Thursday, 2 February 2012

Global warming- the conspiracy uncovered

Al Gore was originally fascinated by his lecturer (while doing an arts degree at Harvard, he was poor at science and only took the course due to the American system of minor subjects) Roger Revelle's personal theory that this may be possible and happening, and like a man falls in love instantly across a crowded room, Al took this to his heart and although the late Mr Revelle changed his mind on retirement and told anyone who would listen that he was wrong, it was too late. Al had fallen, and dismissed Revelle as being senile.

To follow Gore to the present, as he joined the parallel bandwagon around the early 90s or before so became the mouthpiece of the movement worldwide, his main interest in global warming was not the environment, but a financial one. His film 'An Inconvenient Truth' was found to have at least ten 'material errors' (ie lies) in a British civil court, and was only the alarmist advertisement for his financial concerns. Right at the beginning, he worked out there was a vast source of profit from this assertion, and worked with Ken Lay, before the collapse of his Enron company, on how best to go about this route. Enron later collapsed after being found to have invented both profits and products, basically paper energy notes based on the collection of non-existent future profits. This worked long enough to collect millions, and I do not know what happened to these after the trial, but can only presume they were not confiscated so the job was done.

"In August 1997, Lay and Browne met with President Bill Clinton and Vice President Gore in the Oval Office to develop administration positions for the Kyoto negotiations that resulted in an international treaty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions."

Rather than dying with the company, Enron energy credits were reborn, now legally with UN/IPCC assent as carbon credits, buying something that does not belong to the seller, cannot be delivered and conveys no actual benefit. This is the perfect crime. In addition to creating a fictional exchange system Al didn't stop there, but set up his own company, to which he now pays his own massive credits into, as well as collecting from others. This has made him from a millionaire to a billionaire so clearly works. The compliance from the authorities has been to let carbon trading and credits work on voluntary regulation so there is (as in 2011) no contract or guarantee as to where your money goes. I have since discovered Enron itself was set up as a merger between two energy companies, and the individual behind it was the notorious junk bond crook, Michael Milken. 

The second limb of the conspiracy is that carbon trading, as opposed to credits, is like car insurance in a growing number of countries. It is not something you risk as a seasoned investor (as did the customers of Bernie Madoff who wasn't sanctioned by the UN) but are forced to do by law if your country legislates for it. A win-win situation for the traders.
And of course it comes as no surprise the investors are many of the very politicians who set it up and make their profits from compulsory taxes.


Al Gore dealt with, there is a collective conspiracy not even needing a hacker to discover as with Climategate, although there is a connection between the two I will mention soon. The 1991 report The First Global Revolution, of the Club of Rome, an international policy group manned by some of the most powerful people in the world, openly stated:

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

"Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the CoR describes itself as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity." It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe."

"In 1990, writes veteran reporter Jim Tucker, the Bilderbergers adopted climate change as the preferred model to impose global government and reintroduce serfdom. “Like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group discovered the issue of environmental deterioration. Bilderbergers embraced a report from the Trilateral Commission that year on the environment, because the potential profit in cleaning up the mess would be immense.”
The following year, the Club of Rome think tank published The First Global Revolution, a book suggesting a draconian neo-Malthusianism approach will solve the world’s “problems”, in fact a problem the global elite has with humanity."

Here are some more quotes from the above link:

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
  • Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
  • Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
  • Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."
  • Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
  • Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
The names here met back in 1971 to set this up, James Lovelock John Holdren, Stephen Schneider and other familiar names to those who have read the history of the development and whenever I find a meeting planning the details another turns up even earlier. Maybe another will now before these.

1971 conference Limits To Growth; 1975 the “Endangered Atmosphere”

 "What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats"

Margaret Mead 1974

Video here
Their previous report from the 70s was indeed an extremely sensible one, published as a book, to keep world population stable, and received virtually no publicity and absolutely no policy changes, remaining to this day a framework to manage the world's real elephant in the room which is a definite threat as unlike our temperatures it is already spiralling out of control. But their second try, possibly as there is a huge opportunity for financial gain from it rather than simply conserving the planet, was a raving success. Mikail Gorbachev joined the team on retirement from Soviet affairs, as an expert in such areas of oppressing the masses, and in 1996 restated their position:

"The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key that will unlock the New World Order"

The Wildlands Project

"The environmental issue will bring far more people into the communist movement than peace ever did" Karl Blau, assistant to Mikhail Gorbachev

Of course, if you're going to con the public, you have to find something with all the required criteria. It firstly and most of all must be something they can't see or measure for themselves. Climate is the perfect example. Then add the fear factor- imagine the Sahara Desert, transfer that to Paris or Watford, and the pinch of supernatural to finish it off: In 2100 it could be over 6C higher than it is now. Yes, and it could also be 6C colder, both are almost impossible due to the previous records, but it doesn't matter as none of us will actually be there to ever see it, you must trust us. And they nearly all do.

So it is not 'Why would there be a conspiracy, who would profit?' or 'Show me a conspiracy' but 'Here's the conspiracy'. Just because getting all the pieces of the jigsaw isn't as easy as watching a scary movie, it is both possible and completed. It won't be shown by the BBC or many other outlets however, as the BBC are now working for the enemy. As I suspected long before it was discovered that carbon trading was no 'like Enron' but was Enron, it was pretty obvious, as well as being confirmed by Peter Sissons, Johnny Ball and David Bellamy, who among others fell foul of their one sided policy, breached their charter by acting as a mouthpiece for an organisation set up to spread the message, Globe International. As the BBC are supposed to be balanced and independent, not in theory but by law, acting for a group who have a single agenda is not within their charter, their argument presumably being as long as they are not being paid to do so then it is fine, is hardly convincing. And to tie up another loose end, an officer of Globe International is Lord Roxborough, the very head of the enquiry who found the CRU at East Anglia University not guilty in the climategate enquiry.This is not just a conflict of interests, but as such legally Ultra Vires. That is a decision where there is the chance of a conflict of interests, whether or not it exists, is void ab initio under equity law. So technically as someone on a board specifically to support the work of the CRU, the main supplier of IPCC figures, is not qualified to judge them when they screw up, that exoneration never existed and must have another enquiry with a new head. as if they would.

I am personally a great fan of Buddhism, although know little about the Dalai Lama assumed he was working both for them and Tibet, until he recently made a speech about global warming being a major threat. Guess who he works for, yes, he's in the Club of Rome. They've even bagged a religious leader. Without a forensic accountant and a warrant I can't state the exact investments of all its members along with Globe International, but public shareholder records are not secret and David Cameron, along with other cabinet members and their families, have all got large investments in the very 'green energy' projects they have legislated to subsidies with our taxes. Not an illegal conflict of interests but still wrong. And remember black Monday, when the British economy lost billions in a single day due to speculation crashing the pound when it joined the ERM? The main player (again, simply playing the system as we all can if have enough to risk on it) was George Soros, who recently joined the campaign and invested vast sums himself in wind and solar power. Just look what happened to his last investment to see the likely results.!/notes/carrie-spurgeon/hows-this-for-conflicts-of-interest-guys-how-both-the-met-and-the-bbc-are-playin/10150624666950262
And it now turns out climate change has become an official international business, the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change is managed by Peter Dunscombe and does exactly what it says on the tin, makes people rich from climate change. Get rid of the story and the money goes away with it.  Our money that is.
Another group arose recently, one I'd previously never come across and had a sole website dating to 1998. The Club of the Isles is an organisation loosely managed around the international royal family and related aristocracy (there is only one big family as they keep the bloodline throughout history by intermarriage) and it's nominal head is no other than Prince Philip, who set up the World Wildlife fund as a vehicle for carrying out its agenda, roughly reducing the population of the world to 1 billion. How they intend to do this is debatable, but the terms 'useless eaters', the non-aristocrats and plebs, and the view humans are a cancer on the earth, much promoted since by James Lovelock and George Monbiot, and the driving force behind Greenpeace appears to have its roots right there.

"Going green" is nothing more than an excuse to destroy civilization and depopulate the planet because they consider us all a bunch of "useless eaters." 

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

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

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

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

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

" Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence." Mike Hulme
Despite open and less open statements and acts being revealed, I still find a blank response by believers who would rather trust data than the people who generated it, in an interview just before the Cancun Summit in 2010, a top IPCC officer, Ottmar Edenhofer, was interviewed and simply stated:

" must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."
Despite this being able to stand alone, the background and history is essential to see to show Edenhofer is not speaking as a rogue individual (despite representing one of the most powerful groups on earth) but simply stating what has always been. Why he chose to 'come out' as he did remains uncertain, but around a year later can say this was not read beyond the internet, and there was absolutely no reaction among the believers, just as if Santa had dropped his beard and shown to be your father yet you still put the stocking out every following year. That is a human failing rather than a failing of the evidence, as pride and kudos will blind most people to actual facts, especially combined with the most powerful evil of all, fear, and not just for yourself (as we'll be ok) but your unborn grandchildren. But remove the mist of emotion and greed and these are the facts, take them or leave them.

There is also, along with the long planned world government, the associated world currency. But who would accept that? A few extremists and crooks who know how to fix or milk a market, but tell them it's to save the planet and they cave in. Carbon credits are not for business, that is the trial period, the plan is to be for everyone. Energy rationing first, followed by currency rationing. Wealth will disappear overnight, as unlike conventional currency, carbon credits will (and already do) last a year. So even if you start getting ten times more than average, at the end of the year they expire. And who decides what you get the following years? Search me. They don't actually care, they will give you what they want to at the time.
Full details here, from the source 

If drawn as a spider's web going downwards with time, you can see a general birth around 1990, as I can't say exactly who decided the Club of Rome decision (although its members are known and the report is all online as linked here). Don't be diverted by trees in the wood looking for individual motives and actions, they are all the fruit of a single tree, a decision to invent a problem to create a reaction and then offer the pre-written solution we would never have accepted had there not been a problem, much like losing our liberty for security after 9/11, something Benjamin Franklin said over 100 years earlier, whoever does this deserves neither. It's an old trick and one despite being exposed time after time will always succeed as long as people trust those in authority. Once those at the top go bad, it is very difficult for those lower down not to follow or lose their children's school fees. Even the most honest and genuine scientists don't want to go bankrupt as those mortgages have to be paid and won't be if they are ostracised from the profession as a handful such as David Bellamy already claim to have been. The reason 'senile' (to quote Al Gore) ex-professors have always been the most vociferous opponents of global warming is they have nothing to lose. Think about it.

More confessions: Direct from the CRU, used in the graphs sent to the IPCC to make world policy.

"plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."

" Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid the decline"

"-- Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)"

" Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"

James Hansen, the one who gave the speech to US congress back in 1988 which led to the creation of the IPCC, has been caught tweaking so much data (with no consequences) that he now deserves a growing column here to himself. After filling in missing temperature data where there were no measurements around the world with red instead of the average temperature which is the only (and I mean only) way to do it, he actually created 75% of the result by making it up as the real data was only a quarter of that in the total. He has now gone a step further not by adding wrong figures but removing them. This is arguably worse as if the world is now cooling then by pretending it isn't the policies will continue unabated, despite the fact the real figures are now diverging further and further from the models. How long can it take before some independent authorities are able to call the data into question and put him in front of a court to explain himself. If these allegations are correct he is not just lying to the world but putting his whole profession in jeopardy both by collusion (the peer review process is clearly absent here as everyone in the know can see exactly what he's done on both occasions (and how many more?) yet sat on their hands and whistled. That shows a degree of agreement which has to go way above the climate community and to the very top of the tree. ie Hansen is probably not doing this for his own reasons, but as he is being ordered to. Clearly that is not done for nothing, so must be a secondary gain, but a scientist of his standing to openly flout the law on more than one occasion and gain full immunity from consequences is clearly a 'made man', one who has risen so high he is free to make the rules for himself. In a civilised society there is no place for made men. They are from the mafia and we do not want them to spread into our governments and academic institutions.


James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too. As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” --Ian Johnston,MSNBC, 23 April 2012

The big oil myth

Anyone who says big oil funds skeptical propaganda doesn't know economics. Restricting supply raises prices plus free carbon credits are giving them subsidised windfalls. They also invest and develop alternatives- wind, solar and biofuel, as they are also subsidised so again give them our tax money as guaranteed profits. So all green measures help the fossil fuel industry as it doesn't stop them selling it but allows them to at higher prices, and they are quite free to diversify as they always have. In fact I just discovered the CRU, the global warming engine of propaganda, is funded by many of the biggest names in said industry. They don't invest a single penny in a losing cause.

"The UN panel’s members include billionaire globalist George Soros, who has been calling for a carbon tax for years. Soros has $811 million of his own money invested in Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company."

This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order)
British Council,

British Petroleum,

Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre,
Central Electricity Generating Board,
Centre for Environment,
Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS),
Commercial Union,
Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU),
Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC),
Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA),
Department of Health,
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI),
Eastern Electricity,
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC),
Environment Agency,
Forestry Commission,
Greenpeace International,
International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED),
Irish Electricity Supply Board,
KFA Germany,
Leverhulme Trust (Trust was originally endowed with a shareholding in Lever Brothers, which subsequently became part of Unilever.)
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF),
National Power,
National Rivers Authority,
Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC),
Norwich Union,
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate,
Overseas Development Administration (ODA),
Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates,
Royal Society,
Scientific Consultants, (?)
Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC),
Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research,


Stockholm Environment Agency,
Tate and Lyle,
UK Met. Office,
UK Nirex Ltd., (UK based ‘independent’ ‘radioactive waste’ management consultants.)
United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP),
United States Department of Energy,
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Wolfson Foundation and the
World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

© David Howard November 2011

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.


  1. Good work. However, the "above link" (to the Scribd document)as noted by yourself with regard to the appalling quotes state state that the end justifies the means, does not contain the quotes.

    Are they collated in one place? It would be good to have a verifiable source, as they form a superb rebuttal to the holier-than-thou attitude we get from the warmers.

  2. Here's the main source

    Also wikipedia's post-normal science page and Goebbel's the rules of propaganda, posted in full on a few sites. They are variations on the original nazi theme, slightly updated and adapted to modern media but basically lying to further the cause and that is all they ever do or did. You don't need to lie of course if it was actually a real problem. Please share as widely as possible, every single person needs to know this to stop them destroying the world's economy and freedom.