Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming’

NEW MARKETING PUSH FOR THE UN’s ‘AGENDA 21’

November 15, 2012

The UN’s Agenda 21 is being rolled out in across Europe, Africa, North America, Australia, parts of South America and parts of Asia.

They have already created specially designated UN ‘sustainable cities in countries like India, Nepaland have begun introducing sustainable communities and transition towns in Europe and elsewhere. Their stated goal is to herd private land owners and residents out of their newly labeled ‘green zones’, and into super cities…

As you can gather from this marketing propaganda, their is a very anti-human campaign, most hinging on the mythology of anthropogenic global warming as a justification for a global government. Watch:

Advertisements

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here’s the chart to prove it

October 15, 2012

Editor’s Note: Just letting readers know that we haven’t forgotten about the running fraud of ‘global warming’, a lie which is still sucking billions out of our pockets and pushing prices of regulation, goods and services gradually upwards. When are we going to knock this scam on the head?

  • The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
  • This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

David Rose
Mail Online

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. 

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years. 

global temperature changes

Graph: global temperature changes.

Research: The new figures mean that the ¿pause¿ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. This picture shows an iceberg melting in Eastern Greenland
Research: The new figures mean that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. This picture shows an iceberg melting in Eastern Greenland

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast  to the release of the previous  figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

Professor Phil Jones
Dr Judith A Curry

Disagreement: Professor Phil Jones, left, from the University of East Anglia, dismissed the significance of the plateau. Professor Judith Curry, right, from Georgia Tech university in America, disagreed, saying the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’

Warmer: Since 1880 the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius. This image shows floating icebergs in Greenland
Warmer: Since 1880 the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius. This image shows floating icebergs in Greenland

The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.

Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.

Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees  Celsius by the end of the century.

The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own  carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts.

At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.

Flawed science costs us dearly

Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and  b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?

You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.

From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.

Not that there has been any  coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.

The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.

They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it  is being imposed for only one  reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.

Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.

And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock.

It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy.

This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.

But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as  those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.

‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability  [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect:

‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’

READ MORE

Gore and Climatists Get Ready to Hibernate: Another Record Breaking Winter is Coming

September 20, 2011

Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
September 20, 2011

You can always gauge the level of desperation in a political movement by its inability to maintain a coherent message. This usually happens when the reality visible in the world runs contrary to the reality being professed from their pulpit.

In the final days of Nazi Germany, elite officers were all huddled in their Berlin bunker, eating foie gras and drinking champagne, as the Red Army closed in on their capital. Even in the 11th hour, Hitler was convinced that the righteous armies of the Fatherland would regroup and stem the Soviet tide. After all, Germany had achieved so much in such a short time, and they had no reason to think that their epic revolution of “National Socialism” would not succeed.

It seems now that, in the face of more and more record-breaking winters, increased polar ice cover and an endless string of academic scandals, that Al Gore and the global warming/climate change movement are having their own Berlin bunker moment.

Having watched Gore’s recent 24 Hours of Reality internet media show this past week, I could see that very same level of desperation present in all of the day’s presentations. I saw a level of incoherence not seen before in the climate change crusade. I saw a faith-based movement clearly facing a rapidly unraveling ideology. Even traditional global warming activists have been wary of having anything to do with Gore’s telethon, where presenter upon presenter attempted in vain to cherry pick any extreme region weather event on the globe and connect it to man-made global warming.

Al Gore and the warming movement will struggle with the 2011-2012 winter freeze. (IMAGE: Infowars.com)

One of the more disturbing thrusts of the presentations streamed that day was a rallying call for academics and education professionals to do a better job in delivering their message of man-made global warming and climate Armageddon… to young children. In other words, there appeared to be a need to indoctrinate kids at a young age if the movement is to survive. Presenters were quite vocal about their disdain for “deniers”, upset about the scourge of intelligent adult skepticism. One presenter even called on children to ‘put pressure on their parents to be more responsible’. One last propaganda blitz before the fall.

I could not help but feel here that global warmists must be feeling as Joseph Goebbels did, faced with the horror of his dream of a Utopian Reich disintegrating before his eyes, a man whose final move was a campaign to mobilize children, getting the kids to man gun posts in hopes of repelling the inevitable Soviet advance towards ground zero.  When educated adults are finally coming to their senses, gathering enough courage to go and look outside, and determine for themselves that the sky is not falling, then it is perhaps the most cynical and ruthless area of exploitation for a fundamentalist movement to target the innocent minds of young children to do their bidding.

A real dose of reality is on the way however, one not apparent in Al Gore’s media montage. If you live in the Northern hemisphere, you can expect record-breaking cold spells this winter, including early blizzards… and a string of sub zero temperature events.

In past years the UK’s official weather forecaster, the Met Office, has come under heavy fire from critics having failed to predict with any level of accuracy a succession of record-breaking freezes in their country. As a result, municipalities failed to stock up on grit for the roads, allocate money for snow ploughs and other key provisions. This had dire consequences- a number of deaths last winter in the UK were related to unforeseen weather conditions. This year appears to be different as weather experts, in a bid to salvage their credibility and distance themselves from the likes of the IPCC’s failing projections and scandals like Climategate, for the first time in years are sounding the cold alarm.

As a recent Daily Mail report explains, forecasters are warning that Britain is about to experience an early winter, with snow expected to arrive as soon as next month. The Met Office now admits that we can expect cold temperatures as early as October, and Weather Services International agrees, saying that in October, November and December we will be hit with temperatures approximately two degrees lower than the average.

