An indepth study of yet another scam perpetuated by another relative of Queen Elizabeth II.






                          BACK IN THE MIDDLE AGES, UNLESS YOU ARE

                               PART OF THE ELITE CLIQUE       


The evidence against the global warming scientific data used to prove this fantasy is solid and based on all gathered data pre-1985. This is the point at which Margaret Thatcher on the orders of her Illuminati handler, Lord Peter Carrington, approached the Royal Society and told them if they could prove a link between CO2 and global warming…there was money on the table. The aim set, it only required her American counterpart and puppet of George Bush senior, Ronald Reagan, and $billions became available. Thus began the new industry we call man made global warming. I would ask you look first at this video link to set the scene, I will then place before you as I released in September 2007 within my written release, Phase XIV, the scam as I understand it. We will then look at bang up to date scientific data through links and studies added to this page. It is because we have understood the full implications to the implementation of all the legislation set to be placed across the world, that it needs to be grasped by you the people, one does not have to be a scientist to understand the implications, just a nudge in the right direction. So we shall begin with a video link, The Global Warming Myth:


                                                         CLICK GLOBAL WARMING MYTH


                                                                       MAGNETIC PORTALS CONNECT THE SUN AND THE EARTH






                                      This is the claim of an expert in his field.


                                                          CLICK FOR MORE






                                  Gore's Global warming Scam De-Bunked By Children



Al Gore's global warming philosophy has been debunked by many scientists and studies, and now it has met the same fate at the hands of children, in "The Sky's Not Falling" video/essay contest, sponsored by WND Books, formerly World Ahead Media.

The contest was launched early in 2008 and was designed to highlight the absurdities, untruths and downright lies that children are being taught daily about "climate change” in public school.

Russell Young, a Minnesota writer who captured first place in the essay competition, explained the importance of using celebrities such as Gore and the medium of movies to enhance the educational experience for students.



                                                          CLICK FOR MORE





                      Central Plank Of Global Warming Alarmism Discredited


 One of the central philosophies of climate change alarmism and an image that adorned the cover of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth - the contention that global warming causes deadly hurricanes - has been completely discredited by the expert who first proposed it.

Hurricane buff and professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT Kerry Emanuel asserted for over 20 years that global warming breeds more frequent and stronger storms and he shot to prominence just one month before Hurricane Katrina in 2005 when he delivered the "final proof" that global warming was already causing extreme weather events and wrecking livelihoods.

                                                                                      CLICK FOR MORE


                                             THE BIRDS ARE NOT BEING WIPED OUT 

        A common assertion amongst global warming alarmists contends that bird populations inhabiting cooler habitats are set to significantly decline, with "most" species becoming extinct as a result of increased carbon emissions leading  to a rise in temperatures.

                                                                                      CLICK FOR MORE




              Rockefellers Call For More Backing For Climate Change Legislation


30 April 2008


One of America’s most powerful families will call tomorrow for a sweeping shake-up at the top of ExxonMobil, the world’s largest company.

A group of descendants of JOHN D .ROCKEFELLER, who founded Exxon's predecessor Standard Oil in 1870, will begin a campaign to split the role of chief executive and chairman of the board at the oil and gas group, a role held by Rex Tillerson.

Last night the family group issued a statement saying that the company’s leadership was “failing to address the future of energy and related industry hurdles”.

It said that representatives would make an announcement in New York to explain “that a majority of the family is now so concerned about the direction of ExxonMobil Corporation that it is urging a major change”. (Go to 911 exposure page click video link Aaron Russo to fully grasp the agenda of this satanic family)



                                                         CLICK FOR MORE 





                                        This next piece is from Phase XIV  released 21 September

                                       2008 to all councillors in the ward of Hyndburn :


I have written about the scam that is ‘man made climate change’ throughout this operation. I will reiterate some of the main points of the programme.

The whole concoction relating to CO2 emissions as the cause for global warming began with the Illuminati operative Lord Carrington via his puppet Margaret Thatcher when she was pushing for nuclear power domestically in the esoteric year of 1985. She was also reacting to the promoted future shortage of fuels culminating in the destruction of the Mining industry. What this move against the miners also created was the perfect ability to slowly privatise this once massive industry, again thieving what was a national industry for themselves. Take the 8 and 5 from the year 1985 add them together gives that number again, 13. She arranged a meeting with the Royal Society and made it clear there was money on the table if they would prove the link between Co2 and global warming. This made this lie a political subject. She was very specific in that they must prove Carbon release as cause for temperature rise.

Out of the Royal Society was born the IPCC (Independent Panel on Climate Change) which systematically and purposefully dismissed all solar science, the science relating to the oceans, carbon release by all living organisms, carbon release by volcanoes, carbon release by decaying vegetation, carbon release from peat bogs and most importantly the scientific data collected via ice samples which give CO2 atmospheric levels held within the ice back to the period 6000 years. They also omit the polar ice seasonal cycles whereby the ice each spring naturally breaks up and floats around; using the pictures of this natural event to claim it has only just begun to act in this way with the fear of catastrophic results.


