Climate Change Treaty A Precursor To Global Government? – Are you even serious in this question??

One of the most interesting topics around global climate change is the controversy it spawns. It is strangely provocative to me that something so rudimentary to our existence – our environment – is used so subversively and to manipulate the population of the earth.

On one hand, the politicians are clearly using a common concern over the changes that seem evident, to anyone with only a small portion of working cerebrum, to manipulate trade policies, exert greater control over population, and, of course, tax the hell out of the middle class. (This will be left to another posting…)

On the other hand – let’s call this the fanatical right hand just for fun – proponents of this line of thinking appear to believe that global climate change is a façade, a fake cause, a little make believe to manipulate the masses.

What interests me more is the fanatical right hand, although both of the aforementioned should concern us all, since it seems so ridiculous in its out of context line of thinking.

Case in point: I was sent a link from a friend that adamantly asserts (even though the title with the question mark would suggest a real question), “Climate Change Treaty A Precursor To Global Government?” . I read through this article with its clever links to sound bytes and video, its poorly formatted page, and its controversial political images – all taking it with a grain of salt, but trying to understand the points the article and the reference materials were making.

First off, the author writes, “Writing for World Net Daily, Dr. Jerome Corsi states”, as if to give some sort of credibility to both the blog site and the writer Jerome Corsi, which are simply this: a blog site and a writer with a Ph.D. in political science who has had recent success only with a number of controversial books. (That’s where the author of the first site gets his right to add “Dr.” to Jerome Corsi’s title, even though the blog site where Mr. C writes doesn’t even bother with this title.) Prior to that, his recent history has him working as a “financial services marketing specialist” – by which I’m not really sure how that gives him any true wisdom in the area of global climate change research; however, it is true that he sticks mostly to what he presumably knows – marketing by hype. ( I mean, c’mon… a poli-sci doctorate working as a financial service marketer – an educated con-man?)

I continued to read from both of the sites – the first link sent by my friend, and the blog site where Corsi authoritatively asserts his position – and both sites simply quoted another interesting figure, “Lord Christopher Monckton”, who has been an opponent to the idea of climate change (or at least man-induced climate change) for quite some time. Of course, Corsi writes and the first blog quotes “A former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher..” in the first sentence of both articles. From this, the first article can suggest, if questioned about its accuracy, that it only quoted this statement (plausible deniability?), while Corsi doesn’t have that luxury. If there is any foundation to this statement, I haven’t found it. Wikipedia.org displays a reference to: “James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore note in their book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming that Monckton has “no training whatsoever in science”, and criticize his asserted credentials as “unfounded self-promotion. The Daily Telegraph has described him as “a former economic adviser”.

Hmm.. so far, it would seem that this chain of wisdom, from one blog or outspoken personality to the next seems to all link together under the common denominator of “politics and finance” – certainly the largest opponent to any sort of regulation to preserve our environment over the last… oh… lets say 200 years.

Of course, I couldn’t just stop on the first sentence of each article with the knowledge that everything so far (in the first sentence!) was deceptive manipulation by means of either quoting another article and author (who I would hazard a guess, is quite intimately connected to the makers of the jonesreport.com), or simply lying outright. No. I had to tread on.

In the second sentence of – well, again, BOTH sites – the collective authors (although I did start to think that they were in fact the same author) point out a speech made under the “Minnesota Free Market Institute” banner by Monckton.

(A side note: The Minnesota Free Market Institute states on their website, that they are “dedicated to preservation of and education about free markets. We do so not because we have a partisan political ax to grind, but because, quite simply, history has proven free market capitalism, with all its flaws, is undeniably the most effective form of organization for providing the greatest good for the greatest number. ”. Now, upon review of their site, I see nothing but the fanatical right hand; however, I wouldn’t go as far as to say that this is a partisan view – just that it really isn’t fair to say that they do not have “a partisan political ax to grind”.  I thought ax was spelled “axe”, but who am I to judge?)

So, I was taken to a youtube video of Monckton’s speech on the Minnesota Free Market Institute, which appeared to be highlighting this video along with other videos of the same sort. The same tactics on presentation appeared to be used in this upscale blog site.

