Open Letter to Prime Minister Steven Harper of Canada

Dear Prime Minister Harper,

Re: The Climategate Scandal at the University of East Anglia (CRU)

I am writing to draw your government’s attention to the ongoing scandal unfolding in England regarding the devastating corruption of the science surrounding the now clearly fraudulent claims that Human behaviour is putting our survival – and in fact that of the planet Earth itself – in grave jeopardy.

I feel compelled to write your offices to point out the lies, subterfuge and misinformation in the British Government’s response to this matter, and request that you, as our country’s leader, issue a public statement condemning this continued effort to suppress the truth – a truth that I am under the clear impression Canada’s Steven McIntyre has already brought to your attention several years ago.

There is too much to challenge robustly in one letter. Instead I shall for the moment confine myself to three basic issues; (1.) the use of ‘private’ unaccountable police in the CRU investigation; (2.) the deceitful dropping of 806 ‘cold’ weather stations from the 6000 global set in one year and (3.) the facts on sea level rises that conflict with assertions that “severe impacts” of climate change must be dealt with “now.”

First, I wish to register my protest in the strongest possible terms that a privately run secret police unit, the National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET), is conducting the criminal investigation into the CRU scandal – yet only into the theft of the information, blatantly ignoring its clearly criminal nature! If someone had broken into the CRU and found a meth lab, would that not overshadow any search for a mere trespasser?

NDET is directly answerable to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). Because ACPO is not a public body but rather a private limited company, NETCU is exempt from freedom of information laws (FOIA) and other kinds of public accountability, even though they are funded by the Home Office and deploy police officers from regional forces. What further disturbs me is that ACPO cannot be relied upon to handle this investigation when ACPO have a vested interest in the outcome being that their pension fund is invested heavily in environmental stocks. So is this truly a reasonable interpretation of an “independent” investigation and will the British Labour Government continue to conduct business like this if re-elected at the upcoming general election?

As to the science, we know at minimum, from the admissions contained in the leaked emails, that the climate data analysis by CRU between 2006-2009 was ‘fudged.’ This has been confirmed by the latest peer-reviewed literature.

Firstly, I wish to refer to the leaked emails and the ‘documents/HARRY_READ_ME.txt’ files. These files covers CRU’s latest work from 2006-2009 and CRU scientist, ‘Harry’ admits the climate data CRU possesses is unusable:

“getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented… “

‘Harry’ then later adds, “I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was.”

Clearly, from the evidence to hand, these climatologists are poor data handlers. When you then go beyond the 1,000+ emails and look deeper at the meta data coding within the rest of the leaked 62MB goldmine things get far worse. ‘Harry’ admits he has no training in FORTRAN. He muddles by attempting to teach himself and gamely trying to analyze so much “poor” and “false” data. As we have read, for ‘Harry’ matters go from bad to worse.

Frankly, Prime Minister, to use the words of one of the UK climatologists, this whole charade is a “travesty” and the scientists involved are incompetent. But from incompetence they plunge the depths into wilful deceit and unlawful conduct. The proof of a conspiracy grows as we read the ‘hockey teams’’ own words. For over three years they admit to have been deliberately foiling FOIA requests. Now we have reached the farcical position where neither the UK Government nor the climatologists involved will come clean with the truth in the midst of the most severe winter in 30 years when newspapers predict deaths due to cold in the tens of thousands and Britain’s transport network liable to be thrown into chaos with just a few inches of snowfall. It is a total dereliction of the UK Government’s duties to continue to rely on and defend secretly concocted junk science for what they claim is “an issue of unrivalled public importance.”

I can assure you a cacophony of rage is building online over these matters as more ordinary citizens come to the Internet looking for the facts that the UK Govt. and the mainstream media are reluctant to address. Canada should demand that they uphold the principles of the Freedom of Information Act; expedite the processing and completion of all past and pending FOIA requests so that everyone can see that they value independent analysis within a framework supportive of transparent and honest government.

But as British officials and scientists appear to have forgotten, please allow me to remind everyone how the scientific method works. It is incumbent on the purveyor of any theory of science to provide the proof and permit sceptical testing of it. In fact, scepticism is the birthright of every scientist. But sceptics cannot test this junk theory because every one of your cited data sources denies examination of their methodologies and calculations – we are only presented with conclusions. Frankly, Minister, that’s just not good enough and history will regard you and your ilk with dismay for your hubris and contempt of reason and fair play.