When it comes to solar activity we are in fact dealing with the nexus of climate in its totality. High solar flares affect all life on this planet from vegetation and the warming of the oceans. When the oceans warm up they release more carbon, when they cool they absorb carbon. The same link is made for trees and vegetation dependant upon solar activity which is again responsible for the amount of carbon released and absorbed by the vegetation. When it comes to the oceans, the affect of solar activity takes a long time to play itself out, i.e. High solar flares two hundred years ago may prove itself on Earth within the oceans in the present given that the oceans being such a massive physical mass change temperature in slow cycles measured within our manufactured idea of time. Time as we understand it is a measure of our own tiny life cycle which is dwarfed by the Earths natural cycles. Clouds again have a big play with the temperature which are governed by the oceans and thus the Sun, as the Sun also directly controls the ice coverage, in fact the Sun controls the whole of this solar system which is there to be seen in the title ‘Solar System or Sun System. Yet all this actual scientific data collected pre- Thatcher pre- IPCC has been dismissed. What does that tell you about the Royal Society in who it serves and how it reaches its conclusions?

Each year volcanoes produce more CO2 than global industry combined. When you add up all carbon from all aspects of carbon creation and release including man made emissions, it is only 00.54% of the total atmospheric gasses around our planet.

The actual link between carbon and temperature operates in the reverse to that being currently blasted across the political spectrum, which can be seen with the effect the Krakatoa eruption had on climate, it cools not increases. This is proved with scientific data collected via the ice core samples, yet even to draw this conclusion is still only a theory as with all scientific conclusions, the end results are decided before the experiment takes place and so the experiments in most cases are manipulated to arrive at the desired conclusions or there is no funding.

The largest mass to effect the carbon cycle on Earth is the ocean that is scientific fact of all climate studies of course pre 1985. That means the Moon.

So it began in Britain with Thatcher, once George Bush senior joined the scam everything went ballistic. Previous to the IPCC reports, in the USA only $170 million was spent researching this increase in temperature, once Bush got on the band wagon he immediately increased the budget to $2 billion paying wages to a very large amount of scientists and journalists etc, basically there are a lot of delusional people with a vested financial interest in this lie, by the early 1990’s this figure ran into tens of billions of dollars as we stand today it is a global industry with many poor little minds making a living from the scam. In the same way there are millions of people with a vested interest in religion. So they have created a new religion, a religion that has converted millions of lost minds who call themselves activists of differing variations. This again is by design and is proof yet again of how the Illuminati create belief systems to capture the awakening to the lies peddled in the past be it to religion or science by the mass of un-thinking  people. So in one big swoop they further expand the New Age movement of minds communicating with Ashtar, the saviour with a spaceship and once again they capture all souls who have seen a little more light as it relates to religion, all the while blind to the fact they have jumped from one set of nonsense into another, the same with the Merovingian Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Not only that, they have control via the climate change scam of all souls who feel compelled to protest against injustice and the establishment, they have shifted your energy to operate for their new and blatant invented problem that of man made climate change. The majority of these types of people where during the seventies and eighties, those sad souls who visited and joined the happy clappy Christian Churches, if of course they are not currently working with children in primary schools and with special needs children. So this global warming scam plays into the new age movement which is the new religion. See it or fall foul of the Illuminati yet again.

For all you activists take the words of Patrick Moore who is the co-founder of Greenpeace. His major point to the climate change scam is how it is used to prevent developing countries from developing. This is part of the Illuminati’s agenda to stop African’s from utilising there natural resources so they are left in place after the planned bloodbath and takeover by the white races, and to be used for carbon quota exchange. You have to see the game through the eyes of the Illuminati to grasp the reality of their operation, failure to see will condemn the third world to death at the hands of the Illuminati.

We do know that through the 20th Century the intensity of solar activity intensified considerably how could we not then feel the physical connotations to this in a change in climate? It has to be so. What also gets me is why are we complaining, Britain’s climate is changing for the better, we have wanted better warmer weather for a long time hence the reason we enjoy a holiday abroad. Is it not something to celebrate the fact we are enjoying warmer weather in Britain? I feel it is. We all like to moan it is time to moan by your own reasoning not to jump on the Illuminati’s version of what we should be moaning about. This scenario should expand to other nations, why do we care about how Iran chooses to live? It is not our business until Iran makes it our business, there job sorted. If individual people faced there own shit instead of projecting, all nations would sort themselves out in there own time. We do not need to be a world police force, only to be ready for any future problems, a good problem to solve would be top sort out our Navy and Army and Air Force and ensure they are the best they can be as they stand. The appeasement of Hitler was by design to enable the Illuminati to re-arm Germany, had we the British people stood and demanded we attack Germany it would have been quashed because the Illuminati in Germany where not at that time in the position to beat our armed forces. The war commenced only when the Illuminati’s plan to destroy Britain militarily was in place. We the British people did not appease Hitler, the Crown did it guv.


If we go back to the beginning of this current rise in temperature it happened before 1940, for the next three decades it reversed and went considerably colder up to 1975, it then reversed again and as we are now experiencing has risen to very comfortable temperatures indeed. During the 1970’s I worked with my father in the building trade and during the winters we had to dig a good foot or so just to get past the frozen ground. The atmosphere knows how to deal with the changes from the Sun it does not require the expertise of the human to operate, the Earth and her genetic programming have it covered. A lot of scientific hubris is at work with this agenda driving men and women to feel they are so important the universe will fail to operate in its natural way without the meddling of man.

To further back up the oceans involvement in climate control the fact is greenhouse gasses are made up in the largest percentage by condensed water which captures the heat from the Sun, if we had no greenhouse gasses the heat from the Sun would be repelled and the Earth would freeze. This I would cite to be one of the reactions after the cataclysms pre-flood which created the ice caps at the poles and a direct consequence of the overbearing amount of gasses placed into the atmosphere due to the extraordinary volcanic eruptions during the cataclysms, it makes perfect sense to me.