To recap just on the first couple sentences, we have one blog article referencing another blog article, referencing another blog with a video of a well-known sceptic. By this time, the average sheep of a human being has now been convinced that there is such an abundance of information out there that supports this theory that there is no global climate change induced by man and that it must be true. Of course, the sheep I am referring to probably has some belief structure in place already that would easily lead him or her astray. The scientific minded would take it all with a grain of salt and investigate the issue fully. But, we all have little time for that so we choose to follow those who appear to have done the work for us. We are encouraged by even Monkton in his speech to look into the research for ourselves and find the truth, while he knows very well that the vast majority will not do this and simply acquiesce out of pure laziness or the reality that life is far to busy to take a lifetime to investigate an issue like this.

The people that are not comfortable in simply agreeing with something that they can not prove to themselves without a doubt must then weigh the data they do have and use their rational minds to come up with a belief structure that seems most plausible. To me, it is most plausible that man is affecting our environment in disastrous ways. Everything I have seen leads to this most plausible conclusion and it is up to human beings everywhere to take some action. Am I positive that the planet’s climate is changing exclusively because of man? No. Is it plausible that we are contributing to global climate change? Yes. Should we do something about it? Of course! Should we simply lie down and let taxes grow exponentially among the middle class in order to fix a problem quite obviously created (directly or indirectly) by the elite and anonymous corporations? I’m sure you can answer that for yourself.

Of course, this is not even the topic of the first two articles. They simply point out that global warming is being used as an excuse to create a one-world government, by tying the sheep psychologically to the idea that one, there is a preponderance of data that supports this “lie” about global warming, and two, that a global governance of any kind is a bad thing. Why? Because those that believe that globally people are all pretty much the same and could use a global governance of some kind are diametrically opposed to those who believe that people are all different and should stay separated in every conceivable way. The great thing for politicians is that both groups are encouraged to exist in diametric opposition. Have you heard the saying, “divide and conquer”? It is a very old method for controlling the masses (the sheep) while giving them the idea that they actually have a clue.

It seems more plausible to me that a one-world government wouldn’t make any sense to the people that are supposedly controlling the world (as all of these blog writers and speakers would attest in other documentation they spew). The elite that tug on the strings of puppet countries would have no incentive to merge the world into a global one-world government. History shows that when you have too many people controlled by one group, there is inevitably a revolution and everything falls apart into smaller components.

These articles use deceptive tactics to anchor their ideas to a current global concern, thereby facilitating exactly what they assert they are revealing – mass manipulation. They become part of the problem, despite some of their ideas that may just be dead-on. Ironic, isn’t it?

24 Responses

  1. richard Says:

    The title alone of this writing “Climate Change Treaty A Precursor To Global Government? – Are you even serious in this question??” I consider to be manipulative. Right out of the gate it is implied that one cannot be taken seriously (read YOU ARE DISMISSED) if you ask this question. Why? If asked in earnest, every question should be allowed to be asked. I guarantee there are scholars of renown that take such a question seriously.

    Labelling the askers of such a question as “fanatical right” is an approach called ad hominem attack (attack the messenger),a manipulation of the worst kind.

    Also, spelling mistakes should not be used as criteria for judging someone’s intellect. Some great minds in history could hardly spell their own name. Another ad hominem attack.

    I find it interesting that the thrust of this blog is about manipulating people and yet it employs tactics of manipulation to produce the desired outcome – agreement with the writer’s ideas. As for me – it makes me want to dismiss the article even though there are some reasonable statements here.

    But I do have some thoughts. If all elements of the upcoming Copenhagen treaty pass, that IS global government. It’s not a precursor, it is. There will be global organizations and banks set up that will assign and collect carbon taxes, allot your carbon allowances, etc. These will be global entities that decide how you live your life. Sounds like global government to me.

    Also we need to understand that the people of earth coming together in a global way under their own volition is not the same as government imposed upon them principally through the mechanism of fear mongering. That will only end badly at some point. And yes, it’s irrational to try to rule the world but that has never ever stopped people from trying.

    There is a faulty implication that since man has an impact on his environment, then man’s generation of CO2 has an impact. The second does not follow from the first. There is some solid science out there that says the second is not true even though the first can be.

    Finally the writer might like to investigate David Rockefeller’s “Memoirs” in which he states he has worked tirelessy for 40 years to bring about a global government run by the banking elite. It gives one food for thought!

