Luke Catherall | Home
Image default
Blog Featured

The Climate Change Scam and What It’s REALLY All About

Falsehood flies, and Truth comes limping after it  

— Jonathan Swift  

Over the last year, we have seen the rise of Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion – or what I prefer to call the ‘Climate Cult’ because of their deranged, fundamentalist religious-like tendencies – ‘taking on the establishment to save the planet’. We’ve seen Greta addressing the United Nations, nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, winning Time magazine’s ‘person of the year’, and become somewhat of a religious icon to her ever-expanding group of followers. Oh, and reminiscent of something out of the Hitler Youth, she also threatened to throw world leaders ‘up against a wall’. I bet they are shitting themselves, Greta. We’ve also witnessed the takeover of Central London by Extinction Rebellion – the Crusties – where they have been waving their fascist looking flags about, prancing about dressed-up as characters from the Handmaids Tale and glueing themselves to inanimate objects (and I don’t mean themselves). Some parents even allowed their children to take time off school to take part, with many taking to the airwaves to denounce older generations who they claim have ‘ruined their lives’ because of their ‘blasphemous lifestyles’. It all ended in tears when angry commuters dragged members of XR from the roof of a train at Canning Town Station, and then they were made to look a bit foolish (that’s not hard) when it came to light in a video that two Crusties had, in fact, glued themselves to an eco-friendly electric train at the Dockland Light Railway in Shadwell. You couldn’t make this stuff up. They’ll be using diesel-fueled firetrucks to spray fake blood over the Treasury building in Westminster next. Oh wait, they did that, didn’t they? It was a pantomime, not a protest, and the Global Elites were, quite frankly, wetting themselves with laughter watching it. The whole point of the ‘protest’ was to disrupt the lives of thousands of decent working people to declare a ‘climate emergency’, a reduction in greenhouse emissions to net zero by 2025 and the creation of ‘citizen assemblies’. Put these goals through an Orwellian Translation Unit and you get ‘draconian restrictions that will take us back to the Dark Ages’, ‘de-industrialisation’ and ‘world communism via the backdoor’. The mass hysteria and indoctrination around this whole charade has been breathtaking, which has, of course, been propagated by the mainstream media. And what’s worse, these kids are pawns in a game they don’t understand. They are being used to advance a sinister agenda that seeks to enslave them, and their families, based on a lie of monumental proportions — which I’ll go onto explain.   

Figure 1: Is this a protest or a remake of ‘YMCA’ by The Village People?
Figure 2: Where have we seen this before? It feels familiar…  

The Climate Cult propaganda is founded on the blatant and outrageous lie that human activity generating a greenhouse gas — carbon dioxide — is causing heat to be trapped in the atmosphere and warming the planet to unprecedented and potentially catastrophic levels. Every single dire warning about the end-of-the-world consequences of ‘global warming’ has been completely and utterly wrong and this hardly surprising when global temperatures measured from satellite have not risen since 1997/1998. Note that what was once called ‘global warming’ became ‘climate change’ when global temperatures began to plateau. Temperatures not doing what you want them to? Just change the name of the scam. Simple. Now, I’m not saying that humans don’t need to take better care of Mother Earth, nor am I saying that climate change doesn’t exist — the climate is always changing. Earth temperatures will ebb and flow based on solar activity, or sunspots, and other natural phenomena. It is the SUN that drives temperature, not Bill driving his kids to school in his new Range Rover Vogue. To those orchestrating this scam, they want us to demonise carbon dioxide to ultimately demonise industrialisation and humanity itself. It’s a confidence trick of extraordinary mendacity that is really about providing the excuse for the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21/2030, which will result in its long-planned centralisation of power, transformation of global society, deindustrialisation, massively reduced population, and ever-increasing levels of police and surveillance state [click here for more on Agenda 21/2030].   

To fully comprehend the climate change scam, you must understand the context behind the creation of the United Nations, which is not only behind Agenda 21/2030 but is also driving the climate change agenda through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in support of the lies promoted by political scam-artist, Big Al Gore. This is a man who I wouldn’t trust to tell me the time in a room full of clocks, so we are off to a good start. Alarm bells should also be ringing loudly when the Rockefeller family are involved in anything, and well, well, well, they were instrumental in the creation of the United Nations, which, from the outset, was designed to bring about global governance. It was the J.D Rockefeller established Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) that was at the forefront of the creation of the United Nations in 1945 when the American delegation was described as ‘a roll call of the CFR’. The Rockefellers also donated the land which the United Nations headquarters sits on today not far from CFR headquarters in New York. Anything that the Rockefeller family are involved in is the agenda being implemented, and anything Rockefeller is ultimately Rothschild. It is, therefore, no coincidence that the president of the CFR, Richard Haass, has called for a ‘World Order 2.0’ and ‘Sovereign Obligation’, which would obligate countries not to do anything that adversely affected other countries and would involve global institutions (world army) enforcing this ‘obligation’. And what was one of the reasons he provides for needing such enforcement? Yep, you guessed it: to save the planet from climate change.   

One of the most important organisations in the environmental agenda is the Club of Rome, which was established in 1968 to exploit the environment to promote the transformation of global society. A co-founder, Aurelio Peccei, said in their 1991 publication, ‘The First Global Revolution’:  

‘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… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.’  

The Club of Rome is pressing for a global carbon tax and a ‘new economic international order’ to use the human-caused climate change lie to progress the agenda for total global control. The Club of Rome and Council on Foreign Relations are both a part of the Round Table Network that also includes the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and Chatham House. It is their role to ensure that the Hidden Hand’s agenda is implemented through governments, media, corporations, military, etc. This network is filled to the brim with people who work in government, politics, finance, military, intelligence, corporations and the media. Take one look at the Bilderberg attendees or CFR members, and you’ll see exactly that. The environmental movement was created by eugenicist Julian Huxley, the father of Aldous Huxley his prophetic ‘fiction’ book A Brave New World; Prince Bernhard, former Nazi SS officer and longtime chairman of the secretive Bilderberg Group; and Prince Philip, who said if he were reincarnated, he would return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels. Lovely people. Together they created the World Wildlife Fund, now the World Wildlife Fund for Nature. Aren’t they kind? Huxley instigated the WWF while director of the Hidden Hand’s front organisation, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). This is the same WWF that, as researcher Douglas Allen has pointed out, ‘presided over, and in many cases organised and financed, the systematic slaughter and near extinction of the most prominent species under its self-appointed control.’ Yep, they sure care about the environment.   