The whole scam at its nexus comes from computer based projections which have as there basic data, information that is totally false, so obviously the conclusions are based on false information created by the IPCC or the Royal Society in 1985 and Thatcher. Please understand I have only ever voted conservative including Thatcher when I actually voted. I am not a labour man at all I have always felt comfortable in the blue. It is only by investigation into the Crown that I prove the change in Crown policy domestically since 1979 which was the physical implementation of the New World Order; it is not on a personal level I show Thatcherism to be wrong. I still hold great respect for the lady that is Margaret Thatcher she reminds me of my Grandma… albeit extremely deluded and used most profoundly by Lord Carrington acting for the Crown.

The computer models on which the future climatic forecasts are based are fed highly inflated CO2 content to arrive at their projections, they are an invention of the IPCC and thus the Illuminati dipsticks who should lose based on the global warming scam alone because as you the people begin to grasp the bullshit that is CO2 and global warming, you will grasp the bullshit that is history, religion and all that has come from the bloodlines of insanity since the flood. I love it.

You will also begin to see how the media is controlled and manned by idiots. To take the fear based media coverage relating to the scare that mosquito’s will takeover Britain and commence a Malaria epidemic is again bollocks. Mosquitoes thrive in cold climates as was seen in the Russian outbreak of malaria. All this bullshit comes direct from the Royal Society via the IPCC. Do you still wish to have anything Royal in this nation even with William as King? Come on see the crap and the bollocks that is the Crown, see the bollocks and bullshit that is religion, open your mind to the real truths about the world and history and let’s take the toys from the sick boys and girls we know as the establishment and replace them with sound people not subservient to the Crown.

Still not convinced, then you had better listen to the leading British scientist who is saying:


                       “The only way the human race will survive is through those who move to

                                                                   Antarctica and breed.”


 This is supposedly the finest British scientific mind; my cat is better educated than this man.

Take great note in how they are using the ‘Bee’ scare to increase the emotional response to accelerate the scam. This is because Albert Einstein made comment about the catastrophe should the Bee disappear. As we entered May 2007 we had very warm weather for the time of year, by great coincidence for around three days I had around 30 honey bees in my flat. My response as always was to help the little tinkers back outside so I can safely say in the Spring Hill area we have plenty of bees.

One other interesting fact about this current furore, what is happening with Bees at present is not as the media are portraying the facts, Bee keepers are going to their hives only to find the Bees gone, they are not finding dead Bees, only the Bees gone. So this idea of dying Bees does not pan out with the actual facts relating to Bees. Do not put it past the intelligence agencies to go to such lengths as to steel Bees to back up their nonsense, but you never know the Bees may just be sick of all the CCTV cameras and mobile phone frequencies, and are buggering off!!




Now we shall look at up to date scientific information so you can better understand the scam, and why it has been so easy for the elite to convince all these angry people to jump on board…so they can forget how bleak their own lives are, this is the information within the video you have just watched and more:

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide:


                                                       CLICK LINK ENVIROMENTAL EFFECTS 



Relax, the planet is fine - The National Post

Relax, the planet is fine

Money is partly to blame for the global warming hysteria, Professor Richard Lindzen says

Saturday, April 21, 2007


This Earth Day, Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, wants you to calm down. The Earth, he says, is in good shape. "Forests are returning in Europe and the United States. Air quality has improved. Water quality has improved. We grow more food on less land. We've done a reasonably good job in much of the world in conquering hunger. And yet we're acting as though: "How can we stand any more of this?" A leading critic on the theory of man-made global warming, Professor Lindzen has developed a reputation as America's anti-doom-and gloom scientist. And he's not, he says, as lonely as you might think.

Q You don't dispute that the globe is warming?

A It has never been an issue of whether the Earth is warming -- because it's always warming or cooling. The issue is: What are the magnitudes involved? It's a big difference if it's warming a degree or two or 10, or if it's warming a few tenths of a degree.

Q And it's inconclusive how much it's warming?

A Sure it's inconclusive. It's a very hard thing to analyze because you have to average huge fluctuations over the whole Earth, and 70% of the Earth is oceans where you don't have weather stations. So you get different groups analyzing this. And they're pretty close. One group gets over the last century a warming of about .55 degrees centigrade. Another group says it's .75 degrees.

Q Is there any scenario in which global warming could be beneficial for the planet?

A Of course. Canada looks like it will benefit considerably if it were to happen. And it might very well happen -- but it won't be due to man.

Q You charge that the hysteria that's been created around global warming is an enormous financial scam. It's all about money?

A Well, how shall I put it? It's not all about money, but boy, there's a lot of money floating in it. I mean, emissions trading is going to be a multi-trillion dollar market. Emissions alone would keep small countries in business.

Q Are you suggesting that scientists manipulate their findings to get in on the gravy train?

A You have to differentiate the interests of different groups. In the scientific community, your interest is for your field to be recognized so that it will have priority in government funding.

Q So you are not accusing your scientific colleagues of corruption?

A No, I'm accusing them of behaving the way scientists always behave. In other words, some years ago, when Richard Nixon declared war on cancer, almost all the biological sciences then became cancer research. I mean, I don't call that corruption, I'm saying you orient your research so that it has a better chance to get resources.

Q And it helps if your findings suggest something catastrophic is about to happen?