  2. admin Says:

    Richard, thanks for your comment and here is my response to your points:

    You wrote:

    “The title alone of this writing “Climate Change Treaty A Precursor To Global Government? – Are you even serious in this question??” I consider to be manipulative. Right out of the gate it is implied that one cannot be taken seriously (read YOU ARE DISMISSED) if you ask this question.”

    You consider my addition to the title, “Are you even serious??” as manipulative, but the point was that the title of the original article can be and, in my opinion, should be construed as manipulative in the first place. Responding with opinion, whether you consider it manipulative or not, is just that. Opinion. I do not purport to have anything else but that, but I certainly have the right to express that opinion! Don’t you agree?

    Do you actually believe the title of the original article was a question asked in earnest, as you put it? That’s not how it reads to me at all. It was rhetorical in every sense of the word. If the article was asking that question in earnest, displaying differing opinions and letting the reader decide from there, then my response would have been much different.

    I can see how you could construe my label as an “ad hominem” approach; however, I don’t agree with you. Placing a label on a group as the “fanatical right hand” is only relevant to those on the other side of that label — those who consider themselves to be outside of the fanatical right. Some of the people I would include in this group may not consider themselves “fanatical”; however, they do consider themselves “far right”. To me, there is no difference. To them, there may be. To others, it will vary. As for the “ad hominem” approach, this entails asserting that the claim made by a person of a certain characteristic must be false. In no way did I assert this, as I make it clear in the second to last sentence, that the “far right”, if you prefer, “.. become part of the problem, despite some of their ideas that may just be dead-on.” I would defend the far right perspective, or whatever you would call it given we place labels on everything to categorize groups of people, when that perspective agrees with my own and is backed with solid evidence.

    Spelling mistakes? Although I pointed out a spelling mistake, it by no way forms the gist of my opinion on the group in question.

    You state:

    “I find it interesting that the thrust of this blog is about manipulating people and yet it employs tactics of manipulation to produce the desired outcome – agreement with the writer’s ideas. As for me – it makes me want to dismiss the article even though there are some reasonable statements here.”

    That is exactly the problem with any debate. One side says the other is trying to manipulate and the other side retorts with the same argument. I guess everyone reading will have to determine which side they think is trying to manipulate and which side is trying to express opinion.

    Then, the greater problem is the tactic to “dismiss” the entire opponents argument even if there is some agreement. Although you seem to have read in to my opinion that I have done this with what I call the “fanatical right hand”, that is not the case and if that is not expressed clearly enough in the article I wrote, then here it is now. I do not dismiss everything that this well connected group proposes as untrue, but I do cite the areas that I believe they are inaccurately portraying a topic. This is such a case.

    You state:

    “But I do have some thoughts. If all elements of the upcoming Copenhagen treaty pass, that IS global government. It’s not a precursor, it is. There will be global organizations and banks set up that will assign and collect carbon taxes, allot your carbon allowances, etc. These will be global entities that decide how you live your life. Sounds like global government to me.”

    The UN is also a form of global government and as I’m sure you are aware, the people that propagate this information on a large scale also have a problem with the UN. I never argued that some global governance is not the end result of any of the propaganda machine that is coming at us from many fronts (not just on climate control), just that the extent to which this group is purporting that the world’s masses will be controlled by an open entity is fear mongering at the worst, and inaccurate at the least. The Copenhagen treaty is not what most people would define as Global Government, but I agree that there is an element of global governance. There is a big difference in the minds of the masses and to lead them down the path using that term is unfair. To reiterate my other point, why is global government even a bad thing? Is this because the view is that government as a whole is bad? If that’s the case, then we’re all pretty much screwed already, don’t you think? (I actually do.)

    My issue is with one side grasping hold of an issue that has relevance to our planet and using it as a figurehead to promote a political agenda – whether that political agenda is correct or not.

    You state:

    “Also we need to understand that the people of earth coming together in a global way under their own volition is not the same as government imposed upon them principally through the mechanism of fear mongering. That will only end badly at some point. And yes, it’s irrational to try to rule the world but that has never ever stopped people from trying.”

    I agree completely with your statement. Unfortunately, the fear mongering on all sides has to stop first before any large groups of people would even consider for a moment coming together under their own volition. (I should note here that I think it to be very plausible that we are already ruled by a small number of invisible factions, thus I find the argument of a one-world government only a tool of distraction, misplacing where the real danger lies.)