Figure 3: Founding father of ‘environmentalist’ movement and former president of conservation NGO ‘Worldwide Wildlife Fund’ enjoying a nice spot of bird shooting funded by taxpayer money. Just another ‘normal’ day in the madhouse. 

The climate change scam is orchestrated through the usual compartmentalisation system that the agenda relies on so heavily to keep the knowledge in the hands of a tiny few and the rest of the population in total ignorance — and even unknowingly doing its bidding. This is precisely what is happening with the likes of Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion; they think they are anti-establishment, but they are actually advancing the agenda of the very Elite that they claim to oppose. These kids are not rebels; they are conformists. They are conforming to the agenda of total human enslavement, and it will be them and their families that will suffer as a consequence. Repetition is the greatest form of mind control, and this is the basis of the propaganda used by the mainstream news and the Climate Cult scientists, environmental agencies and politicians who just repeat the official line to the population. ‘If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it’, said the Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, and this is exactly what is happening here. We’ve been bombarded with propaganda left, right, and centre, including images of London under water, polar bears standing on isolated icebergs, the Maldives government having a meeting under water to highlight ‘sea level rise’, and the repeated line (and I mean repeated) that the ‘science is settled’. And as we’ve already seen, we’ve had the shocking levels of scaremongering and hysterics from Greta Thunberg and her Extinction Rebellion disciples, which wouldn’t look out of place in a lunatic asylum. It’s laughable that these hysterical doomsayers proselytizing that the end is nigh are seen as some sort of eco hero, whereas the people trying to bring rationality and actual science to the debate are seen as villains. But, really, it should come as no surprise in this inverted, Orwellian world.  

There are also the massive psychological operations going on in schools and universities that are targeting the young with this propaganda. They are the next adults, and so they are being indoctrinated (and then some) to accept the draconian policies demanded by the UN’s Agenda 21/2030 and the Climate Cult. Films like ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ are shown in schools to enforce their narrative, which scare children shitless.The effect on the subconscious mind is even more significant, however. It’s a form of trauma-based mind control, and it is being allowed to go ahead because of pathetic, unquestioning teachers who just repeat the mainstream narrative of everything. And where are all the parents when this going on?  

It was in 1988 when the human-caused global warming propaganda entered the public domain when so-called scientist James Hansen stood before the Senate Committee and announced that he was 99% sure humans are responsible for the warming of the planet. Hansen was rewarded with becoming Director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) for his troubles, which from there was to go on and aggressively pursue the advancement of the human-caused global warming agenda. But when rising temperatures plateaued after 1998, the Climate Cult needed to gain some much-needed momentum to advance their agenda and prevent further threats to its ‘credibility’. Someone had to save the day, and to do this, they needed a candidate so scandalous and corruptible that lying to the public seemed like an everyday mundane activity like tying their shoelaces or doing the washing-up. Cue the perfect man for the job: Mr. soul-for-sale, Al Gore. He succeeded in entrenching the propaganda into the collective mind with his 2006 film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, which became the third most successful documentary in American box-office history and won the Oscar for best documentary. They had to try and make it seem credible somehow, even if the content is complete balderdash. His book of the same title reached number one in the New York Times’ bestseller list, and the man himself went on to join the long list of great humanitarians that includes the likes of Henry Kissinger — who called us all ‘useless eaters’ — to win the Nobel Peace Prize alongside the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).   

The very fact that this scam has been fronted-up by Al Gore says it all, really. Al Gore attended Vanderbilt University with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation which was established by J.D Rockefeller a notorious Rothschild asset. The Rockefeller Foundation, like many of these ‘philanthropic’ and ‘charitable’ organisations, pump endless sums of money into advancing the agenda without restrictions such as paying tax (see Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the vaccine agenda). He was also vice-president to the deeply corrupt Bill Clinton administration. Anyone thought suitable by Bill Clinton to be his right-hand man is certain to have a first-class degree in bullshitting. Gore has been supported in promoting the lie by David Mayer de Rothschild, author of The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook: 77 Essential Skills to Stop Climate Change – Or Live Through It, which was the companion guide to Al Gore’s Live Earth concerts. David ‘Prince Charming’ Mayer de Rothschild is the son of Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, a significant figure in the family, so is odds on to know what the real agenda is. Gorelike so many of these ‘eco-celebs’, is so concerned about human caused ‘climate change’ that he has a carbon footprint the size of 99% of the population combinedBut, like with everything, it’s one rule for them and another rule for the rest of us. Gore has made an absolute fortune out of the human-caused climate change narrative, and in 2004 he launched ‘Generation Investment Management’ with David Blood (of Goldman and Sachs) with the sole purpose of exploiting the financial opportunities that climate change brings to the table. This includes carbon offsets and what is known as ‘cap and trade’. Carbon offsets are what are used by super-emitting ‘eco-celebs’ who claim (that’s the keyword here) the environmental impact of their high-consumption lifestyles can be cancelled out by paying someone else to invest in carbon-reducing initiatives. Unbelievable, right? It’s okay to have a carbon footprint if you pay enough, apparently. These same ‘eco-celebs’ will then support Extinction Rebellion and preach to the rest of the population, who can’t afford offsetting, to reduce their carbon footprint. ‘I can fly around the world producing tonnes of CO2 because I’m rich and can afford to offset it. Everyone else has to stay at home’. The mendacity and arrogance of these people is breathtaking. The latter — cap and trade — is a system of controlling carbon emissions by setting an upper limit on the amount a particular company can emit. A government issues a permit or credit to these companies for their maximum allowance and they are taxed if they produce a higher level of emissions than their permit allows. They can buy more allowances or credit, but it has to be from other companies that produce less than their maximum. It’s basically just another way to exert control over economic activity. It can also be used as a form cashless money system in which people would be given a carbon allowance for energy, and anything purchased would be priced according to its carbon significance.The energy credits would have to be used within a certain period, or they would become invalid. The idea is to make it impossible for the people to accrue personal wealth (except the Hidden Hand, of course). ‘If you control carbon, you control life’, says MIT Climate Scientist, Richard Lindzen, and he’s spot on. The Hidden Hand want to control every aspect of your life, yet we see people campaigning for these very ‘solutions’ that will bring about their own enslavement. Turkeys voting for Christmas, the lot of them.   

