On Melmac, saying "have a nice day" is punishable by death.


AGW Climategate 2 – James Delingpole

From the  James Delingpole blog at the Telegraph…its interesting to note the amount of people commenting on his articles.  It will be interesting to see where this story runs….



Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!

By Politics Last updated: November 22nd, 2011

1931 Comments Comment on this article

Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the “scientists” at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they’d like it to be.

In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower ‘FOIA 2011’ (or “thief”, as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.

As FOIA 2011 puts it when introducing the selected highlights, culled from a file of 220,000 emails:

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

FOIA 2011 is right, of course. If you’re going to bomb the global economy back to the dark ages with environmental tax and regulation, if you’re going to favour costly, landscape-blighting, inefficient renewables over real, abundant, relatively cheap energy that works like shale gas and oil, if you’re going to cause food riots and starvation in the developing world by giving over farmland (and rainforests) to biofuel production, then at the very least you it owe to the world to base your policies on sound, transparent, evidence-based science rather than on the politicised, disingenuous junk churned out by the charlatans at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

You’ll find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke’s website. Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air Vent.

I particularly like the ones expressing deep reservations about the narrative put about by the IPCC:

/// The IPCC Process ///

<1939> Thorne/MetO:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary […]

<3066> Thorne:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<1611> Carter:

It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.

<2884> Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]

<4755> Overpeck:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.

<3456> Overpeck:

I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” […] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence.  What is it?

And here’s our friend Phil Jones, apparently trying to stuff the IPCC working groups with scientists favourable to his cause, while shutting out dissenting voices.

<0714> Jones:

Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.

<3205> Jones:

Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)

Here is what looks like an outrageous case of government – the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – actually putting pressure on climate “scientists” to talk up their message of doom and gloom in order to help the government justify its swingeing climate policies:

<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:

I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.

Here is a gloriously revealing string of emails in which activists and global warming research groups discuss how best to manipulate reality so that climate change looks more scary and dangerous than it really is:

<3655> Singer/WWF:

we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and

<0445> Torok/CSIRO:

[…] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
“global icons” […] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef […]
It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers […] A perception of an
“unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change […] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate

<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:

In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media


I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global


What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.

I’ll have a deeper dig through the emails this afternoon and see what else I come up with. If I were a climate activist off to COP 17 in Durban later this month, I don’t think I’d be feeling a very happy little drowning Polie, right now. In fact I might be inclined to think that the game was well and truly up.


Agenda 21

NB:  The UN’s official release on agenda 21 can be viewed via http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
Neil Foster of the http://www.sovereignindependent.com writes an article about it:

UN Agenda 21 & Maurice Strong: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

By Neil Foster – The Sovereign Independent –

Recent natural disasters have shown us that the world’s ecosystem can be severely harmed, not by the natural disasters themselves but by man’s incompetence or arrogance in thinking that he can build anything anywhere, regardless of potential hazards.

The recent earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan have shown us that nature has the ability to destroy any human construct regardless of any perceived fail safe systems in place. We now have radioactive particles circling the globe which will be continuous for months if not years into the future.

The recent BP oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico is another example of man’s inability to combat the forces of nature by any means thus contaminating, not only the sea around the disaster area but also the coastline and even the air through toxic chemicals which were apparently dispersed to clean up the oil spill.

However, putting aside the horrendous loss of life, both human and animal, there are those in the upper echelons of power who would happily use such disasters pertaining to energy supply industries to push an agenda which is far from advantageous to the ordinary citizens of the developed world; that is to bring about the much sought after ‘Green Utopia’ whereby the West, and eventually the entire globe, will become reliant on so called ‘renewables’ such as they are today in the form of wind, solar and wave energy.

The problem with this green utopian dream is that it’s an illusion with a green fog of unreality veiling the obvious flaws in the over ripe imaginations of those pseudo environmentalists at the heart of the modern Green Movement.

One of the key proponents of the Green Movement from its inception was of course Mikhail Gorbachev, the former head of the Soviet Union, who along with Maurice strong, restarted The Earth Charter in 1994 through their respective foundations the Earth Council and Green Cross International.

Mr. Strong is a curious character for a former world statesman to become closely involved with.

Maurice Strong – former Head of the UN Environment Programme, Chief Policy Advisor to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author (with Gorbachev) of the Earth Charter, co-author of the Kyoto Protocol, founder of the Earth Council, devout Baha’i. Member of the Club of Rome.

“Maurice (Strong) must now remain in China (where he is very welcome) to avoid questioning by the FBI and Canadian investigators about the $1 million that Tongsun gave him and which Mo(Maurice)  tried to hide in his son Fred’s nuclear power company, which now is bankrupt.” (Pittsburg Tribune-Review, July 30, 2006.)

Strong is quoted as saying in 1990, in an interview to WEST magazine.

“Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Hundreds of CEO’s, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather each February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead. “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment? Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth? “The group’s conclusion is ‘no’, the rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

Mikhail Gorbachev – Club of Rome executive member, former President of the Soviet Union, founder of Green Cross International and the Gorbachev Foundation, Nobel Peace Prize winner, co-founder (with Hidalgo) of the Club of Madrid, co-author (with Strong) of the Earth Charter.

When Gorbachev left the Soviet Union as a shadow of its former self, having presided over the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, its economy in ruins and its military reputation in tatters, he was greeted with open arms in America.

Gorbachev, a professed atheist, has made some remarkable quotes regarding his new found religious beliefs which he shares with the likes of Strong,

“Over the last few days some media have been disseminating fantasies – I can’t use any other word – about my secret Catholicism, citing my visit to the Sacro Convento friary, where the remains of St. Francis of Assisi lie,” Gorbachev said, according to an Interfax article posted Friday.

“To sum up and avoid any misunderstandings, let me say that I have been and remain an atheist,” he stated. (www.christiantoday.com March 25th2008)

However the following quote clearly shows that Mr. Gorbachev has found his own form of religion akin to Mr. Strong’s bizarre beliefs in paganism,

“Nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred; trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals.”
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
Green Cross International

His views on world government through the use of environmentalism have also been well documented,

“The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences.
Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.”
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
State of the World Forum

“I envisage the principles of the Earth Charter to be a new form of the Ten Commandments.
They lay the foundation for a sustainable global earth community.”
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
co-author of The Earth Charter

“The alternative to the existing world order can only emerge as a result of a new human dimension of progress.  We envision a revolution of the mind, a new way of thinking.”
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
State of the World Forum

Al Gore – former VP of the USA, leading climate change campaigner, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Academy Award winner, Emmy winner. Gore led the US delegations to the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Climate Change conference. He chaired a meeting of the full Club of Rome held in Washington DC in 1997.

Al Gore is quoted in reference to oil and nuclear energy. We must remember that Gore’s wealth comes from the oil industry. He is also set to, if he’s not already become, the world’s first ‘carbon trading billionaire’.

“You’re going to see new processes that utilize waste (waste is undefined in this context) as the source of energy, so there’s no petroleum consumed in the process– that makes the energy balance uniformly positive.”

“I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does now.”

The ‘role’ Gore talks about is not defined either. Perhaps he’s referring to the role it will play in, as Maurice strong stated, bring about the collapse of the industrialised civilisations?

A list of influential members of the Club of Rome makes interesting reading to say the least and can be found here:


In terms of achieving the goal of world government it seems that this would be impossible unless some means were found to coerce the peoples of the world, judging by the comments above, incorporating environmentalism, into a system consistent with this aim. As Gorbachev further states,

“The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.”

Mikhail Gorbachev: quoted in “A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its War On Mankind“, by Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review (1996)

“The environmental crisis is the cornerstone of the new world order.”
Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking at a World Government planning session held at the State of the World Forum at the Presidio, in San Francisco (1996)

The Club of Rome, of which Gorbachev, Gore and Strong are all members, wrote in their own book in 1991, ‘The First Global Revolution’,

The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

This quote shows clearly that the Club of Rome, the self-proclaimed premier think tank to the United Nations, had planned to spread the MYTH of global warming and thus to blame human activity for it, to bring about a united global organisation, or One World Government.

Other more disturbing quotes from Club of Rome publications relating to their thoughts on humankind read as follows,

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

The greatest hope for the Earth lies in religionists and
scientists uniting to awaken the world to its near fatal predicament
and then leading mankind out of the bewildering maze of
international crises into the future Utopia of humanist hope.

“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind

These are indeed curious bedfellows whose common beliefs, particularly as shared by Gore and Gorbachev, would strike both Russians and Americans as bizarre if they weren’t so seriously held in upper realms of global power.

