Huge climategate subterfuge by British media today!

Dear fellow ATS members,

It seemed like a conventional Sunday afternoon. Cappuccino, broadsheet and a little alternative rock playing in the background. Little did I know that I was about to be violently bludgeoned over the head with the uncompromising flagrancy of bias, corruption and the brazen entrenching of a globalist agenda into the collective psyche of an unsuspecting public.

My grievance is with the a series of articles covered in today’s Independent on Sunday. Fortunatley the articles a freely available on their official website (saving me the hassle of scanning, uploading and attaching).

Let’s start with the article entitled “One world, one agenda”.
SOURCE

The governments of all the main economies in the world have agreed that the greenhouse effect must be mitigated. The talks are now about the how, not the whether. The huge fuss over the University of East Anglia emails is the deceptive dying twitch of the sceptics. The folly of climate researchers in massaging their data has given brief new life to a conspiracy theory, which remains absurd, as Joss Garman argues on page 41.

So, it’s about the ‘how’ and not the ‘whether’? In other words, opposition is to be afforded little or no consideration.

So, the East Anglia emails are ‘the deceptive dying twitch of the sceptic’. From what hell did this cantankerous and belligerent language spawn? The content and agenda of the East Anglia emails were of a deceptive disposition but somehow now, the mainstream media are ingratiating that the deception at hand is but a product of the skeptics. Is the infantile ‘I know you are but what am I’ the best defense this publication can offer? The exceedingly selective choice of words such as ‘fuss’, ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘absurd’ are all equally dismissive of a sincere opposition.

The Copenhagen summit is a hugely important moment in the history of global co-operation to meet a common threat.

Global co-operation to meet a common threat? Are you kidding me? Does this publication honestly presuppose it’s readership and the general public to be sufficiently unwitting and unlearned enough to swallow this tripe? Such an international beckon in terms of magnitude is preceded only by the repercussions of 911. The only austere disparity between the call to heed for unification for 911 and Copenhagen is that the word ‘terrorist’ has replaced with ‘carbon’ and subsequent formation of the word ‘truther’ has been replaced with ‘denier’.

Next article: “Climate change conspiracies: Stolen emails used to ridicule global warming.”
SO URCE

Climate sceptics are blamed for disrupting crucial negotiations.

Cunningly, this tip-toes around the fact that the negotiations are obsolete if the skeptics are proven to be veritable.

But climate sceptics, seeking anything to break the scientific consensus, have seen the stolen emails as manna from heaven.

Eh? Last I checked it was the United Nations’ Earth Charter that was using global warming and carbon taxation as a springboard for the consolidation of all major world religions to make way for their Gaia centric world religion.

Gordon Brown referred on Friday to "behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-Earth climate sceptics".

Can anyone else spot the motif here? That is it. This corrupt agenda and its advocates grand ‘Pièce de résistance’ is name calling. Charming, isn’t it?


[edit on 6-12-2009 by rexusdiablos]

The final article: Joss Garman: Climate change deniers cost the earth
SOURCE

Hardliners around the English-speaking world who ignore the evidence for global warming will pay a heavy political price.

When science fails queue the political fear mongering.

Clearly this theory is undiluted lunacy.

A further exhibition of this publications complete and utter condescension and disparagement for the oppositional ‘lunatics’.

I find it extraordinary that the Conservatives Andrew Tyrie and Daniel Hannan, James Delingpole of The Daily Telegraph and Fraser Nelson of The Spectator have gambled their reputations on a conspiracy theory supported by the flimsiest of evidence.

Perhaps it’s something to do with the fact they believe that it's your consensus is ‘supported by the flimsiest of evidence’ and not yours.

Pardon my nausea but I honestly can’t sift through the claptrap and twaddle that this publication is feigning as balanced debate any longer. Let me know what you think.


[edit on 6-12-2009 by rexusdiablos]

It is sickening and almost pathetic these evil people chose to operate. It is becoming so obvious what is going on they look like little children. Calling skeptics, conspiracy theorists and dismissing those e-mails as not relevant in the discussion. It really sad isn't it?

The question I have: Are we becoming smarter, or are they becoming more desperate?

reply to post by ExPostFacto


Interesting question. I'm of the belief that we're becoming more aware which in itself is a form of intelligence. Are TPTB becoming desperate? Personally speaking, I don't think so. I'd imagine they have contingency after contingency on standby. Surely they elite would not be elite if they only ever had a 'Plan A', right?


[edit on 6-12-2009 by rexusdiablos]

By eliminating external enemies (we are all citizens of ONE state) they can now concentrate exclusively on "fighting" those restless slaves who don't comply. We shall yet see the fireworks of Hell in the coming days.

reply to post by DangerDeath


I agree. Folks are finally beginning to wake up to the lies of the mainstream media.

It's beyond me how the authors of the above articles are so willing to sell out their own species. They're educated enough to know the difference.


[edit on 6-12-2009 by rexusdiablos]

reply to post by rexusdiablos


All the agw zealots have is name calling. Saying something is absurd, without explaining why. AGW is just a faith, a religion.

Why did algore suddenly change his mind on speaking, when we all know he is an ego maniac like so many of these public elites.

It's all about the end game, a new one world government to be created in Copenhagen in a few days.

reply to post by andy1033


I'm guessing he's otherwise engaged combating Man-Bear-Pig.

Jokes aside, Al Gore isn't one to shy away from the limelight or a considerable pay lest he has a valid reason to.

reply to post by factbeforefiction


Well, as my OP should highlight, it's easy to achieve what you've described so long as you have directive control over the main stream media.

Originally posted by rexusdiablos

So, the East Anglia emails are ‘the deceptive dying twitch of the sceptic’. From what hell did this cantankerous and belligerent language spawn? The content and agenda of the East Anglia emails were of a deceptive disposition but somehow now, the mainstream media are ingratiating that the deception at hand is but a product of the skeptics.

It's telling that you have based your claim on what somebody has told you. Where did that info come from? Did you read through all of those e-mails yourself to come to that conclusion? I doubt it because those claims and conclusions are highly suspect as this will help you understand:

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by rexusdiablos


There's an interesting article in todays Daily Mail. They are claiming that it could be hackers working for the KGB who were responsible for the hacked emails.

Russia – one of the world’s largest producers and users of oil and gas – has a vested interest in opposing sweeping new agreements to cut emissions, which will be discussed by world leaders in Copenhagen tomorrow.

Russia believes current rules are stacked against it, and has threatened to pull the plug on Copenhagen without concessions to Kremlin concerns.
The Mail on Sunday understands that the hundreds of hacked emails were released to the world via a tiny internet server in a red brick building in a snow-clad street in Tomsk.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Also looks like most people are still not buying into the man made global warming BS. Looks like the con artists will have to try as little bit harder if they want to convince us all.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Another interesting article - what our leaders aren't telling us, but what's new.

Copenhagen Agreement on Climate Change–Beginning World Government

Lord Christopher Monckton. The former adviser to Margaret Thatcher gave an address at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota, earlier this month that made quite a splash. For the first time, the public heard about the 181 pages, dated Sept. 15, that comprise the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—a rough draft of what could be signed come December.

So far there have been more than a million hits on the YouTube post of his address. It deserves millions more because Lord Monckton warns that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a transnational "government" on a scale the world has never before seen.

The "scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention" that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a "government." The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.

The reason for the power grab is clear enough: Clause after complicated clause of the draft treaty requires developed countries to pay an "adaptation debt" to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that "by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]."

And how will developed countries be slugged to provide for this financial flow to the developing world? The draft text sets out various alternatives, including option seven on page 135, which provides for "a [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties." Annex 1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada.

To be sure, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a U.N. body responsible for implementing treaty obligations. But the difference is that this treaty appears to have been subject to unusual attempts to conceal its convoluted contents. And apart from the difficulty of trying to decipher the U.N. verbiage, there are plenty of draft clauses described as "alternatives" and "options" that should raise the ire of free and democratic countries concerned about preserving their sovereignty.

Lord Monckton himself only became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government when a friend found an obscure U.N. Web site and searched through several layers of hyperlinks before discovering a document that isn't even called the draft "treaty." Instead, it's labelled a "Note by the Secretariat."

Interviewed by broadcaster Alan Jones on Sydney radio Monday, Lord Monckton said "this is the first time I've ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a 'government.' But it's the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening." He added: "The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start—that's even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do."

online.wsj.com...

waronyou.com...


Read full document here
therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com...



[edit on 6-12-2009 by kindred]

reply to post by jthomas


Intermittent question as I watch it: what conspiracy theories do you actually believe in?

reply to post by kindred


Thanks for those. The Russian angle is interesting and plausible though even if it is the case I still don't think it negates the fact that AGW is being used a vehicle for a globalist power play by the elite.

reply to post by jthomas


Alritey, good video. I understand his stance and I'm presuming that you've adopted his conclusion as your own.

Here's what I've based my own conclusion on:

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999 "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009 "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003 “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.”

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008 "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."

From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004 "Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future."

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004 "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Climate Research journal e-mail of 11 Mar 2003: "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

reply to post by rexusdiablos


Yeah! I agree, everyone has their own agenda for doing things, but it's obvious that the CRU, internationally recognised as one of the most important sources of information on the rise in global temperatures has been caught red handed fixing their climate data.

www.infowars.com...

You only have to look at the main profiteers from all of this to see it's a load of BS.

Sydney, Australia - Rothschild Australia and E3 International are set to become key players in the international carbon credit trading market, an emerging commodity market that analysts estimate could be worth up to US$150 billion by 2012.

www.australiamatters.com...

Originally posted by rexusdiablos
reply to post by jthomas

 

Alritey, good video. I understand his stance and I'm presuming that you've adopted his conclusion as your own.

Here's what I've based my own conclusion on:

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999 "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009 "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003 “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.”

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008 "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."

From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004 "Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future."

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004 "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Climate Research journal e-mail of 11 Mar 2003: "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

I see you weren't paying attention to the video.

Originally posted by rexusdiablos
reply to post by jthomas

 

Intermittent question as I watch it: what conspiracy theories do you actually believe in?

None.

Originally posted by rexusdiablos

Little did I know that I was about to be violently bludgeoned over the head with the uncompromising flagrancy of bias, corruption and the brazen entrenching of a globalist agenda into the collective psyche of an unsuspecting public.

I had a similar experience when discovering the lack of discourse, and bias of whatever small sliver of comment there's been in The New Scientist Magazine. It happened again with Al Jazeera.

Institutions you once trusted can now be measured by their responses to Climategate. The BBC, ITV, CH4 SKY CNN have all been overrun for years but I still had some hope for The Indepepndent in print and Al Jazeera on the tube. The vast majority of the media are barely even trying to hide in plain sight anymore. Their globalist loyalties are blatant.

We've had some recent victories though, Lord Monckton, the Aussie political situation, and Al Gore cancelling his visit. I think, I hope, enough doubt has been sown, and enough eyes are watching that the plan to get everyone to sign up to this treaty is going to fail this time. There are going to be a lot less signatories than they had originally planned for. Unfortunately I think the UK are going to be one of the first to sign.

The one thing that is of concern to me is the Obama situation. I really hope he's not going to use these new ALH 84001 results to announce to the world that there is 'life beyond Earth' right at the moment we need to be watching Copenhagen for some very dirty underhand political manouvres, and possibly the loss of our freedoms and soveriegnties.

reply to post by jthomas


boy oh boy, sounds like you can't read very well.

the emails are as clear as day.

your employer is going down, time to jump off the ship dont you think?



[edit on 6-12-2009 by vermonster]