Welcome to the blog of Indian 007

Like a beacon unto the world ...

Friday, November 27, 2009

The Mosquito: Environmentalism’s Weapon of Mass Destruction

by Eric Englund

by Eric Engd

…when one swallows environmentalism, one inescapably swallows poison.

~ Dr. George Reisman

Environmentalists want you dead; and the sooner the better. Did that get your attention? I certainly hope so. For it is the environmental movement’s objective to radically reduce the human population. As mankind seeks to extend the division of labor, to further explore for and utilize natural resources, to develop new life-improving technologies, and to enhance our quality of life, environmentalists view humanity as nothing more than a voracious parasite raping, pillaging, and sucking the life out of Mother Earth. It is within this context – i.e. rescuing Mother Earth from the human parasite, via massive population reduction – that one comes to understand the environmental movement’s nihilistic push to permanently ban the use of DDT always and everywhere. Ultimately, banning DDT (a safe and cost-effective insecticide) is tantamount to cheering on the mosquitoes to kill as many people as possible with such diseases as malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, and West Nile virus.

Of the aforementioned diseases, malaria causes the most deaths and illnesses worldwide. According to Malaria Foundation International (MFI):

Malaria is responsible for about 500 million clinical cases of disease and about 2.7 million deaths a year, mostly those of children under five and pregnant women. In Sub-Saharan Africa alone, malaria destroys 70% more years of life than do all cancers in all developed countries combined. It therefore follows that even a tiny loss in the efficiency of a national malaria control program, occasioned by the loss of DDT or otherwise, would result in a tremendous number of additional deaths from the disease. (emphasis in the original)

Yes, you read that correctly. That is 500 million acute illnesses per year resulting in as many as 2.7 million preventable deaths every year. More about these preventable deaths later (hint: the United States’ outright ban of DDT, in 1972, has had a hand in this large-scale death and misery).

Speaking of bans, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) is pushing for a worldwide treaty aimed at permanently abolishing persistent organic pollutants (POPs) – of course greenies are fully backing this treaty. DDT, which is still manufactured and utilized in some parts of the globe, is on UNEP’s list of POPs. Organizations such as MFI, Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM), and the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) are concerned about this ban as no safe and cost-effective replacement has been found for DDT. These groups argue that millions more will die needlessly if the POPs treaty is ratified and enforced.

Members of the above-mentioned pro-DDT groups understand that environmentalists hold the moral high-ground on the emotional issue of DDT. Due to a massive disinformation effort, on the part of environmentalists (and parroted by the U.N.), most people mistakenly believe DDT is a highly carcinogenic/cancer-causing compound which is also devastating to wildlife. What members of MFI, AFM, ACSH and others have yet to come to grips with is that environmentalism’s most fundamental goal is to drastically reduce the human population. In other words, environmentalists want to permanently abolish DDT in order to bring about the deaths of as many people as possible. Hence, the pro-DDT groups’ pleas to save lives are falling upon deaf ears.

To remove any doubt that greenies want you dead, let these environmentalists/monsters speak for themselves:

  • Jacques-Yves Cousteau, environmentalist and documentary maker: "It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable."
  • John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal: "I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems."
  • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University population biologist: "We’re at 6 billion people on the Earth, and that’s roughly three times what the planet should have. About 2 billion is optimal."
  • David Foreman, founder of Earth First!: "Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
  • David M. Graber, research biologist for the National Park Service: "It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."
  • Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome: "My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem."
  • Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation: "The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man."
  • John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club: "Honorable representatives of the great saurians of older creation, may you long enjoy your lilies and rushes, and be blessed now and then with a mouthful of terror-stricken man by way of a dainty!"
  • Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
  • Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
  • Ted Turner, CNN founder, UN supporter, and environmentalist: "A total population of 250–300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
  • Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."

Obviously, pleading with environmentalists to save lives (by not banning DDT) would be no different than imploring Hitler to save Jews. How can anyone rationally negotiate with members of a movement bent on eradicating human beings? Part of the answer is for DDT supporters to go on the offensive and expose the green nihilists for what they are – anti-human cowards advocating the deaths of billions. Only through exposing such evil intentions can the humane pro-DDT organizations reclaim the moral high-ground and work toward saving millions of innocents.

To be sure, it will take some work to re-educate people about the safety and efficacy of DDT. So here is a brief history.

In 1935, while working at J.R. Geigy A.G., Paul Hermann Muller undertook his research in the specialized field of synthetic contact insecticides. Dr. Muller’s objective was to synthesize an insecticide with the following seven characteristics:

  1. Great insect toxicity.
  2. Rapid onset of toxic action.
  3. Little or no mammalian or plant toxicity.
  4. No irritant effect and no or only a faint odor (in any case not an unpleasant one).
  5. The range of action should be as wide as possible, and cover as many arthropoda as possible.
  6. Long, persistent action, i.e. good chemical stability.
  7. Low price (= economic application).

