My cousin is married to a famous German physicist: he worked with Teller and Heisenberg, was a founding member of the Club of Rome, a board member of Greenpeace, the Chairman of the Max Planck Insititute (“Herr Doktor Direktor Professor Durr” as my aunt used to say).

I remember him stopping to see members of his family in the US, interrupting his return from a trip to China, in about 1962. He held a roomful of people in thrall, describing in glowing terms how energy-efficient the Chinese were. He was fascinated by how little they used in the way of resources in the conduct of their daily life.

I haven’t spoken to him in years, but I found him on Youtube, holding forth on Global Warming. Unfortunately, it’s in German.

These two standards are at opposite ends of the universe. Why does not the standard of communication tell the whole story? Why are the frauds never held accountable for their fraudulent communication standards? A subject has not been addressed until the communication standards rise to the level of explaining claims or accusations with enough evidence and logic to determine the truth.

The frauds produce fake explanations which can easily be shown to be false. But one-way communication prevents the corrections from reaching the public. Insulating the falsehoods from criticism is one of the elements of the scam at the other end of the universe.

In other words, producing truth doesn’t look anything like producing fraud. Anyone who doesn’t see the difference doesn’t want to. It’s like going into a bank with a ski mask and gun. It isn’t how banking is supposed to be done.

Why should the public spend trillions of dollars turning the social order into chaos until the standard of proceeding is more justifiable? Because the tipping point is approaching too fast. We don’t have time to be rational and honest. Supposedly, when your in a bind, corruption is the best answer. The basic premise of Nazism was that morality is for fools, because sin is the only responsible way to run a society. Saying we don’t have time for rationality is the same thing; it’s saying corruption is the only responsible way to run a society.

Supposedly, climategate was just the trivial banter of concerned scientists. Where then is the standard with produces truth? Supposedly, corrupt standards produce flawless truth. The result always follows the purpose. When the purpose is to show a temperature increase, the result is to show a temperature increase. The purpose was clear in the climategate material including the data mess which the programmers had to deal with. Every adjustment was in the direction of increasing temperature. If heat islands are skewing the result, the solution is to increase the measurements instead of decreasing them. If satellites are drifting due to atmospheric drag, The adjustment increases the measurement instead of decreasing it. Drag would move a satellite closer to the earth and increase the measurement, so the correction is to increase the measurement some more.

In real science there is no such thing as adjusting date to improve it. The whole purpose of science is to remove the human element from the study of nature. Otherwise, one person’s improvement is another person’s fraud.

My favorite book of Julian’s is the last one he wrote before his death in 1998; the title says it all…”Hoodwinking the Nation.” He dispatches with fact and eloquence the “vanishing U.S. farmland scare” and the “global warming doomsday sayers”, including Al Gore and Paul Ehrlich. “False bad news” still sells papers, and funds universities, politicians, climate centers, enviornmental activists, and government blessed industries.

It also pays for winter wonderland fairs in fairyland homelands, such as Copenhagen, the home to King Knut and to Shakespear’s Hamlet, whose three witches brewed a rot, provoking “there is something rotten in the State of Denmark” remark later in the play.