The Gas of Life

You only have to observe the graph of greenhouse gases to see how ridiculous the demonisation of carbon dioxide is: 

Figure 4: The ratio of greenhouse gases

Anyone viewing this graph for the time who bought the mainstream claptrap would immediately assume that the block on the left representing the largest contribution to the greenhouse effect must be CO2. But its not. Well in excess of 90% of greenhouse gases are water vapour and clouds. Carbon dioxide contributes only 0.117% and the overwhelming majority of that is naturally occurring and absolutely nothing to do with human activity. Professor Leslie Woodcock, Emeritus Professor at the University of Manchester, fellow of the Royal Society of Chemical Engineering, a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship and former NASA researcher, says that:   

‘Water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, and there is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide has been made out to be some kind of toxic gas, but the truth is that it’s the gas of life. We breathe it out, plants breathe it in and it’s not caused by us. Global Warming is nonsense’.   

What should we do, ban water vapour and clouds then? How about a water vapour tax? Carbon dioxide has been demonised when, in fact, life on this planet would not exist without it. Without carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases, there would be no greenhouse effect, and Earth would be uninhabitable for human beings. Greenhouse gases and the warming they cause keep the Earth at a comfortable average temperature of about 15 Degrees Celsius, and without them, Earth would be an unlivable –18 Degrees Celsius…. –18 degrees! We’d be bloody great big ice cubes, that’s what. 

Figure 5: Without the Greenhouse Effect we’d all be frozen to death. 

An increase in carbon dioxide is good for plant life and makes the planet greener and more abundant in growth and food supply. In fact, ancestors of the plants we rely on today thrived when CO2 levels were up to 10 times the levels of CO2 now. We constantly breathe it out — around 2 pounds per person per day. Do the they want us to stop breathing as well? Actually, let’s not give them any ideas. And guess what? Despite what the Climate Cult insist, Earth is actually in a CO2 famine right now. We need more CO2, not less. William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor Emeritus at Princeton University, explained to the Senate Committee in a testimony in 2009:   

‘Almost never has CO2 levels been as low – 280 (parts per million – ppm) – most the time (CO2 levels) have been at least 1000ppm and it’s been quite higher than that.  

Earth was just fine in those times. The oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So, it’s baffling to me that we’re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started….’  

Happer continues:  

‘Warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind . . . CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving “pollutant” and “poison” of their original meaning.’  

David Evans, consultant of 11 years to the Australian Greenhouse Office (now department of Climate Change), said he had checked the maths in the climate models and found that the IPCC has over-estimated future global warming by as much as much as 10 times. The IPCC lying? No way, they wouldn’t… Evans said:   

‘Yes, CO2 has an effect, but’s about fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades. The model architecture was wrong. Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control…  

… It took me years to figure this out, but finally there is a potential resolution between the insistence of the climate scientists that CO2 is a big problem, and the empirical evidence that it doesn’t have nearly as much effect as they say.’   

Evans said that his discovery ‘ought to change the world’ but the ‘political obstacles are massive’. He had earlier talked about those obstacles and what was actually behind the big climate change scam. He said: ‘I am scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic’. He said that the theory that carbon dioxide was the main cause of the warming was ‘based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s…..but the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant’. Couldn’t have said it much better myself. What is particularly interesting is that he mentions world government, which is exactly what I’m saying is the desired outcome of the scam. He also mentions the ‘gravy train’, which according to the Climate Change Business Journal, the annual budget of the Climate Change industry is around $1.5 trillion. People who stick to the script will have access to their share of this. Anyone who refuses to go along with the narrative end up resigning or are forced out of their jobs. Harold Warren Lewis, physicist and former advisor to the Pentagon and US Government, resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) for its support of ‘the global warming scam, with the billions of dollars driving it that has corrupted so many scientists’. He said that global warming was ‘the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud he has ever seen in his career’. Dr Judith Curry, highly respected climatologist from Georgia Tech University, had to walk away from her ‘dream job’ because of a group of narrow-minded zealots who accepted nothing less than complete agreement with their theoretical biases. Curry said of her dismissal:  

‘I’ve been vilified by some of my colleagues who are activists and don’t like anybody challenging their big story. I walk around with knives sticking out of my back. In the university environment I felt like I was just beating my head against the wall.’  

But she’s not the only one. French weatherman Phillipe Verdier was sacked by France 2 TV channel after publishing a book accusing ‘climate experts’ of misleading the public and IPCC deliberately publishing misleading data. Verdier wrote the book after French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said TV weather forecasters should make a point of climate change in their broadcasts. Unfortunately, stories like this where genuine people are being hounded out of their jobs because of their refusal to bow down to the orthodoxy are becoming increasingly more common in the ‘free world’.   

But it doesn’t stop there. In traditional Climate Cult style, it gets way more Orwellian and bizarre. Professor Kari Norgaard, of Oregon University, has gone as far to compare those challenging the mainstream narrative of human caused climate change to people who support racism and slavery, adding that it’s a ‘cultural resistance that must be recognised and treated as aberrant sociological behaviour’. An MSNBC host, Ed Schultz, has asked whether climate change skeptics should take a ‘basic Earth Sciences course’ and Bill Nye ‘the science guy’ has even said he is open to criminal charges and prison time for climate dissenters. If you can’t win the debate, remove the opposition. This is the sort of mentality that we are dealing with and is eerily reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984 with the ‘Ministry of Truth’ and ‘re-education’. We are going to see many more calls for re-education over the coming years as the alarmism amplifies, and the endgame is the establishment of re-education camps or prison sentences for people who go against The System. Freedom of thought will be eliminated, and only what The System says is ‘truth’ is allowed. The Thought Police are coming for us all. It’s already happening in China, and whatever happens in China will eventually be transported here because China is the blueprint for the rest of the world. This is how desperate the Hidden Hand are to stop the human-caused climate change narrative being exposed, or any part of the agenda for that matter. After all, they do have world government and total control riding on the outcome, just as David Evans says.  