James Madden of Exacta Weather also agrees, “I expect to see the first signs of some moderate to heavy snowfalls as early as October or November in certain parts of the UK. Huge swirly low-pressure systems also offer the potential for widespread disruption from heavy snowfall across many parts of the UK including the South, as they clash with the predominant cold air.” Madden also added that Scotland and the North would face the worst weather, including possible ‘blizzard-like conditions’ brought on by snow from the Arctic for prolonged periods.

Another vocal opponent of Al Gore and the climatist fundamentalist movement is Weather Action, a UK-based long range weather forecaster led by scientist Piers Corbyn. Weather Action has also issued a stark warning that four major storms are coming in the next 6 weeks and that it is very important that emergency services are aware of what is over the horizon. The organization has worked out, with about 80% accuracy, what are the real factors that drive climate on this planet, namely, a combination of solar activity, lunar cycles and changes in the earth’s magnetic fields.

Weather Action has also identified that cold weather can have disastrous consequences for agricultural production if farmers are not prepared.  For instance, in the production of Maize, frosts forecasts means the crop should be planted late, and those who planted early lost out. In Dairy production, a cold spring forecast means that grass would be late so it would be worth spending on fertilizer.

Weather Action’s calculations and forecasts are based on the use of mathematics and physics, unlike the IPCC’s elite group of ‘climate scientists’ who have been basing their apocalyptic predictions of the future on a collection of rigged computer-modeled projections. Herrs Gore, Strong, Hansen, Mann and Jones relied on these sacred computer-modeled climate mock-ups to get their initial gravy train going, and it worked. Now the wheels are beginning to come off that gravy train.

As global temperatures have declined since 1998, one can only deduce that the alarmist tone of Al Gore’s self-styled “scientific consensus” has already been discredited, and people and their governments around this planet should move back on track with reality as soon as possible.

The most bizarre turn of green ideology is that many top climate zealots have been claiming“that global cooling is caused by global warming”. It’s a rather bizarre idea that has been successfully implanted into the minds of a faithful flock, but it is quite obviously the death pangs of a flock who have lost their way.

In this twisted zone of eco-spin, millions could perish from famine or a spike in food prices brought on by early frosts, and elderly residents might die trapped in their homes without sufficient heat, and yet, climate fantasists will tell you that this is all down to man-made global warming, in much the same way that Pat Robertson told us that Hurricane Katrina and and the Haiti earthquake were brought on by God’s vengeance for those peoples’ sins. Climate fundamentalists, whether they are cognisant of this or not, are operating on the same level of misdirection as Pat Robertson.

Still there are millions of dollars a day around the globe being spent researching quack Victorian science fiction ideas as ridiculous as a man-made simulated volcano in England, or a giant cold blanket to cover Greenland’s glaciers.

The longer mainstream society entertains the sort of intellectual indulgence that the Man-Made Global Warming movement is offering out, the more valuable time and money we continue to waste on an ideology that was actually never based on real science- or hard facts. The whole ideology fusing man-made global warming and an illusion of climate crisis was always based on one main element- fear, followed by a powerful politically correct idea of collective guilt. These were deployed against populations in order to achieve the end goal, which was the collectivization and control of society through various legal and economic instruments like carbon emissions trading, an expensive process which will ultimately end in a redistribution of society’s wealth upwards.

Meanwhile, after 10 years and hundreds of billions in precious public and private money spent on an ideological crusade to save the planet from a nemesis that never existed, real environmental threats have gained ground on mankind. The consolidation of genetically modified food production, the introduction of cross-breed chimera species into our ecosystem, the continual dumping of toxic waste and chemicals into our oceans and water supplies, known carcinogens being spread via popular consumer products and the mass release of radioactive pollution through a series industrial incidents- all of which actually threaten mankind’s place and progeny on the planet, and still we see little progress made in pushing them back to truly safe levels.

In the end, Gore’s “24 hours of Reality” only reinforced my belief that there is no “climate crisis”- therefore we should do nothing to solve it, let alone fight it. Still, his CEO and President for the media event, Maggie Fox, implores her troops to soldier on. “It is up to you to continue to stand up for reality and share the truth about the climate crisis. We will succeed because we must.”

That sounds a lot like Goebbels and Co down in that Berlin bunker.

SEE ALSO:  SOLARGATE: OBAMA’S BIG GREEN SCANDAL THAT WON’T GO AWAY

GREEN INDUSTRIES? WHAT A JOKE. JUST LISTEN TO THE SAD BALLAD OF MR STAN OVSHINSKY

June 20, 2011

By Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
June 20, 2011

As oil is positioned to surge again this summer, intelligent and informed members of society will want to reconsider our crack-like addiction to this black gold which seems to drive the price of everything, along with all major wars, famines and other world events.

We can take a look back to yesterday, 1996 to be exact, and revisit the killing of the electric car by the now defunct General Motors (GM). This was an important link in a chain of events that has placed us where we are today, and in the same boat we were back in 1978.

As a social-consumer group, Americans will believe almost anything they hear from “official sources”. No matter how outrageous or unfounded a mainstream mantra may be, like sheep, they will almost always follow the larger flock, regardless of which way it may be  headed. In terms of consumer adoption in the 20th century, the litany of disinformation is endless and includes popular myths like:

  • GMO’s are safe to grow and eat.
  • Nuclear power is green and safe.
  • Fluoride is good for you and helps fight tooth decay.
  • Mercury in vaccines is not harmful.
  • Battery technology hasn’t advanced enough to support an electric car industry.

Let’s look at that last one. Batteries just weren’t good enough to power cars and free households from dependence on oil companies, right?  Wrong. The battery problem had been largely solved and not just in theory, but even in 1990’s production. Then GM bought its way in as a condition for using US inventor Stan Ovshinsky’s battery in its cars. Through a legally dubious move,  it sold its share in the company to Chevron/Texaco. And now the battery is gone.