A final quote from the Club of Rome gives us a clue,

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member

If there were a group of people in positions of major power such as those listed above, amongst others, wouldn’t they now have their ‘major crisis’ or ‘crises’, dramatically frightening enough, with which to bring about their religious utopia where Mother Earth is the new Goddess?

The powers that be have often stated that they should never let a good crisis go to waste and will generally use such crises to bring about societal change, or socially engineer society, generally within their own borders.

However, if a group with the power to bring about change on a global scale were determined to do so, then they would need the ‘right major crisis’ to enact their agenda; in this case, the Green Agenda.

The Green Agenda is now United Nations policy in the form of Agenda 21:

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced; a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.”
– UN Agenda 21

Agenda 21 is the blueprint for the control of humanity, by a ruling elite, under the auspices of an unelected, private organisation, by no means democratic or sympathetic to the plight of the common man. Their actions across the globe since the end of WW II speak volumes as they’ve presided over such horrors as the Rwandan genocide to the slaughter of millions of innocent human beings in every war since their inception, despite their stated purpose of preventing future wars breaking out without success.

The land for the building of this organisation’s headquarters was donated by the Rockefeller family and stands, appropriately in my opinion, on the grounds of a former slaughter house.

I speak of course of the United Nations.

So what is the aim of the United Nations? World Peace or World Domination?

They would lead us to believe that it’s the complete abolition of war yet there has been war and genocide carried out since the organisation’s inception, on many occasions at their behest.

Agenda 21 is the blueprint for what the United Nations calls ‘sustainable development’. This involves a move away from all forms of energy derived from fossil fuels, nuclear power and/or any substance used to produce energy which emits the life giving gas known as Carbon Dioxide or CO2. They want a ‘zero carbon’ utopia. The problem with such an ill-conceived plan is that human beings are carbon based life forms and CO2 is an essential gas to sustain ALL life on the planet

In recent years the environmental movement, pushing the idea, still to this day an UNPROVEN THEORY, that man is responsible for global warming, have suffered a number of major setbacks, including the scandal of ‘climategate’ which exposed the FACT that data supposedly showing the link between CO2 and global temperature rises had been faked to show a possible correlation.

This followed a High Court decision in the UK which held that Al Gores ‘documentary’ – ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ contained numerous outright falsehoods and that video evidence purported to show melting glaciers was in fact a computer generated animation from the Hollywood movie ‘The Day After Tomorrow’.

Despite this this ‘convenient lie’ this outrageously flawed documentary is still shown in public schools to young children and peddled as proof that man is responsible for the weather.

But the bottom line and the evidence that man is not responsible, in other words CO2 is not responsible for ‘global warming’ comes in light of the FACT that even according to advocates of the ‘church of climatology’ the planet has NOT warmed since 2002 and has indeed been rapidly cooling, which to quote one devoted acolyte of the theory at Hadley Climate Research Unit, one of the main co-conspirators in the ‘climategate’ scandal, Kevin Trenberth,

“Where the heck is global warming?… 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 bottom line is… Manmade Global Warming is a fraud; it always has been.

So why bother making this stuff up?

Well, if you want to shift society in a certain direction you need the means to do so.

Remember the quote above:

The greatest hope for the Earth lies in religionists and
scientists uniting…”

What we’ve witnessed in the past 3 decades is the hijacking of the scientific process to be used for political goals on a global scale with pseudo environmentalism now being established as THE new world religion through the elevation of religionists and scientists to heights of importance unheard of and unwanted in times past. Therein lies the great danger when science and religion are not only perverted but combined to propagandise a new reality to the world.

We have only to think of the Aztec ‘priests’ on top of their sacrificial pyramids prophesying solar and lunar eclipses with the help of their astrologers and sacrificing human beings to appease their Gods to see the danger of a pseudo-scientific/religious combination.

So where are we now in this drive towards the new utopia envisaged by the United Nations through Agenda 21?

Going back to the start of this article and the highlighting of the last two major disasters involving essential energy supply industries we now have oil racing towards $150-$200 a barrel, apparently due in part to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but latterly due to the increasing conflict in North Africa and the Middle East. These wars have come about through outright lies and deception on the part of various interests in cahoots with the UN who have sanctioned these conflicts.

The BP Gulf spill has been used to curtail deep sea drilling and further pushed up the price of oil and promote the need for the world to become less reliant on oil.

This may seem significant to some but to those on lower incomes already struggling with increased taxes and mortgage payments due to criminal bankster bailouts, the increase in oil prices not only affects their ability to travel to work, should they be fortunate enough to still have work, but also increases prices for every necessary commodity for survival such as food and energy to heat their homes and to cook food. The burden on the family is now nearing breaking point with many in the so called developed world living close to or below the poverty line.

We have the nuclear industry being demonised around the world with particular attention being paid to German nuclear power facilities when no such problem with those facilities has been detected in the past. This would seem a ludicrous exercise for the Germans to conduct in light of the fact that they are in no danger of severe earthquake or tsunami activity to create similar damage to facilities as that taking place in Japan where nuclear facilities were, for some incomprehensible reason, built in one of the most active earthquake zones in the world where tsunamis are an historical norm. It begs the question as to whose idea was it to build such potentially dangerous facilities in such a volatile geographic location. Who authorised this? Surely this should now be investigated as a criminal matter?

The Fukishima disaster will continue to contaminate the planet with radiation for the immediate and long term future thus keeping the dangers of nuclear energy firmly fixed in the public mind, through the mass media organisations, to ensure that public opinion will be turned against our only sustainable source of energy at present as far as the general public are led to believe.

If energy from oil and gas becomes price debilitating for the public whilst nuclear energy is scaled back, what then for energy supplies?

Are we to then rely on the stated forms of energy production as laid out by the environmentalists in line with the UN’s Agenda 21 which also states that private car ownership is to become non-existent with only essential vehicles permitted on our roads? The increases in petrol and diesel prices will ensure that happens for the vast majority of the general public who can barely afford to fuel their vehicles at today’s high prices with logistical transport for food and other goods suffering also.

There is also a great push at present for electric cars to replace petrol driven vehicles within the EU by 2050. This also fits in with Agenda 21 although there is no mention of how this electricity is to be generated for hundreds of millions of vehicles when there are also warnings from the likes of the British military of rolling blackouts due to shortages in energy supplies anytime from now upto 2036.

The fact is that the West and the wider developed world rely upon secure energy supplies for society to function. Without such energy security society will collapse. This is also envisaged by the British military in that they state that they expect flash mobs and rioting for approximately the next 30 years as society collapses. How do they know that society will collapse unless they have been given such information?

As David Rockefeller, a firm proponent of a New World Global Order, run by a ruling elite and founded by the world’s bankers, such as himself, stated 1994;

“This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long – We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

I would suggest that we are now at the cutting edge of such a transformation which will not be beneficial to the vast majority of humanity but will serve the interests of the ruling, totalitarian elite who will simply be our feudal overlords with us as their slave labour.

This is the new ‘Green Utopia’ envisaged by the world’s elites for centuries, run by them and for them, under a New World Order based on a form of totalitarian ideology.

George Orwell warned us of just such a world in his book 1984 where the rich and powerful ruled through despotic power over the unwashed masses who barely subsisted on food rations in squalid conditions. The state was God. The cities were desolate places whilst the pristine countryside was left as the playground for the ruling oligarch.

I don’t think any of us wish to see our children and grandchildren live and suffer under such a regime.



Where did it all go wrong Al?

Now that the cracks have started to appear in the anthropogenic global warming bolleaux, here’s a wee video with a masterclass on how to interview a thieving criminal shyster.

I will drop in the odd wee bit here about Gore and his conflicts of interest, and try to stay away from his recent troubles with women in massage parlours http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-dallas/al-gore-massage-scandal-no-questions-no-cameras-san-diego oops just a slip of the paste button there.  Still it seems its never to late to have a rare attack of common sense, as his wife is for the off:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/01/al-gore-tipper-gore-separ_n_596199.html

I wonder who will collect the $8m seafront mansion?   Al will be hoping that Tipper will have been frightened enough after watching his ‘sea level rise’ graphics to take some of the higher standing real estate.  Perhaps he can fill the place with lo rent masseuses and run around waving his penile perpendicular appendage at them.

More ‘inconvenient truths’ about Al Gore, his profits from carbon trading, his business interests, his collaborators, all under the tagline ‘Gorewatch’ as and when…because I am trying to keep this blog reasonably family friendly, but also informative!

Anyway, on with the video – I think the interviewer should take over all of the news on television.  What up with that?  Nice style.  Fiona Bruce and Peter Sissons take note…