After four years of creative and intensive work, Dr. Muller synthesized DDT (this compound was originally made in 1873, but never received any particular attention). In his research, Paul Muller found that DDT met all of the above-listed criteria except for "rapid onset of toxic action." Field trials demonstrated that DDT was effective against a wide variety of pests including the Colorado beetle, common housefly, louse, and mosquito. In 1940, a Swiss patent was granted for DDT.

During the short time DDT had seen commercial use, the safety and efficacy of this insecticide had become apparent on an international scale. In 1948, Dr. Muller was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Professor G. Fischer, of the Royal Caroline Institute, stated the following in his Nobel presentation speech:

Dr. Paul Muller, I have tried to give a brief survey of the historical development of DDT. Your discovery of the strong contact insecticidal action of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloromethylmethane is of the greatest importance in the field of medicine. Thanks to you, preventive medicine is now able to fight many diseases carried by insects on a way totally different from that employed heretofore. Your discovery furthermore has, throughout the world, stimulated successful research into newer insecticides.

Estimates, pertaining to how many lives DDT has saved, range up to 500,000,000 – truly, one of the most important compounds ever synthesized by mankind.

So how did, in 1972, such a life-saving insecticide become banned in the United States; thus, severely impacting malaria eradication on a global scale? In 1962, Rachel Carson published her book Silent Spring. Much the way environmentalists are currently using psychological terror tactics to frighten people into believing in global warming, Rachel Carson’s book smeared DDT by outright lying and putting forth wild hypotheses of doom and gloom. Renowned entomologist, Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, painstakingly dismantled Rachel Carson’s reckless book in his article The Lies of Rachel Carson. Nonetheless, media-generated hysteria fueled by junk science and Rachel Carson’s lies, provided the political cover needed for EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus to ban DDT in the United States. Mr. Ruckelshaus, not surprisingly, had close ties to the Environmental Defense Fund.

William Ruckelshaus and Rachel Carson, unequivocally, are responsible for tens of millions of deaths. For, once again, they created an international backlash against DDT making it difficult for third-world countries to eradicate malaria-carrying mosquitoes – as many third-world leaders caved into the political pressures emanating from the U.S., Europe, and the United Nations. To death-mongering environmentalists, Ruckelshaus and Carson are heroes. To decent caring people, these two vile characters bring to mind such evil fiends as Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler (keep in mind that Nazism was a green movement as well).

There are countries, thankfully, which have refused to cave in to the anti-DDT dictates of the United Nations, environmental groups, and politically-correct governments. Countries such as Ecuador, Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland, Thailand, and Uganda continue to successfully battle malaria through the use of DDT. In fact, the inside of a house can be safely sprayed with DDT at an annual cost of about $1.44. The occupants experience no ill health effects while mosquitoes either avoid the house or die after coming in contact with a treated surface. Conversely, just look at the deadly results of those countries that no longer allow the use of DDT.

At this point, let there be no question that environmentalists are your enemy. Much the way Bolsheviks labeled kulaks as vermin, lice, and parasites, John Davis – the aforementioned editor of Earth First! Journal – has stated the following: "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." This is biocentrism and is a fundamental underpinning of environmentalism – i.e. a man, is a dog, is a rat, is a mosquito, is a slug. Hence, using biocentric "logic," mosquitoes are soldiers in the environmental movement’s army air corps. The mission, for these mosquitoes, is to collectively become a weapon of mass destruction and kill as many humans as possible. Make no mistake, environmentalists are fighting to permanently ban DDT so that their mosquito-soldiers aren’t prevented from spreading crippling and deadly diseases in order to reduce the human population. There is no other explanation as to why such a lifesaving, and safe, insecticide remains in the crosshairs of the greenies. We need to save DDT and, in turn, eradicate the green army air corps.

August 22, 2005

Eric Englund [send him mail], who has an MBA from Boise State University, lives in the state of Oregon. He is the publisher of The Hyperinflation Survival Guide by Dr. Gerald Swanson. You are invited to visit his website.


Thursday, November 26, 2009

The deceit behind global warming

No one can deny that in recent years the need to "save the planet" from global warming has become one of the most pervasive issues of our time. As Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, claimed in 2004, it poses "a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism", warning that by the end of this century the only habitable continent left will be Antarctica.

Inevitably, many people have been bemused by this somewhat one-sided debate, imagining that if so many experts are agreed, then there must be something in it. But if we set the story of how this fear was promoted in the context of other scares before it, the parallels which emerge might leave any honest believer in global warming feeling uncomfortable.