CRU, like NASA and NOAA, want to treat their information as proprietary to them but unlike private corporations, they have no such privileges. Publicly funded repositories of data for use by educational and research institutions are obliged to properly maintain the original data, make it available to anyone who is qualified to work with it, AND document each and every adjustment made and why. But what I must now confront you with is the charge that government – funded scientists have been systematically and cynically dropping ‘cold’ rural ground measuring stations from the global set so as to skew the official government results. There is now a list of 806 weather stations that were dropped from the total of 6000 worldwide in a single year with no explanation from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN). The only fact in common that we can so far deduce from these dropped sites is that they exhibit a tendency to be located in rural areas. You will find further detailed information in regard to those 806 dropped weather stations here :

The Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) tells us that rural stations are free from the levels of secondary heat contamination generally found in cities, towns and airports. The additional heating within UHI areas increases measured temperatures by a magnitude of several degrees (McKitrick and Michaels 2007). The only possible motive I can infer from our ongoing findings is that corrupt climatologists are dropping ‘cold’ ground weather stations to make the world’s climate appear warmer than it actually is.

So far an analysis is still progressing. But already I can report to you that of the dropped Australian and New Zealand stations most are rural stations (e.g. Port Nelson, Ruttan Lake, Joutel). We shall continue to painstakingly analyze all stations on this list to see if we can substantiate what at the moment, appears to be a conspiracy to omit ‘cold’ rural stations. What we are seeing appears to confirm what peer reviewed papers have found, namely that artificial warming is contaminating 30-50% of the data cited by official sources. In effect, rather than adjusting their calculations to remove the UHI effect, the scientists are actually adding extra weighting to increase the distortion from UHI.

It has been determined that the station count for the U.S. (in the GHCN v2_mean file) dropped from 1177 to 136 in April 2006. This has been confirmed by importing the data and by doing a simple count of all station ID’s beginning with “425″ for the year 2006. Replication is straightforward. This is a trivial task for any application developer to write the code to import this data and then analyze it. The most significant observation noted is that most of the stations left in the U.S. are airports (for the years 2006 and going forward). Please check these facts for yourself and see that a fraud has been committed.

Moreover, the lack of transparency and unlawful conduct exhibited by Professor Phil Jones et al. may allow us to infer that the truth is being deliberately and zealously kept from the public. In essence, the conclusions that many cited references provide about the climate are entirely worthless and may be adjudged as GIGO (‘Garbage In, Garbage Out!’).

Also, I cannot conclude without addressing the most absurd assertion made in all of this – that there is a pattern of warming causing rising see levels, attributed by British Minister of State for Climate, Joan Ruddock, to “a direct result of human activities.” This Minister is either inadvertently and ignorantly exaggerating the science or she is flatly lying. To put this crazy statement into perspective, even the MET Office does not dispute that the overall rise in temperature is merely less than one degree centigrade since 1860 and with zero additional rises in sea levels on top of natural variation, so how can the UK Govt. stand by this statement? The matter demands clarification – please quantify and differentiate the amounts of sea level and temperature rise that are being attributed to human behaviour and to nature, and speak to this in the House.

From my understanding, the debate on current and past sea level rises is non-existent. But, I suspect, Ms. Ruddock knows quite well that we currently face no danger of problematic sea level rises because, like any of us, she is able to check the best oceanographers’ peer-reviewed science that refutes the guesstimates and lies of climatologists on this issue. Sea levels are rising no faster than 2mm per annum – a wholly natural rate for the current Holocene interglacial whereby concomitant ice melt has been occurring for the past 11,000 years – way before human industrialization. In 2007 Simon Holgate of the U.K.’s Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, produced a history of global sea level from 1904 to 2003 based upon a set of reliable, long-term observations from nine tide gauge stations scattered around the world and he could not find any sea level rises attributable to man-made emissions of CO2. Holgate is renowned as one of the world’s leading oceanographers

But further, may I also suggest you look at what the oceanographers at the University of Colorado have to say on this issue. They rely on the Jason-1 Calibration and TOPEX Calibration and attribute no sea level rises to mankind in any of their work. Their measurements concur neatly with Holgate’s numbers.