A In this case it certainly has helped. First of all, the funding increased so greatly that it exceeded the capacity of the existing field to absorb it. You'll notice that Working Group 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came up with lots of scary things, but everything was always preceded by could, might, may, all these qualifiers. And the reason it was is those studies start out assuming there's a lot of warming. They assume all the science is in, and then they say, 'Well, how will this impact my field of insect-borne diseases, or agriculture, or health?' So they are almost, by definition, going to generate catastrophic scenarios, but they will never be based on anything other than the hypothesis that this will already happen.

Q I read that you betone of your colleagues that the Earth will actually be colder 20 years from now?

A I haven't bet on it, but I figure the odds are about 50-50.

If you look at the temperature record for the globe over the last six years, it's gone no place. That's usually the way it behaves before it goes down. In fact, I suspect that's why you have this tsunami of exposure the last two years, with Gore's movie and so on. I think that this issue has been around long enough to generate a lot of agendas, and looking at the temperature records there must be a fear that if they don't get the agendas covered now, they may never get them.

Q Did you watch Al Gore get this Academy Award?

A No! Bad enough I watched his movie.

Q He would appear to have the support of the majority of your scientific colleagues.

A Not really. This is an issue that has hundreds of aspects. The very thought that a large number of scientists all agree on everything is inconceivable. Among my colleagues, I would say, almost no one thinks that Gore's movie is reasonable. But there will be differences. Some believe it is possible that warming could be a serious problem. Others think it's very unlikely. People are all over the place.

Q Some suggest that Roger Revelle, Gore's scientific mentor, would not have agreed with the movie?

A Well, he's dead.

Q Yes. So that makes it harder for him to speak out.

A It's a horrible story. Before he died, Roger Revelle co-authored a popular paper saying, 'We know too little to take any action based on global warming. If we take any action it should be an action that we can justify completely without global warming.' And Gore's staffers tried to have his name posthumously removed from that paper claiming he had been senile. And one of the other authors took it to court and won. It's funny how little coverage that got.

Q How cynical do you think Gore is?

A It's hard for me to tell. I think he's either cynical or crazy. But he has certainly cashed in on something. And 'cash in' is the word. The movie has cleared $50-million. He charges $100,000-$150,000 a lecture. He's co-founder of Global Investment Management, which invests in solar and wind and so on. So he is literally shilling for his own companies. And he's on the on the board of Lehman Brothers who want to be the primary brokerage for emission permits.

Q That sounds more cynical, less crazy.

A I think his aim is not to be president. It's to be a billionaire.

Q What do you find to be the attitude among your MIT undergraduates on global warming?

A I find that they realize they don't know enough to reach judgments. They all realize that Gore's book was a sham. They appreciate that Michael Crichton at least included references.

Q That's encouraging. Because I find the indoctrination at schools to be pretty relentless. On a recent Grade 7 test my daughter was asked something to the effect of, "How are you going to educate your parents about global warming?"

A I know. It's straight out of Hitlerjugend.

Q Having said that, are there any behaviours we should be changing, as a society, in order to protect our planet?

A Yes. We should learn math and physics so we don't get fooled by this idiocy.




                            Be Afraid: The New World Order's Fascist Pedigree

April 3, 2008


This 57-cent stamp shows an eagle, which according to Al Martin is an exact copy of the symbol of the Nazi Waffin-SS. The USPS introduced it in February 2001 as the innocuous sounding "art deco" eagle but in light of Sept. 11, its symbolism is ominous.

Similarly, John Ashcroft christened another homeland security force the "Freedom Corps", evoking the "Freicorps," the German army's "irregulars" that cleared the way for Hitler.

These allusions are sinister because the Third Reich was an early attempt at a "New World Order," and the Anglo American business elite was involved up to its ears. Are these fascist allusions coincidental? Or, is the business elite coming out of the closet?

Economist Robert Brady defined the Nazi state as "a dictatorship of monopoly capitalism. Its 'fascism' is that of business enterprise organized on a monopoly basis, and in full command of all the military, police, legal and propaganda power of the state." (Richard Sasuly, "I.G. Farben," 1947, p. 128)

[Communist Russia was also a dictatorship of monopoly capital i.e. disguised as public ownership. Nazi Germany and Communist Russia were created by monopoly capital working through secret societies. A Nazi general visiting Russia in the 1930's remarked that Communism was a "mirror-image" of Nazism. They were both socialist. The only difference was that one peddled race while the other peddled class. Indeed both were created by the central banking cartel.]

Nazi Germany was a capitalist paradise. There was a 60-hour workweek, low wages and no unions. Nazi expansionism represented the global ambitions of German cartels that started preparing for war long before they financed Hitler. As countries fell under the Nazi jackboot, they absorbed former competitors at fire sale prices. "For German big business, World War II was a chance to plunder on a scale without precedent in history," writes Sasuly (p.114).

The key to understanding the elite, and the direction of world events, is to understand the psychology of the cartel. Cartels by definition are a conspiracy. Their purpose is to defraud the public by keeping prices high. They do this by controlling competition, markets, raw materials, and new technology. They are by definition meglo maniacal, anti-national, and anti social.

One of the earliest cartels was J. D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, which eliminated the competition by secretly fixing transportation costs. While pretending to profess Christianity, Rockefeller is famous for saying the only sin is competition.

The largest German cartel was the chemical, film, and pharmaceutical giant I.G. Farben. Farben produced 85% of Germany's explosives in World War Two. In 1926, Farben and Standard Oil entered into a cartel agreement in which Farben stayed out of synthetic oil in return for Standard representing Farben in the US. The upshot of this agreement was that Standard Oil supplied the Nazis with petroleum in spite of shortages in the US. It supplied a rare lead additive without which the Luftwaffe could not fly. It suppressed the production of synthetic rubber in the US, which almost cost the Allies the war.