I’m not saying Nye or other ‘scientists’ trying to silence dissenters know the endgame. Some genuinely believe the nonsensical narrative and are caught up in the hysterics. But some will know that as long as the meddling heretics are silenced and stopped from exposing the lie, it can be an extremely rewarding career choice. You get an-all-inclusive package of being able to hog the microphones and the limelight, a large ‘research’ grant and the grand title of ‘climate expert’. Whereas, if you care about the truth and dare challenge the climate orthodoxy, you’re labelled a blasphemous ‘climate change denier’, lose your job and may well get arrested. Did I mention we live in an inverted world?  

Figure 6: Kari Norgaard – the woman who says that anyone who challenges human-caused climate change must be recognised as having an ‘aberrant sociological behaviour’.   

Thankfully, there are still climate scientists who refuse to be silenced. Good on them, I say. Some have even had the integrity to go public and admit that they believed the orthodoxy initially but have now changed their minds based on the evidence. One of these is James Lovelock, whose Gaia theory inspired the green movement. In his book, The Revenge of Gaia, he predicted that billions will die and that any survivors would have to live in the Arctic, one of the last habitable places on Earth. Now, after looking at the evidence, he says that the human-caused climate change narrative is not ‘remotely scientific’, computers models are unreliable and anyone who tries to ‘predict more than 5 to 10 years is a bit of an idiot’. He says that that one volcano can make more difference to global warming that humans ever could.  

Another example is Klaus Eckert Puls, a German meteorologist, who says that:   

‘Ten years ago, I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data. At first, I started with a sense of doubt, but then I became outraged when I discovered that what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. Scientifically it is a sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.’  

But surprise, surprise, we are not hearing this on the mainstream news.  

Fiddling The Figures 

Over and over again climate scientists have been caught manipulating the data. Why would they need to do this if they are telling the truth? In what became known as the ‘Pausebuster’ scandal, Dr John Bates, a renowned scientist with America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), revealed that a ‘landmark paper’ timed to influence policy-makers at the UN 2015 UN Climate Conference in Paris, including 150 world leaders, had deliberately been misleading. Bates was given award by Obama Administration for developing the very ‘binding standards’ for the production and preservation of climate data that he says the NOAA ignored. Bates revealed that the NOAA paper was produced with misleading and unverified information that had not been subject to the evaluation process that he had devised. He said his protests had been ignored in a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ on the Paris Conference. Governments at Paris agreed to massive reductions in fossil fuel use and to spend $80 billion a year on new projects. It was later reported in the Mail on Sunday that NOAA paper was to be revised because it used ‘unreliable methods’ which ‘overstated the speed of warming’. The revised data was to show lower temps and slower rate of recent warming trend. By then the deal had already been done, however. A 2017 peer-reviewed research report into official adjustments of global surface temperature data found that the adjustments accounted for nearly all the claimed warming trend. NOAA, NASA and the UK Met Office all make ‘adjustments’ to raw temperature which, the research reported, almost always adjust the temperature upwards. The study said: ‘It is impossible to conclude that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming’. The report found that ‘a cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted out’ and almost all surface temperature adjustments cool past temperatures and warm current ones so artificially making temperatures appear to be increasing in line with global warming orthodoxy. ‘Nearly all of warming they are now showing are in adjustments’ said meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author with Cato Institute Climate scientists Craig Idso and statistician James Wallace. ‘Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming’, D’Aleo said.   

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, headed by James Hansen, were caught in the act when they announced that October 2008 was the hottest on record even though all around the globe we were experiencing extreme cold weather and snowstorms. When NASA’s figures were called into question, it was discovered that they had used the figures from the warmer month of September and said they were for October. This is extremely important because the figures published by NASA’s Goddard Institute provide a substantial amount of the data that is used by the IPCC to support the global warming narrative and they continually claim higher temperature figures then other studies do. This was not the first time Hansen has been caught in the act, either. In 2007, he was forced to accept that his claim that that the 1990s was the hottest decade of the 20th century wasn’t true. The hottest decade was the 1930s, when there was dramatically less carbon dioxide being produced. Hansen retired from NASA in 2013, after a 46-year career, to join the Crusties and become a ‘fulltime activist’. Good riddance, I say.   

Then in 2009, in what became known as ‘Climategate’, thousands of leaked emails between prominent climate scientists exposed how figures and graphs were being fixed and how they had set out to deliberately mislead the public.The Climatic Research Unit at the UK’s University of East Anglia, a major source of global climate data, was at the heart of the scandal. The ‘Team’, as they called themselves, conspired to block Freedom of Information requests and to keep skeptics out of the peer review process and research publications. The Climatic Research Unit had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in ‘research’ grants from the Team’s unethical and some-what illegal undertakings. When asked for the original climate data on which their predictions were made to be released, the Climate Research Unit said that the data had been ‘lost’ (the oldest trick in the book!). How on Earth do you lose crucial climate data that has been most cited by the IPCC? You don’t unless you want to, of course. In the fall out of the Climategate debacle, Professor Phil Jones, head of the unit, stood down from his position whilst an investigation took place, but was reinstated in 2010. One of his leaked emails said:  

‘I have just completed Mike’s nature tricks of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e 1981 onwards) to hide the decline.’   

This was Mike ‘hockey stick’ Mann, another scientist being investigated in the scandal, who Phil Jones was referring to here. In another email, Mr Jones showed his disdain for scientists and publications that challenged the hoax as he lobbied for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research Scientific Journal that published papers downplaying climate change:   

‘I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.’   

He also sent an email stating: ‘I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!’  

The ‘Team’ had also expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to what they had publicly declared, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. In an email from Kevin Trenberth, it was admitted that their inability to explain the lack of warming was ‘a travesty’.  

Some of the emails even discussed how they will ‘deal a mortal blow’ to the Medieval Warm Period and delete it from historic data (950 AD to 1250). Ben Santer, a lead author on the 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, and intimately involved in the Climategate scandal, has admitted that he had removed sections of the IPCC chapter that stated humans were not responsible for climate change. Lord Christopher Monckton said:

‘In comes Santer and re-writes it for them, after the scientists have sent in their finalized draft, and that finalized draft said at five different places, there is no discernable human effect on global temperature – I’ve seen a copy of this – Santer went through, crossed out all of those and substituted a new conclusion, and this has been the official conclusion ever since.’   

Dr Tim Ball, a climate scientist who challenges the mainstream narrative, called the revelations ‘not just a smoking gun, but a battery of machine guns’. He said it was frightening because this group of scientists not only control the UK Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre, which compiles the temperature data, but they also control the IPCC. In turn, the IPCC is the body that drives government climate policy around the world. To complete the circle, the Hadley Centre is co-funded by by the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs, Ministry of Defence and Department of Energy and Climate Change. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his colleagues, Michael Mann and Phil Jones, ‘should be barred from the IPCC process… They are not credible anymore’. Did this happen? In a fair and just world they would, but we don’t live in that kind of world. The figure fiddlers got away with it, of course. When you are still required to do The System’s bidding, it will protect you (see war criminal Blair)  

The Hockey Stick  

The Climate Cult’s warming predictions are based on an alleged spike in global temperatures (and then some) in the late 20th century, which became known as the infamous ‘hockey stick’ because the line in the temperature graph suddenly shot up at a blistering rate skywards to coincide with the Industrial Revolution.   

Figure 7: The fabricated ‘Hockey Stick’

The graph deleted the Medieval Warm Period (950 AD to 1250) when temperatures were much warmer than they were today with no industrial period CO2 in the atmosphere. What caused the warming then? Turbo-charged wheeled ploughs? As we’ve already seen, some of the emails leaked at the Climatic Research Unit referred to how they could ‘deal a blow’ and remove the Medieval Warm Period because it completely dismantles the narrative that these temperatures are unique to the industrial period of CO2 production. Michael Mann, from Penn State University, the ‘scientist’ behind the graph, produced the hockey stick by grafting historical data from tree rings as proxies for northern hemisphere temperatures onto modern thermometer observations. After about 1961, the tree ring data showed a decline in temperatures, contrary to the actual thermometer data, which showed an increase in temperatures. Switching from the proxy tree-ring data to the actual temperatures was Mann’s ‘trick’ to ‘hide the decline’. The IPCC itself had even issued warning that tree-ring data is a poor source for temperature reconstruction, but Mann used the data anyway. A detailed review by two Canadian researchers, McKitrick and McIntrye, of the mathematical and statistical methodology used by Mann revealed multiple errors. No matter what data they fed into Mann’s formula, it invariably produced a ‘hockey stick’ and would always yield a record-warmest 20th century. They concluded that Mann’s faulty hockey-stick reconstruction of the changes in Earth’s temperature was ‘primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principle components’. British writer, Christopher Booker, author of The Real Global Warming Disaster, has described it as ‘one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science’. The graph at the heart of Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ and Climate Cult propaganda is, therefore, a complete fabrication and misrepresentation of the truth. I’d imagine that the more than half a million dollars Mann received in government funding from the complete fraud Barack Obama in 2009 probably had something to do with it. The so-called ‘stimulus package’ was said to fund ‘climate change research’, but no doubt with a special emphasis placed on deleting the Medieval Warm Period from historical data. The Medieval Warm Period was followed by the Little Ice Age from about 1250 to 1850 (Fig 8). Where the Medieval Warm Period brought about abundant crop production, a growing human population, improved living standards, fewer extreme droughts and fewer floods; the Little Ice Age brought about famine, poor harvest, disease and severe population decline. It was so bloody cold that the River Thames in London froze over in the winter and ice fairs were held that are still depicted on Christmas cards.Two important points come from this. The first is that when the Crusties shout about the ‘hottest weather since records began’ it’s important to remember that those records began while the planet was still emerging from the Little Ice Age and any comparison in terms of temperature ‘norms’ is totally misleading. And secondly, the worst of the cold in the 600-year Little Ice Age came during what is now known as the ‘Maunder Minimum’. The term comes from Edward Maunder (1851-1928) who worked with his wife Annie Maunder (1868-1947) in the study of sunspot activity. They discovered that the lowest temps in the Little Ice Age between 1645 and 1715 corresponded with a time with extremely low sunspot activity. This exposes the enormous flaw in their narrative which ignores the fact that it’s the Sun — takes breath, stands back in amazement — that drives Earth temperature. Sunspots are intense magnetic fields that appear at times of higher solar activity and are intimately linked to temperature variations on Earth. The less sunspots there are the weaker the power of solar energy projected to Earth and across the entire solar system. If you look at the graph (Fig 9) you will see the correlation between sunspot activity and temperature over the last few hundred years.  

Figure 8: What caused the warming here with no industrial period CO2? The Sun by any chance?   
Figure 9: Earth temperature and sunspots. The lowest point of sunspot activity, known as the Maunder Minimum, brought the Little Ice Age.   

All signs point to the Sun, and scientists at CERN in Geneva recorded a near perfect correlation between the climate and the penetration of cosmic rays in the Earth’s atmosphere. These findings were initially suppressed in an imposed blackout at CERN because they challenged the official narrative but were later released after the gagging order was exposed. A significant point to make is that when Earth temperatures were warming during the 1990s, and climate hysteria began, other planets of the solar system were also warming. Al Gore’s mate, David De Rothschild, was on the Alex Jones Show on Infowars, where it was put to him that other planets, including Mars, were also warming at that particular time and so any temperature change could not be blamed on human-generated carbon emissions — the common denominator had to be the Sun (which it is). Jones made the point that the polar ice caps on Mars were receding at several miles a year and the moons of Saturn and Jupiter were also melting. Rothschild laughed and replied it was ‘obvious’ why these planets were warming: they are closer to the Sun than Earth. Yep, good one, Dave. Think you might want to do a bit more research into that. Him and Gore really are meant for each other.  

Figure 10: CERN find that there is a clear connection between cosmic rays and Earth temperature.  

Despite this being bloody obvious to anyone with more than one brain cell on active duty, the Sun is still ignored by the IPCC and other bodies. Dr Nir Shaviv, Israeli astrophysicist and chairman of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University’s physics department, says:  

‘The IPCC is still doing its best to avoid the evidence that the sun has a large effect on climate. They of course will never admit this quantifiable effect because it would completely tear down the line of argumentation a mostly man-made global warming of a very sensitive climate.’    

If the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admit the Sun is the primary driver of temperature, then they can no longer demonise CO2 and industrialisation, and the excuse for the transformation of global society would be over. The IPCC is believed to be a scientific body, but actually it’s not. It’s a political organisation masquerading as a scientific body and has a very clear bias towards promoting the human-caused climate change narrative. It manipulates by quoting scientists who sing from the same song sheet ignoring those who say its claims about carbon dioxide are nonsense. This gives a false impression that the scientists are agreed on climate change, when it’s not the case at all. NO — not at all. It’s their job to push this narrative onto the public, even though they disguise it with claims that they ‘provide rigorous and balanced scientific information’. Wim Rost says: 

‘IPCC is government and not science. And the workers of the IPCC prepare the work in accordance with the rules and procedures established by the IPCC.  

In order to be scientific the scientific method has to be adhered. The use of many scientists to fill important parts of IPCC reports does not mean that everything is science. A report is just a report. In this case, a report from the IPCC. And the IPCC is (inter-) government. Scientists involved can produce their own scientific papers about their own specialised part of science, but a small group of writers writes the summaries and the conclusions – for the IPCC. And IPCC is government. 


The IPCC’s stated mission is not to discover what accounts for climate change, but to assess “the risk of human-induced climate change.” Consequently, there is almost no discussion in its lengthy reports of other theories of climate change. Policymakers and journalists took this to mean the AGW theory was the only credible theory of climate change, and the IPCC’s sponsors and spokespersons had no incentive to correct the mistake.’ 

Consensus, Consensus, Consensus   

The Climate Cult often retreats to the ‘97% of climate scientists agree that human activity is warming the planet’ line when they find themselves in a spot of bother in a debate. I’ve heard scientists, politicians, XR and other ‘progressives’ all repeat this highly misleading statement which was arrived upon after some unbelievable skulduggery. But why is anybody surprised by this? Richard Tol, UN IPCC lead author, says the consensus has been literally ‘pulled from thin air’. This is no exaggeration, as we shall see. The primary paper that is trotted out in support of the ‘97% consensus’ is what is described as a ‘citizen science project by volunteers’, published and written by John Cook in 2013. Sounds legitThese volunteers, many of whom had no training in the sciences, said they had ‘reviewed’ abstracts from 11,944 peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011, to assess the extent to which they supported the ‘consensus view’. The paper concluded — wrongly, as it turned out — that 97% of the papers the volunteers examined had explicitly endorsed the opinion that humans are causing the majority of the warming over the last 150 years. This was despite the fact that around 66.4% (7,930) of the abstracts ‘expressed no position on Anthropogenic Global Warming’ at all. Would ya believe it? Richard Tol says: 

‘The 97% estimate is bandied about by basically everybody. I had a close look at what this study really did. As far as I can see, this estimate just crumbles when you touch it. None of the statements in the papers are supported by the data that is actually in the paper.’ 

Tol’s research found that only 64 papers out of the 11,944 actually supported the alleged ‘consensus’. The entire exercise was a clever sleight-of-hand trick; however, it was a trick that was much-needed to boost the Climate Cult’s armoury against anyone who dares to question the orthodoxy. It also fitted the bill perfectly for fulfilling a psychological need for many people, as Richard Lindzen explains:  

‘The claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science. Mere agreement with the 97% will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster. This actually satisfies a psychological need for many people.’  

And is it a coincidence that consensus is only applied in climate ‘science’? ‘No’ is the answer to that if you were wondering. As author Michael Crichton says:  

‘Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.’  

Then in 2019, it all got rather embarrassing for the Climate Cult when in was revealed that the 11,000 so-called ‘scientists’ that had been reported to sign a petition declaring a ‘clear and unequivocal climate emergency’ was nowhere near the number they had claimed — and I mean nowhere near the number. Anthony Watts, from, produced a table that sampled all individuals on the first 14 pages of the signatory list to check their scientific ‘credentials’. The sample included 469 of the 11,258 named signatories. Here is the table below:   

Figure 11: ‘Scientists’

Where on Earth are the scientists? Maybe they are with the ‘97% consensus’ scientists hiding in an underground basement prepping for the end of the world or something. Do students, ‘researchers’, retired people, individuals with no credentials and individuals with their profession unspecified look like ‘scientists’ to you? Note that they use ‘scientist’ and not ‘climate scientists’, as well. Even those listed as a ‘scientist’ or ‘professor’ were, in the main, in completely unrelated fields of research to climate science. Most of the ‘scientists’ and ‘professors’ were made up of Professors of Political Science, Pyschology, Linguistics, Food Safety, Veterinary Epidemiology, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Accounts and Finance, among other unrelated fields of research. Some of the other signatories included Advocates for Snake Preservation, a zookeeper, Albus Dumbledore, Mickey Mouse, and a ‘Mom to a scientist’ (which was a personal favourite). It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. I would love to provide you with the link to the document that has all the professions of all of the signatories on it, but it’s now been taken down. Are these lot desperate or what?  

Figure 12: Somewhere in an alternate universe, Mickey Mouse, Professor at the Mickey Mouse Institute for the Blind, is counted as a legitimate scientist.  

Bear Lies

The whole human-caused climate change narrative survives on lies and manipulation of the data to give the impression of ‘settled science’. But there must be something they’re telling the truth on, surely? What about those polar bears that are going extinct? That’s common knowledge, right? Err, no, wrong again. Dr Mitchell Taylor, who has been researching them in Canada and the Arctic Circle for well over 30 years now, says that they are, in fact, flourishing. Taylor was told to stay away from a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) in 2009 because his observations did not fit the narrative that polar bears are endangered. He was told that his views ran ‘counter to human-induced climate change (and) are extremely unhelpful’. I bet they are. Dr Taylor signed the Manhattan Declaration in 2008, which exposed the official line, and he was told that his views ‘were inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG’. What did I say earlier about religious tendencies? Dr Susan Crockford, another polar bear expert, who lost her position at the University of Victoria in Canada for ‘telling school kids politically incorrect facts about polar bears’ has said:   

‘Polar bears are still a conservation success story. With a global population almost certainly greater than 25,000, we can say for sure that there are more polar bears now than 40 years ago.’   

In fact, a 2015 population survey of polar bears found that key populations had increased 42 percent over the past eleven years and noted that some of the bears are ‘as fat as pigs’. Yet, all we see on BBC news are images of polar bears looking rather lonely on an isolated iceberg out at sea. It’s not like they’ve got an agenda or anything… Images of these polar bears, which are often accompanied with voiceovers to play with the emotions of the observer, have been unscrupulously exploited on mainstream everything. Amanda Byrd, who took the picture off the Alaskan coast, has said that the bears were actually in no danger whatsoever, and she had taken it because it was such an amazing sight.   

Al Gore warned in his 2006 movie An Inconvenient Farce that unless humans stopped warming the planet ice-sheets would melt and sea levels could rise by 20 feet. Then in his 2007 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech he said that the Arctic ice cap was ‘falling off a cliff’ and ‘could be completely gone in as little as seven years’. Well, seven years later in 2014 — Al Gore’s deadline year — it broke all-time records for sea ice expansion and was found to have increased by 43%. Survey results reported in May 2017 revealed that the majority of Greenland had gained surface snow and ice over the previous nine months with temperatures below normal. Does this sound like ‘falling off a cliff’? Written records kept by Antarctic explorers Captain Robert Scott and Sir Ernest Shackleton in the early 20th century reveal that Antarctic sea ice hardly changed in 100 years. In fact, satellite observations show it has actually increased in the last 30 years.  

Figure 13: It’s lonely out at sea

Okay, temperatures are not rising, polar bears are not dying out and the ice caps are not melting as they claim. Surely something say is got to be true. What about those rapidly rising sea levels? Er, nope. Despite the UN IPCC’s Michael Oppenheimer warning that ‘some major cities might have to be abandoned – like, for instance, London’, the data repeatedly shows that sea level rise rates have been essentially steady for over a century, with no recent acceleration. Nils-Axel Morner, Former President on International Commission of Sea Level Change, has said that although there are fluctuations, down as well as up, the sea is not rising and there is absolutely no proof that it has risen in 50 years: ‘Quite apart from examining the hard evidence, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about’. He said he was ‘astonished’ to discover that not one of the 22 contributing authors in the last 2 IPCC reports on sea levels was actually a sea level specialist. He says that this ‘deliberate ignorance’ — exactly what it is — and the use of manipulated computer models had become the most powerful single driver of the entire ‘warmest hysteria’ (see Fig 14). Remember the Maldives government doing a meeting under water to scaremonger about sea-level change? Well, Morner described it as a total ‘PR stunt’ and that ‘Al Gore is a master in such cheap techniques’. Big Al trying to deceive the public? No way, don’t believe you.  

And why is there never any mention of the four studies in 2016 that all found ‘no observable sea-level effect’ from human-caused global warming from mainstream everything? Researchers at Deltares Research Institute of Netherlands found that Earth’s landmass was actually increasing – by 22,393 square miles in the past 30 years and this included 13,000 square miles on coastlines. Yes, that means continents have been gaining in size, not shrinking. Co-author Dr. Fedor Baart remarked:  ‘We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world.’ 

Poor, Al. Trying to sell this complete lie can’t be easy. Atleast he has Greta giving him a hand now.  

Figure 14: Reality vs manipulated computer models   

The Endgame 

Since 2001, at least 7 different climate conferences have been touted as the ‘last chance’ to stop global warming. Way back in 1982, the UN announced a 2-decade tipping point for action on environmental issues, but we are still here… It’s all bunkem. But as I’ve mentioned, those controlling from the shadows know this. They have demonised carbon dioxide to demonise industrialisation. They want to impose de-industrialisation – what they call the ‘post-industrial’ society – which can only be implemented by reducing people’s access to energy. Targeting fossil fuel burning is their aim while only providing ‘alternatives’ that are nowhere near suitable replacements. The same Hidden Hand behind the human-caused climate change scam is also behind the systematic suppression of free energy technology, which harnesses the electrical and electromagnetic fields of our computer simulation reality to produce the power we need for every-day life. Free energy will allow us to move away from the use of fossil fuels and paying extortionate energy bills to ‘meet the challenge of climate change’ and the ineffective ‘alternatives’ like the completely useless and eye-sore, wind farms. The Serbian-American inventor and true scientist, Nikola Tesla, understood this way back in the 20th century. Tesla used to produce artificial lightning in his lab in Colorado Springs and became well known to his neighbors with ambitious electrical experiments that caused booming thunder, rogue sparks and the occasional power outage. Importantly, he gave us the alternating-current (AC) electric system, which is the predominant electrical system used across the world today. He said that ‘all people everywhere should have a free energy sources… electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world’s machinery without the need for coal, oil or gas.’ Free energy would make energy more available to everyone across the world and would mean people are no longer as reliant on The System. This is a big no-no to the Hidden Hand. This would well and truly scupper their entire plan and so they demand we must reduce fossil fuels while suppressing a real alternative and Tesla’s knowledge. This brings me to how the climate can be changed: technologically. The Hidden Hand are well aware of Tesla’s inventions and have used this knowledge to build weather-modification Tesla technology like the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. They are actively modifying the weather and are using it as a weapon to push their agenda on [more info on weather modification here]. If we do ever end up in a ‘Day After Tomorrow’ scenario, it’ll because of technology like this and not because of human-generated CO2.  

Instead of utilising the amazing free energy potential of the universe, the world’s population will lose an estimated $100 trillion in wealth by 2100 because of the ‘solutions’ to global warming being enforced by the Paris agreement. Wow. But that’s the whole point. It’s a redistribution of wealth from the people via the governments into the hands of the bankers (and what controls them). We’ve also got ‘solutions’ from the likes of Matthew Liao, Clinical Associate Professor of Bioethics at New York, who is proposing that we genetically engineer babies to be smaller so they are ‘more energy efficient’. I’m not kidding. He says that hormone treatment for children could ‘close the growth plates’ and ‘stunt their growth’. Liao says that taller people create more energy waste by their food intake, need more cloth in their clothes, wear out shoes and carpets quicker, and weigh more on transport systems. If you thought that was mad enough, how do you feel about going into a restaurant and ordering fried cricket satay skewers for starters? Mealworm stir fry with a side order of sweet and sour cockroach balls for mains? A witchetty grub fritter with dung beetle flavoured ice cream and a scorpion flake for dessert? Well, this is what some people in the media and the UN are seriously suggesting as another ‘solution’ to climate change. There has already been a bakery in Norwich, England, called Roberts Bakery, that has launched its own ‘Crunchy Cricket’ bread. Each loaf of bread contains around 336 crickets which are dried, ground, mixed with wheat flour and grains and then baked to become what they claim to be ‘a tremendously tasty loaf with a crunchy finish each loaf’. Yum Yum. Can’t wait to try it. If the thought of every meal being like a bush tucker trial on ‘I’m a celebrity get me out of here’ turns your stomach, how about the prospect of eating babies? Twitter lit up when footage of a ‘progressive’ and supporter of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez urging people to eat babies emerged online. She said at Ocasio-Cortez’s event in New York:   

‘We’re not going to be here for much longer because of the climate crisis.  

We only have a few months left. I like that you support the green deal but getting rid of fossil fuels is not going to solve the problem fast enough.  

Our Swedish professors are saying that we can eat dead people but that’s not fast enough.  

So I think your next campaign slogan has to be this: we’ve got to start eating babies.  

We don’t have enough time. There’s too much CO2. All of you, you are a pollutant.  

Too much CO2. We have to start now, please. You are so great, I’m so happy that you really support the new green deal but it’s not enough you know.  

Even if we were to bomb Russia we still have too many people, too much pollution.  

So we have to get rid of the babies, that’s a big problem.  

We need to eat babies. This is very serious, please give a response.’  

Beam me up, Scotty. It’s mad down here.   

This could’ve well been a set up, but nothing surprises me anymore. The global warming scam is ultimately about control and as another ‘progressive’ said on CNN, it’s about ‘changing everything’. Here are two quotes from United Nation climate change officials who give the game away:  

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model’ – Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 

We redistribute de factor the world’s wealth by climate policy‘ – Ottmar Edenhofer, Former UN Climate Official 

The climate change scam is political and financial and certainly not environmental. We need to watch any manufactured ‘solutions’ to the climate change ‘problem’ like a hawk with a telescope, because it through these ‘solutions’ that they will lead us into what they call the ‘post-industrial, post-democratic’ society. This society is often likened to the world portrayed in The Hunger Games and will involve a globally enforced top-down hierarchy that has a world government using its world army and police force to impose its will at regional and local levels. And all this is in the process of being implemented through UN Agenda 21/2030, under the guise of ‘sustainable development’, and human-caused climate change is the manufactured excuse to transform global society to this end. It is most definitely not about ‘saving the planet’ to those really orchestrating it, that’s for sure. Did you hear that, Greta?  

Read more on UN Agenda 21/2030 and the ‘post-democratic society’ 


1) XR demands –  

2) John D Rockefeller – donating land to UN  

3) Richard Haass – ‘World Order 2.0’ and ‘Sovereign Obligation’  

4) Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution –  

5) Club of Rome – new international economic order –  

6) Founding Fathers of ‘Green Movement’ –  

7) Allen Douglas, ‘The oligarchs’ real game is killing animals and killing people’,  

8) Josef Goebbels quote –  

9) James Hansen 1988 testimony –  

10) Richard Lindzen, control carbon –  

11) Generation Investment Management –  

12) Greenhouse gas graph –  

13) Nationalgeographic, greenhouse gases –  

14) IPCC graph –  

15) Leslie Woodcock – Marc Morano, ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’  

16) Greenhouse Effect – Gregory Wrightstone, ‘Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know’  

17) Ancestors of the plants today thriving – Gregory Wrightstone, ‘Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know’  

18) William Happer testimony –  

19) David Evans –  

20) Climate change $1.5 trillion industry –  

21) Harold Warren Lewis –  

22) Judith Curry –  

23) Phillipe Verdier –  

24) Kari Norgaard –  

25) Ed Schultz –  

26) Bill Nye –  

27) James Lovelock –  

28) Klaus Eckert Puls –  

29) Dr John Bates –; D, Icke, ‘Everything you need to know’, p565  

30) Joe D’Aleo –  

31) James Hansen, Fiddling Figures –;  

32) ClimateGate, Christopher Monckton,  

33) ‘Deal a mortal blow’ to MWP –  

34) Ben Santer, deleting data –  

35) Tim Ball on Climategate (2 mins in)  

36) Eduardo Zorita –  

37) Michael Mann, Tree proxies – Gregory Wrightstone, ‘Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know’  

38) Mckitrick, Mcintyre and Singer, Marc Morano, ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’  

39) Christopher Booker, ‘most discredited artefacts in the history of science’ –  

40) Little Ice Age, Europe Suffering, ‘Gregory Wrightstone, ‘Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know’  

41) Little Ice Age, temperature norms, Icke, D, ‘Everything you need to know’, p568  

42) Cern ‘Cloud’ experiment gagging order –  

43) Alex Jones & David de Rothschild interview (17 mins comment about the Sun) –  

44) Dr.Nir Shaviv,on IPCC and Sun-  

45) Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia on IPCC –  

46) IPCC statement – ‘provide rigorous and balanced scientific information’-  

47) Wim Rost on IPCC –  

48) Richard Tol on IPCC –, page 2  

49) Richard Tol  on ‘97% consensus’ – –  

50) Gregory Wrightstone on John Cook – Gregory Wrightstone, ‘Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know’  

51) John Cook consensus methodology –; Marc Morano, ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’  

52) Richard Lindzen on psychological factor of 97% –  

53) 2019 consensus –  

54)  Michael Crichton –  

55) Einstein –  

56) Dr Mitchell Taylor –  

57) Dr Susan Crockford –  

58) Amanda Byrd – Christopher Brooker, ‘The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is The Obsession With `Climate Change` Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History?’  

59) Al Gore – ice caps ‘falling off a cliff’ –  

60) ‘Inconvenient Truth: Antarctica Sea Ice Extent Growing 1.43% per Year,” The Hockey Schtick, September 9, 2011, ice.html; “Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record.’  

61) Ice cap expanded by 43% –  

62) Judith Curry, sea ice expansion – Marc Morano, ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’  

63) Greenland gaining surface snow –  

64) ‘Arctic sea ice volume is increasing towards ten-year highs’,  

65) Michael Oppenheimer – Marc Morano, ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’  

66)  Bob Carter, sea level rise, Marc Morano, ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’  

67) Robert Giegenack, sea level rise,  

68) Nils Axil Morner –  

69) Nils Axil Morner on Al Gore  

70) Bjorn Lomborg about ‘those non-disappearing islands’ –  

71) Fedor Baart on landmass increase –  

72) UN ‘2 decade tipping-point’ –  

73) Lomborg ‘100 trillion’ – Gregory Wrightstone, ‘Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know’  

74) Matthew Liao –  

75) Eating insects promoted in the media –  

76) ‘Crunchy Cricket’ bread –  

77) Girl suggesting we should eat babies at AOC event –  

78) Al Gore, ‘Global Governance’ –  

79) Christiana Figueres –  

80) Ottmar Edenhofer –