The IPCC and Its 800 - 2,000yr Bloomer

Have you been keeping up with the daily propaganda from the fraudsters promoting taxes on CO2 emissions as the only solution to saving the planet? (read: filling their pockets)

Then please allow me to point out a scientific truth (no, I am not a scientists, merely old and angry) but this was accepted as being a scientific fact, in the British High Court, by bot the makers of, Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth and the Government scientists. In the film, Al Gore, claimed the 12,000 ear ice cores showed that rising levels of CO2 are followed by identical rises in the levels of CO2, and he produced a graph to prove it. However, upon examination it was revealed that the opposite was true (now there's a surprise) and the ice cores showed that over the 12,000 year period, rising global temperatures gradually warmed the oceans causing them to produce, 800 -2,000 years later, identical rises in CO2 levels. The judge concluded, Mr Gore appeared to have 'inadvertently' reversed the science.

So, we know that rising global temperatures, not you driving your car, or burning fossil fuels, cause identical rises in CO2 levels, and bear in mind that man produces only 1/33rd of CO2 emissions, that in 1,069,6000 molecules of air, 94% of which are water vapour, only 396 are CO2. Of those three-hundred and ninety-six CO2 per million air molecules, nature produces, 384 of them and Man the other 12.

Yes, they ask you to believe that man's 12 molecules of CO2 in a million plus molecules of air are the cause of global warming, even though it was proved a lie in the High Court, but the reality is far worse.

Every CO2 reading used by NASA and the IPCC bear no relation to current global temperatures.

They know that today's CO2 levels are the result of the global temperatures that prevailed 800 - 2,000 years earlier, 12 AD - 1212 AD, the ice cores say so.

They, the green energy pirates are robbing us blind. We must jail the lot of them and confiscate their property and wealth.

We want our energy back!

but

Unforseen Repercussions of Sexual Equality Act

Seems to me that the perverts of New Labour, in their haste to prepare school kids to accept sexual advances from homosexuals as 'normal' as the same sex relationships they openly promote using 'gay' propoganda, have overlooked the consequences.

Anyone objecting or expressing their distaste for the flaunting by gays of their sexuality are labeled homophobic, and risk being prosecuted under criminal law.

Dissent is not allowed in New Labour's communist police state, which brings me to my quandary?

If, as the Government declares, in between robbing us blind, that all sexual orientations are equally valid, and to discriminate against them is a 'crime', perhaps they would care to outline their plans to offer the same protection under the law to paedophiles?

Is the Government at risk of being sued as paedophobic? Or by Heterosexuals for being Heterophobic?

Will local authorities fund Paedophile or Heterophobic Marches, or does Government support for celebrations of sexual orientation extend only to Gay Marches?

Anyone, who isn't a complete and utter dipstick, would insist that a person's sexuality, gay or straight, is their own private affair and should have no part to play in job selection etc.

Yes, there are people who find public displays of homosexuality, offensive, but to make that a 'crime', is even more so.

Insisting that the unnatural is natural, does not make it so. Quentin Crisp described homosexuality as 'this dreadful disease'.

If it was not for the the Government promoting 'this dreadful disease' as natural, wouldn't we be looking for a cure?

Has Cameron Lost the Plot?

It seems almost impossible to believe that anyone, including Mr. Bean, could fail to trounce the New Labour Government yet, Dopey David Cameron's touchy feely, left wing PC policies have driven the electorate away in droves.

Four fifteen years we have been subjected to a government without morals or scruple; a government composed of members of, The Fabian Society. They have brought Britain to its knees deliberately with a secret policy of subversion using mass immigration.

It is text book Fabian policy for Heaven's sake, yet through it all the Conservatives remanied silently impotent. Even the allegation that Lord Kinnock sought Russia's help in defeating Margaret Thatcher, and handed former Russian President, Mikhail Gorbachev an enevlope containing details of our nuclear defences, has failed to stir Cameron from his lethargy and demand an investigation into these allegations of treason.

But the real damage to the Conservative Party has been caused by their leader David Cameron.

The majority of the electorate are sick and tired of being bullied and decieved by the liar Gordon Brown and his wretched Government.

They are furious at being pushed into and being dictated to by the EU without the promised referendum

They are furious to see how immigrants are being given benfits and housing, nursemaided by a Government that claims it is to impoverished to care for our own people, who are left to fend for themselves.

They have grown weary of hearing of 'diversity', 'health and safety', political correcteness, and the failure to scrap The Human Rights Act or defend our countries borders.

They were crying out for deliverance, for a leader who would apply fairness and common sense.

"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: if I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations.
"No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum."
David CameronHis lead in the polls began to climb.

"We will scrap The Human Rights Act and replace it with a written constitution based on the principles contained in the Magna Carta." David Cameron

His lead rose even further, until . . .'Scrapped!': Cameron's cast-iron guarantee of a referendum on Europe.

Scrapped: Cameroen's, "We will scrap The Human Rights Act . . ."

The Conservative lead in the opinion polls begins to fall.

“Action Plan for Candidate Selection in Safe Seats, Blueprint” A confidential blueprint for David Cameron's controversial bid to impose more women, gays and ethnic candidates on reluctant party activists has come to light.
The document suggests using 'stealth' and stresses the importance of keeping 'quiet' over the plans to ensure more women, ethnic and gay candidates. 'Like a conjuror, we'll get more applause if the audience cannot see exactly how the trick is performed,' the document says.

The Conservatives lead in the polls plunge.

The British People have had enough of political stealth and deception, from New Labour. Most believe that jobs should be awarded on merit, and that colour, gender, sexual orientation, should have no part to play in the employment process.

David Cameron must be either completely out of touch with the mood of the elctorate, or a complete and utter idiot who failed to see how such a policy would alienate the very voters he seeks to attract.

David Cameron has, or so the disgruntled voters believe, revealed the truth that there is little discernable difference between any of the mainstream political parties. They are all unprincipled opportunists and simply not worth the effort of voting for.

However, I would argue that as we are a democracy, the last in Europe, we really should elect our own government rather that have the unelected and insane Parliament of Brussells thrust upon us.

Use your vote and vote for UKIP and let us take our country back!

The Angry Old Git

IPPC Lies and a Communist Conspiracy

When the UN decided to impose a wealth reditribution tax upon the West to benefit third world countries, during their, 'African Review', two alternatives were discussed.

The first was a 'Tobin' tax, named after the economist, James Tobin, which advocates imposing a tax on all trading transactions. However, it was decided that it would be too difficult to implement and enforce.

And so it was decided to impose a tax on carbon dioxide emmissions, because the theoretical greenhouse gas lobbyists, the Green Movement, were already claiming that CO2 emissions were contributing to the 'Greenhouse Effect' and warming the planet.

However, as there was no scientific proof that anthropogenic activity had an impact on global temperatures, the UN decided to set up the International Panel on Climate Change to find the proof required.

When the scientific data from around the globe challenged their required findings, the IPCC scrapped or ignored any conflicting evidence and turned to climate change computers. This was a shrewd move for comuters can only output the data fed into it, corrupt the data and you can cause it to reach any conclusion the operators wish.

Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on brainwashing the worlds population into believing three major lies.

1. That rising CO2 levels cause identical rises in global temperatures.
(Fact: established in British Court: The 650,000 year old ice-cores show that fluctuating global temperatures cause the oceans to produce identical levels of CO2 which lag behind them by 800 -2,000 years.)

2. That it is man's contribution of 1/3 of 1% to the total CO2 levels, by the burning of fossil fuels, has put the planet on the brink of disaster.
(94% of Greenhouse gasses is water vapour, and no scientist had the vaguest idea how it effects global temperatures, yet the IPCC claim to know how our 0.0002% of CO2 emissions will cause disaster.)

3. That unless we allow them to dictate, when,where, and how much CO2 we can use (for a price), the planet is doomed!
(Fact: The IPCC have been forced to admit that the Hockey Stick and Tree Ring Graphs were faked, that the data fed into their computer climate models was cherry picked and altered, that only those 'on message' would be allowed to review their findings. Now 24th Jan 2010 it has been forced to admit that there is no scientific evidence to substantiate their claim that natural disasters are the result of climate change.)

Comment.
They have built a billion dollar industry by reverting to Hitler's strategy of using the BIG lie, reinforced by unlimited propoganda and outright lies.

