"There has been no global warming since 1995" [1]! Would you believe that? Well, I do, on the basis of my own facts. I didn't need the lies from a small group of "climate-scientists" who now may well be held responsible for the billions of economic damages for their contribution to the CO²-nonsense and blatant global warming fraud that the former US vice-president Al Gore religiously to his own financial benefit defends! His a priori ridiculous stance that 'science about it was settled' as if global warming was a Church dogma, and that 'a consensus was reached and no further discussion is useful' now stands out for ridicule and laughter! A science claiming to be 'settled' or based on 'consensus' is no science, but plain superstition, pretending qualities like a religion. Gore's brazenfaced claims have fallen flat and not only by this Winter, that by chance is colder than weather-experts predicted. The notable "Nobel Prize" has defamed itself by granting this charlatan the honor. But, let us be careful! The devil is in the details. The planet was warming! Due to natural cycles and... some human involvement, like city building. Dr.Phil Jones (picture), portrayed as the mastermind of the scam, may have mismanaged scientific data. By incompetence or for money to his institute? The U-turn he took on BBC the other day may have astonished many. Greed and status, but also political influence could have been motives. The 'green' CO²-cult, related to the scam, may still be a vehicle for several governments to distract attention from their incompetence to offer positive perspectives for people to overcome various existential crises, fact is that we just came out of a little Ice Age, shown by somewhat higher temperatures, but are bound to go into a new one the next few decades. Dr. Jones knew and confirmed that suspicion unexpectedly...

The essential point for "climate-gate" is not using falsified or invented data, like 'hockey-stick' graphs, but the malignant mixture of assumed global warming data, a connection with the for us totally insignificant CO² gas (nobody asks why this connection was invented in the first place! It served as a method for statistical simplification of mathematical models for the atmosphere with correlations now proven to have been false) and left-wing 'green', money-squandering policies about our environment. This led to a mixture of erroneous claims telling, that when you don't use your car this will bring down global temperatures. If you use fluorescent light-bulbs you save energy (which you don't, because loss of heat produced by glow-bulbs makes you put the heating up a few degrees). The same voices tell, that our supply of oil is running out. But nobody knows what the world oil- and gas supply is and how much the Earth produces each day by its internal reactions. Oil is no fossil fuel, what many still believe as a result of the 'settled' science of geology, virtually undisturbed continuing its myth about 'plate tectonics' instead of seriously considering the ramifications of an expanding Earth. Economic arguments are brought to bear to increase taxes, even on speculation with currencies (sic), to pay for climate change. Economy as a 'science' has demonstrated its wisdom sufficiently and convincingly the last few years, I think and not to the benefit of society.

Unmistakably we came out of a Little Ice Age that ran from about 1635 to 1715 and some later ups and downs. Human involvement then was and now still is negligible. The latter doesn't mean that human involvement plays no role. Building huge city agglomerations and chopping huge forests do somewhat influence local weather patterns. It is however discussable that this would influence our global climate! The latest solar irradiation data show that an assumed upward trend in fact was going down steadily. Oceans can store heat for some time, but when more (under water) volcano outbursts can't sufficiently compensate, they will cool by winds and lack of sufficient solar irradiation. Wind-patterns and sea-flows near the south of Greenland expose this and recently made an end to the mystification of a melting North-Pole. Policies based on ignorance (because we don't understand how 'climate' works) should be avoided - at all costs. We see the reverse happening though. The flow of money determines superstitions based on unfounded fears, not scientific knowledge and understanding. The corruption of science to go after that flow is most worrying. Best recipe against this is stopping the funding until tangible, coherent and verifiable results are produced. They lack from A to Z. Best for us is to distance ourselves from such internal controversies and take everything from sciences a priori 'cum grano salis'. The beauty of science is, that it isn't settled and a scientific consensus doesn't exist!

John