Other oceanographers in peer-reviewed papers such as Antonov et al. (2005); Ishii et al. (2005) and Willis et al. (2005) all report current rises equal to seven inches per century with no human signal whatsoever. These oceanographers have proved that current sea level rise is entirely consistent with natural Holocene ice melt. Thus the statement that sea levels are rising “as a direct result of human activities” is patently false – please demand that the UK Govt. withdraw it or stand accused by their critics as the lying scaremongers that they are!

Ms. Ruddock has also stated, “the temporal and spatial pattern of observed warming cannot be explained by natural causes alone.” This is a vacuous non-statement. No one is disputing that human emissions may have ‘some’ impact on climate. But does the one degree centigrade overall rise we have experienced since 1860 justify the exorbitantly expensive policy measures of being forced upon the peoples of the world without election or referendum? The answer must be a resounding, ’No!’ when we bear in mind that the Earth has shown no warming trend for 15 years, based on analysis of the raw and combined CRU, NASA and NOAA numbers. So with no current decadal warming trend there is no justification in logic for the need to “take action now” as some insist. Look at the weather in England, Prime Minister, and see that after six cooler years in a row we are now in the midst of the worst winter in the northern hemisphere for 30 years. The UK govt is being criticized from all quarters for its policy failures to cope with these winter conditions. The travel chaos and rising death toll associated with severe cold proves the hardships of a colder climate outweigh those of the warmer one we lived through in the last quarter of the old century and which ended in 1998.

As I believe and hope you are already aware, the scientific community is increasingly turning against the ‘theory’ of man made global warming (AGW) because, unlike the period from 1975-1998 warmer temperatures no longer correlate with rising levels of carbon dioxide. Thus with no correlation it is irrational to argue for causation. The so-called consensus among scientists on man-made climate change has evaporated since ‘Climategate’, while the latest peer-reviewed paper by German physicists, Dr’s. Gerlich and Tscheuschner thoroughly debunks the whole greenhouse gas theory. These German scientists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03% so that it is thus impossible for us to witness a greater rate of warming than seen already in the past 150 years. Gerlich and Tscheuschner further disprove that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal ‘forcing’ effect on the warmer surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics :


Prime Minister, please help to bring an end to this climate farce. I urge you to conduct a truly independent review of the facts I now present to you rather than rely on fraudulent data that has been exposed as such.

Let me finish by commenting on the cynical and wholly perverse use of children in the perpetrating of this fraud. For example,contrary to the UK High Court ruling made by Mr Justice Burton of 2007, the Al Gore film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is still being shown in UK schools without clarification or caveat that this so called ‘documentary’ contains nine ‘errors’ that his lordship ruled were in ‘ the context of alarmism and exaggeration.‘ Just like Mr. Gore, the UK government has failed to present the facts honestly and with transparency and have turned to falsehoods to claim that climate change, a natural phenomenon is bringing “severe impacts” and it’s our fault. I hope that after the general election we shall see a new government that upholds the truth. But judging by the current climate stance of UK officials, I see little prospect for the world’s youth while their future lies in the hands of those who seek to OBSCENELY profit from a future of crippling taxes as a direct consequence of these and similar policies.

Yours most sincerely,

Adam Cassidy
Vancouver, BC

(Please feel free to replace my name with yours, and copy and paste this into your own email to PM Harper at and


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

11 Responses to “Open Letter to Prime Minister Steven Harper of Canada”

  1. John O'Sullivan Says:

    An excellent adaptation. I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed that you get a reply. Feel free to use my words in any way that helps the cause. Please encourage others to take your lead.
    Best wishes

  2. Open Letter to Prime Minister Steven Harper of Canada « Beggarz' Blog | Drakz Free Online Service Says:

    […] link: Open Letter to Prime Minister Steven Harper of Canada « Beggarz' Blog Share and […]

  3. uberVU - social comments Says:

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by beggarz: Open Letter to Prime Minister Steven Harper of Canada:

  4. rogerthesurf Says:

    There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.

    There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.

    I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.

    In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog

    Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.



    PS The term “porky” is listed in the Australian Dictionary of Slang.( So I’m told.)

    • beggarz Says:

      As far as I’m concerned, there aren’t going to be ANY emission reductions. It’s all bullshit.