The story of how the panic over climate change was pushed to the top of the international agenda falls into five main stages. Stage one came in the 1970s when many scientists expressed alarm over what they saw as a disastrous change in the earth's climate. Their fear was not of warming but global cooling, of "a new Ice Age".

For three decades, after a sharp rise in the interwar years up to 1940, global temperatures had been falling. The one thing certain about climate is that it is always changing. Since we began to emerge from the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago, temperatures have been through significant swings several times. The hottest period occurred around 8,000 years ago and was followed by a long cooling. Then came what is known as the "Roman Warming", coinciding with the Roman empire. Three centuries of cooling in the Dark Ages were followed by the "Mediaeval Warming", when the evidence agrees the world was hotter than today.

Around 1300 began "the Little Ice Age", that did not end until 200 years ago, when we entered what is known as the "Modern Warming". But even this has been chequered by colder periods, such as the "Little Cooling" between 1940 and 1975. Then, in the late 1970s, the world began warming again.

A scare is often set off - as we show in our book with other examples - when two things are observed together and scientists suggest one must have been caused by the other. In this case, thanks to readings commissioned by Dr Roger Revelle, a distinguished American oceanographer, it was observed that since the late 1950s levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere had been rising. Perhaps it was this increase that was causing the new warming in the 1980s?

Stage two of the story began in 1988 when, with remarkable speed, the global warming story was elevated into a ruling orthodoxy, partly due to hearings in Washington chaired by a youngish senator, Al Gore, who had studied under Dr Revelle in the 1960s.

But more importantly global warming hit centre stage because in 1988 the UN set up its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). Through a series of reports, the IPCC was to advance its cause in a rather unusual fashion. First it would commission as many as 1,500 experts to produce a huge scientific report, which might include all sorts of doubts and reservations. But this was to be prefaced by a Summary for Policymakers, drafted in consultation with governments and officials - essentially a political document - in which most of the caveats contained in the experts' report would not appear.

This contradiction was obvious in the first report in 1991, which led to the Rio conference on climate change in 1992. The second report in 1996 gave particular prominence to a study by an obscure US government scientist claiming that the evidence for a connection between global warming and rising CO2 levels was now firmly established. This study came under heavy fire from various leading climate experts for the way it manipulated the evidence. But this was not allowed to stand in the way of the claim that there was now complete scientific consensus behind the CO2 thesis, and the Summary for Policy-makers, heavily influenced from behind the scenes by Al Gore, by this time US Vice-President, paved the way in 1997 for the famous Kyoto Protocol.

Kyoto initiated stage three of the story, by formally committing governments to drastic reductions in their CO2 emissions. But the treaty still had to be ratified and this seemed a good way off, not least thanks to its rejection in 1997 by the US Senate, despite the best attempts of Mr Gore.

Not the least of his efforts was his bid to suppress an article co-authored by Dr Revelle just before his death. Gore didn't want it to be known that his guru had urged that the global warming thesis should be viewed with more caution.

One of the greatest problems Gore and his allies faced at this time was the mass of evidence showing that in the past, global temperatures had been higher than in the late 20th century.

In 1998 came the answer they were looking for: a new temperature chart, devised by a young American physicist, Michael Mann. This became known as the "hockey stick" because it showed historic temperatures running in an almost flat line over the past 1,000 years, then suddenly flicking up at the end to record levels.

Mann's hockey stick was just what the IPCC wanted. When its 2001 report came out it was given pride of place at the top of page 1. The Mediaeval Warming, the Little Ice Age, the 20th century Little Cooling, when CO2 had already been rising, all had been wiped away.

But then a growing number of academics began to raise doubts about Mann and his graph. This culminated in 2003 with a devastating study by two Canadians showing how Mann had not only ignored most of the evidence before him but had used an algorithm that would produce a hockey stick graph whatever evidence was fed into the computer. When this was removed, the graph re-emerged just as it had looked before, showing the Middle Ages as hotter than today.

It is hard to recall any scientific thesis ever being so comprehensively discredited as the "hockey stick". Yet the global warming juggernaut rolled on regardless, now led by the European Union. In 2004, thanks to a highly dubious deal between the EU and Putin's Russia, stage four of the story began when the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified.

In the past three years, we have seen the EU announcing every kind of measure geared to fighting climate change, from building ever more highly-subsidised wind turbines, to a commitment that by 2050 it will have reduced carbon emissions by 60 per cent. This is a pledge that could only be met by such a massive reduction in living standards that it is impossible to see the peoples of Europe accepting it.