Carbon Trading Permits are a fraud with no value to the planet or to mankind. Selling fresh air permits has forced up the price of all commodities and our energy, giving the third world countries manufacturing industries a huge advantage over our own.

Countries, ike my own, Britain, have been betrayed by its slimeball politicians.

It is time to bring them to book.

Christianity IS Under Attack.2.

Brown’s ‘Fabian’ dominated Government has unleashed its resident harridan, Harriett Harman in an assault designed destroy religious freedom in Britain.

Under the guise of ‘equality’, all religions will have to allow women to become priests.

The legislation bars religions from demanding that their employees live the lifestyle that are consistent with the spiritual, or moral beliefs of the faith.

An adulteress, liar, gay person or philanderer could not be barred or criticised over their lifestyles, or barred from office because of them.

In other words Harriet Harman is saying that those employed in any capacity by a religious faith or organisation, must be allowed the same rights of unethical behaviour as herself and fellow MPs.

Make no mistake, Harman is a member of, The Fabian Society, as is Gordon Brown, his Ministers, and 300 New Labour MP’s. They are actively using the philosophy of subversion, the hallmark of, The Fabian Society, to destroy all of our traditions, our freedoms and our Country. They are in truth, communists and hate everything that Britain used to stand for, especially its magnificent history, and its Christian foundations.

Harman, and her fellow band of plotters have only one goal left to achieve, the abolition of religion, ‘Religion is the opium of the people,” Karl Marx.

Ask what new thing has New Labour brought to Britain, and I will show you only betrayal, evil and lies.

They have stolen , our freedoms, abolished freedom of speech, used mass immigration to disenfranchise us from our own country, just as China did in Tibet.

They have abolished justice and created a police state, and pilloried those who dared to protest.

They are engaged in swindling us all with taxes imposed on CO2 emmissions, while knowing, it was proved in a British Court, that the 650,000 year old ice-cores show that CO2 levels are created by the global temperatures precceding them by about 800 to 2,000 years. Yes, it was the historic global temperatures of Medieval Warm Period, that forced the oceans to create more CO2 that takes hundred of years to register. Al Gore had reversed the science in order to decieve us; just as both the Hockey Stick, and Tree Ring Graphs were faked too. The entire science of global warming was, and still is, based on lies and the useless climate computer models, of the UN's IPCC.

It was during the UN's 'Africa Review' that the UN discussed the idea of using man's contribution (one-third-of-one-percent ) of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to frighten people into believing it was their burning of fossil fuels that had created a sudden (and non existant) upward surge in global temperatures, which would, unless we reduce our energy, destroy the planet.

The taxes imposed on energy and CO2 emmissions are to encourage us to do so, while making the bankers who financed the politicians, billions of dollars through the sale of fresh air, that's Cap and Trade permits if you're one of the swindlers involved, and also allows politicians to dicate how much energy we will be permitted to use, and when. You may well have noticed that every Government action regarding energy production and its use, results in even higher bills for fuel and food.

"Putting cheap, renewable energy into the reach of the people, would be like handing a baby a machine gun." The politicians would not allow us cheap and renewable energy for it would break their hold over us. That is why tankers full of oil are anchored in British Territorial waters, waiting for the price of oil to go up before docking and unloading their cargo. A patriotic British government would have them escorted to the docks by the navy forced them to unload.

But now, more scientists have rubbisged the CO2 scam by proving that the climate changes over a thirty - forty year cycle dependant on the temperatures of the oceans and nothing to do with CO2.
Apparently at the moment the magnetic North Pole is galloping South, and thus causing record cold temperatures around the world; an is liable to do so for the next thirty years - if we're lucky. If not we're in for another, and now overdue ice-age.

But Gordon Brown, in his madness, plans to spend 75bn on windfarms, which is pure lunacy.

Which party will stride forward and stop the Global Warming/climate change scam. Stop all paymenets to an unelected EU, and close the doors on immigration.

Let me know, and I'll vote for them.

Is Hilary Benn, Quite Mad?

Hilary Benn, the dictatorial Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is backing rubbish churned out by, ‘on the climate change message’ scientists, that we cut down on meat consumption and cull most of the cattle to save the planet and save the world from flooding.

Well, I have news for this blathering nincompoop, Hilary Benn, (didn’t he used to be one of the flowerpot men?) the planet is not in any danger from man’s activities whatsoever, but man is in imminent danger from crackpot and unscrupulous politicians like him, who cannot be bothered to check the science, but accept as gospel the faked data of the IPCC.

For his information, (as if he doesn't know), “The Government’s expert was forced to concede that Al Gore’s statement of imminent sea level rises of 7 metres, as shown in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, was untrue, and that should the current trend of rising global temperatures continue, sea levels may rise by 40cm in a hundred-years.

“The Governments expert was forced to concede that Al Gore’s statement that the 650,000 year-old ice cores show that over 650,000 years rising CO2 levels caused identical rises in global temperatures.

The court held that the opposite was true, and that CO2 levels lagged behind global temperature fluctuation by 800 – 2,000 years.

Rising global temperatures force the oceans to produce more CO2.

Not only is there any logical reason for CO2 to cause global warming, there is ample proof that it does not. And man’s 0.002% contribution is too insignificant resist being absorbed and by water vapour, which at 94% is the most prolific greenhouse gas.

Take a look at the graph above, (courtesy of: www.friendsofscience.org) and see how rising CO2, levels, caused by the global temperatures of 800 – 2,000 years ago, the Medieval Warm Period, never vary as they rise, but you can plainly see that fluctuating global temperatures ignore CO2 levels completely. Note the pink line demonstrating a fall in global temperatures over the last decade. Yet, according to the climate change liars, rising CO2 levels cause rising global temperatures.

Now, Hilary Benn, he of the dustbin men, is rather fond of shooting off his mouth in an attempt to make himself appear important.

I would remind him of the old saying.

“It is better to say nothing and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and prove it.”

What Kind of Monster Are You, Mr Brown?

At a time when Britain’s economy is in a state of collapse through either your mismanagement or by deliberate design, in line with your Fabian philosophy of subversion from within, you are now pledging £6billion pounds to third world countries on the basis of your criminal deception over CO2 emissions.


Both you and Blair embrace the Fabian tactic of saying one thing while actually doing the opposite.

"We are at present working ... with all our might to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local states of the world. And all the time, we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands."
Arnold Toynbee, well-known British historian, Fabian, and member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (the British equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations).


During June, July and August this year you created another 230,000 public servants, the exact opposite of your pledge to reduce their numbers.


Both you and Blair pledged to end the scandal of forcing the elderly to sell their homes in order to pay for their care, 30,000 people a year are still being forced to sell their homes. Though you did give away £10+billio in foreign aid.


Both you and Blair removed our right of freedom of speech under the pretext of protecting the feelings of aliens settling here.

You have corrupted our children, attacked our history and traditions, and are currently brainwashing children and their parents into accepting the unproven and insane theory of anthropogenic global warming as being a scientific fact.

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits . . . [Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
-- Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998.


"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."
Richard Benedict, Clinton State Department employee, working on assignment from the Conservation Foundation.


"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."
Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank consultants to the United Nations


And sure enough, look what happened next:

UN panel suggests new international taxes to help fund development

By Jullyette Ukabiala


As aid from rich countries slides further, a UN independent panel on development financing recently proposed new ways of raising more funds to rescue millions of people from poverty -- most of them in sub-Saharan Africa. In 1999, donor countries gave just $12 bn to the region as official development assistance (ODA), $6 bn less than they gave in 1995. Such aid, even at its peak, fell far short of the continent's needs.
The panel, chaired by former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, was set up by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to identify innovative methods for raising the estimated $50 bn needed yearly to implement the UN's commitments to poverty reduction and sustainable growth in developing countries. Its recommendations will be considered by the UN conference on financing for development, to be held in Monterrey, Mexico, in March 2002.

Among the proposals are taxes on the consumption of fossil fuels and on international currency transactions. The panel urges new ways to boost aid and investment flows to poor countries, and to assist countries raise funds from within their own economies through better political and economic management, including by improving their ability to collect domestic taxes. Such efforts would be supported by the establishment of an international tax organization and the holding of a summit that would address problems arising from globalization, the panel stated.
Members agreed that reversing the widening and "shameful" gap between rich and poor countries "is the pre-eminent moral and humanitarian challenge of our age." And sub-Saharan Africa, they noted, should be a priority. "Nowhere is a global commitment to poverty reduction needed more than in this region. Sub-Saharan Africa has the largest proportion of people living on less than one dollar a day, and indeed, its people are almost as poor as they were 20 years ago."

A currency tax
Combating poverty, the panel argued, requires the provision of vital services which strengthen social and political stability, such as peacekeeping, healthcare facilities and programmes for environmental protection -- described collectively as "global public goods." To secure the enormous amount of money needed yearly for that, it said a global system of taxation is necessary, either through a currency transaction tax or a tax on the consumption of fossil fuels.
A currency transaction tax, also known as a "Tobin tax" -- named after Yale University economist James Tobin, who first proposed it -- would have individual countries collect a "small tax" of between 0.1 and 0.5 per cent on all foreign exchange transactions in their national currencies anywhere in the world. With the total value of such transactions currently put at $1,600 bn a day, up to $400 bn yearly would be raised at a minimum tax rate of 0.1 per cent. Each country would keep part of the revenue collected and release the remainder to international agencies funding global public goods.
The panel noted that such a tax could have a side benefit of helping to curb potentially damaging speculative buying and selling of currencies -- aimed at making profit later when prices change. Such "gambling" was in part blamed for the devastating capital outflows that plunged Southeast Asian countries into economic crisis in 1997-98.
The Tobin tax has been criticized on the grounds that it could be evaded, might not actually yield the expected benefits and could unwittingly hurt global economic growth by discouraging financial transactions of all kinds. However, several major industrial nations have voiced support for the tax, which is also backed by a growing coalition of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The panel decided that "further rigorous technical study is needed" before any conclusions could be reached on its feasibility. Ms. Robin Round, policy analyst for the Halifax Initiative -- one of the NGOs promoting the tax -- told Africa Recovery that the call for further study "gives us an important opening to educate more people about the promises of a Tobin tax and to keep pushing for the consensus necessary to adopt it."


Taxing fuel consumption
The Zedillo panel also proposed a tax on the consumption of fossil fuels. Support for such a "carbon tax" has been growing since the 1992 UN Earth Summit focused international attention on the damage to the environment caused by excessive use of fossil fuels worldwide. The release of greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, contributes to global warming and climate change.
The main energy sources that would be affected by a carbon tax include coal, petroleum, kerosene and natural gas. The tax would be reflected in an increase in their price, at a level based on the capacity of each type of fuel to emit carbon dioxide. The higher the carbon content, the higher the minimum tax rate. The tax would likely be collected by fuel vendors. Implementation would not be difficult since many countries already impose taxes on fossil fuels. An additional carbon tax, the panel hoped, should encourage consumers to shift to lower or non carbon-emitting sources of energy, such as hydro-power, solar energy and wind power.
The panel gave no estimates of how much a carbon tax could generate. Industrial countries would agree to release their carbon tax revenue to international organizations funding global public goods. Developing countries would invest their proceeds in their own economies, enabling them to increase public spending.

________________________________________

The panel members agreed that reversing the widening and "shameful" gap between rich and poor countries "is the pre-eminent moral and humanitarian challenge of our age," with sub-Saharan Africa as a priority.

________________________________________

African states, like most other countries, are heavily dependent on fossil fuels for transport and industrial activities in both urban and rural areas. A carbon tax, which would make fuel more expensive for many families, would therefore also reduce the amount of money available for food and other basic necessities. Public demonstrations in countries like Nigeria and Zimbabwe following fuel price increases also indicate that a carbon tax could aggravate social discontent and political instability.
Would such a tax be good or bad for poor African countries? Good, says Ms. Emira Woods, programme manager for development policy issues at InterAction, a US-based coalition of over 165 NGOs, many of which are involved in development and humanitarian activities in Africa. Besides helping to clean up the environment, it would provide them with more development funding, she notes. Similarly, the deputy director of the regional bureau for Africa of the UN Development Programme (UNDP), Mr. Jacques Loup, told Africa Recovery that a carbon tax in rich countries would help "boost the international resource base for aid to Africa." However, Mr. Geoffrey Mwau, an economic and social policy adviser at the UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), cautions that the benefits would be lost if the tax collected from rich countries is treated as a "substitute" for ODA.