      The only concern I have, is for air quality. If the planet warms up a bit, GOOD.

      I highly recommend you listen to everything at, and then make up your mind. Listen to Dr. Willie Soon – if these bastards can silence a guy like that, then it’s ALL bullshit. Lie to me ONCE – and that’s the end of any consideration I’ll have for anything someone says.

      Have you checked out the code a “Hide the decline” is hardly a phrase in one email – it’s blatantly present throughout the code. This is probably the hugest fraud of all time, EVER – all that’s left is the lawsuits and criminal charges, but they’ll probably have to be a change in government first.

      Seriously – they tried to tax the entire world for well over a TRILLION dollars. It would have been genocide, and world fascism, nothing less. It’s hard to fully grasp what they were trying to do, which is make ‘carbon credits’ the new currency. You literally wouldn’t be allowed to emit carbon without paying – and before you paid, you’d have to get permission!

      They were going to arbitrarily decide, for example, how many Carbon Credits Canada could have, and then we would all have to bid on them – as if someone else owns our fucking AIR!! It’s a MASSIVE shell game – WHY WOULD WE PAY ANYONE?!?!

      Eventually, the 1/2 ton of CO2 each one of us emits annually would come under fire – you’re getting old? Well, we can’t have you hanging around threatening the planet for no reason!

      Think that’s paranoid? Think again – total worldwide CO2 emission from industrial processes/heating etc = about 8 billion tons.

      Total from humans = 3 billion tons.

      Do the math – we all need to mobilize to stop this, or the jack boots will come down. Smarten up and listen to Lord Monckton – the word ‘Government’ appeared throughout the Jokenhagen Treaty; the word “Election”? NOT ONCE.


      FUCK. THAT.

  5. darth1 Says:

    I generally agree that the partisanship of the analysis of the data has lead to far too much interpretive realism on both sides of the argument. The science is new, the historical data is weak, and no standard of measure has been uniformly established to enable scientists of any stripe to create anything close to a cohesive argument one way or the other.

    But it’s difficult to argue that dumping limitless amounts of toxins into the air and water is a zero-impact activity. It’s difficult to argue that polluted air for the sake of electrical power is preferable to sources that don’t contaminate anything. It’s difficult to argue that an economy that relies on ground transportation is best served by vehicles that use only fossil fuels whose costs are spiraling out of control, and whose control is at the root of most of our current global conflicts.

    My summation is this: whatever the arguments for or against global warming, the reality remains that we should not stop seeking cleaner and more efficient solutions to maintain our way of life. The technology is there, and it’s perfectly affordable. If we insist on saving our own labours, we must at the very least recognize that killing off entire species and dumping tons of unnecessary toxic gases into the air, and removing billions of hectares of forest is not conducive to wise resource management.

    By the same token, an excellent argument has been made for taking the global warming data to heart. It’s this: If we take measures to prevent it and nothing happens, then the world will go on as it always has, but we’ll be cleaner and tidier about it. If we take no measures to prevent it and the worst should happen, then the results will throw our civilization into chaos. The cost to do something preventive is in either case the more efficient approach to the argument, whereas the cost to do nothing has only a 50% chance of being the right solution. I still vote to do something about it, regardless of the scientific arguments on either side of the floor.

    • beggarz Says:

      This is the usual ‘Gore-onic’ argument. The moon is made of green cheese, and despite the flagrantly fraudulent activities of those who claim this, sceptics are yet expected to prove it isn’t – which is impossible now that the data is all phony! Then the usual dumbed down arguments about ‘less polution is good no matter what’ are trotted out.

      We should act like the moon is made of green cheese, just in case it is, and just in case the fact that it is made of green cheese actually will endanger us somehow. Won’t we be sorry when we look up to watch in terrified regret as the cow jumps over the moon, trips over chicken little, the sky comes down upon our heads, and all is lost.

      This is the LAST time I allow this kind of drivel to be posted on my blog, and the last time I will respond to it.

      Of COURSE we need to clean our air – and we HAVE been. Cities were far worse at the turn of the 19th century when people were burning coal in their houses for heat!! So where is that smog and coal dust now? Gone, and the planet is still alive, and so are we.