    You wrote:

    “There is a faulty implication that since man has an impact on his environment, then man’s generation of CO2 has an impact. The second does not follow from the first. There is some solid science out there that says the second is not true even though the first can be.”

    Show us that then! I would love to see this evidence, because so far it has eluded me. I also noted in the article, “Am I positive that the planet’s climate is changing exclusively because of man? No. Is it plausible that we are contributing to global climate change? Yes.” I have seen both sides of the argument on CO2 and they basically contradict each other completely. That leads to the conclusion that the science used on one or both sides of the equation are flawed. But, again, that leads to my conclusion that it is more likely that we are contributing to global climate change, than not.

    I have done a little reading about David Rockefeller and will continue to do so. Do you actually have the book and where does it contain the statement “bring about a global government run by the banking elite.” He is certainly a globalist in the public eye, but did he actually write what you say? To reiterate something I mentioned earlier, it seems plausible that his family and other invisible figures already exercise an amazing control over world affairs. That begs the question, does he really, truly want a one-world government on the forefront, or is that just a clever manoeuvre to exact more control behind the scenes by inciting nationalistic fervour.

    Great comments. Thanks Richard!

  3. Dave Says:

    This article is interesting and somewhat related, but you need to be a member:

    http://www.welovecostarica.com/members/You_Cant_Handle_The_Truth.cfm

  4. Dave Says:

    I watched the video of Monkton and although there could be a few facts intermixed with his outright lies, I find the whole of his argument rather disconcerting — only because people seem to be taking him at face value… or at least some. Not to say that they should take Al Gore or any other contrarian viewpoint to Monkton at face value either, but check out the facts and of course the reliability and credibility of the pundits (on all sides). Here are a few old links I found about Monkton that show not only a contrary view, but seemingly an exposition of lies that he has apparently been spreading for quite some time. The one that struck me as unnerving was his claim in this video as being a Nobel prize winner along with Al Gore. Of course, I’d love to see some links to show the same exposed lies in Gore, for example.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/monckton_watch.php

    http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-could-do-this-all-day.html

  5. Andy Says:

    You state:
    It seems more plausible to me that a one-world government wouldn’t make any sense to the people that are supposedly controlling the world (as all of these blog writers and speakers would attest in other documentation they spew). The elite that tug on the strings of puppet countries would have no incentive to merge the world into a global one-world government. History shows that when you have too many people controlled by one group, there is inevitably a revolution and everything falls apart into smaller components.

    In my opinion you just dequalified your entire article with this statement. No incentive?? Como on!!!!

    Of course there is climate change. Its been going on since the begining of time Since before man even started to #&*>! up the earth, and it will go on long after we are gone. It a natural Cycle of the earth and has more to do with the sun then anything man made. The debate is still open as to whether we are in a cooling trend or warming. Al Gore and his controllers are being exposed more everyday. In fact today they said there is doublt about the copenhagen treaty in december. we need to see the larger picture of whats really behind this great Hoax to further manipulate mankind on a global scale.

  6. admin Says:

    Andy, thanks for your comment and here is my response to your points:

    You wrote:

    In my opinion you just dequalified your entire article with this statement. No incentive?? Como on!!!!

    Although I appreciate your apparent fervour and passion for your perspective, I have no idea how your statement asserts itself? It seems apparent that you disagree, but by simply stating that my entire article is dequalified by my quoted statement and then not providing any explanation why, no one will know why you believe this. Although it may be apparent to you, it is clearly not apparent to me and many others that do not already share your perspective. I invite you to elaborate.

    You also wrote:

    Of course there is climate change. Its been going on since the begining of time Since before man even started to #&*>! up the earth, and it will go on long after we are gone. It a natural Cycle of the earth and has more to do with the sun then anything man made. The debate is still open as to whether we are in a cooling trend or warming. Al Gore and his controllers are being exposed more everyday. In fact today they said there is doublt about the copenhagen treaty in december. we need to see the larger picture of whats really behind this great Hoax to further manipulate mankind on a global scale.

