies that were being told to you so that those politicians and their Silicon Valley financiers could rape the U.S. Treasury?
A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.” The data was rigged.
“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.
The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.
Why would a specific group of politicians lie about a thing if the lying about that thing does not put profits in their bank accounts? In all of human history, has it not always been the case that big political lies are created for big corrupt profiteering schemes?
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama fabricated the entire Climate Change issue in order to put payola cash in the private bank accounts of their financiers: Elon Musk, John Doerr, Vinod Khosla, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, Greylock Partners, Kleiner Perkins, Goldman Sachs, Vantage Point, Draper Fisher, Khosla Ventures, Firelake Capital, CBRE, Westley Group and Wilson Sonsini. These are the very same people who engaged in the epic Silicon Valley sexual abuses, anti-trust abuses, public privacy rights abuses and who were the primary financiers and crony beneficiaries of Obama and Clinton. They are, obviously, a pack of organized crime operators with no moral code and an absolute willingness to break the law.
Any player who was not on the payola list and who had better competing technology: ie: Bright Automotive, XP Vehicles, Zap Motors, Brammo and over 100 other American companies, was sabotaged by the U.S. Department of Energy to protect the campaign financiers market share of the fake Climate Change Repair technology providers. The entire thing was a scam to finance the Obama/Clinton campaigns and get taxpayers to pay for it while scraping illicit profits and stock perk values off the scheme. These companies lost billions of dollars exclusively because of Department of Energy managed attacks on them!
Elon Musk, John Doerr, Vinod Khosla, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, Greylock Partners, Kleiner Perkins, Goldman Sachs, Vantage Point, Draper Fisher, Khosla Ventures, Firelake Capital, CBRE, Westley Group and Wilson Sonsini owned and controlled the solar and battery markets to “solve” climate change. If any other party tried to “solve” the problem, they were considered competitors and outsiders and “taken-out” with coordinated “hit-jobs” including character assassinations, black-lists, DOE freeze-outs, permanent DOE stone-walling and “bottom-drawering” and other dirty tricks.
Senators Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Kamala Harris, and Dianne Feinstein personally manipulated Climate Scam payola and personally received millions of dollars in cash and stock market kick-backs in compensation for their efforts.
Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.
Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.
In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.
“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”
“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.
Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”
“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
Based on these results, the study’s authors claim the science underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases “is invalidated.”
The new study will be included in petitions by conservative groups to the EPA to reconsider the 2009 endangerment finding, which gave the agency its legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Sam Kazman, an attorney with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), said the study added an “important new piece of evidence to this debate” over whether to reopen the endangerment finding. CEI petitioned EPA to reopen the endangerment finding in February.
“I think this adds a very strong new element to it,” Kazman told TheDCNF. “It’s enough reason to open things formally and open public comment on the charges we make.”
Since President Donald Trump ordered EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to review the Clean Power Plan, there’s been speculation the administration would reopen the endangerment finding to new scrutiny.
The Obama-era document used three lines of evidence to claim such emissions from vehicles “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”
D’Aleo and Wallace filed a petition with EPA on behalf of their group, the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC). They relied on past their past research, which found one of EPA’s lines of evidence “simply does not exist in the real world.”
Their 2016 study “failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.”
“In sum, all three of the lines of evidence relied upon by EPA to attribute warming to human GHG emissions are invalid,” reads CHCC’s petition. “The Endangerment Finding itself is therefore invalid and should be reconsidered”.
Pruitt’s largely been silent on whether or not he would reopen the endangerment finding, but the administrator did say he was spearheading a red team exercise to tackle climate science.
Secretary of Energy Rick Perry also came out in favor of red-blue team exercises, which are used by the military and intelligence agencies to expose any vulnerabilities to systems or strategies.
Environmental activists and climate scientists largely panned the idea, with some even arguing it would be “dangerous” to elevate minority scientific opinions.
“Such calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate,” wrote climate scientist Ben Santer and Kerry Emanuel and historian and activist Naomi Oreskes.
“They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science,” the three wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed.
“Frankly, I think you could do a red-blue team exercise as part of reviewing the endangerment finding,” Kazman said.
Though Kazman did warn a red team exercise could be a double-edged sword if not done correctly. He worries some scientists not supportive of the idea could undermine the process from the inside and use it to grandstand.
The conclusions that can be drawn is either that climate ‘scientists’ including those at NOAA and NASA are fundamentally ignorant of the effects of atmospheric enthalpy and the correct metrics for energy content -or- there is significant malfeasance in these government agencies and academia.
Both conclusions support the immediate defunding of every climate ‘science’ department in NOAA, NASA and academia. The facts prove, beyond a doubt that: Much of recent global warming has been fabricated by climate scientists to make it look more frightening in order to give Silicon Valley campaign billionaires free hand-outs of payola, a study has found.
The peer-reviewed study by scientists and veteran statisticians looked at the global average temperature datasets (GAST) which are used by climate alarmists to argue that recent years have been “the hottest evah” and that the warming of the last 120 years has been dramatic and unprecedented.
What they found is that these readings are “totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
That is, the adjusted data used by alarmist organizations like NASA, NOAA, and the UK Met Office differs so markedly from the original raw data that it cannot be trusted.
This chart gives you a good idea of the direction of the adjustments.
The blue bars show where the raw temperature data has been adjusted downwards to make it cooler; the red bars show where the raw temperature data has been adjusted upwards to make it warmer.
Note how most of the downward adjustments take place in the early twentieth century and most of the upward take place in the late twentieth century.
According to meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso, this has the effect of exaggerating the warming trend:
“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments.”
“Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”
“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened.”
What this means, the report concludes, is that claims by DOE, EPA, NASA, NOAA, and the UK Met Office that the world is experiencing unprecedented and dramatic warming should be taken with a huge pinch of salt: they all use the same corrupted global average temperature (GAST) data.
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming.
Pitch Document created by DNC (and pitched by Clinton Foundation and Clinton backed USAID) to sell Afghan War to Silicon Valley by promising 6 trillion dollars in high tech material lithium battery and solar panel mining profits to Silicon Valley campaign financiers:
The entire "Climate Change" thing was a criminal profiteering scam.
How Can You Help Bankrupt The Crooks In Silicon Valley?
Make Sure Every Consumer In The World Knows About This:
How “Nothing to Hide” Leads to “Nowhere to Hide” – Why Privacy Matters in an Age of Tech Totalitarianism