      We need responsible approaches, and throwing away one energy source to force a change to a more expensive alternative is NOT the answer! There is, in fact, as much evidence that the Earth as an organism is producing oil all the time, and that we have centuries of supplies that are being choked off much like the diamond trade, as there is for so called ‘Anthropomorphic Global Warming’ (those greenies with their megaphones just LOVE words like that – it makes them feel so IMPORTANT!!).

      Furthermore, all these claims about so called ‘green’ energy are religion, not fact! Solar panel manufacture is an incredibly toxic process, and disposal is a problem; wind farms need a coal plant anyway for when the stupid wind isn’t blowing; ethanol and ‘bio-fuel’ have been a disaster that requires 3/4 litre of regular diesel to produce 1 litre of biofuel, when all is said and done, and have driven up world food prices and starved people to death the world over in the millions.

      YES, there are issues with fossil fuels – but our technology in this field is far, far advanced, and getting better all the time. Meanwhile people get ants in their pants over the fact that Hydrogen burns into a waste product of water vapour, and don’t see the wider picture that these actual technologies represent at their current stages of development. If you don’t factor in manufacture and disposal, then you have not done your homework.

      This is driven, quite simply, by perverse, self-hating humans. But if you hate your culture, then why live it? Change it – but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Fossil fuels have given us everything we hold dear today in our lifestyles, and banning them in favour of – uh, what, exactly? – will only condemn us to more issues swept under the rug from new energy sources that in the end will be propped up by fossil fuels, and ultimately funded at a loss by crippling taxes that have become so outrageous they actually threaten to destroy our very economies!

      This is INSANE – personally, I would like to live in a world where at least SOMEONE is well-off, but ‘fairness’ seems to dictate that we all rewind the clock 500 years until we’re once again trading half our carrot crop to a feudal lord for permission to keep farming. The idea that if one person lives in a mud hut, so should everyone is NOT a model for ever bringing the rest of the world to the level of wealth western economies have realized through hard work and endless individual initiative and cooperation. In fact, it will keep those people in poverty – look to Eritrea, who have refused the IMF/UN model, and whose economy is now BOOMING.

      As for the supposedly nasty evil ‘Big Oil’ shills – what could be more in their interest than an artificial scare that doubles if not triples the price of oil? We hear from greenies all the time about how greedy Big Oil is – yet on closer inspection, we find the CRU taking money from Shell and even Exxon, and IPCC Chairman Dr. Pauchuri hiding extensive ties to India’s massive Oil and Energy conglomerate TATA.

      Simply put, the people pushing this agenda are CROOKS – and you’re an IDIOT. If the evidence is FRAUDULENT, then for God’s sakes stop defending it like a total FOOL, and let’s get on with making this planet a truly better place to live.

      As for the ‘just in case’ argument – just in case of WHAT? Clearly the answer is now ‘just in case of NOTHING’. Even if some of the climate related issues could be directly attributed to our activities, these can be dealt with much more economically as they arise – using fossil fuel powered machines and technologies, no less! You don’t pay $6000 a year to insure a $4000 car. It makes no sense.

      As for enduring ‘drastic, unprecedented climate change’, we seem to do fine from season to season, and it is both absurd and comical that nobody seems to notice this. Every year we manage changes in temperature that range over 50 degrees centigrade, and which regularly throw our lives into total chaos. God forbid we started trying to even these seasonal patterns out somehow – we’d make a real mess of it, I guarantee you.

      Wind power is highly suspect – wave and tidal power are much more promising. But if fossil fuels are plentiful, cheap, technologically advanced, cleaner all the time, and provide the world’s flora with all the CO2 it wants, then I have to say – maybe this is God’s will that we discover them and melt a few igloos, no?

      Sure beats finding you frozen in the snow, and then realizing it’s all there is left to eat.

  6. Electric Lighting : Says:

    to date, solar panels which generate more than 100Watts are still expensive but hopefully they are getting cheaper each day ”

  7. Carpet Shampooer Says:

    i could only wish that solar panels cost only several hundred dollars, i would love to fill my roof with solar panels *:.

  8. Colin Says:

    At the moment I discovered the web for exactly this type of info. Appreciate to your publish that seek needs to stop at this time. You had written the posting within a easy to understand way. With that, I included your blogs as one of my favorites! Cheers!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: