Connect with us


Emails prove Climate Change is a Scam

This article was originally written after the Climategate scandal back in 2009, and back then provided absolute proof that climate change was a massive scam. It is sad to see that there are still people today who have fallen for the climate change lies, and are even supporting the agenda.

Early last month, hackers managed to gain access to the servers of the CRU (Climate Research Unit) and download over 1,000 emails dating back as far as thirteen years, plus over 3,500 additional files. The material was then posted across various internet websites, including the leak specialists, Wikileaks.

What the emails and files show is absolutely astounding. They detail data manipulation fraud, refusing to make reference data available and then illegally deleting the evidence, admissions that the world has been cooling and that global warming does not exist, plots to avoid taxation, attempts to subvert the peer-review process and manipulate what journalists publish, threatening to physically assault rivals and rejoicing at the death of other opponents, and misappropriation of grant money.

The leaked information has been nothing short of an embarrassment for both the CRU and international climate change supporters. Unfortunately the media and world governments have been in bed with the climate change industry, which has led to the mainstream news sources attempting to downplay the significance of the leaked information.

On the other hand, independent reporters have had no trouble reporting the news for what it actually is: Proof that climate change is the worlds greatest ever hoax. The leaked information details all the tricks the CRU have been using to produce false data and make sure the real data never gets to see the light of day. The significance of the leaks can not be underestimated, for it is undeniable solid proof that climate change is the greatest global scientific fraud of all time.



The CRU had staked its claim as the world’s leading institution involved in the study of climate change. It has direct links to the EU and a number of well-known international organisations. The headquarters are based in the UK at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, and its staff consists of around 30 research scientists and students.

The CRU is most famous for producing the data sets used in climate change promotion, such as the global temperature record graphs. Through the use of technology, they have created a number of climate models that forecast changes to a variety of different environmental sectors, which have been adopted by agencies such as the UN’s own IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

Professor Phil Jones is the Director and head of the CRU, and its chief scientist. The information leaks firmly supplant him as the main criminal within the organisation. After confirming that the leaked emails and documents are authentic, he relinquished his position as director of the CRU until an independent review into the scandal is completed. The review will be headed by Sir Muir Russell, and given his background, Sir Russell appears to be a puppet who will most likely focus on how the emails were leaked and if the CRU responded appropriately to Freedom of Information requests, rather than investigating the scientific fraud which has occurred.

Interestingly, the CRU website is no longer operational and instead redirected to the University’s main website which contains a prepared statement detailing the impending investigation. Make no mistake, the CRU have been the primary organisation responsible for pushing the scientific data behind global warming. They are the ones who have determined that if we have a hot month, it is due to global warming; if we have a cold month, it is due to global warming; and if there is a thunderstorm, hurricane, cyclone, landslide, drought, flood or earthquake, it also must be due to global warming.



One of the more damning emails exposes how Phil Jones used ‘trick’ to hide the temperature decline. The email is dated back in November 1999 and reads “I’ve just completed Mike’s 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 to hide the decline.” As hard as global warming activists push the idea, they can’t escape the fact that the global temperature has been cooling for years. This email proves that data showing that the globe is warming has been manipulated. When questioned over what he meant by hiding the decline, Prof. Jones has naturally stated that he “can’t remember”.

The creator of the ‘nature trick’ is none other than Michael Mann, who has previously faced controversy over his faked ‘hockey stick’ graphs. The ‘hockey stick’ graphs were created to show a massive surge in global temperatures in recent years, but were later proven to be false by climate researcher Stephen McIntyre. Dr. Mann was forced to publish a correction to his graph, but will still not co-operative by divulging the exact computer code he used, since it may prove a large number of further errors.

Michael Mann also received an email from someone at NASA, who was critical of model results and the IPCC. Their email contained the lines “there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and forcing assumptions/uncertainties.” Dishonesty and false assumptions at the CRU come as no surprise for the climate researchers like Stephen McIntyre.



An email from Mike Kelly to Phil Jones in October last year reads “I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.” If this is not proof enough that global warming does not exist, then how about this gem written by Phil Jones in July 2005, which reads “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

Gary Funkhouser emailed Keith Briffa in September 1996 with an admission of his efforts at data manipulation, which were “I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that.” and “I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have”. Keith Briffa was also caught out with his email to Michael Mann which read “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same”, which provides proof that the data they published was skewed to meet the needs of the IPCC rather than publishing the real science results.

Just recently in September, Phil Jones received an email from Tom Wigley which detailed some further evidence of deliberate data manipulation to strengthen the case for global warming. In response to the 1940’s warming data blip that they didn’t like, Tom admitted changing the ocean temperatures to modify the blip when he wrote “So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean”.