All this frenzy has rested on the assumption that global temperatures will continue to rise in tandem with CO2 and that, unless mankind takes drastic action, our planet is faced with the apocalypse so vividly described by Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth.

Yet recently, stage five of the story has seen all sorts of question marks being raised over Gore's alleged consensus. For instance, he claimed that by the end of this century world sea levels will have risen by 20 ft when even the IPCC in its latest report, only predicts a rise of between four and 17 inches.There is also of course the harsh reality that, wholly unaffected by Kyoto, the economies of China and India are now expanding at nearly 10 per cent a year, with China likely to be emitting more CO2 than the US within two years.

More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.

It was a telling moment when, in August, Gore's closest scientific ally, James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was forced to revise his influential record of US surface temperatures showing that the past decade has seen the hottest years on record. His graph now concedes that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934, and that four of the 10 warmest years in the past 100 were in the 1930s.

Furthermore, scientists and academics have recently been queuing up to point out that fluctuations in global temperatures correlate more consistently with patterns of radiation from the sun than with any rise in CO2 levels, and that after a century of high solar activity, the sun's effect is now weakening, presaging a likely drop in temperatures.

If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from reality as history has ever recorded. The evidence of the next 10 years will be very interesting.

Watch out for fake emails to discredit 'Global Warming Myth'

What happens in Copenhagen, if it happens, is going to affect the lives of ordinary people, and is no way going to affect climate change because the concern is not about earth heating up but to use it as a reason or catalyst to create a World Government. It's no different from Bush saying give up your rights in exchange of safety or else the terrorists are going to get you. Now it's give up your rights and be taxed into poverty or global warming is going to get you.

The new EU president is on record saying of first year global governance through Copenhagen Treaty and carbon tax. He also mentions about global management of the planet through the environmental crisis. No wonder big banks like JP Morgan, Chase, Goldmansachs, Bank of England and all Ponzi masters are funding climate change so that they get to have a global govternment that manages and taxes the global population on CO2.

As usual, the response of the Main-Stream-Media (MSM) has been cold to this whole issue so far, even after 100s of emails have been hacked and made public from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) asserting the claims of sceptical scientists that Global warming is a hoax. BBC reports it as if it's just another computer hacking story. The MSM have been downplaying the story since the leak condemning the hacking rather than verifying the validty of its contents. Initially the climate scientists admitted that those are our emails but they are being interpreted wrong. These are on records who immediately after the break were approached by the Associated Press, Reuters etc. Now, there is a separate spin in the MSM saying we don't know if the emails are real although both climate scientists and the Univ./CRU admits they are hacked and several 1000s of emails were stolen. May be in a few days time the establishment may insert fake emails into the pool and pollute the whole pot so that some media can come out and discredit the whole story. The MSM is good at it and have done it in the past. The media has been just whipping up hysteria on global warming and blaming it upon humans as the sole cause. After all, wasn't it the same media that established the undetectable link between Iraq and 9/11, propagated the War on Terror hoax, the Swine flu hoax and silently watched the engineered collapse of the economy.

No matter what happens in Copenhagen, we can be assured that nothing is going to happen to Artic or Antartic other than seasonal variations nor to the Penguins or Sea Lions, except someone kills it all. Multiyear satellite videos of expansion and retraction of the Antarctic ice shows nothing out of ordinary except if the data been fiddled with some new 'scientific' tricks invented by Prof. Phil Jones and his cohorts at the CRU or the likes.To trust Al Gore's crooked 'Hockey stick' model or to use Prof. Michael Mann's 'Trick' to predict what happens 50 or 100yrs later is really a joke when you can't get a 5 day forecast right from the weatherman. Not to mention the eliminated Medieval Warm Period (MWP) data and other data manipulation done to create such a fraudulent model. In other words, Artic or Antartica can disappear or Penguins and sealions can become extinct only if the rigged model (shown by red line in the link: http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_chronologies_rev2.gif) is true. Thankfully, the science is in and the actual data proves otherwise, we can surely rejoice that Artic or Antartica is not going to disappear nor the penguins or the sealions for that reason.

As one of the media said, these are not just bad scientists but crimilals. The fraudulent studies they conduct with taxpayers money is used to put more taxes on the tax payer eventually turning them as slaves to the Ponzi masters who pull the strings behind the scenes.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science

Here’s what the Times has had to say on the subject:

E-mails allegedly written by some of the world’s leading climate scientists have been stolen by hackers and published on websites run by climate change sceptics.

The sceptics claim that the e-mails are evidence that scientists manipulated data in order to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

(Yep – definitely an improvement on their earlier, non-existent coverage; but not exactly pointing up the scandalousness of this scandal).

And the Independent:

(Yep. Nada).