In turn, Rockefeller got a cut of Farben's other business, which included the many factories that employed slave labor from concentration camps like Auschwitz. (Farben- Rockefeller paid the SS for this labor at bargain rates.) Profits also derived from the poison gas that killed the laborers after their usefulness was expended. This is the real reason the rail lines to Auschwitz were not bombed. Allied bombers hit within 5 miles of Auschwitz but the factories and death camp were off limits. In fact, German industry moved there for this reason. After the war, the CIA established its German headquarters in the undamaged Farben skyscraper in Frankfurt.

The holocaust was very good business. Throughout the 1930's Wall Street investment banks participated in "aryanization" which meant getting Jewish owned breweries, banks, factories, department stores etc. for 30% of their true value. The gold from the teeth of holocaust victims ended up in their vaults. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Nazi war effort was financed by the Bank of England (which, for example, transferred the Czech gold reserves to the Nazis), Wall Street (Prescott Bush, W's grandfather was one of the leading Nazi financiers) and Jewish plunder. It was finessed by lawyer John Foster Dulles, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, who later became US Secretary of State.

After the war, Dillon Read banker General William Draper was put in charge of dismantling German industry and distributing it among the allies. Needless to say, this did not happen. His Wall Street cohorts owned too much of it. Nazis businessmen remained in positions of power. War criminals were transported to South America or went to work for the CIA.

The list of US corporations that had the equivalent of $8 billion invested in Nazi Germany include Standard Oil, General Motors, IBM, Ford, the Chase and National City Banks, ITT and many others. As a result, the men of "The Greatest Generation" didn't know that ITT built the airplanes that dropped bombs on them. They didn't know that Ford and General Motors built the Nazi's trucks and tanks. They didn't know that ball bearings crucial to the Nazi war effort were manufactured in Philadelphia, yet were in short supply in the USA. This was all done with the knowledge and permission of the US government. For details, I recommend Charles Higham's "Trading with the Enemy"(1983). Christopher Simpson's "The Splendid Blond Beast"(1993) and "Blowback" (1988) are also useful.

This information is shocking if we assume that cartels owe an allegiance to their native country. This is not so. They live in a financial virtual reality, a spiritual limbo divorced from common sympathy with their fellow man. Their native countries are important only insofar as they provide deluded patriots to die for their financial interests.

If the elite backed the Nazis, why didn't the Nazis win? As my readers know, I believe the German people were 'set up' to lose and be destroyed, and finally become the eunuchs they are today The Nazi Party was a stalking horse designed to seduce and betray the German people. (Of course most Nazis were dupes.) All the while, the international business elite made money while the war degraded and demoralized humanity so it will accept banker world government.

In conclusion, the New World Order, and indeed modern history, is the product of the desire of the Illuminati central banking cartel to translate its monopoly over credit into a monopoly over all wealth, politics, and culture. The ultimate goal is to wrest humanity from God's purpose, and deliver the hostage to Lucifer as a sacrifice to Evil. 



               Here we have a video with  Al Gore accusing all who deny man made global warming

                                                                       as, "Flat Earthers"


                                                                      CLICK VIDEO LINK


                        Gore to recruit 10m-strong green army

                                Huge drive for Congress action on global warming 
                               $300m TV campaign will focus on job opportunities

About this article


This article appeared in the Guardian on Tuesday April 01 2008 on p19 of the International section. It was last updated at 02:30 on April 01 2008.

Al Gore at the UN climate change conference in Bali in 2007. Photograph: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty images

Al Gore yesterday launched a drive to mobilise 10 million volunteers to force politicians to act on climate change - twice as many as the number who marched against the Vietnam War or in support of civil rights during the heyday of US activism in the 1960s.

During the next three years, his Alliance for Climate Protection plans to spend $300m (about £150m) on television advertising and online organising to make global warming among the most urgent issues for elected American leaders.

The initiative aims to build up pressure on the next US president to support stringent mandatory emissions controls when they come before Congress, and take a leadership role at the renegotiation of the Kyoto treaty.

Environmental activists yesterday described the plan as the most ambitious public campaign launched in the US.


"The resources are completely unprecedented in American politics," said Philip Clapp, of the Pew Environment Group. It is equally ambitious in targets. The Alliance has already reached out to organisations as diverse as the Girl Scouts and the steelworkers union to try to broaden its appeal.

Gore told the Washington Post that he launched the initiative because of his concerns that US politicians had balked at supporting strong legislation on climate change.

"This climate crisis is so interwoven with habits and patterns that are so entrenched, the elected officials in both parties are going to be timid about enacting the bold changes that are needed until there is a change in the public's sense of urgency in addressing this crisis," Gore said. "I've tried everything else I know to try. The way to solve this crisis is to change the way the public thinks about it."


Environmental activists said it was crucial that the campaign focus attention on green jobs and other positive consequences of going green - rather than the potential costs.

"What I am particularly hopeful about is that their advertising campaign will emphasise the economic opportunities," said Reid Detchon, executive director for energy and climate change at the United Nations Fund. "That is where the political leverage is, particularly at a time when the economy is faltering. The opportunities for business and job creation are very large in this transition."

