5 Responses to The IPCC And Proprietary Rights – Does The Law Trump Justice?

1. omanuel says:

   May 5, 2014 at 21:19

   The continued refusal by members of UN’s IPCC, the National Academies of Sciences of the US, UK, USSR, Sweden, Norway, EU, etc. to publicly address nine pages of precise experimental data (pages 19-27) that falsify their post-1945 models of the atomic nucleus, the Sun and the cosmos shows that their deceit is intentional.

   “A Journey to the Core of the Sun – Chapter 2: Acceptance of Reality“

   Click to access Chapter_2.pdf

   Reply
2. hirundine608 says:

   May 5, 2014 at 23:54

   Reply
   • omanuel says:

     May 13, 2014 at 02:45

     Thank you, hirundine608, for this video. We are invisibly connected to the Sun’s pulsar – the Creator and Sustainer of every atom, life and world in the solar system – through visible disruptions in the solar photosphere.

     Can you supply a shorter link to the video than this one?

     The IPCC And Proprietary Rights – Does The Law Trump Justice?

     Reply
3. Ken McMurtrie says:

   May 12, 2014 at 12:19

   When I re-read the original post, I am inspired to make my own comment.
   These “scientists” provide information to the IPCC to be used as a basis for modifying the whole world’s industrial and financial structures. Fairly important stuff, yes?
   Extremely important stuff actually, major, really major, life-changes concerning all the world’s population, no less! [ This might just be justified IF their science is valid ].
   Yet they are fighting to hide related information because they do not wish it to be public.
   Why is this so?
   Because they have something to hide.
   Why do they wish this “something” to remain hidden?
   Because their “science” is not valid and that fact will become obvious to all.

   Two “rules” of science are being broken – that the hypothesis cannot be falsified, ie., no part of it can be shown to be incorrect, and, that the hypothesis is openly displayed and opportunities for falsification are welcomed.
   Their position is clearly untenable and they are hiding from public exposure. Not surprising under the circumstances, but either way, they have jeopardized their integrity as scientists.

   Notice the term “hide behind” used so openly. (Well, sort of openly, in internal emails they didn’t realize would be seen outside their little cliche). Here, an example from Phil Jones.
   [My bold emphasis]

   “Leaked CRU emails indicate important players, like Phil Jones, CRU Director, anticipated the questions. He advised people how to hide and avoid FOI requests. Here is an email he sent on 2 February 2005.

   Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. 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. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it!”

   Reply
4. omanuel says:

   May 19, 2014 at 10:54

   Thank you, Ken, for helping to expose this great climate swindle. By a strange coincidence, my research mentor (the late Dr. Kazuo Kuroda) personally experienced the FEAR and CHAOS in the closing days of WWII that forged an unholy alliance of politicians and scientists in August 1945 to hide neutron repulsion as the source of energy in the cores of heavy elements and the Sun – an alliance that would finally be revealed sixty-four years later in Climategate e-mails (November 2009):

   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2170881.stm

   Reply