And here’s how The New York Times (aka Pravda) reported it:

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

(Yep. That’s right. It has only apparently caused a stir among ’skeptics’. Everyone else can rest easy. Nothing to see here.)

And here’s how the Guardian has reported it:

Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world’s leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.

The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

(Oh. I get it. It’s just a routine data-theft story, not a scandal. And a chance to remind us of the CRU’s integrity and respectability. And – see below – to get in a snarky, ‘let’s have a dig at the deniers’ quote from Greenpeace).

A spokesman for Greenpeace said: “If you looked through any organisation’s emails from the last 10 years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke.”

Here’s the Washington Post:

Hackers broke into the electronic files of one of the world’s foremost climate research centers this week and posted an array of e-mails in which prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics.

The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming. The researchers, however, say the e-mails have been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange of ideas.

(Ah, so what the story is really about is ’skeptics’ causing trouble. Note how as high as the second par the researchers are allowed by the reporter to get in their insta-rebuttal, lest we get the impression that the scandal in any way reflects badly on them).

Here is the BBC:

E-mails reportedly from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), including personal exchanges, appeared on the internet on Thursday.

A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.

(Ah yes, another routine data-theft story so dully reported – “the police had been informed, he added” – that you can’t even be bothered to reach the end to find out what information was stolen).

Meanwhile, the Climategate scandal (and I do apologise for calling it that, but that’s how the internet works: you need obvious, instantly memorable, event-specific search terms) continues to set the Blogosphere ablaze.

For links to all the latest updates on this, I recommend Marc Morano’s invaluable Climate Depot site.

And if you want to read those potentially incriminating emails in full, go to An Elegant Chaos org where they have all been posted in searchable form.

Like the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal, this is the gift that goes on giving. It won’t, unfortunately, derail Copenhagen (too many vested interests involved) or cause any of our many political parties to start talking sense on “Climate change”. But what it does demonstrate is the growing level of public scepticism towards Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. That’s why, for example, this story is the single most read item on today’s Telegraph website.

What it also demonstrates – as my dear chum Dan Hannan so frequently and rightly argues – is the growing power of the Blogosphere and the decreasing relevance of the Mainstream Media (MSM).

This is not altogether the MSM’s fault. Partly it is just the way of things that more and more readers prefer their news and opinion served up in snappier, less reverent, more digestible and instant for.

But in the case of “Climate Change”, the MSM has been caught with its trousers down. The reason it has been so ill-equipped to report on this scandal is because almost all of its Environmental Correspondents and Environmental Editors are parti pris members of the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby. Most of their contacts (and information sources) work for biased lobby groups like Greenpeace and the WWF, or conspicuously pro-AGW government departments and Quangos such as the Carbon Trust. How can they bring themselves to report on skullduggery at Hadley Centre when the scientists involved are the very ones whose work they have done most to champion and whose pro-AGW views they share?

As Upton Sinclair once said:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”

So don’t expect this scandal to be written up in the MSM any time soon. But why would you want to anyway? It’s all here, where the free spirits and independent thinkers are, on the Blogosphere.

UPDATE: I particularly recommend Bishop Hill’s superb summary of some of the key points of the CRU correspondence.

Also, Andrew Bolt’s summary of the correspondence likely to be most damaging to the reputation – and career, we can but pray – of Professor Phil Jones, the head of the CRU.

And do check out Watts Up With That, whose traffic went through the roof yesterday, enabling to demonstrate scientifically that Hockey Stick is after all a genuine phenomenon – and not merely a figment of Michael Mann’s overactive imagination.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

First the good news. George Monbiot – aka the Great Moonbat – has issued a personal apology for the shabby behaviour of his climate-fear-promoting scientist chums in the Climategate scandal.

It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).

Now the not-so-good-news. He’s trying to limit the damage by pinning the blame on one (admittedly very deserving, but there are others, Lord knows there are others) man.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

Now for the bit where it gets unpleasant. So seriously unpleasant that I’m not sure I should be posting such things in a family newspaper. You ready? I’m warning you, it’s not pretty. The Moonbat makes a brave but not – I fear – wholly successful foray into the unfamiliar terrain of humour and satire. Here goes:

To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email which confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn’t have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.

No, no. Keep up there at the back! The Moonbat isn’t really experiencing “intense disappointment.” This is a joke, geddit? He’s about to show you the kind of letter which really would be a smoking gun, if it existed, which of course it doesn’t because you see – (ho ho!, stap me vitals, ooh nurse, etc) – George made it up using the humorous medium of comical exaggeration for satirical effect.

Now read on:

“From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk
Sent: 29th October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic

Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called “the ordering of men’s affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man”, which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.

