The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - Science and Technology Committee Contents

Memorandum submitted by Ronald K Bolton (CRU 25)


  1.  I discuss the CRU's apparent faking of scientific reports for the UN, as disclosed by leaked documents. This incident, called "Climategate", has generated massive shockwaves around the world for one reason only: that it is yet another indication of the colossal fraud behind global warming.

  2.  It is now beyond reasonable doubt that the only people supporting AGW are those who have a financial or career interest in supporting it or who are not aware of the real evidence.

  3.  The CRU's actions can only be understood by realizing that AGW is a fraud. I explain AGW and that scientific evidence to support AGW is non-existent or faked, and the reasons this fraud is perpetrated.

  4.  I comment on the questions the committee raise, and I make recommendations.


  5.  I am a retired Public Health Inspector/Environmental Health Officer. In addition to the scientific training for that, I also studied public and social administration for an MA, and business for an MBA. For the last dozen years, I have been researching topics including anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I have no conflicting interests in this matter.

  6.  The committee is investigating activities at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) rather than global warming per se. And this memorandum deals with the matters the committee is investigating about the CRU. However, it is imperative that the committee understand the truth about global warming.

  7.  Apparently people in the CRU faked scientific data about global warming, because they would be rewarded with further funding.

  8.  If the committee confirm this, it may consider why people at the CRU thought the IPCC wanted faked evidence of global warming.

  9.  If there really is evidence for AGW, why would the IPCC pay scientists to fake research?

  10.  Surely they would not want to mix real evidence of AGW with faked evidence? I am sure they want faked evidence because there is no real evidence.

  11.  It is lucky the emails and other documents have been made public. "Climategate", as it is called around the world, is the most important of a number of revelations that have caused many people to disbelieve AGW.



  12.  Certain radiation from the sun strikes the earth and bounces back, but some is trapped by "greenhouse gases" and stays in the atmosphere as heat. This is natural and essential to life on earth.

  13.  Proponents of the AGW hypothesis claim that man's activities cause such an increase in these gases, principally carbon dioxide (CO2), that the earth warms more than it should.

  14.  They paint pictures of land being flooded or turned into desert, icebergs melting and polar bears swimming.

  15.  But these pictures are designed to scare, and are entirely false. At the level of Al Gore and above, it is not a mistake. People like Al Gore know their assertions are lies. For example, a person accepts scientific consensus. So Al Gore has for years been saying that all scientists except a handful of deniers accept that global warming is real, that there is a consensus, that the science is settled. Look up on Google "30,000 scientists". You will see that in the US, more than 31,000 American scientists, including more than 9,000 PhD's, signed a petition to the US government protesting that, paraphrased, global warming is a con that will have devastating effects.

  16.  The fact that Al Gore would patently lie about scientific consensus suggests that he would lie about the scientific facts themselves. And this is provably the case. The facts disprove his claims. So people—as in the CRU—feed data into computers and tweak it until their computer projections "prove" AGW is real. They can make the data look like a corrugated roof or a hockey stick. They could as easily prove the earth is flat.

  17.  Warming hoaxers try to confuse policy-makers with complexities, forcing them to rely on their experts. But there are simple ways to show them up.

  18.  Why would Al Gore continually lie that virtually all scientists support AGW?

  19.  Why can scientists who question AGW not get funding for research, on the basis the science is settled, but those supporting AGW can?

  20.  "He (Gore) had picked over the literature for almost every extreme projection he could find, then exaggerated them still further." (Booker and North). Why?

  21.  The film "The Great Global Warming Swindle", shown once on Channel 4, gives a good introduction to this subject. There are many videos and books on this theme. Just a few points:

  22.  Factors influencing the weather are infinitely complex, which is why weather forecasts are often wrong. But several unconventional weather forecasters study sunspot activity and their forecasts are more accurate than those of official meteorologists.

  23.  The earth warms and cools naturally, and the major factor is the Sun. When sunspot activity is high, the earth warms. When sunspot activity is low, the earth cools.

  24.  Greenhouse gases account for a small proportion of the atmosphere, but are essential to life on earth. The main greenhouse gas is water vapour, which accounts for 95% of the greenhouse gases. As natural and manmade greenhouse gases of concern total just 5%, they have little effect. Man's activities produce CO2, but more is produced by volcanoes, more still by animals and bacteria, yet a greater amount by dying vegetation, and the greatest amount is from the oceans.

  25. CO2 is essential to life on earth, as are oxygen and water. There is a cycle where people take in the oxygen they need, and breathe out CO2, and plants and trees take in the CO2 they need, and breathe out oxygen.

  26.  For much of the earth's history, it was warmer than today. In the Mediaeval Warm Period, around 1000 AD, people grew vines in London. There are today streets called Vine Street, but (sadly) no vines. Much more recently there was the Little Ice Age, where people skated and held ice fairs on the Thames.

  27.  Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, contains two lines on a graph, covering 650,000 years. One line represents temperature, and the other represents CO2. The lines are a close match. Al Gore asks: "Do they ever fit together?" These lines are accurate, but presented to mean the opposite of what they actually mean.

  28.  Al Gore says raised CO2 levels cause warming. In fact, increased temperatures cause increased CO2 levels. But there is a time lag of roughly 800 years. When the sun heats the surface of the oceans, CO2 is given out from the oceans, but very slowly. When sunspot activity is low, the surface of the oceans cools, and CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed into the oceans, again very slowly.

  29.  So nearly all CO2 on earth is in the oceans and the atmosphere, and CO2 either moves from the oceans to the atmosphere, or vice versa. Which direction depends essentially on whether the earth is warming or cooling.

  30.  Talking about changes in CO2 can mislead. Really, the amount of CO2 is constant, but the CO2 constantly moves from ocean to atmosphere and then back.

  31.  As Global Warmers shivered in the recent cold, many pointed to the term Climate Change, designed to fool people that any change in the weather proves the Climate Change people right. But their hypothesis postulates the world getting warmer, not colder.

  32.  In conclusion, all the evidence, looked at reasonably, does not at all support the idea that man-made greenhouse gases are likely to cause anything harmful to man. All the evidence is that they will cause very little effect, and that any effects are likely to be beneficial.


  33.  Al Gore and the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) are pushing this hoax. Because of that, billions have flowed into this area. Al Gore's companies are likely to make billions from carbon swaps. Others are frantically getting involved to make their fortune. Researchers—as in the CRU—get funding, but only if the research supports the myth. So there is much money in Global Warming.

  34.  But at a higher level, the motive is not mainly money. The real aim of the global warming con is to create a totalitarian world government that will reduce the world population by 90% and treat the remainder as slaves. To people who get their news from the (controlled) mainstream media, this will sound crazy. But global warming is just one of a number of areas where what we are told is very different to the reality. People who act for the public good, seek the truth, tell the truth, and challenge the lies, are far more numerous than we are told, because the controlled media present them as being a tiny number of crazy flat-earthers.

  35.  Why the global warming hoax? To justify frequent inspections of people's homes to "reduce CO2 generation". The state will regulate and monitor everyone's CO2 emissions: how many plants people can grow, (fallen leaves emit CO2); how many children and pets and cows they can have; how far people can travel in vehicles; and masses of other rules. These will be gradually tightened, reducing quality of life, living space, etc etc, with people financially and otherwise wiped out. The planned punitive taxes will not go to "help the third world". This money will go to the people like Al Gore, and those who control them. In the third world, preventing the use of electricity, with other measures, will quickly reduce the population.

  36.  This memorandum barely covers the basics of global warming. There is no room to cover other areas, but the following is relevant. The Rockefellers took control of the pharmaceutical industry at the start of the 20th century, and of the American Medical Association shortly after. The Rockefellers funded eugenics research that was later used by Hitler. After World War 2, the Rockefellers set up the UN, on land the Rockefellers donated. The Rockefellers are major funders of the UN and its agencies, such as WHO. The Rockefellers continued funding eugenics, now called population control. The UN has population control programs, including vaccinations under GAVI. In 2005, WHO set up a system where it would take charge of disease control and vaccination in member states in the event of a "pandemic". Then WHO changed the definition, so that if certain numbers of people get a cold, WHO can march in. Last year, Jane Burgermeister, an Irish/Austrian journalist, discovered plots involving a Rockefeller drugs company, Baxters, and WHO. Vaccines had been contaminated so they would cause disease. This would increase fear and vaccine uptake. She filed criminal charges. She also set up a website at, where she lists mainstream newspaper articles. Her website deals largely with swine flu and vaccines. It informed me about this committee investigation. And the Rockerfellers are intimately involved in the global warming hoax.

  37.  I am sure the Rockerfellers are very nice, and I agree that growth of population and of the use of resources cannot continue indefinitely, but I disagree with their plan to kill off or enslave the world population, in which plan the false global warming threat will be a key factor.

  38.  Now the Rockerfellers, and the others forming the tiny group known as Illuminati, or banksters, are pursuing this goal of world domination and are immensely wealthy and immensely powerful. But they can fail, because their control is at the top. Take as an example the military. The Rockerfellers etc might control a prime minister, who in turn controls the generals, and all the way down to the newest recruits. Soldiers follow orders. Blindly. But only so far. Soldiers are people with families. They know right from wrong. And they see their job as protecting the nation from aggressors. When they are ordered to shoot innocent people, or forcibly vaccinate people with a poison or microchip, many will refuse, so the control stops. And if any of the officers, in the long chain of command, refuses to pass on an order because it is wrong, it also fails. Near the top, generals could seize power. This is, after all, how many coups d'etat occur.

  39.  So this tiny number of banksters are working to take over the world, and global warming is a key factor for them. But many people are becoming aware. This puts at risk the banksters' scheme. Ultimately they will succeed or fail. It depends on what six billion people do. If the large majority apathetically do as they are told, give up their money, take the vaccine and die, then the banksters win. If the people who could do something, decline because they are afraid, or they wait till other people do something first, then the banksters win. If people say they do not want to get involved, then the banksters win. The question is not whether people get involved. They are involved. The question is whether they are going to do something about it.

  40.  But if a significant minority get involved, if there are people's representatives like Ron Paul, we stand a chance. (He is the most respected US politician, with a massive Internet following). If people, in whatever field or profession, and at whatever level, do their best to defeat these banksters, we stand a chance. In the second world war, people volunteered: to fight, to make weapons, anything to help. That attitude won then. We are in a war now. "What did you do, Daddy?"


  41.  Science has changed enormously over the last few decades. In terms of technology, we are light years more advanced today. We have vast computing power, and we can see inside atoms.

  42.  But in terms of real discovery, and integrity, we are much worse. The reason is simple.

  43.  50 years ago, a scientist had a back room, where he made his own equipment. He had ideas. He was free to do as he liked. And he invented things.

  44.  Today, scientists are employees. Employed only by drug or other companies, by government, or in academe. They depend on funding, and have to conform. A scientist working for a drug company making billions from selling Drug X, who said the drug did not work and was dangerous, would not be employed long. A climate academic who said global warming is a con, would be pressured. Money to change his mind? Ostracized? Pressure on the university?: "We will stop funding you if your scientists continue with crazy ideas that are costing many lives." So they choose between integrity and money.

Now to the specific questions the committee want addressed

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

  45.  It seems likely that if the people in the CRU deliberately falsified the scientific evidence they supplied to the UN and others, they did so for mainly financial reasons.

  46.  Clearly, it is not in the public interest for government policy to be dictated by would-be dictators who use taxpayers' money to bribe scientists willing to prostitute themselves. The people, and government, should be able to rely on people telling the truth and acting within the law. Our body of law should be based on sound science.

  47.  If the government want to achieve this, they should use the law. If a man kills someone to get money, he is charged with murder. Surely a scientist who tells lies to get money, and whose actions are likely to result in many deaths, is not less culpable.

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?

  48.  The terms of reference chosen by UEA are not bad. More important is how the investigator sees his job. Is it to hide as much as possible? Or about full disclosure? He can use the same words to very different effect.

  49.  The world is aware of Climategate at UEA. Covering up the CRU's sins would harm the university's good reputation. UEA should ensure that what happened is seen to be properly investigated and all appropriate steps taken.

How independent are the other two international data sets?

  50.  My words are limited, and I can not add much here.


  51.  I suggest the committee's recommendations should take account of points made above, together with the following:

  52.  Faking scientific results for the UN to mislead the world should be treated as the serious crime I believe it to be.

  53.  UEA should be persuaded that they should take action to show that they will not tolerate corruption.

  54.  Government should recognize that an increasing culture of corruption is bad for society in many ways.

  55.  Government should accordingly take action to reduce corruption. It is probably self-defeating to lecture people. People learn best by example. They learn that some people can commit crimes and get away with them. Or they learn that crime does not pay, even at the highest levels. Government is responsible for influencing what people learn.

  56.  Government should recognize that the real reason for this warming myth is as a way to introduce a world totalitarian state and decimate and enslave the population, as discussed above. This is a real possibility. So every member of this committee should use every endeavour to prevent that happening. A hero does what is right, not what is safe. The British Government should take back power from Europe and the UN, consistently reduce the vast streams of taxpayer money that end up in the banksters' coffers, and end the private control of the Bank of England, which enables the banksters to control the money supply and thus create booms and busts at will.

February 2010

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 31 March 2010