This move was made possible by a team comprised of  GM, Chevron/Texaco, and your elected and appointed career members of the US Federal Government, a move that undoubted pushed back the adoption of a mass electric car by a further 20 years or more.

But Washington’s impressive legacy of collusion and corruption doesn’t end there.

As far back as 1974, Vanguard-Sebring’s CitiCar mad its debut at the Electric Vehicle Symposium in Washington, D.C. It had a top speed of over 30 mph and a reliable warm-weather range of 40 miles. By 1975 the company was the sixth largest automaker in the U.S. but is dissolved only a few years later. Two years later in 1976, the US Congress had passes the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act. The law was passed in order to help spur the development  of new technologies like batteries, motors, and other hybrid-electric components. It also passed because the public will was there and innovators were ready to run with it. Sadly, Federal career-oriented politicians were not up to the task, running the risk of ruining their chances to serve on the boards of these same major industry players.

An Auto-Oil-Fed pincer move was then applied in order to bury all renewable technology trends in 1980 when Washington, under Reagan’s watch, sunk a growing popular national movement towards renewable energy research, development and commercialisation, pushing the electric car back another 20 years.

Prior to that, numerous engineers in the US, Canada and Europe had indeed developed combustion engine prototypes that exceeded 100 miles to the gallon or more, as far back as WWII. Still today, motor industry touts cars that get 30 miles per gallon as “economical” and “fuel efficient”. The famous 200 MPG Pogue Carburetor was just one example of these.

Prior to WWII, clear back to the 1920’s, the electric car was neck and neck with the gasoline-gusselling combustion engine cars. But the gas monsters eventually won way back then. Not much has changed up until today.

Again, we hear that Sad Ballad of the corporate monopolists’ victim, Stan Ovshinsky and his car battery in 1996, we can only look back and wonder, “what if”…

 GM and Chevron colluded to kill progress, namely Ovshinsky’s advances in electric car battery technology.

 EV1 vs the Hummer: thanks to Federal government interference in the market, he Hummer won.

  How the Federal Government bends to the will of certain corporations.

Mary Burgess wrote on the dawn of GM’s bankruptcy debacle:

“In the documentary Wally E. Rippel, a research engineer, points out that there is still about a trillion barrels of oil in the earth. “At $100 a barrel, that’s $100 trillion of business left in the ground”. The fat cat oil companies have so much to gain from prohibiting new technologies from taking over our current consumption of oil and gas, and they have the power to make it happen. Their pressure on the government, and the car companies, including GM, ensured that the EV1 would not survive. Under these pressures GM chose the gas gusseling Hummer over the EV1. Ironically now, GM owes over $1 million for every Hummer on the road.”

The timing of Obama’s Federalist hacking of GM was uncanny to say the least. The irony here for the clueless American voter is that many Democrats saw their Messiah as a “Green” President, and a champion for Mother Earth. The reality of course, is nothing like that. He is just another CEO on the payroll of his corporate board. Burgess continued:

“General Motors dropped from DOW today as it filled for bankruptcy this morning. The Obama administration is to purchase the remains of the suffering company for $30 billion, with the Canadian government chipping in an additional 9.5 billion for the Canadian branch of the company. Together the two governments and the remaining GM staffers will have an arduous task of restructuring the giant company in to a leaner organization in the hopes that it can again rise to be a profitable employer to thousands.

Almost prophetically the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? was broadcast on TV the night before GM officially filled for bankruptcy. The documentary details the story of the EV1, GM’s electric car that was released in 1996… They didn’t let people buy the EV1, leasing was the only option to procure the vehicle. They even put A-list celebrities such as Mel Gibson through lengthy questionnaires prior to letting them lease an EV1. in 1999 when GM stopped production of the EV1, they pulled all of the EV1s on the road and destroyed them, an action that was made possible by their lease only policy…

GM put an inferior battery in the first edition of the EV1, even though they owned a controlling interest in a company that had a patent for a  far superior battery invented by Stan Oshinsky . Sadly GM only released 200 second generation EV1’s that included the superior battery, and later GM sold it’s shares to Chevron/Texaco who were free to suppress the innovative technology.”

So this a clear, defined history of collusion between the three main players in the energy game: manufacturers, oil companies and, of course (the one we always forget to mention), your altruistic Federal Government. In this world, trends are not allowed to develop and history is diverted to an alternative reality, one which we find ourselves still on today.

THE TESLA CAR: A hint at what electric cars could be offering today had the technology been allowed to develop freely.

Still, naive voters, activists, and green crusaders harp on about energy policy and tax hikes on fuel, as if it were the only way to reach a cleaner, more efficient future. They speak of man-made global warming and climate change as if its something real, and not a psuedo-science invented and promoted by politicians and career charlatans like Al Gore, Maurice Strong and John P. Holdren. The reality is that its nothing more than another trillion dollar rent-seeking, corporate pyramid scam designed to enrich its elite circle of crafty progenitors.

The problem my dear Watson, is right there in front of your nose. It’s an age-old problem. The elephant in the front room that Americans, particularly for those self-professed “Liberals” in this society. The weak-minded and castrated members of your Federal government have time and time again interfered with the true free market and the natural progression of innovation in technology, in order to fix the game for their biggest corporate donors and their bookies on Wall Street, who in turn will secure the financial future of their federal government legislative fixers.

As the solar industry struggles to be born again, with the help of Ovshinsky’s latest battery technology, the Sad Ballad of Stan Ovshinsky plays on in the background.

It’s not just a song now, it symbolises a bona fide crime against humanity that deserves the most swift and harsh execution of justice.