The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master’s initial thesis – that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere – had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master’s rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to “demonstrate” the Master’s thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.

Etc. Anyway, I’m not going to run the thing in full lest you damage your sides. Suffice to say that thanks to the Moonbat’s ingenious reductio ad absurdum of the Climate Change Deniers’ position, we can all now happily agree that Climategate isn’t at all an important story and that the scientists revealed to have manipulated data, shut down debate and hidden evidence are in no wise part of any conspiracy to promote belief in AGW. They were just ordinary, decent chaps doing their job. Thanks George.

James Delingpole

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” - CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled ‘Barbecue the Polar Bears’ in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility from which it is never likely to recover.

James Delingpole

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com

How the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie

For the growing band of AGW “Sceptics” the following story is dynamite. And for those who do believe in Al Gore’s highly profitable myth about “Man-Made Global Warming”, it will no doubt feel as comfortable as the rectally inserted suicide bomb that put paid to an Al Qaeda operative earlier this week.

Now read on.

Those of you who saw An Inconvenient Truth may remember, if you weren’t asleep by that stage, the key scene where big green Al deploys his terrifying graph to show how totally screwed we all are by man-made global warming. This graph – known as the Hockey Stick Curve – purports to show rising global temperatures through the ages. In the part representing the late twentieth century it shoots up almost vertically. To emphasise his point that this is serious and that if we don’t act NOW we’re doomed, Al Gore – wearing a wry smile which says: “Sure folks, this is kinda funny. But don’t forget how serious it is too” – climbs on to a mini-lift in order to be able to reach the top of the chart. Cue consensual gasps from his parti pris audience.

Except that the graph – devised in 1998 by a US climatologist called Dr Michael Mann - is based on a huge lie, as Sceptics have been saying for quite some time. The first thing they noticed is that this “Hockey Stick” (based on tree ring data, one of the most accurate ways of recording how climate changes over the centuries) is that it seemed completely to omit the Medieval Warming Period.

According to Mann’s graph, the hottest period in modern history was NOT the generally balmy era between 900 and 1300 but the late 20th century. This led many sceptics, among them a Canadian mathematician named Steve McIntyre to smell a rat. He tried to replicate Mann’s tree ring work but was stymied by lack of data: ie the global community of climate-fear-promotion scientists closed ranks and refused to provide him with any information that might contradict their cause.

This is the point where British climate change scientists appear – and in a most unedifying light. As Christopher Booker has reported the Met Office, its Hadley Centre in Exeter and the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia are among the primary drivers of global climate change alarmism. Their data has formed the basis for the IPCC’s “we’re all doomed” reports; their scientists – among them Professor Phil Jones and tree ring expert Professor Keith Briffa – have been doughty supporters of Mann’s Hockey Stick theory and of the computer models showing inexorably rising temperatures.

Hence their misleading predictions of that “barbecue summer” we never had. As Booker says: “Part of the reason why the Met Office has made such a mess of its forecasts for Britain is that they are based on the same models which failed to predict the declining trend in world temperatures since 2001.

When McIntyre approached the Met Office and the CRU for more information they refused, claiming implausibly that it would damage Britain’s “international relations” with all the countries that supplied it. Later they went a step further and claimed the data had been mislaid.

And there McIntyre’s efforts to uncover the mystery of the Hockey Stick might have ended, had he not had a stroke of luck, as Chris Horner explains at Planet Gore.

“Years go by. McIntyre is still stymied trying to get access to the original source data so that he can replicate the Mann 1998 conclusion. In 2008 Mann publishes another paper in bolstering his tree ring claim due to all of the controversy surrounding it. A Mann co-author and source of tree ring data (Professor Keith Briffa of the Hadley UK Climate Research Unit) used one of the tree ring data series (Yamal in Russia) in a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 2008, which has a strict data archiving policy. Thanks to that policy, Steve McIntyre fought and won access to that data just last week.”

When finally McIntyre plotted in a much larger and more representative range of samples than used those used by Briffa – though from exactly the same area – the results he got were startlingly different.

Have a look at the graph at Climate Audit (which broke the story and has been so inundated with hits that its server was almost overwhelmed) and see for yourself.


The scary red line shooting upwards is the one Al Gore, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa and their climate-fear-promotion chums would like you to believe in. The black one, heading downwards, represents scientific reality.

We “Global Warming Deniers” are often accused of ignoring the weight of scientific opinion. Well if the “science” on which they base their theories is as shoddy as Mann’s Hockey Stick, is it any wonder we think they’re talking cobblers?

Update: Friday 2 October. Since I posted this piece Keith Briffa has vehemently denied having “cherry picked” his data, explaining rather that this was the result of his having inherited a subset of tree ring data preselected by the Russians. For the latest on this complex story, I recommend a visit to Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit site.