The initiative was widely seen as the logical extension of campaigns such as, which supports liberal causes and Democratic candidates and has more than 3 million supporters, and, which has more than a million supporters.

Chris Miller, director of US Greenpeace's global warming campaign, said: "The movie An Inconvenient Truth and Gore's work were incredibly strong in raising awareness. The step that it didn't take is telling people how to solve the problem. This [campaign] is going to reinforce that there are steps we can take in our personal lives, but that ultimately it will take political leaders to solve the problem."

But channelling growing public awareness and concern into a political force has proved difficult. Gore wants a 90% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 - a more ambitious target than those of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, who favour an 80% cut, or John McCain, who supports only a 60% reduction.

Last January, the League of Conservative Voters analysed transcripts of television interviews and debates with all the Democratic and Republican contenders for the White House. By January 25, the candidates had been asked 2,975 questions on a range of issues.

Only six of those mentioned the words "climate change" or "global warming". That is not much greater than the level of media interest in the candidates' positions on UFOs. They were asked three questions on UFOs in the same study.

But as Gore told CBS on Sunday night: "I'm not finished yet."


The campaign


The campaign is getting a hefty kick-start from Gore. The former vice-president has donated earnings from his Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, his Nobel peace prize, and his job at a venture capital firm. In the first ad, a voiceover by the actor William H Macy says: "We didn't wait for someone else to storm the beaches of Normandy. We didn't wait for someone else to guarantee civil rights." Future ads will feature political adversaries such as Newt Gingrich, a conservative Republican, in an attempt to elevate the cause above political divisions.


                                    Los Angeles to impose driver fee to help fight global warming


 LOS ANGELES, April 1 (Xinhua) -- Motorists in the Los Angeles area would be required to pay "climate change mitigation and adaptation fees" under proposals aimed at getting them to help fight global warming.

    The board of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has endorsed legislation that requires motorists to pay an extra 9 cents per gallon at the gas pump, or an additional 90 dollars on their vehicle registration, according to the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday.

    The money would fund improvements to mass transit and programs to relieve traffic congestion at a time when transportation dollars from the federal government and the California state are hard to come by, said the report.

    "At this point the people of the Los Angeles region have just had it when it comes to traffic and air quality," said Assemblyman Mike Feuer, author of the legislation.

    Feuer's bill would allow the MTA board to ask voters either for a fee of up to 3 percent of the retail price of gas, or for a vehicle registration fee of up to 90 dollars per year. The money would pay for programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


The registration fee would be higher for cars, trucks, and SUVs that produce more carbon emissions, a feature that backers said would discourage drivers from using higher-polluting vehicles.

Either alternative could produce 400 million dollars a year for public transit projects, according to Roger Snoble, the MTA's chief executive. 

           Either alternative could produce 400 million dollars a year 

     for public transit projects, according to Roger Snoble, the MTA's

                                                                  chief executive. 

  Now we can begin to get a glimpse into what these global

           warming rules are really going to mean as far as

          control of the basic necessities of human life with

                                           the following article:

           Those who control oil and water will control the world

New superpowers are competing for diminishing resources as Britain becomes a bit-player. The outcome could be deadly.


30 March 2008

About this article


This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday March 30 2008 on p33 of the Comment section. It was last updated at 00:03 on March 30 2008.

History may not repeat itself, but, as Mark Twain observed, it can sometimes rhyme. The crises and conflicts of the past recur, recognisably similar even when altered by new conditions. At present, a race for the world's resources is underway that resembles the Great Game that was played in the decades leading up to the First World War. Now, as then, the most coveted prize is oil and the risk is that as the contest heats up it will not always be peaceful. But this is no simple rerun of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Today, there are powerful new players and it is not only oil that is at stake.

It was Rudyard Kipling who brought the idea of the Great Game into the public mind in Kim, his cloak-and-dagger novel of espionage and imperial geopolitics in the time of the Raj. Then, the main players were Britain and Russia and the object of the game was control of central Asia's oil. Now, Britain hardly matters and India and China, which were subjugated countries during the last round of the game, have emerged as key players. The struggle is no longer focused mainly on central Asian oil. It stretches from the Persian Gulf to Africa, Latin America, even the polar caps, and it is also a struggle for water and depleting supplies of vital minerals. Above all, global warming is increasing the scarcity of natural resources. The Great Game that is afoot today is more intractable and more dangerous than the last.

The biggest new player in the game is China and it is there that the emerging pattern is clearest. China's rulers have staked everything on economic growth. Without improving living standards, there would be large-scale unrest, which could pose a threat to their power. Moreover, China is in the middle of the largest and fastest move from the countryside to the city in history, a process that cannot be stopped.

There is no alternative to continuing growth, but it comes with deadly side-effects. Overused in industry and agriculture, and under threat from the retreat of the Himalayan glaciers, water is becoming a non-renewable resource. Two-thirds of China's cities face shortages, while deserts are eating up arable land. Breakneck industrialisation is worsening this environmental breakdown, as many more power plants are being built and run on high-polluting coal that accelerates global warming. There is a vicious circle at work here and not only in China. Because ongoing growth requires massive inputs of energy and minerals, Chinese companies are scouring the world for supplies. The result is unstoppable rising demand for resources that are unalterably finite.

Although oil reserves may not have peaked in any literal sense, the days when conventional oil was cheap have gone forever. Countries are reacting by trying to secure the remaining reserves, not least those that are being opened up by climate change. Canada is building bases to counter Russian claims on the melting Arctic icecap, parts of which are also claimed by Norway, Denmark, and the US. Britain is staking out claims on areas around the South Pole.

The scramble for energy is shaping many of the conflicts we can expect in the present century. The danger is not just another oil shock that impacts on industrial production, but a threat of famine. Without a drip feed of petroleum to highly mechanised farms, many of the food shelves in the supermarkets would be empty. Far from the world weaning itself off oil, it is more addicted to the stuff than ever. It is hardly surprising that powerful states are gearing up to seize their share.

This new round of the Great Game did not start yesterday. It began with the last big conflict of the 20th century, which was an oil war and nothing else. No one pretended the first Gulf War was fought to combat terrorism or spread democracy. As George Bush Snr and John Major admitted at the time, it was aimed at securing global oil supplies, pure and simple. Despite the denials of a less honest generation of politicians, there can be no doubt that controlling the country's oil was one of the objectives of the later invasion of Iraq.

Oil remains at the heart of the game and, if anything, it is even more important than before. With their complex logistics and heavy reliance on air power, high-tech armies are extremely energy-intensive. According to a Pentagon report, the amount of petroleum needed for each soldier each day increased four times between the Second World War and the Gulf War and quadrupled again when the US invaded Iraq. Recent estimates suggest the amount used per soldier has jumped again in the five years since the invasion.

Whereas Western countries dominated the last round of the Great Game, this time they rely on increasingly self-assertive producer countries. Mr Putin's well-honed contempt for world opinion might grate on European ears, but Europe is heavily dependent on his energy. Hugo Chávez might be an object of hate for George W Bush, but Venezuela still supplies around 10 per cent of America's imported oil. President Ahmadinejad is seen by some as the devil incarnate, but with oil at more than a $100 a barrel, any Western attempt to topple him would be horrendously risky.

While Western power declines, the rising powers are at odds with each other. China and India are rivals for oil and natural gas in central Asia. Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia have clashed over underwater oil reserves in the South China Sea. Saudi Arabia and Iran are rivals in the Gulf, while Iran and Turkey are eyeing Iraq. Greater international co-operation seems the obvious solution, but the reality is that as the resources crunch bites more deeply, the world is becoming steadily more fragmented and divided.

We are a long way from the fantasy world of only a decade ago, when fashionable gurus were talking sagely of the knowledge economy. Then, we were told material resources did not matter any more - it was ideas that drove economic development. The business cycle had been left behind and an era of endless growth had arrived. Actually, the knowledge economy was an illusion created by cheap oil and cheap money and everlasting booms always end in tears. This is not the end of the world or of global capitalism, just history as usual.

What is different this time is climate change. Rising sea levels reduce food and fresh-water supplies, which may trigger large-scale movements of refugees from Africa and Asia into Europe. Global warming threatens energy supplies. As the fossil fuels of the past become more expensive, others, such as tar sands, are becoming more economically viable, but these alternative fuels are also dirtier than conventional oil.

In this round of the Great Game, energy shortage and global warming are reinforcing each another. The result can only be a growing risk of conflict. There were around 1.65 billion people in the world when the last round was played out. At the start of the 21st century, there are four times as many, struggling to secure their future in a world being changed out of recognition by climate change. It would be wise to plan for some more of history's rhymes.


 John Gray is author of Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia, published by

Allen Lane

in paperback on 24 April.



                                                Experts: No link Between Hurricanes, Warming

Posted on Fri, Apr. 04, 2008



We're in a busy period of hurricane activity that will inflict unimaginable damage, but global warming is not the cause, leading researchers told the nation's foremost forecasters and other experts Friday.

Chris Landsea, a respected researcher and the NationalHurricaneCenter's science officer, told attendees of the National Hurricane Conference that there is no conclusive evidence that global warming has significantly enhanced or otherwise affected the number or intensity of hurricanes.

''Any trend we see due to global warming has very little impact, has caused very tiny changes, and might actually be slightly reducing the activity we see in the Atlantic,'' Landsea told the group, which numbered 2,100 earlier in the week, though some left before the global warming session began.

He noted that former vice president Al Gore's award-winning An Inconvenient Truth, which has galvanized attention to global warming, is promoted by a book cover and movie poster that show a hurricane emerging from a smokestack -- and spinning in the wrong direction, at least for residents of the Northern Hemisphere.

''So you might conclude that the hurricane science depicted in Mr. Gore's book just might have some inaccuracies,'' Landsea said.

William Gray of ColoradoStateUniversity, another leading hurricane researcher, called any link between global warming and hurricanes ``an absolutely phony thing.''

The issue has cleaved much of the hurricane research community, with one group of scientists reporting strong relationships between global warming and recent storm activity.

That contingent asserts that hurricanes have been forming twice as often as they did a century ago, mostly because of global warming caused at least partially by humans. Those researchers also say that hurricane intensity has been growing.

''When you look at the numbers and the strong relationship to sea surface temperatures and the reality of global warming, you end up with a causal link that can't be denied,'' Greg Holland, a scientist at the NationalCenter for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said last year.

Another group -- largely led by Landsea -- refutes those assertions, saying they are based on faulty data. Like census takers who work only one side of the street, these critics say, Holland and other proponents of the theory simply missed many storms of the past.

The main problem, this contingent says, is that many far-from-land storms escaped detection before hurricane hunter flights began in the 1940s and satellite observations began in the 1970s, so historical comparisons cannot be trusted.

''Our ability to monitor the Atlantic was much more limited than it is now,'' Thomas Knutson, a research meteorologist at a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration laboratory in Princeton, N.J., told the group.