    As I have said in responses to other comments, I don’t necessarily disagree with some of what you say, but disagree that science has proven that global warming (or cooling) is not contributed to, in large part, by human actions. On the same hand, it doesn’t mean that the science has proven without a shadow of a doubt that the theory of man-made climate change is correct, either. Not to say that it wouldn’t happen anyway at some point in the future due to, as you point out, the natural cyclical nature of climate change on the Earth, but attributing the theory of man-induced global climate change to the desire to form a mass controlling one world goverment is a stretch, in my opinion. I think they already do a much better job controlling the masses with the structures they have in place, than a precarious and visible one world government would have.

    I would be interested in your posting to what you reference about the Copenhagen treaty.

    Of course, my next article will have to pursue the strangely deceptive methods by which government latches on to a public concern (ie., global climate change) and manages to rally the people behind it and then manipulate the masses with higher taxes or any of the other agendas that government has had in the past. (Abolition of slavery by a slaveowner president, or the war on terror against an oil rich country run by an oil man president, to name a couple.)

  7. guest Says:

    Please correct your post.

    http://dictionary1.classic.reference.com/help/faq/language/d60.html

    Maybe you should check your own sources before going after others.

  8. admin Says:

    To the anonymous poster “guest” who left a fake email as well, this is your sole contribution to this argument?

    Please correct your post.
    http://dictionary1.classic.reference.com/help/faq/language/d60.html
    Maybe you should check your own sources before going after others.

    Of all the information in this article and the interesting comments, all you could pick out to criticize was my poking fun at “American” English, with the statement: “I thought ax was spelled “axe”, but who am I to judge?” Interesting argument. Silly, but interesting.

    Correction: Americans and some others do spell axe as “ax”. My sincere apologies to all those to which this little jab affected so profoundly. Hopefully they will get over it.

  9. Andy Says:

    You said:
    but by simply stating that my entire article is dequalified by my quoted statement and then not providing any explanation why, no one will know why you believe this.

    I believe this because I have done my research for many years and any one who is truely interested in seeing the truth behind this scam will do thier own critical analysis and look at both sides.
    The first clue is when Gore said “the science is settled” Science is sceptical by nature and is never settled. Then he will not debate openly any one who does not concure with his ideas.
    Just listen to a few real climatology scientists who have been studying the climate for many decades.
    Here are two links that may give you at least a chance to see the otherside enough to do your own reseach and have a closer look. It will also point out why and how they will use this to control the world through a globaly implemented carbon tax.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97n-a9EYUIQ&feature=player_embedded
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7ZadD7S3zA&feature=player_embedded

    good luck in your search for the truth.

  10. Andy Says:

    Carbon Dioxide is one of the four basic elements for life to exist on planet earth. Could you imagine the power vested in a group of people who control and regulate these basic elements of life??

    As many as 35 serious scientific errors or exaggerations, all pointing towards invention of a threat that does not exist at all, or exaggerations of phenomena that do exist, do not reflect credit on the presenter of the movie or on those who advised him.

    checl out this link for 35 inconients truth errors in Al Gore’s movie;
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
    Have a nice day

  11. admin Says:

    Thanks Andy for your comments and links!

    You wrote:

    ‘The first clue is when Gore said “the science is settled” Science is sceptical by nature and is never settled.’

    Absolutely! You have it dead-on regarding a statement like that! For making that statement, anyone who makes such a statement is obviously biased and not very scientifically minded. There is no question in my mind that Gore stands to make as much money on the environmental movement as Bush and his cronies made in Oil and Arms in the “war on terrorism”. Are they the same thing? I don’t think so. There is a degree of severity that should be evaluated — in its effect on human life. However, that’s fodder for yet another article, probably on a different site.

    Back to the quote. If you can send me some video footage or unbiased reporting (if there is such a thing) that shows Gore making this statement, I would like to see it. All I have found is information like this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley/The_science_is_settled

    Is this accurate? I don’t know. But, if it is then it shows that Gore never actually said that specifically. Does it really matter, as I’m sure he probably feels that anyway? — yes! This kind of rhetoric is as dangerous as any other kind. Spreading a statement that is inaccurate is like a virus. It spreads quickly and affects people that didn’t even see it coming. Then, before they have a chance to fight it off, they spread it to someone else.

    Back to your point though. Based on your previous comments, I get the impression that the “science is settled” for you and that global warming is make-believe. I understand your perspective and see from the links you’ve provided that you firmly believe this. (Great links, by the way! I would highly recommend the movie “Fall Of The Republic” for those who are critical thinkers. It makes some very interesting points.) That’s fine with me; however, I have reviewed all of this information and find it highly questionable – more questionable than the global warming theory. That is not to say that I believe wholly in global climate change as a direct result of human actions — I remain a sceptic — but, I certainly lean in the direction of man-induced global climate change. It just makes sense to me based on weighing all the contradictory evidence and from what I’ve seen with my own eyes. Maybe Global Warming is a scam, but our impact on our environment would still be an overwhelming concern to me if that was the case, thus, we should take action in a logical fashion to reduce our impact on our environment. So far, it’s the only one we have. Does that mean carbon taxes — definitely not. It would seem that this is a massive money grab and should be stopped. The irony is that some of the same people behind this money grab have vested interest in oil and gas consumption and have stunted the growth of sustainable energy production until they could get their monopolistic hands wrapped around it. (I don’t have any examples at this point on this, but will provide at a later date when I get around the writing about this more fully in an article! Wait for it, before you criticize!)

    Further to your comments about Monkton’s 35 Inconvenient Truth errors and the lawsuit in the UK, have a look at this article:
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

    I can’t say that they reasonably prove anything in this rebuttal, but at least they try to explain their justification for the statements made in the movie. It really doesn’t matter what statement you make as “fact”, or even allude to as “fact” — someone will always challenge it, and they should. I think it is important to watch the movie and think critically about the facts presented. Will followers follow? Of course. But that happens on every side of an argument, every notch on the sliding scale, and every point in the spectrum. The obligation any parent has to their children is to teach how to think critically, not to believe wholly the facts presented.

    You have a great day too, Andy! And thanks for your thoughtful insight!

  12. Andy Says:

    Here’s the latest;
    “a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet”

    When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

    Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

    One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

    “In an odd way this is cheering news.”

    But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

    Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

    Manipulation of evidence:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

    Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

    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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate
    I also posted a link where it appears that the director of CRU confirms this is real. Here is it again:

    Now admitted to be genuine;

    http://www.briefingroom.typepad.com...

    The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.

    In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”

    “Have you alerted police”

    “Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken.”

    Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.

    “Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn’t do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago.”

    A very smart IT guy has verified this as legitimate, see here: http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-hadley-cru-foi2009-files.html#more

    It looks like a leaker ive read the files but have lots to go ,the info fits the actions and the findings of lord monckton ,even the temps were correct as was the cancelled game ,its true alright .

    Well some of the emails have been confirmed as 100% Authentic. Steve McIntyre on ClimateAudit says the ones that are in the zip are his.

    Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

    Well this should finally blow the lid wide open on this manipulated scam.

    I just hope that this will wake people up.

  13. Andy Says:

    Has anyone seen anything about this on the MSM?

  14. admin Says:

    Andy, as always you have posted something that is very interesting and certainly controversial.
    Allow me to comment on a few of the things you say or reference:
    You wrote:

    “Now admitted to be genuine;

    http://www.briefingroom.typepad.com... “

    The article on this blog site states:

    ‘The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.

    In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”‘

    Because a blogger makes a statement over and above the actual statement from Jones that “data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine”, one should automatically believe this? Questionable at best. Manipulative and an outright lie on the part of the blogger, at worst.

    Andy, you further quote the statements from this article, but to be fair and avoid copyright infractions, please reference the quote as a quote.

    You also wrote:

    “A very smart IT guy has verified this as legitimate, see here: http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-hadley-cru-foi2009-files.html#more

    The argument that this guy makes is on his site is as follows:

    “The files have been confirmed to be authentic.

    Since the very beginning, no clear errors had been found and your humble correspondent would have bet that the files had been authentic. Why? Well, it’s just pretty difficult to type 156 MB of stuff that looks so legitimate. (See the end of this article for Jones’ confirmation of authenticity.)”

    As the very smart IT guy that I am (although I don’t like to brag normally), I can tell you that it doesn’t take much to edit text files to appear one way or the other. In fact, an ex-girlfriend, who was certainly no brain surgeon managed to edit many emails she forwarded to me, making them appear a certain way. The argument that 156MB of “stuff” cannot be forged because it is “pretty difficult to type” is preposterous. One, much of it could be authentic, so it’s only a matter of manipulating a few key elements and then adding some diagrams or other documents that mislead. Two, it’s easy enough to contrive this information if one is actively pursuing acts of disinformation. Third, his statement regarding “Jones’ confirmation of authenticity” simply points back to the first article above, which clearly doesn’t present any proof of this statement. This is a similar tactic used in the first sets of blogs that you posted, Andy.