James Delingpole

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com

The great 'global warming' hoax

Posted: November 23, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

While all eyes focus on the unfolding drama of the "health-care reform–health-insurance reform–jobs bill," another critical part of the "Change America" plan just took a torpedo midships.

Some 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents from the Climate Research Unit at the U.K.'s University of East Anglia (where the "world's leading climate scientists work") have been leaked. The blogosphere is on fire – cover-up, falsified studies, intimidation of skeptics. It's all there.

The Cap and Trade bill to lower our standard of living and subject our consumer choices to government diktat is based on the public agreeing that what we once called "progress" threatens the planet with destruction and we must stop it. It is a matter of accepted dogma among the collectivist lemmings of the Left that the Earth is warming because of our insatiable appetite for food, clothing and shelter – and cars, big-screen TVs and a zillion gadgets run by electricity.

The industries producing these things produce "greenhouse gas emissions," threatening mass starvation, drought and hurricanes – a slow motion "2012" that must be stopped by decreasing "greenhouse gas emissions." Cows will belch less if we stop eating them, that sort of thing.

The collectivist Left in academia, media and politics got away with imprinting this dogma on the popular mind only because generations of government-school graduates have been successfully stripped of knowledge of history, geology or climate science. There was a time when "science" was a rigorous search for truth that required an open skeptical mind, double-blind studies, multiple repeated experiments, peer-reviewed published data and a strong belief that if you are proven wrong, someone else got it right and the world will benefit. This approach was good enough for Pasteur, Newton and Ben Franklin, but not for today's crowd.

Earlier generations knew that the Earth's climate was constantly changing, affected by numerous influences, some known (sunspots, Earth axis wobble, El Nino), some presumed still to be discovered. Historians knew that European history was influenced by periods of warming and cooling. The Vikings didn't call it "Greenland" because it was covered (as now) with ice. Geologists knew that, in geologic time, the Sahara Desert was a tropical rainforest, glaciers covered Chicago and numerous other wonders.

While people could certainly affect the environment around them to their benefit by agriculture, animal husbandry and industry (this used to be thought of as an indication of intelligence), our grandfathers would have thought the idea that puny mankind could affect the climate of the whole planet absurd.

Whatever change did occur in what was then called "the weather" would require mankind to adapt – a trait of our species that our ancestors celebrated. How times have changed.

Today, Al Gore leads the pack asserting the truth of anthropogenic global warming. Complicated computer models spewed forth Gore's PowerPoint presentation, which begat Oscar and Nobel. And it came to pass that the Prophet Gore gave stirring lectures to masses of the adoring initiated, traveling from place to place in a private jet, from hotel to speech in a caravan of SUVs whose motors were kept running to warm (or cool as the season required) while Gore lectured the world on the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions.

Neither the computer models nor Gore could explain the fact that from 1998 to 2008 (the last full year of surface temperature readings), the Earth did not keep warming (as the models had predicted). It actually cooled. Neither the computer models nor Gore could explain the dramatic drop in the number and severity of Atlantic hurricanes when both the models and Gore had predicted ever more Katrinas every year.

Now this. The final nail in the "climate change" dogma's coffin?

The CRU e-mails expose a priesthood in inquisition mode, masquerading as scientists and protecting their preconceived conclusions from any contradictory data or the questioning of skeptical scientists. For example, the leaked (or hacked) e-mail correspondence includes fundamental challenges to the validity of Siberian tree-ring studies that helped "prove" anthropogenic global warming, and supported the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report – a report that Gore has waved everywhere like a bloody shirt, saying the debate on global warming "is over."

While the blogosphere buzzed all weekend with the contents of these e-mails (see for example powerlineblog.com) and analyzed what many began calling the biggest scientific scandal of all time, the Old Media went into protection mode. This scandal threatens the whole scientific rationale underpinning the campaign for world government, higher taxes and a decreased standard of living for all (except the Chinese). You'd never know it in the Old Media. The New York Times reported it as a third-rate e-mail burglary "causing a stir among global warming skeptics."

Move on, nothing to see here.

The Washington Post ("Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center") quotes the "researchers" at the CRU saying "that the e-mails have been taken out of context." No analysis of the "context" is provided.

The BBC assured its listeners that "the police have been informed" of the break-in. Just another hacker story. Ho hum. Just as the scientific method has suffered a reversion to dogma in the climate-change campaign, so too the "journalism" of the Old Media has degenerated into laughable propaganda.