Green industries? What a laugh. Not until we grow a pair. Until then, the only green industry is in the bill-clip.

News anchor claims BBC has become a propaganda machine for climate change

January 27, 2011

By PETER SISSONS
January 25, 2011

Institutionally biased to the Left, politically correct and with a rudderless leadership. This is Peter Sissons’ highly critical view of the BBC in his new memoirs, in which he describes his fascinating career over four decades as a television journalist. Here, in the latest part of our serialisation, he reveals how it was heresy at the BBC to question claims about climate change . . .

My time as a news and ­current affairs anchor at the BBC was characterised by weak leadership and poor ­direction from the top, but hand in hand with this went the steady growth of political correctness.

Indeed, it was almost certainly the ­Corporation’s unchallengeable PC culture that made strong leadership impossible.

Peter Sissons climate skeptic?

"It was heresy at the BBC to question claims about climate change."

Leadership — one person being in charge, trusting his or her own judgment, taking a decision and telling others what to do— was shied away from in favour of endless meetings of a dozen or more ­people trying to arrive at some sort of consensus.

At the newsroom level it became impossible to discipline someone for basic journalistic mistakes — wrong dates, times and numbers, inaccurate ­on-screen captions and basic political or geographical facts — for fear of giving offence. You’d never see anyone, to use a technical term, get a b*****king.

There’d be whispers about them. They might even get a black mark at the annual appraisal with their line manager. Sometimes, they might even be ­promoted to a position in which they could do less harm.

But what really concerned me was when the culture of political correctness began to influence what appeared on the screen. Soon after I started on News 24 in 2003, the aircraft carrier Ark Royal returned from the Gulf to a traditional welcome from families and friends at Portsmouth. TV reporters closed in to interview crew members, the vast majority of whom were men.

Of the five vox-pops that featured in the BBC News, four were with women sailors. During my stint of presenting that day I complained about this and asked if we could have some more ­balanced interviews, but in vain.

I have always been in two minds about the value of vox-pops. They can give texture and interest to a story, but unless they are selected with scrupulous impartiality by a conscientious producer, they are worse than a waste of time — the viewer is deceived, as they were that day.

For me, though, the most worrying aspect of political correctness was over the story that recurred with increasing frequency during my last ten years at the BBC — global warming (or ‘climate change’, as it became known when temperatures appeared to level off or fall slightly after 1998).

From the beginning I was unhappy at how one-sided the BBC’s coverage of the issue was, and how much more complicated the climate system was than the over-simplified two-minute reports that were the stock-in-trade of the BBC’s environment correspondents.

These, without exception, accepted the UN’s assurance that ‘the science is settled’ and that human emissions of carbon dioxide threatened the world with catastrophic climate change. Environmental pressure groups could be guaranteed that their press releases, usually beginning with the words ‘scientists say . . . ’ would get on air unchallenged.

On one occasion, an MP used BBC airtime to link climate change ­doubters with perverts and holocaust deniers, and his famous interviewer didn’t bat an eyelid.

Al Gore: Convenient Lies...

Convenient Lies: Gore's film was once heralded by the media as 'proof' of man-made global warming.

On one occasion, after the inauguration of Barack Obama as president in 2009, the science correspondent of Newsnight actually informed viewers ‘scientists calculate that he has just four years to save the world’. What she didn’t tell viewers was that only one alarmist scientist, NASA’s James Hansen, had said that.

My interest in climate change grew out of my concern for the failings of BBC journalism in reporting it. In my early and formative days at ITN, I learned that we have an obligation to report both sides of a story. It is not journalism if you don’t. It is close to propaganda.

The BBC’s editorial policy on ­climate change, however, was spelled out in a report by the BBC Trust — whose job is to oversee the workings of the BBC in the interests of the public — in 2007. This disclosed that the BBC had held ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’.

The error here, of course, was that the BBC never at any stage gave equal space to the opponents of the consensus.

But the Trust continued its ­pretence that climate change ­dissenters had been, and still would be, heard on its airwaves. ‘Impartiality,’ it said, ‘always requires a breadth of view, for as long as minority ­opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space.’

In reality, the ‘appropriate space’ given to minority views on climate change was practically zero.
Moreover, we were allowed to know practically nothing about that top-level seminar mentioned by the BBC Trust at which such momentous conclusions were reached. Despite a Freedom of Information request, they wouldn’t even make the guest list public.

There is one brief account of the ­proceedings, written by a conservative commentator who was there. He wrote subsequently that he was far from impressed with the 30 key BBC staff who attended. None of them, he said, showed ‘even a modicum of professional journalistic ­curiosity on the subject’. None appeared to read anything on the subject other than the Guardian.

This attitude was underlined a year later in another statement: ‘BBC News currently takes the view that their reporting needs to be calibrated to take into account the scientific consensus that global warming is man-made.’ Those scientists outside the ‘consensus’ waited in vain for the phone to ring.

It’s the lack of simple curiosity about one of the great issues of our time that I find so puzzling about the BBC. When the topic first came to ­prominence, the first thing I did was trawl the internet to find out as much as possible about it.

Anyone who does this with a mind not closed by religious fervour will find a mass of material by respectable scientists who question the orthodoxy. Admittedly, they are in the minority, but scepticism should be the natural instinct of scientists — and the default setting of journalists.

Yet the cream of the BBC’s inquisitors during my time there never laid a glove on those who repeated the ­mantra that ‘the science is settled’. On one occasion, an MP used BBC airtime to link climate change ­doubters with perverts and holocaust deniers, and his famous interviewer didn’t bat an eyelid.

Meanwhile, Al Gore, the former U.S. Vice-President and climate change campaigner, entertained the BBC’s editorial elite in his suite at the Dorchester and was given a free run to make his case to an admiring internal audience at Television Centre.

His views were never subjected to journalistic scrutiny, even when a British High Court judge ruled that his film, An Inconvenient Truth, ­contained at least nine scientific errors, and that ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was screened in schools. From the BBC’s standpoint, the judgment was the real inconvenience, and its ­environment correspondents downplayed its significance.

At the end of November 2007 I was on duty on News 24 when the UN panel on climate change produced a report which later turned out to contain ­significant inaccuracies, many stemming from its reliance on non-peer reviewed sources and best-guesses by environmental activists.

But the way the BBC’s reporter treated the story was as if it was beyond a vestige of doubt, the last word on the catastrophe awaiting mankind. The most challenging questions addressed to a succession of UN employees and climate ­activists were ‘How urgent is it?’ and ‘How much danger are we in?’

Back in the studio I suggested that we line up one or two sceptics to react to the report, but received a totally negative response, as if I was some kind of lunatic. I went home and wrote a note to myself: ‘What happened to the journalism? The BBC has ­completely lost it.’

A damaging episode illustrating the BBC’s supine attitude came in 2008, when the BBC’s ‘environment ­analyst’, Roger Harrabin, wrote a piece on the BBC website reporting some work by the World ­Meteorological Organization that questioned whether global ­warming was going to continue at the rate ­projected by the UN panel.

A green activist, Jo Abbess, emailed him to complain. Harrabin at first resisted. Then she berated him: ‘It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics’ — something Harrabin had not actually done — ‘Please reserve the main BBC online channel for emerging truth. Otherwise I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically manipulated.’

Did Harrabin tell her to get lost? He tweaked the story — albeit not as radically as she demanded — and emailed back: ‘Have a look and tell me you are happier.’

This exchange went round the world in no time, spread by a ­jubilant Abbess. Later, Harrabin defended himself, saying they were only minor changes — but the sense of the changes, as specifically sought by Ms Abbess, was plainly to harden the piece against the sceptics.

Many people wouldn’t call that minor, but Harrabin’s BBC bosses accepted his explanation.

The sense of entitlement with which green groups regard the BBC was brought home to me when what was billed as a major climate change rally was held in London on a ­miserable, wintry, wet day.

I was on duty on News 24 and it had been arranged for me to ­interview the leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas. She clearly expected, as do most environmental activists, what I call a ‘free hit’ — to be allowed to say her piece without challenge.

I began, good naturedly, by observing that the climate didn’t seem to be playing ball at the moment, and that we were having a particularly cold winter while carbon emissions were powering ahead.

Miss Lucas reacted as if I’d ­physically molested her. She was outraged. It was no job of the BBC — the BBC! — to ask questions like that. Didn’t I realise that there could be no argument over the science?

I persisted with a few simple observations of fact, such as there appeared to have been no warming for ten years, in contradiction of all the alarmist computer models.

A listener from one of the sceptical climate-change websites noted that ‘Lucas was virtually apoplectic and demanding to know how the BBC could be making such ­comments. Sissons came back that his role as a journalist was always to review all sides. Lucas finished with a veiled warning, to which Sissons replied with an “Ooh!”’

A week after this interview, I went into work and picked up my mail from my pigeon hole. Among the envelopes was a small Jiffy Bag, which I opened. It contained a substantial amount of faeces wrapped in several sheets of toilet paper.

At the time no other interviewers on the BBC — or indeed on ITV News or Channel Four News — had asked questions about climate change which didn’t start from the assumption that the science was settled…

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html#ixzz1CEdHjymX

 

 

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE…

December 21, 2010

(it could land you in prison)

   Come Jan 1st, those innocent “climate quips” could just land you in a cold cell.

The video comedy sketch above is actually hitting very close to home. Our latest and somewhat controversial article on global warming  has prompted some readers and Facebook members to say that “They (21st Century Wire) should not be allowed to write (our critical essays and news challenging the UN’s global warming orthodoxy)”, and that “They should confine themselves to blogs or talking loudly at bars, where they can safely be ignored”. In other words, the UN’s science summary is holy law, to challenge or question it is akin to heresy.

MISSING: Has anyone seen this man lately?

It’s worth pointing out here that the global warming church will always cry in chorus “climate change!” anytime there is a heat spell, a hurricane, an earthquake or a sandstorm, but will condemn and excommunicate heretic ‘deniers’ like us who are simply putting across a collection factual research and nonpolitical opinion that challenges the UN’s controlled party line. If there is an iron maiden in the basement of the UN building in New York, surely our writers here at 21st Century will have advanced booking privileges.

Actor Danny Glover  made such a statement  after the Haiti Earthquake disaster- blaming the disaster on climate change, which means that 21st Century Wire would be well within its bounds to decree that he should not be allowed to act as a result. Would we? Of course not, we like Lethal Weapons 1 & 2… a lot, but Danny will end up paying the price in ‘street cred’ (he’s been docked a few) if he goes and says anything outrageously absurd on global TV.

Proof that there is a warming bias right in front of our eyes…

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
-Dr David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, March 20, 2000

“Why did the Met Office forecast a “mild winter?”
–Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, The Daily Telegraph, December 20, 2010

FYI note for the Climate Taliban, please can you make my hair shirt a medium, thanks, and with a 16.5″ neck. It’s almost comical, yet it’s enough to make you nearly cry. Readers you still have the choice: keep taking your blue pills, or wake up and deprogram.

Patrick Henningsen
Editor

21st Century Wire

 

2010: Another record breaking winter. So what happened to global warming?

December 18, 2010
By Patrick Henningsen 
Dec 18, 2010

Britain and Europe have been hit hard for the third straight record-breaking winter season. Labeled by experts as the coldest winter in 100 years and set to blow well into 2011, it is already raising some very interesting questions about the new ideological split we are witnessing throughout society in the much celebrated green debate.

Tonight Britain braces itself for a further 10 inches of snow and more sub-zero temperatures to come- with no let-up, top forecasters have warned. These unusual Arctic conditions are set to last through the Christmas and New Year bank holidays and beyond and as temperatures plummeted to -10c (14f), prompting the UK’s Met Office to state that this December 2010 was ‘almost certain’ to become the coldest since records began in 1910. 

So is it not safe to say that we are witnessing a real, tangible and physical trend here? Unlike the million dollar computer-generated climate model projections produced by the UN’s elite circle of research grantees and bursary award-winning climate scientists, this new trend is actually a real one- one we can touch, feel and most importantly… one we can empirically measure.

Yet another record-breaking winter in Britain, could this be a trend? Go figure. (PHOTO: Patrick Henningsen).

Indeed, it is Britain who has been hit- yet again, by a siege of blizzards and freezing temperatures. As public transport and utilities face continued disruption in services, major airports are reporting closures as the snow drift continues to pile up.  It seems that temperatures will struggle to rising above freezing points for the second straight day and this will sure spell more chaos for the general welfare. For a relatively moderate, low altitude climate zone like the UK, such winter storms can cost lives and create an endless backlog of crisises that municipalities will have difficulty managing.

There is a rather bizarre upside of course. If you count yourself as one of the millions worldwide who find yourself living in constant fear of global warming and climate change, there is one positive reassuring aspect to this now bona fide and well documented global cooling weather trend since 1998. This essentially means that you can now safely get out from under the bed and breathe a sigh of green relief as you look out your window to see everything covered in thick white again. Yes, yes, you are completely and utterly safe from CGI-created scary visions of sea levels rising- as seen in the science fiction “cult” film, Age of Stupid (yes, those are CGI graphics and no, sea levels are not rising), allegedly due to that arbitrary phantom menace… called climate change. But some well-meaning folks seem to have forgotten that the Earth’s climate is constantly changing- it always has done. What is the main driver of the Earth’s climate; its cloud cover, its weather patterns, its extreme climate cycles? Undoubtedly, it is that big red firey furnace in the sky- the Sun.

Still though, this hasn’t stopped thousands of green-washed activists, hippies and guilt-ridden corporate rehab patients in search of a low calorie religious love-in, from chasing their paper tiger into the deepest darkest corner of this endless political forest. A generation lost to indoctrination from up-on-high, high, high up some of the world’s leading investment banks and arcane think tanks. And the hippies, well, they are also high.

Lost the plot: What was once a fun green activity for young Euro-hippies has now transformed into a wandering farcical climate circus.

The Club of Rome  (official progenitor of the global warming hoax) and the UN’s own well-documented programmes of social engineering(Agenda 21) and various departments of political division, all have seen resounding success, particularly between 2004-2008, before the ideological zeitgeist of global warming and its new alter ego, climate change, started heading south for the winter (all the way south to Antarctica, in fact). The inevitable collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is one recent sign that the whole effort to monetised and control Western lives through this coercive pseudo market is struggling to maintain its illusion of green utilitarianism. The writing was on the wall this past summer and went unnoticed by most green activists and passive spectators in the great climate debate. Although initial investors and shared holders managed to jump ship with their fortunes in tact, in the end, it was simply “unsustainable”.

If you have unwavering faith in men like Al Gore, the UN’s own knighted IPCC body of 40-odd climate scientists and the Guardian’s resident earth expert George Monbiot, then you have effectively swallowed the blue pill. Here you have a license to switch off your critical thinking faculties because in your mind you can hear the following phrases, successfully implanted there, over and over again. “The debate is over, the science is settled, every scientist agrees”. Like a fundamentalist Christian, a Jew, or Muslim, you take the climate scriptures word for word. You are a true believer, one who somehow knows in his heart that there really is a thing called man-made CO2-driven global warming. It simply must be. And there is a ready-made crowd waiting for you at the church, where everyone is singing happily from the same hymn sheet- literally. What once passed for education in the West, was transformed into a top-down waterfall of relentless green propaganda- driven by middle class guilt and a multi-billion dollar gravy train of state-subsidised financial opportunities.

And in the most bizarre turn of green ideology seen yet, more and more liberal-minded zealots are now claiming  “that global cooling is what we must expect because of global warming”. If you are in any doubt as to the reality of this new claim, just ask any climate change advocate yourself and you will be amazed to hear this new party line stated. Another idea has been successfully implanted into the minds of this faithful flock.

And then you have the skeptics– the demonised, the mavericks, the outcasts(of whom this author is one, and has yet to receive any money from ‘big oil’ etc) often stoned in public for challenging Herrs Gore, Strong, Hansen, Mann and Jones on certain hack aspects of their sacred computer-modeled science. The doubters knew something wasn’t right when Wall Street started its hedging and hyping of the world’s most innovative financial instrument yet- carbon emissions. They knew something was off kilter when carbon taxes inevitably became to main thrust of global warming shills and the United Nations. So after a third straight year of frostbite and ice skating down your neighborhood street and into a lamp post, it’s gone beyond a joke. You simply have no choice but to swallow the red pill

In the end, the climate debate comes down to Alice in Wonderland. Our advice: at least know which pill you have swallowed.

It seems that the only people in denial are the religious followers of the IPCC’s new Jonestown Church of climate change… drunk on a delusion that they are, in their own little way, saving the planet from the evil substance known as CO2. It’s become a sort of tribal division, where two tribes cannot seem to agree if the Sun orbits the Earth, or the Earth orbits the Sun. Throughout history tribes of people needed mythologies in order to give meaning to their lives. Climate Change is simply the latest mythology for this current epoch. In the 21st century, we thought modern man had surely advanced past this handicap, but alas… old habits die hard. 

Alice… are you there Alice?

VIDEO: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE…

Death to the Chicago Climate Exchange ($7.40 to a nickel per CO2 ton, the market has spoken)

November 19, 2010

By William Griesinger
www.masterresource.org
November 18, 2010

“One of the keystones of the Climate Change alarmist movement was its audacious attempt to create a functioning market by monetizing the atmospheric gas known as CO2…. Certainly, gaming the system has always been at the top on the agenda of the new green eco-trader.”

– Patrick Henningsen, “The Great Collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange,” 21st Century Wire, August 28, 2010.

We were tipped off by the August 28th headline, “The Great Collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange,” by Patrick Henningsen, editor of 21st Century Wire. And now it is official as reported by Chicago Business, Fox News , and Crain’s Chicago Business (sub. required): the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is dead. Trading in carbon-dioxide (CO2) emission contracts at CCX has basically ceased with member emissions-reduction agreements expiring at the end of the year.

The death rattles have come with each price decline per ton of carbon credits. Compared to $7.40 per ton in May 2008 when cap-and-trade legislation was eagerly anticipated, CCX’s market price tanked to $0.10 per ton in August 2010 and half that last month.  So much for a contrived opportunity in a pretense  market.  What a difference a couple of years, a few scientific scandals, and old-fashioned political gridlock make.

Projections of carbon fortunes were based on the same hyped speculation by the IPCC that the planet's temperatures would suddenly rise (PHOTO: Patrick Henningsen)

Reuters reported in August that the CCE was facing significant layoffs and an operational scaleback only a few months after being acquired by publicly traded Intercontinental Exchange Inc (NYSE: ICE). ICE acquired CCX earlier this year in an all-cash deal totaling nearly $600 million, a shocking valuation given CCX’s lack of traction and a paucity of sustainable revenue (more on this later).

ICE is a nearly $1 billion revenue company and leading global operator of regulated futures exchanges and OTC markets for agricultural, credit, energy, currency and equity index contracts. In other words, ICE is a real-deal commodities exchange as opposed to the faux market for CO2. As an example of ICE’s scale, its Futures Europe unit clears trades in nearly half the world’s crude and refined oil futures, according to SEC filings.

Left Environmentalist Lament

It is fitting that real market forces have imposed their discipline on this Enron-like market, leaving climate alarmists in spin mode. Howard Learner, president of the Environmental Law and Policy Center in Chicago, told Crain’s: “What CCX pricing sadly demonstrates is that unless there’s a regulatory cap on emissions, there’s no real market.” Well there you go! Learner’s admission describes rent-seeking in a nutshell.

Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, is equally discouraged. “Economy-wide cap and trade died of what amounts to natural causes in Washington,” he stated in regard to CCS’s demise. Natural causes? What is so unnatural about the outcomes of freely acting buyers and sellers in a market? Is coercion natural? Why is it a perversity where the public and politicians gives a thumbs down to climate-scare fakery, Mr. Krupp?

Criticism of cap-and-trade is not confined to so-called “global warming skeptics.” As I pointed out in my June 9 post, mainstream environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth (FOE) have harshly criticized the proposed Kerry-Lieberman cap-and-trade legislation, issuing the scathing Ten Ways to Game the Carbon Market.

FOE’s guide concludes “carbon offsets are especially prone to corruption and fraud,” detailing “Ponzi Carbon” schemes among other derogatory indictments of cap-and-trade. Further, a FOE senior policy analyst details how many of the scams are already taking place today under the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EUETS). Why would an emissions exchange in the U.S. be any different? The answer, of course, is it wouldn’t.

Joe Romm at Climate Progress (see Appendix below) even panned cap-and-trade sausage-making before his betters at Center for American Progress told him to play ball with Obama et al. Romm did not mince words:

This proposal is a dead end — and an even deader starting point. Shame on NRDC, EDF, and WRI for backing it.

With this proposal, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership has officially made itself obsolete and irrelevant.

Romm caved and joined the losing team–and just maybe sold his alarmist, interventionist soul to the devil. James Hansen, on the other hand, would have nothing of the cap-and-trade mirage.

Rent-Seeking: Risky Business

The struggles of CCX provide yet another example of the pitfalls in following a “rent-seeking” model of doing business. Not only does it add considerably to the cost of doing business–government affairs work does not come cheap—but the payoffs are fickle.

Rent-seeking opportunists look to obtain a politically-created shield of protection from the normal competitive forces of real markets where success is measured on a firm’s ability to satisfy consumer-driven needs. Rent-seekers accomplish this via favorable political arrangements, legislative mandates, government subsidies and other protections resulting in the creation of distorted and artificial market conditions that would otherwise not exist absent such political manipulation.

Though history is replete with examples of rent-seeking enterprises (think the transcontinental railroads or early U.S. shipping industry per author Burton Folsom’s Myth of the Robber Barons), it’s difficult to imagine a more egregious rent-seeking scheme than that concocted around the “trading” of carbon and offset credits.

Additionally, the CCX version of rent-seeking included not only the usual government suspects but also multiple financial market players all hoping to cash in at the intersection of government mandated emissions limits and the trading platform believed capable of carrying it out.

“One of the keystones of the Climate Change alarmist movement was its audacious attempt to create a functioning market by monetizing the atmospheric gas known as CO2,” according to 21st Century Wire’s Henningsen, labeling it “a fantasy casino based on the doctrine of pure science fiction. He maintains, “Certainly, gaming the system has always been at the top on the agenda of the new green eco-trader”…
READ THE FULL STORY HERE:
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/11/death-chicago-climate-exchange/#more-12908

The IMF and its Corporate Partners Begin Feeding on UK Natural Resources

October 26, 2010

Editors Note: As the green movement continues chasing phantom events like global warming and climate change, real environmental abuses continue to go virtually unchallenged. Case in point: a cash-strapped British Government is preparing to sell off over half of its forest land to a cartel of private corporations  and banks in league with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It’s an ironic reverse-Robin Hood play, where Sherwood Forest will be pilthered by the rich, away from the people and handed over to an invite-only guestlist of elite  corporations…

Where is the ‘green movement’ during all this? Good question. Most so-called environmental activists have long since disappeared from the actual front-line where protecting natural assets was once top priority. Hungry for money and some media action, most have opted instead for guilty pleasures- indulging in the great green global farce, hell-bent on fighting against the most awesome non-existent enemy of all time- CO2 and climate change. This of course, has been a stroke of genius for the ruling cartel of globalist think tanks, foundations, GMO food producers and the major banks, allowing them to press ahead with what they do best- stripping our natural assets and leaving a toxic mess behind, most of which has gone unreported in recent years. Rather than covering these abuses and real threats, media pundits have chosen the CO2 bait; editors in the major media outlets have opted intstead to promote their glossy green sections and devote airtime to the new populist green version of  environmental news. A true fast-food media agenda. Like other dumbed-down causes… the War on Terror, the Cold War and Lady GaGa’s shopping habits- climate change is simple to sell and doesn’t require too much thought on the part of the audience. All this while millions of green-washed activists, hippies and young people waste their valuable energy, time, effort and money on a feel-good, apocalyptic green orgy of ignorant bliss.

Hate to say it… but we told you so.

If you consider yourself an environmental activist, then this video OpEd by James Corbett should be required viewing:

The Great IMF Fire Sale of the UK Has Begun 

Phil Brennan
Infowars

October 25, 2010

The British Government is about to sell off over half of all UK Forests that are currently under the control of the Forestry Commission to private corporations as the asset-stripping of the UK is begun on behalf of the International Monetary Fund and the Big Six Beast Banks.

Caroline Spelman, the environment secretary, has just announced plans to sell around half of our forests to the mega-corporations – that is 150,000 hectares of prime woodland – as well as numerous other properties. The New Forest, Sherwood Forest, and the Forest of Dean could be targeted for sale.

The Sunday Telegraph provided a map of which forests are owned by the state through the Forestry Commission:

Under the direction of the IMF, bankrupt Britain is preparing to sell-off on the cheap half its remaining woodlands to corporations.

The vast majority of these forests are in Wales, West Scotland and the North East of England.

Most of these forests will be sold off to housing developers, timber merchants, power generators and Centre-Parcs Ltd for golf courses and holiday camps. Our right of access to these forests will be severely curtailed, and we will have lost a great natural resource that can never be bought back for the People.

As we have already stated, this selling off of prime forestry land is part of the mass looting that will occur by the IMF on behalf of the Big Six Beast Banks and Mega-Corporations.

During the IMF Riots in Greece, the Greek government was busy selling off several islands to the same bankers who deliberately bankrupted Greece in the first place, so it comes as no surprise that similar things are being done here. What does come as a surprise is that this IMF Fire-Sale is occurring even before the British people have had their IMF Austerity Riots.

British natural assets are in danger of being looted by the banks.

Then there is the issue of the UN’s Agenda 21 – how they plan to push the vast majority of people into big cities and out of the countryside so that the people will be far easier to control as the One World Government takes over. Once crushed within cities, living standards will go down remarkably and access to land for us will be at a premium. We will become more and more reliant on mega-corporations to supply our food and other resources, which puts us in danger of manufactured scarcity and mass starvation, because we will not have independent means of growing our own food as more and more public land within the cities will be sold off for dormitory-style housing projects under Agenda 21.

In the United States they are already trying to make it illegal to grow your own food through S510, and it is only a matter of time before the Communitarian European Union Dictatorship follows suit. This is to be done through Codex Alimentarius under the World Trade Organisation.

Meanwhile, rioting in the streets will not do any good for us as the IMF, World Bank, and United Nations are hell-bent on bankrupting the people so that we will not be able to effectively resist the One World Government being put in place for the benefit of the Globalist Elites and the Mega-Corporations. The government wants us to riot so that they can crack down hard on us and then use the riots as an excuse to implement even more of the New World Order Control Grid around us.

Targeted peaceful protests are the only means to fight against the IMF Fire-Sale of our forests, which means all us old anti-bypass protesters and Tree-Pixies (tree-squatters) are going to have to come out of retirement to show the younger ones how it is done, while we have the means of peaceful protest still available to us. This is not just about preventing our criminal government from selling the national silver, this is also about our civil liberties as the deliberate economic collapse gathers pace in order to put people into poverty and under more government control.

This is a fight against neo-feudalism, a fight for our very lives.

The cold truth: Climate Science is anything but “settled”

October 18, 2010

The debate is now open: watch this fantastic and informative 5 part interview series with the UK’s Lord Monckton covering all aspects of the great global warming and climate change debate – IPCC scientific fraud, global government and the realisation of a New World Order designed by a global elite…

   A sharp and very complete interview with the UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton (Part 2 of 5)
  (Part 3 of 5)

After a decade of intense brainwashing, people are beginning to realise the truth about man-made global warming

Special thanks to Prison Planet TV for this informative series.