An international tax organization
With increasing cross-border movement of goods, services and capital in the world today, states are less able to collect taxes from multinational corporations, the panel observed, bringing substantial losses in potential revenue. Pointing out that taxes have become a potential source of conflicts among states, it noted that "the taxes that one country can impose are often constrained by the tax rates of others." The lack of precise and established regulations for taxing the income of multinational corporations makes it difficult to determine which country is entitled to which tax. All that exists are "complex and in some respects arbitrary conventions," the panel said.
Several international and governmental organizations already deal with international tax issues, including a UN group of experts on international cooperation in tax matters. The panel said a new international tax organization should be created to assume all functions performed by existing institutions. It would serve as a global intergovernmental forum for international cooperation on all tax issues. It would also help resolve conflicts between countries and help them to increase tax revenue by fostering information exchanges and measures that could reduce tax evasion on investment and personal income earned at home and abroad. Funds raised could be used to increase spending on public services.
The capacity of many African states to generate income on their own is often hindered by inefficient tax collection. Mr. Loup of UNDP believes the proposed international tax organization could help African governments reform their tax policies, but it should not interfere with their authority to design their own tax systems. The real problem with the tax policies of African states has more to do with corruption, Mr. Mwau of ECA believes. Most Africans are poor and the small number of the rich from whom substantial taxes could be collected "are able to avoid taxes through corruption." For as long as that remains the case, he argues, tax reforms alone would not help Africa.

Globalizing decision-making
Existing international bodies, "largely designed for the world of fifty years ago," are no longer equipped to address problems arising from the growing interdependence of nations, the panel stated. There are no satisfactory means of dealing with global economic "shocks" and no effective way to ensure that all voices are heard. "Global economic decision-making has become increasingly concentrated in a few countries."
The panel called for the creation of a global council to lead the international community "at the highest level" in managing today's global issues. The council would be more broadly based than the Group of Seven industrialized countries or international financial institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Its decisions would not be legally binding, but it should have the political clout to promote development, encourage major international economic organizations to improve their policies and build consensus for resolving global economic and social problems. The panel recommended that the UN convene after next year's Mexico conference, a "globalization summit" of heads of state to decide on the shape and status of such a global council.
African leaders and advocacy groups have been complaining about the continent's increasing marginalization and impoverishment as a result of globalization and are not sure how the proposed global council and summit could benefit them. They "would be worthwhile," Mr. Loup said, so long as they devote adequate attention to issues that seriously affect Africa -- crippling debt, aid flows, information and communication technology, market access and the environment. Mr. Lamin Manneh, UNDP's strategic and regional programme adviser for Africa, said more needs to be known about how a global council would help resolve "the problems we face today." A special forum or channel, he argued, should be created to enable African countries to express their concerns forcefully within the new institutions. The "big problem" is that the council would not have binding legal authority, says Ms. Woods, who nevertheless remains optimistic about the potential benefits of a global council to African states.
The ECA's Mr. Mwau notes that "attempts to deal with global issues through the existing mechanisms have failed not just because the institutional arrangements for dealing with them are inadequate, but more fundamentally because there is no political will." The creation of a new global council by itself would not help unless the international community commits to enforcing the council's decisions. African states, he argues, would benefit only if they are not excluded from making those decisions.

* * * * *

The faked science: the Hockey Stick Graph, Tree Ring Graph, and cherry picked weather station data, the refusal to reveal source data, is all part of a UN plot to impose a World Socialist Government upon us, by deceit and in the name of Wealth Re-distribution.


How rich that the richest men on Earth support this deception, though not through any concern over poor African countries, but because they stand to make quadrillions of dollars selling fresh air (Cap and Trade licences.)



But you, Mr Brown, are aware of the deception over CO2 emissions.

You know that it was the global temperatures that prevailed 800 – 2,000 years ago that produced the CO2 levels of today, just as global temperatures have done for the last 650,000 years.

You know this because your own scientists were forced to admit that this is so in Court.

Your pledge of £6 billion to third world countries to reduce their CO2 emissions is nothing less than subversion of the state.

You are prepared to sacrifice our troops by denying them equipment, deny our people life-saving drugs, steal the homes of the elderly all to further you own obscene political agenda.

What kind of monster are you, Mr Brown ?