In 2013, Forbes published an eye-opening article authored by Larry Bell who used quotes from “Climate Alarmists” to reveal the truth about the climate change agenda.

Bell began with a quote from then President Barak Obama who had put salvation from dreaded climate catastrophes on his action agenda hot list. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms,” Obama said.

“Just how many of those who stoke the global warming alarm fires have real confidence in that ‘science’. Let’s briefly review just a few candid comments that some of them have offered on this topic. These are but a very small sampling of my favourites,” wrote Larry Bell. “It is way past time to realise that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was.”

Larry Bell is an Endowed Professor of Space Architecture at the University of Houston where he founded the Sasakawa International Centre for Space Architecture (“SICSA”) and the Graduate Program in Space Architecture. He is also an unpaid policy advisor on climate and environmental policy for The Heartland Institute.

What follows are extracts from Bell’s article titled In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their ‘Science’.  And, it could be we are being overly sceptical but, as this is the sort of article that could be targeted in an internet version of “book burning” we have downloaded a copy of this article and attached it below.

It might be appropriate to correct a few general misconceptions before getting back to that “overwhelming judgment of science” stuff, Bell began.





As Bell noted, virtually all of those who Obama claimed “deny” the “overwhelming science” do, in fact, recognise that the climate really does change.  After all, “if the climate didn’t change, would we even need a word for it?”

The larger issue, Bell wrote, has to do with just how many of those who stoke the global warming alarm fires have real confidence in that “science”.  So, let’s briefly review just a few candid comments that some of them have offered on this topic. These are but a very small sampling of my favourites.

The following two sections are copied, without edit, from Bell’s In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their ‘Science’.  The final section is excerpted from the same.

How Climate Alarmism Advances International Political Agendas

The term “climate” is typically associated with annual worldwide average temperature records measured over at least three decades. Yet global warming observed less than two decades after many scientists had predicted a global cooling crisis prompted the United Nations to organise an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) and to convene a continuing series of international conferences purportedly aimed at preventing an impending catastrophe. Virtually from the beginning, they had already attributed the “crisis” to human fossil-fuel carbon emissions.

A remark from Maurice Strong, who organised the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal:

“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialised civilization to collapse.”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed:

“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: 

“A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald:

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phoney…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasised the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives:

“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective:

“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organisation which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

How Some Key IPCC Researchers View Their Science

For starters, let’s begin with two different views by some of the same researchers that are reported in the same year regarding whether there is a discernible human influence on global climate.

First, taken from a 1996 IPCC report summary written by B.D. Santer, T.M.L Wigley, T.P. Barnett, and E. Anyamba:

“…there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcings by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols…from geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change…These results point towards human influence on climate.”

Then, a 1996 publication “The Holocene”, by T.P. Barnett, B.D. Santer, P.D. Jones, R.S. Bradley and K.R. Briffa, says this:

“Estimates of…natural variability are critical to the problem of detecting an anthropogenic [human] signal…We have estimated the spectrum…from paleotemperature proxies and compared it with…general [climate] circulation models…none of the three estimates of the natural variability spectrum agree with each other…Until…resolved, it will be hard to say, with confidence, that an anthropogenic climate signal has or has not been detected.”

In other words, these guys, several of whom you will hear from later, can’t say with confidence whether or not humans have had any influence at all…or even if so, whether it has caused warming or cooling!

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that:

“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

The late Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book warning that global cooling risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed that view 180 degrees, serving as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. In a quotation published in Discover, he said:

“On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journal Nature.comadmitted:

“None of the models used by the IPCC are initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state”.

Christopher Landsea, a top expert on the subject of cyclones, became astounded and perplexed when he was informed that Trenberth had participated in a 2004 press conference following a deadly 2004 Florida storm season which had announced “Experts warn that global warming [is] likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense activity.” Since IPCC studies released in 1995 and 2001 had found no evidence of a global warming-hurricane link, and there was no new analysis to suggest otherwise, he wrote to leading IPCC officials imploring:

“What scientific, refereed publications substantiate these pronouncements? What studies alluded to have shown a connection between observed warming trends on Earth and long-term trends of cyclone activity?”

Receiving no replies, he then requested assurance that the 2007 report would present true science, saying:

“[Dr. Trenberth] seems to have come to a conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity, and has already stated so. This does not reflect consensus within the hurricane research community.” 

After that assurance didn’t come, Landsea, an invited author, resigned from the 2007 report activity and issued an open letter presenting his reasons.

Some Interesting Climate Gate E-Mail Comments

Bell extracts various revealing comments from two sources: Climategate 2.0, Jeff Id, 22 November 2011 and FOIA 2011, November 2011 (Download zip file).  To give a taste of how damning these private admissions are, we have included two below:

The National Centre for Atmospheric Research’s Tom Wigley and Trenberth suggested in an e-mail to Michael Mann, who co-authored the infamously flawed hockey stick paper which was featured in influential IPCC reports:

“If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse sceptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”

A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed:

“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.”

After demonstrating the costs of ideology masquerading as science Bell concluded:

It is way past time to realise that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was.”

We encourage everyone to read Bell’s article in full, especially those who believe the current climate change narrative that is being widely publicised by corporate media.  You can read Bell’s full article HERE.