    Fox News, on their website, also uses the above tactic. Shocking. They’ve never done that before, have they? :-)
    They state “confirmed that the leaked data is real” and then go on to quote nothing but the supposed fact that Jones confirmed that one email was from him. One email. Of course, and this is the big shocker, Fox News pulled this quote off of the first blog above. They do not quote an actual correspondence between Fox News and this Jones fellow. Amazing. Actually, not really. Fox News is notorious for this kind of thing.

    Who needs mainstream media anymore to give us misleading and destructive information? Now we have irresponsible and misleading bloggers that are taken as fact over and above the mainstream media because we seem to all be so disenchanted with their irresponsible and biased reporting! It’s all a gong show and makes it impossible to really know the truth.

    From the BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm

    ‘A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

    An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.

    “We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites,” the spokesman stated.

    “Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine.” ‘

    I think I’ll reserve judgement until they respond with something.

    Although there are certainly areas that I would disagree with, I think the following response to this hack is good information to read thoroughly:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

    It is quite easy for us to take something out of context when we “believe” in something, or have “faith” that what we are being told is the truth.

  15. Andy Says:

    Its also quite easy to discredit any information you want, as you have tried to do here, and even sound like a logical and intellegent thinking person. Even proven information can be discredited.

    Do you really think they will come out and say oh “yeah its all a big scam sorry”
    Never happen!!! You have to be able to see beyond the lies and diception.
    Say what you will about the internet and misinformation, but its the closest we have ever come and ever will come to free speech. If it dies or turns out to be regulated like they want to, we are in the dark ages even more than we are now.

    Its all about personal beliefs anyway.

    You obviously feel very strongly about your views as do I about mine. Can we both be right?

    To me its so obvious that the whole anthropogenic global warming scare and war plans to combat it are a complete hoax…. and many scientists and climatologists, who also disagree are called deniers.

    The fact that there is no debate, and the case is settled, just doesn’t sit right with me and its too obvious why.

    My point is that this info could very well be true and more importantly……

    What if it is true???????

  16. Ed Says:

    I agree with Richard, which quickly dismisses this blog in my humble opinion.

    Richard states:
    But I do have some thoughts. If all elements of the upcoming Copenhagen treaty pass, that IS global government. It’s not a precursor, it is. There will be global organizations and banks set up that will assign and collect carbon taxes, allot your carbon allowances, etc. These will be global entities that decide how you live your life. Sounds like global government to me.

    I must also thank Andy for his clear insight and understanding of this issue.

  17. admin Says:

    Ed, thanks again for yet another dismissive comment that doesn’t add anything to the argument. (Sarcasm intended).

    I’m still waiting for Richard and Andy to debate my points about their comments.

  18. Andy Says:

    Sr. Amin,
    I apreciate your response and i agree with most of what you say. However, I feel you still miss the point. This blog or at least my comments are not about a debate. Who is right?? It is or should be about an expression of varied opinions and hopefuly focusing on real solutions to real problems.

    If, global warming is a problem, then lets look at the alternatives and solutions. There are many more effective solutions to the problem than the ones being heavyhanded to us. The technologies are there. Nikola Tesla, William Russel, Wilhelm Riech M.D. http://www.orgonomicscience.org/orgoneenergy.html
    …and others, showed and demonstrated that energy is all around us.
    Tesla did not need to prove all of his over 1700 inventions. He trusted, and had faith in his practical theories. He knew they would work. Today we have a tesla car. Its run on electricity. It goes 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, 125 miles per hour, over 500k on a single charge and fully charges in 3.5 hours.
    http://www.teslamotors.com/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX873z4s9rM
    We have batteries that will last nonstop for thousands of hours. They work on silicon and oxygen. (Bolivia wants to start building battaries.)
    http://refreshingnews9.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-battery-can-supply-non-stop-power.html

    We have the technology for alternative energies with so much potential that it would not only iliminate our need for fossil fuels it would actually clean the air. Cold fussion has shown us how there is more energy in a galon of water than 1000 gallons of oil. The hydrogen on demand, