Thursday, 9 September 2010


The Daily Telegraph has covered Climate Change extensively - dutifully publishing press releases from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the University of East Anglia, the Hadley Centre, the Met Office, the UK government's department of Energy and Climate Change and other Global Warming advocates.

However, to its credit, the Telegraph has also given space to a few writers sceptical of the theory, such as Chris Booker and James Delingpole. All the other newspapers have slavishly followed the Global Warming line - all except for the Daily Express. The Express has fearlessly attacked the climate alarmists but always done it, intentionally or otherwise, in a bumblingly clumsy fashion.

A well-researched quality piece on Climate Change by our national mainstream media is long overdue.

Thousands of articles have appeared on the Internet discussing the untruths and distortions emanating from the IPCC; the conspiracy to impose 'cap and trade' carbon taxes, the involvement of large corporations such as BP and Enron, international agencies such as the IMF and World Bank, international bankers and billionaires such as Mayer de Rothschild, George Soros and Al Gore in the creation of profit-generating 'carbon exchanges', a world government bureaucratic infrastructure and a new world currency based, in part, on carbon-credits.

The myths promulgated by the financially-motivated climate alarmists need to be exposed. Take polar bears for example. One of the axioms of the alarmists - and even taught in schools - is that polar bears are threatened with extinction because global warming is melting the North Pole and drowning them.

In truth, polar bears, whose numbers have quintupled since 1976, are far from endangered. Nor are they drowning. Polar bears are the greatest swimmers of all land mammals. They've been known to swim over 400 miles and routinely swim 150 miles when hunting. Another fact is that neither the North nor the South Pole are melting. Indeed, between 2007 and 2008 Antarctica's sea-ice increased by 32%.

The climate alarmists have made many predictions of sea-level rises, drowning cities, disappearing ice-caps, submerged islands, disastrous crop failures and on and on. Needless to say, none of the IPCC's dire predictions have come true. This is no surprise because none of the IPCC's computer models have been able to predict the past accurately either. This tells us that their expensive computer models don't work.

What's more, the 'Climate-Gate' scandal revealed that the UN-funded climate scientists were conspiring with one another to falsify reports and destroy raw data to 'hide the decline' of global temperatures. But why were they doing this?

To find out, we need to look at their employers: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Who are these people?

Funded by the United Nations, they are a multi-national political group comprising about 2,200 policymakers from the G20 richest nations. These individuals include bankers, bureaucrats, diplomats, politicians, directors and major shareholders of transnational corporations and about 300 contracted scientists.

What is their purpose?

According to their own documents, the IPCC was set up in 1997 by Maurice Strong, a close associate of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, to advance the UN's long-held and often announced aim to form a world government.

Anyone who reads the draft Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change will see the terms 'global governance' and 'global government' often occurring. This aspiration for world government has also been stated by many leading politicians in public speeches. Public espousers of world government include George Bush senior, Henry Kissinger, Ban Ki-Moon, Gordon Brown, EU President Herbert von Rumpuy, and US President Barack Obama.

So, the purpose of the Climate Change policy is to advance world government. Dangerous Global Warming is a global problem requiring a global solution. What would that solution be? A global government, of course, dominated by the G20 richest world nations. Global Warming also justifies the world-wide imposition of carbon taxes to 'combat climate change' - all taxes to be paid to the International Monetary Fund, the new treasury of the world government.

Is there any truth to the notion that man-made Co2 contributes to global warming? No. There is no evidence whatever that man-made Co2 makes any significant difference to the climate. It's all made up.


The relationship between the people and its governing class is a bit like a marriage; in other words: a power-struggle.
In this struggle, hurt is inflicted on both sides; but rarely does one side or the other behave so badly that divorce is the only option.
However, in 2010 (though barely acknowledged by the mainstream media) the divorce has occurred.
It's been on the cards for a while. Some say it dates back to the government's (Big Oil-directed) assault on the coal-mining industry and its use of dirty tricks to destroy the National Union of Mineworkers, or its incremental evisceration of the National Health Service, or the selling of our national railways to profiteering private interests, or the deceptions of Maastricht and Lisbon - treaties that, without reference to the British public, transferred British government powers to the European Commission.

In my view, what actually caused the divorce was something relatively trivial: the 2009 Swine Flu Hoax. If you remember, in early 2009, government officials were warning that a Swine Flu pandemic was on its way and predicting 40 deaths a day when it hit our shores.
When this didn't happen, this was the last straw - and the wife metaphorically packed her bags, left the house and moved in with her mother. In January 2010, in response to a Parliamentary Question (which must be answered honestly or trigger criminal charges) the Health Spokesman admitted there were no recorded deaths from the H1N1 Swine Flu. Unsurprisingly, this was not reported in the mainstream media that had been so enthusiastic in its fear-mongering.

Disgust with the mainstream media - and the reason for a drastic decline in newspaper sales (The Guardian, for example, has been unprofitable for the past four years) - is due to the spreading awareness that the 'free press' is an illusion; that the media is an arm of government.
This awareness began well before the Swine Flu hoax. I think the main disconnect happened during 2003 when people learned there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The media couldn't spin this because everyone could see that if there had been WMD's, the Iraqis would have used them to defend themselves.
Later, journalists working in the alternative media - mainly via the Internet - demonstrated that the UK government knew there were no WMDs before the invasion; that Blair agreed to invade many months earlier at George W. Bush's ranch, and that the Foreign Office considered an invasion illegal. Everyone knows now, without a doubt, that the government lied deliberately about WMDs in order (for its own, still secret, reasons) to justify attacking Iraq.
Maybe the trust between governors and governed could have been repaired if Tony Blair et al had owned up to the lies, explained them, apologised for them and made appropriate amends.
But this has not happened, the government appears not to give a toss about the truth or what the people think, and Iraq is still occupied by hundreds of thousands of foreign troops.

So it's hardly surprising the people don't want anything to do with the government. In response, the government has beefed up its police, paramilitary forces and close circuit spy cameras. Britain now has more CCTV cameras per head of population than any other country in the world - more even than China or North Korea. Like a husband spurned by his wife, the UK government has responded with 24 hour surveillance and threats of violence.

The public's reaction has been to duck is head and avoid the psychotic state machinery as much as possible. Perhaps if we ignore the government for long enough, it will go away? The people know there's no point in trying to overthrow the government because the government has all the weapons.

So it's a stalemate. The government, which needs the people for its blood supply, won't go away, and the public can't see how to get rid of it.

We're stuck.