The dispute has become so noteworthy and occasionally toxic that some are making fun of it.

Earlier this week, Jeff Masters, a former federal hurricane researcher who now serves as chief meteorologist of the Weather Underground, published a blog item that began:

``A stunning new breakthrough in hurricane research has conclusively settled the matter: global warming is making Atlantic hurricanes and tropical storms more frequent.''

He said the research was accepted for publication ''later this millennium in The Journal of Irreproducible Results.'' Masters' lengthy satire was published Tuesday -- April Fool's Day.

On Friday, Landsea said he was omitting from his presentation ``all the four-letter words for those with sensitive ears and eyes.''

It is important to note, however, that almost everyone involved in this debate agrees that the planet's seas and atmosphere have been warming.

''What we are seeing is consistent with what the global warming models are predicting,'' Knutson said.

In fact, a study published Friday concludes that climate models showing a warming trend of up to seven degrees during the next 100 years seem to be accurate. The research by University of Utah scientists appears in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Virtually all experts also agree that we are in the middle of an active hurricane period, even as more people flock to the coast.

Earlier Friday, insurance experts warned that the nation soon will absorb a hurricane that causes more than $100 billion in damage, and Landsea has estimated that a Category 5 hurricane could inflict at least $140 billion in damage to South Florida.

The argument among hurricane researchers focuses narrowly on the effect, if any, global warming has had and will have on hurricane development and intensity.

''Global warming is real and hurricanes are a heat engine,'' Landsea said. ``The question is how much is global warming going to influence hurricanes?''

The answer, Landsea and other skeptics say, is not much. They attribute the upswing in hurricane activity during the last 13 years primarily to natural cycles that tend to ebb and flow over the decades.

Those cycles reach back long before a warming atmosphere became an issue, will continue in the future and have left us in the middle of a natural upswing in activity, Landsea said.

''We're liable to see some very busy years in coming decades, not due to global warming but due to natural oscillations,'' he said. ``And the populations near the coast are still going to be a big issue.''




                                     No Warming Since 1998 According To The Next Link:


                                                                    CLICK LINK FOR MORE



                                                     2008: The Year The World Will Cool Down



The world will experience global cooling this year, according a leading climate scientist.

The head of the World Meteorological Organisation said La Nina - the weather phenomenon which is cooling the Pacific - is likely to trigger a small drop in average global temperatures compared with last year.

If the forecast is right, it means global temperatures will not have increased since 1998.

Scroll down for more...


The news that the earth appears to be cooling would seem to contradict most experts who say that global warming is melting ice at the Poles


The prediction - which follows a bitterly cold winter in China and the Arctic - is prompting some skeptics to question the theory of climate change.

They suggest global warming may have peaked and the world may be more resilient to carbon dioxide emissions than computer models predict.

La Nina is Spanish for "The Girl" and describes a cooling of the central and eastern Pacific.

It typically lasts for 12 months. In recent months it caused one of the coldest winters in memory in China, and brought torrential rains to Australia.

While La Nina can affect weather around the world, it is usually less of an influence than El Nino (The Boy). In an El Nino year, the Pacific warms up.

Michel Jarraud, the World Meteorological Organisation's secretary general, said La Nina was expected to continue into the summer, depressing global temperatures by a fraction of a degree.

But he said temperatures in 2008 would still be well above average for the last 100 years.

The Met Office predicts that 2008 will be around 0.4C warmer than the average for 1961-1990.

It said temperatures are influenced by a range of variables - including changes in the sun's output, pollution, and weather cycles such as La Nina.

But most scientists argue that the long-term temperature rises since 1880 can only be explained by carbon dioxide from human activity.





April 4 2008 Reuters…

By Ed Cropley


BANGKOK (Reuters) - Developing countries and environmental groups accused the World Bank on Friday of trying to seize control of the billions of dollars of aid that will be used to tackle climate change in the next four decades.


"The World Bank's foray into climate change has gone down like a lead balloon," Friends of the Earth campaigner Tom Picken said at the end of a major climate change conference in the Thai capital.

"Many countries and civil society have expressed outrage at the World Bank's attempted hijacking of real efforts to fund climate change efforts," he said.

Before they agree to any sort of restrictions on emissions of the greenhouse gases fuelling global warming, poor countries want firm commitments of billions of dollars in aid from their rich counterparts.

The money will be used for everything from flood barriers against rising sea levels to "clean" but costly power stations, an example of the "technology transfer" developing countries say they need to curb emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide.

As well as the obvious arguments about how much money will be needed -- some estimates run into the trillions of dollars by 2050 -- rich and poor countries are struggling even to agree on a bank manager.

At the week-long Bangkok conference, the World Bank pushed its proposals for a $5-10 billion Clean Technology Fund, a $500 million "adaptation" fund and possibly a third fund dealing with forestry.

However, developing countries want climate change cash to be administered through the existing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), which they feel is much less under the control of the Group of 8 (G8) richest countries.

"Generally we have been unpleasantly surprised by the funds," said Ana Maria Kleymeyer, Argentina's lead negotiator at the meeting.

"This is a way for the World Bank and its donor members to get credit back home for putting money into climate change in a way that's not transparent, that doesn't involve developing countries, and that ignores the UNFCC process," she said.



So as you are now better informed, there are a lot of holes in the scientific data, and given the facts of those perpetuating the myth, more than a whiff of deception in the air?



                                                                       To Be Continued...
































SAME AS 1979