One of the leaked documents is particularly damaging for the CRU, and provides confirmation to climate change sceptics that their accusations of the model creators using manipulated and false data are indeed correct. Climate Consultant Vincent Gray was highly critical of the IPCC report when he wrote “47 out of 91 models listed in Chapter 9 assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 1% a year when the measured rate of increase, for the past 33 years, has been 0.4% a year. The assumption of false figures in models in order to boost future projections is fraudulent. What other figures are falsely exaggerated in the same way?”

Scientist Peter Dietze went one step further and asked for his name to be removed from the list of the IPCC report authors/reviewers. His response was “Our global Carbon Cycle Model reveals a half-life time of only 38 years for any CO2 excess. With present constant global CO2 emission until 2100, the temperature would only further increase by 0.15 °C. Scenario IS92a would end up with 571 ppm only. IPCC assumed that far more fossil reserves would be burnt than being available. Using a flawed eddy diffusion ocean model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic CO2 uptake. Hardly coping with biomass response, limited fossil reserves and using a factor 4 temperature sensitivity, all this leads to an IPCC exaggeration factor of about 6 in yr 2100. The usable fossil reserves of 1300 GtC burnt by 2090, merely cause 548 ppm – not even a doubling. The WRE 650, 750 and 1000 ppm scenarios, projected until 2300, are infeasible. Emission reduction is absolutely useless: the realistic temperature effect of Kyoto till 2050 will be only 0.02 °C. … So as I basically do not consent with the TAR, please do not use my name within the listing of reviewers.” In summary, Peter Dietze acknowledges the IPCC fraud and confirms that the current evidence shows that the global temperature should remain almost constant over the next fifty years.



As the climate change research results presented by the CRU seemed to be fraudulent, there were requests made to view their hard data under the Freedom of Information Act. Once a request is made to view the data, it is illegal to destroy that data; but this is precisely what the CRU did. They had argued that there were problems storing the vast amounts of data, with deleting the data being the only solution. This sounded like a plausible explanation, but a 2005 email from Phil Jones shows that this is a lie, and the data was most likely deliberately deleted. It read “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

Phil Jones also requested other information be deleted in his email to Michael Mann, which read “Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” The subject line for this email was “IPCC & FOI”, which is proof that these characters are guilty of the crime of deleting information subject to a FOI (Freedom of Information) request.

The Caspar referred to in the above email is Caspar Ammann, who was also listed as the cc in another email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann and Raymond Bradley, which read You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this. As stated above, the way around this was to delete the emails. Their climate projections have always been questionable, which is why they would never release their data and have now managed to ‘lose it’. Isn’t it amazing how all the raw data they have based their computer generated forecasts, graphs, projections and models on has magically become ‘lost’?



In addition to the wealth evidence detailing fraud, there is also proof of further crimes including tax evasion, such as the following email quote “Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible.”

One of the more damaging emails was a promise by Phil Jones to ‘spike’ studies showing there is no relationship between human activity and global warming. He wrote to Michael Mann saying “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” In another email, Mann wrote back to Jones saying “This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the ‘peer-reviewed literature.’ Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

Then there was the case of the Wang Fabrications. Both Wang and Phil Jones were investigated for fabricating data back in 1990. Although an investigation cleared Phil Jones of any involvement, he continued to use the same data in his reports, as was detailed in an email which read “Phil, this proves that you knew there were serious problems with Wang’s claims back in 2001; yet some of your work since then has continued to rely on those claims, most notably in the latest report from the IPCC. It would be nice to hear the explanation for this. Phil?” The author of the email also admits to attempting to force Wang to issue a retraction, and includes threats such as prosecution; while he also mulls over having a retraction printed in Wang’s name without his knowledge or consent.



Surprisingly, Australia has managed to become embroiled in the controversy, although only in relation to the weather data used in the climate models. A programmers log details notes criticising the plethora of inaccuracies it contains and is admittedly quite a humorous read.

The programmer describes the multitude of entry errors, duplications and inaccuracies as a “bloody mess”. Some of the problems included missing WMO (World Meteorological Organisation) codes, incorrect co-ordinates and overlapping station names. The programmer went on to rant “Getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data … so many false references … so many changes … bewildering.” His frustration is understandable, particularly when uncovering 30 years of fake data, which culminated in him writing “Now looking at the dates. something bad has happened … COBAR AIRPORT AWS [automatic weather station] cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993!”

The problems are not limited to Australia, and issues were occurring with the raw historical climate data sent from hundreds of other meteorological stations around the world. Another classic rant read “I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar co-ordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.”

Other nations of the world have become embroiled in the CRU controversy even more than Australia, such as in the US, where both their Congress and EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) are taking action to stop global warming based on data from the CRU. Oklahoma Senator, James Inhofe, called for a Senate hearing into the emails. There could be similar situations faced by a number of other nations, since the CRU was the main supplier of data used to create solutions to tackle climate change.



Another interesting document to make its way into the public arena is called ‘The rules of the game’. Essentially, it is the strategy document for UK climate change promoters, and details the tactics and mindset they should employ to promote their agenda. The document starts off with the question “Why were the principles created?” and is answered with “The game is communicating climate change; the rules will help us win it”. The document features a number of interesting points, such as:

  • Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but unimportant.
  • Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before persuasion works. Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is as successful as selling tampons to men. People don’t realise (or remember) that climate change relates to them.
  • Use both peripheral and central processing. Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to public transport.
  • Link climate change mitigation to positive desires/aspirations. Traditional marketing associates products with the aspirations of their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are all worth investigating.
  • Use transmitters and social learning. People learn through social interaction, and some people are better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting these people will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are transmitted more effectively.
  • Government policy and communications on climate change must be consistent. Don’t ‘build in’ inconsistency and failure from the start.
  • Create ‘agency’ for combating climate change. Agency is created when people know what to do, decide for themselves to do it, have access to the infrastructure in which to act, and understand that their contribution is important.
  • Create a trusted, credible, recognised voice on climate change. We need trusted organisations and individuals that the media can call upon to explain the implications of climate change to the UK public.
  • Use emotions and visuals. Another classic marketing rule: changing behaviour by disseminating information doesn’t always work, but emotions and visuals usually do.

Yes, this sounds like the same climate change misinformation campaigns that are being seen across the globe. They have tried to bring the issue to the fronts of everyone’s minds, using peripheral messages, and emotions and visuals such as those fake global warming world maps for 50 years in the future, videos of glaciers breaking apart and polar bears seemingly unable to swim anymore.

They have successfully created a mindset for people to ‘go green’ and develop a sense of pride in doing so, as well as hopping in bed with the governments and drawing up their environmental policies; and targeted credible people and agencies to promote their messages. But the credible people and agencies have turned out not to be so credible at all. They have won their opinions by offering large sums of money; effectively buying voices and faces for their campaigns. The CRU was the trusted, credible and recognised voice on climate change, but has now been exposed as being a pawn in the global climate change agenda.



Why would Phil Jones and the rest of the CRU staff become involved in the world’s greatest ever scientific fraud? Simple – the answer is money. It is an all too common problem within the scientific community at present, with practically every scientist being forced to prostitute themselves to maintain their livelihood. Phil Jones shouldn’t take too much of the heat, because if it wasn’t him, then it would have been someone else in his position doing the same thing.

The sad fact is that there are basically no real jobs anywhere in the world for scientists, and they are instead heavily reliant on research grants for their funding. Scientific studies are expensive and the scientists demand top dollar for their superior academic minds. Companies and governments don’t request scientific studies to be nice; they request them so they can use the results to their advantage. This means that the scientists are told what results they should come up with upfront, and they have to manipulate the data to come to the required conclusions.

If a scientist dare present the real results of their studies, it effectively prevents them from gaining any research grants in the future. If the Philip Morris tobacco company wants a study done on smoking, do you think they will hire an honest scientist or one who give them the results they want? If the Motorola mobile phone company wants a study done on mobile phone use causing brain cancer, do you think they will hire an honest scientist or one who give them the results they want? Going against the funding company’s wishes spells the end to a scientist’s career. Scientists who have gone against the grain have ended up being shunned by universities and unable to win research grants for the rest of their careers.



One of the leaked documents details the funding sources and projects of the CRU over the time period from 1991 to early 2006. Almost fourteen million pounds (AUD $25 Million) were listed on the document as research funding, but we do not know whether this is a full list of all funding sources. One thing is for sure, even if this is the only funding sources list, Phil Jones is sure to be a very rich man.

The Department of Environment in the UK kicked off the funding with a near 200,000 pound project back in 1991. Some of the other early requests came from NATO, the EU, UK National Rivers Authority, US Department of Energy, and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).

The EU and the US Dept of Energy were the most frequent donors, mainly requesting models and graphs to detail the environmental effects that future climate change would be responsible for. The biggest single donor was jointly from HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) and JIF (Joint Infrastructure Fund) and totalled almost 7 million pounds.

Some of the project names seem to provide proof that there were deliberate requests for ‘modified’ data to promote the climate change agenda, such as the EU request for ‘Statistical and regional dynamical downscaling of extremes for European regions’. They didn’t like the real data, so they needed the extremes downscaled to suit their needs. Other examples of producing new data to counter the old are ‘Update and re-examination of temperature indices for Scotland and Northern Ireland’, or ‘eliminating climate sensitivity and thermohalene circulation influences’ on Holocene proxy data sets, and also ‘Development of an improved global historic surface temperature dataset’.

The last donor request is an interesting one. It is a near three million pound study called ‘Tyndall Phase 2’ requested by NERC. Tyndall was a 19th century scientist who was famous for his studies on a variety of subjects, including both heat in the earth’s atmosphere and glaciers. It is quite ironic that his name is used by the CRU, considering that Tyndall’s studies on the absorption of heat by gases in the atmosphere proved water vapour is the main absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and the principal gas which controls air temperature, while all others gases including carbon dioxide have basically no effect on air temperature.



Considering that the leaked data proves climate change is a scam, many people wonder why the governments of the world and their respective agencies are handing over millions of dollars to companies like the CRU to produce false climate change temperature models. It is all part of an agenda to bring all countries under one global government, and the proof can be found throughout several source documents.

The evidence can be found in UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) papers such as “The UNEP That We Want” and “Proposed Medium Term Strategy 2010-2013”, which both outline the program to implement a global governance system based around environmental laws and regulations. A particular strategy mentioned in the papers is “recruiting a far wider community of support, in civil society, the academic world and the private sector.” and then ensure they are “harnessed to the UNEP mission without appearing to make an end-run around the member governments”. The UNEP just happens to be the regulatory body which established the IPCC, which then appointed itself as the supreme international climate authority.

A leaked email from the CRU back in 2000 also provides confirmation of the IPCC involvement in pushing the globalisation agenda. “It was good to see you again yesterday – if briefly. One particular thing you said – and we agreed – was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO.” This shows that the IPCC has nothing to do with saving the planet from global warming, but rather its main purpose is to advance the pre-determined agenda of the global elite.



The leaked emails and documents and the respective fallout has become known as the ‘Climategate’ scandal. Establishments such as the CRU, IPCC and UNEP have all been instigated in Climategate, and have played their part in conspiring to hide evidence of global cooling while pushing the world population into an unwanted and unelected global government. An act such as this would normally have fallen short of its goal many years ago, but the global elite behind the agenda have successfully engaged the public support through the use of clever fear tactics.

The ‘Club of Rome’ is a premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations. They have previously been quoted on record presenting a seemingly outrageous plan to use global warming to turn mankind into its own greatest enemy, with “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

Unfortunately for the global population, the Club of Rome was successful in making the public believe in a fake climate change problem. The use of lies and deceptions has also been admitted by one of the IPCC lead men, Stanford Professor of Climatology Stephen Schneider, who was quoted as saying “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” The use of fabricated fear tactics was also suggested by Emeritus professor Daniel Botkin when he said “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”

Government figures have also been caught out playing middle-men for the one-world government agenda, including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who was quoted as saying “Climate change makes us all global citizens, we are truly all in this together.” Over in Canada, Christine Stewart, the former Canadian Minister of the Environment echoed the same sentiment with “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”



Ultimately, the global elite want to usher in their own hand picked world government, which bypasses any kind of democratic election system. At the same time, they will hit the middle class where it hurts most – in their pockets – by introducing a raft of new regulations and laws. Businesses will be affected by having to adhere to impossible CO2 mandates and face restrictions on industries available and technologies they can deploy, while environmentalism will become the religion of choice for most of the world.

A pay as you pollute scheme is on the cards for every human being worldwide, such as the one already put forward in the UK by Britains Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, David Miliband. The man who also maintains regular contact with Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, plans to issue every world citizen with a ‘carbon credit card’; starting in the UK. Every time someone buys petrol, pays an electricity bill or books an airline ticket, they will be forced to swipe their ‘carbon credit card’. The globalist plan is to issue every single person on earth a card and a balance of 1,000 points to spend each year. When you use up your points, you must purchase additional ‘carbon credits’ from a carbon credit trading firm. This crazy idea is nothing more than a socialist international wealth redistribution scheme.

The UN has admitted that the primary source of income for the world government will be the carbon tax. So while the general public and business community are forking out money left, right and centre on their ‘carbon credit cards’, a select few will be collecting the money and living a life of luxury. Private Banks have been financing the carbon cap and trade scheme, which will create a new form of derivatives based on carbon credits. The UN will be in full control of the industry, and have the power to decide who is able to buy and sell carbon credits. This allows a select few banks and brokerage firms to have control over the carbon market and ensure they generate substantial profits.

Climate change has been exposed as a massive fraud designed to transfer more wealth from the poor to the rich. The global elite seem to be following the advice of Adolf Hitler with their climate change scam, which was “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” Science has officially gone to bed with world governments. The only solution to receive unbiased climate change advice is to keep climate science well away from lobbyists, NGO’s, advocates, professional environmentalists, and crooks like Al Gore.