The real story here cannot be so easily buried. Climate-change prophets threaten millions with poverty if their schemes become law. A preview can be seen in the "man-made dust bowl" of Central California where water has been cut off to one of the most fertile and productive agricultural areas on Earth to "protect" a small fish that one judge thinks might be harmed if the water was used to grow food.

Roger Hedgecock is the longtime top-rated radio talk host in San Diego, Calif., on KOGO and, more recently, a nationally syndicated daily radio host heard already in 75+ markets and on XM Satellite. His show streams live on WND from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Eastern and then again in the following three hours on tape. Listeners may also tune in to his show at Radio America. He is the author of "The 2008 Conservative Voters Field Guide," a series of books on 2008 issues. Guide No. 1-Immigration and No. 2-The War are available at the WorldNetDaily store. Learn more about Roger at www.rogerreport.com.

Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see

The leaked exchanges are disturbing, but it would take a conspiracy of a very different order to justify sceptics' claims

It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email that confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn't have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.

From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk

Sent: 29 October 2009

To: The Knights Carbonic

Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called "the ordering of men's affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man", which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.

The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master's initial thesis – that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere – had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master's rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to "demonstrate" the Master's thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.

More resistance was encountered (and swiftly dispatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master's second grand law – that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet's atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.

Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.

The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the 10 warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001. From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.

Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world's glaciers.

Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world's wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world's biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, birdwatchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.

The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master's third grand law has been established: world government will be established under the guise of controlling man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.

Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse's head turned up in James Hansen's bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus? Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.

Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.

This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that man-made climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.

Climate-Change Clown's Contempt for Dr. Richard Lindzen, Prof. of MIT

One of the recent leaked emails, sent by Tom Wigley, hacked from the CRU reads like this:

From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: Revised CC text
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:40:57 -0700

Thanks, Phil.

A bunch of us are putting something together on the latest
Lindzen and Choi crap (GRL). Not a comment, but a separate paper
to avoid giving Lindzen the last word.



This shows the climate-change clowns contempt for people of the reputation of Dr. Richard Lindzen, a prominent MIT professor who has been sidelined by his colleagues.
In my previous post on 'Global Lie: Instrument of Repudiation', I have recommened the readers to watch the excellent lecture given by Dr. Richard Lindzen and Lord Christopher Monckton given a month before the CRU was hacked.

This also tells that there are quacks among scientists who are working for criminal agendas.

Global Warming : "Instrument of Repudiation"

Concerned American citizens are encouraged to go through the following website and sign the 'Instrument of Repudiation' in order to stop Obama from ceding away your Constitution before he sign away the Soverignty of America to the 'World Government' at the Copenhagen Treaty.
[I do not know how far it is going to be effective but still it may be your last chance to live in a free America]


The 'Global Warming LIE', after having picked up moementum in the past several years is about to reach its climax the next month at the Copenhagen Treaty. However, most people are and were unaware of the media propaganda and the scientific fraud that were working behind to promote this idea up to the point where it is now. It may sound ridiculous but wait a minute.

We live in a virtual reality, a world filled with misinformation and disinformation serving the interests of the few elites and propagated by the very media that we turn to for our information. However, this mind-control technique is nothing new and has been in work for decades if not more.

Here is a quote from David Rokefeller, in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991.

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto-determination practiced in past centuries".

So we know that these main-stream media is not trustworthy anymore. Yet, more and more people continue to be victims of the mind-control by the same media. If that's not enough meat for you, here are some quotes from the pro climate-change clowns and see what they think about this hogwash.

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world." - Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion." - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing." - Christopher Manes, Earth First!

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club


What you just read is all straight from the horse's mouth !.. The underlying theme or tone of most of their speech is that we are too many in this world and there should be something done to cut down the population.

Aren't they already advancing methods and measures to depopulate the world to 1/10th of what is now, as engraved in their '10 Commandments for the New Age' in Georgia Guide stones?

Dick Cheney, in PNAC, September 2000, writes that: ".. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.

Here's another quote from Dr. Eric Pianca, Biologist from University of Texas
"And I actually think the world will be much better when there's only 10 or 20% of us left."

He is also quoted as saying:
"China was able to turn the corner and become the leading world super power because they have a police state and they are able to force people to stop reproducing."

My questions to these cockroaches are:

What makes them think that their lives are precious than the lives of some poor slobs? Who are they to decide on the lives of other people or decide on other people's rights to live? If they think the world population is too much, why not they go kill themselves and be an example to others?

So before you take your final stand on the global warming crisis, I encourage the readers to watch the excellent lecture by Lord Christopher Monckton who clearly explains how some 'scientists' tampered with the data to make it look more acceptable to climate-change brokers. If that's not enough proof, watch the expose` by Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT about the same lie of Global Warming.

For more articles and information on the same, visit: