They lied to you about climate change

Update of an earlier entry:

Imagine your lords and masters, who you trusted and believed looked after you, admitted they were lying, cheating and generally openly ripping you off. How would you feel, and how would you react?

In fact, I have collected records of this happening for over 40 years, it is on the record officially and totally ignored by the media. Open confessions, the criminal pleading guilty and handing themself over to the authorities, saves millions in court fees and lawyers, and keeping a jury busy for weeks or months. Official enquiries into government wrongdoings take years, and if those involved simply fessed up and their racket was closed down it would save billions or more.

Well they have. Over and over again. But people didn't notice. Just show them this and they will.

The roots of today's phoney environmental movement (as opposed to the genuine one, which is starved of funds as a direct result) actually mainly lie in the German Volkisch movement of the 19th century, which grew into Nazism and the Eugenics movement, reducing the numbers of mankind based on racial purity. You can learn about this by searching, and suffice to say Unesco, the relevant unit of the UN was set up by the communist eugenicist Julian Huxley in 1946, who went on to found the environmentally extreme WWF in 1963 under the original guise of saving wild animals, much like the Mafia front businesses who run their drugs and prostitution behind restaurants and dry cleaners. Yes, they provide a genuine service, but only to hide their real business activities.

But despite the lack of media coverage from the 1970s onwards, every so often, mainly as they are proud of their views and like the Nazis before them believe they are right so have no reason to hide their true intentions, they simply come straight out with it. This bunch of eugenicists, bottom feeders, rent seekers and general no goodniks including ex politicians and top businessmen, many of whom can be read from the list of Bilderberg members, the only element of their meetings besides the location which is not secret, believe they have so much power they can admit whatever they like and nothing will stop them carrying on.

This of course is wrong. Illusions work by consent and confusion. Take both away and they vanish. In this case the illusion is broken already, as these creeps have spoken openly, clearly and directly about their actions, and if even 10% of the people were to hear it the consent would be withdrawn. Who would pay huge green taxes once they were told the entire basis of global warming was a means to create one world government? The Hegelian dialectic, create a problem where the solution is your diabolical policy, is one which has worked since the beginning of governments. Church indulgences, sacrificing virgins, you name it, they make you believe suffering today to save a possible disaster in the future is a winning formula of dishonesty. It's entirely down to the idiots who accept it, believing you can both predict the climate a hundred or more years ahead, and do something to change it. And all the other crap that goes with it, such as ignoring thousands of years of history of what science called 'climate optimum' (the warm bits) and believing a slight increase in temperature will be a bad thing, unlike an ice age which kills millions of people every time.

But rather than join the battle with the errors of science, ie the trial, which will never take place as by the time the temperature has started to fall our money and rights will all be down the toilet, just take the guilty pleas and chuck the lot of them in prison, which may even be too good for them. Disagree? Ask the African farmers who were turfed off their land to burn their crops for biofuel. They wouldn't.

We begin with Margaret Mead's statement of future plans from 1974's Endangered Atmosphere conference.

"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"

Besides the majority of ordinary people who accept such statements on face value, I have seen activists who (like the relatives of organised criminals) have tried to undo the meaning of this. As a result, I'll pick it apart to defuse any attempts to claim it does not mean exactly what it says, although of course subsequent statements by others are impossible to interpret in any other ways. His main plank was 'artificial' meant man made. Yes, really. Although while he meant the problems were man made (which they aren't, but we are accused of), the statements and claims were, which they are, including the incredible adjustments taking flat and random temperature trends and making them tilt in the recent period to all look the same. Having learnt some statistics adjustments are of two types, random error corrections, which tend to zero as they cancel out false positives and negatives, and bias, which cancels out readings too high or low. In fact temperature errors are a combination of both, but all bias is the other way, from urban heat islands, so no results should be higher than the raw figures. Yet nearly all of them are They twisted the graphs here

Before I go on, I will also point out the 'solution' to global warming, involving money as per, is carbon trading. I recognised this and traced it back to its roots, which became very familiar as developed by the fraudulent company Enron, before they were caught. So even the 'solutions' (ie give us your money) are as bent as a bunch of bananas, as until they became legal and mandatory, they were an instrument of criminal fraud. They are still fraudulent, why, because a court said so, but they have been legalised. So we are being ripped off whether or not the governments are actually guilty of a crime as well.

 The UN are in charge of world global warming policy, mainly set by the 1992 Kyoto Protocol. Yet a few times their own spokesmen have stated it is not really genuine. From the gradually more familiar quote from their economist Ottmar Edenhoffer in 2010:


"...one 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..."

which was not a rogue statement but affirmed in 2015 by Christina Figueres, who again repeated global warming was simply the tool they used to destroy capitalism. It's that simple.

"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 that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution"

Not a word about polar bears, ice caps or sea levels. No, it's about business and money extraction.

She said it

Such a philosophy has even been published in a free book available online by the Club of Rome in 1991, 'The First Global Revolution'

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

They are not a bunch of unknown nutcases, but similar in personnel to the Bilderbergers and include the Dalai Lama, who lectures on the dangers of climate change, as now does the Pope. Why would they do that for any other reason besides believing it, unless they trace their claims back to their actual sources here.

Many of these people not in it for the money, but because they believe mankind is a cancer on the planet "The earth has a cancer, the cancer is man" Club of Rome, 1974

Yes, they said it

Again, some activists will attempt to defuse such claims, one said they were a powerless think tank. OK, let's test that claim. Who are their past and present members, who according to them, could only talk big and do nothing? Unlike the others, the Club of Rome believe so deeply in their agenda they do not keep secrets, as they want people to follow them. They are no different to the others in views and plans, just in their openness. Mikhail Gorbachev, Vaclav Havel, Pierre Trudeau, even if you just take their names as major international figures you can work out the less familiar names have the links to power directly regardless of their own statuses Club of Rome It is all on their own site but not with the longer list of names or analysis.

Finally, anyone still lagging behind, should listen to Mike Hulme, one of the top ten climate scientists working with the UN. He admitted to lying in a Guardian interview, and even had the barefaced cheek to justify it with a scientific (like astrology is scientific) theory, 'Post-Normal Science'. Created by professional liars (as they promote lying to fulfil ends, much like Goebbels and Bernays), Funtowicz and Ravetz, he clearly stated how it works as:

" 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."

To analyse it based on the words rather than any implied intentions, to whittle it down he said "We need things to change, and are bound to lie to make it happen". That of course is not science, but fraud, so he has admitted, as a top climatologist, both he and his entire consensus is fraudulent. How else can you interpret it?

Original list of quotes with sources 

Proof our governments are crooks

Now had I told people in the evening news that carbon trading had been created by a gas company to cripple the opposition and then stride in and replace the banned coal with gas you'd say I was quoting a poor B movie.

If I went on to say it was then created by a company guilty of the greatest and longest standing organised fraud in the 20th century, collecting millions over many years with no suspicion until a small accounting glitch was traced to a slush fund of stolen money you'd say either I was blowing smoke or if you can't trust those who created a system you can't trust the entire system it's working in.

Enron created carbon trading and credits to create false profits initially to fool the shareholders for a couple of years to hide a massive black hole in their accounts. The future energy profits they included in their accounts attracted so much new investment even when trading recovered a couple of years later then they found the fake side had drawn in so much money it became their primary trade. No one questioned it, as the new money flowing each year guaranteed enough to pay investors a good rate while the directors removed the rest. There was no product, and carbon trading was carried out to penalise the opposition to pave the way for a gas takeover, which also happened gradually to this day.

In the end though they were found out, and while the court sent them all down for running a huge organised scam, the scam was sold to Al Gore and Bill Clinton before they were caught, who then took it on as the law and spread the system across half the world, even though it was proven in a criminal court to be fraudulent.

If the person you have always bought from at a discount turned out to be selling stolen goods, would you still trust them and buy the same things from a new seller when he had been sent to jail, or not touch anything to do with them again? If your investment company you had half a million invested in was caught running a Ponzi scheme but had not lost it yet, would you leave your money in it or take the lot out immediately? I presume every single person would avoid every scheme proved fraudulent, so why do most people support this one as it's actually been created by a bunch of crooks at the highest level and labelled fraud by America's criminal courts? Doesn't that mean you are supporting a fraudulent system and everyone involved in it today must also be criminals as the system is now legal but still 100% dishonest as it was deemed to be obtaining financial benefits by deception, and running both a version of a pyramid and Ponzi scheme. It is proven in law yet it goes on and at least half the people here want more of it.

Stop press, climate scientists believed to be fraudulent!

We regularly (daily) get accusations of the relatively few scientists who disagree with the official view that they have been paid off by the Koch brothers/big oil. Whether or not this is the case it accepts scientists can and maybe are being bribed to produce specific results.

This is very good. It is the first step. Once they accept scientists can and almost certainly are being bribed and do not follow the data but twist it to suit an agenda we can get going. If you then ta...ke their connected claim 97% of the scientists agree with the official view, most if not all get their money from governments, pressure groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, and of course big oil (BP, Shell, Rockefeller, Soros etc, all major investors in both fossil fuel, and renewables, as there are now very few actual oil companies as they deliver energy by any profitable means).

Now we've accepted the principle scientists can be paid off (their claim re Willie Soon, Don Easterbrook, Richard Lindzen etc, all top level professors), is it possible to believe only those against the grain are the crooks, or it could be absolutely any of them?

We often fail to see the obvious even when it is regularly laid out in front of you, and it even took me this long to see this totally direct assumption that qualified scientists can be fraudulent by those on the believing side as well, something the others have said since the start, mainly as plenty of them have simply admitted it (whether directly or in hacked emails), something they on the other hand, have always denied assiduously. Except, they haven't. They simply said 'It's only the ones we disagree with who must be paid off, ours are perfect, look, even 97% of them agree'. But what they unanimously have no said, something they always have claimed but never said, is 'All scientists except rare rogue individuals, are above bribery and corruption'. No, they have simply said all scientists who disagree with them (3% or closer to 50% if you look into it more deeply) are corrupt, but ours of course are perfect. This can only be an illusion (just like the 97%, which is entirely fraudulent as based on about 79/4000 respondents to a single general question who fully agreed and were specifically qualified) as if scientists are corruptible, using deduction, any scientist can be. Not mine, yours or the rogue who is only their own man. There is no other possible formula. Those shouting the loudest that highly qualified climate scientists are fraudulent are the very people who claim they are perfect, above all other professions proven to contain organised fraud- medicine (lysenkoism, eugenics), banking (Libor, Forex and gold price manipulation), the top police (Hillsborough), and science itself (heliocentrism, stomach ulcers, continental drift), although in science in continental drift the problem was in fact not fraud, but mass incompetence, as the consensus of scientists at the time (well over 99%) believe the continents were fixed in place, until, as often happens, one person working alone demonstrated all the others, the overwhelming consensus in fact, all equally or even more highly qualified and specialised, were totally wrong. As with the cause of stomach ulcers, a simple bacteria.

But we have crossed the line into a resolution. Climate scientists are accepted by everyone on both side as being potentially fraudulent. Disagreeing on their identity simply requires the normal evidential process, with confessions, however gained (as we are not in a courtroom), being the highest level besides provenly altered data. Hiding the decline, and Michael Mann's tree ring saga, where he left out every single tree ring except the one which created the hockey stick slope, were two such perfectly crafted examples. The 4-5 wavy lines showing temperature vastly increasing in the late 20th century all snaked across the screen except the yellow one, which stopped about 1960, and turned out that was the one which didn't in fact rise, so was simply cut off before it fell, contradicting the others and creating doubt and uncertainty, and hid the decline.

Deciding which ones are crooks is going to be a whole lot easier than proving the believers accept they can be. That is a done job.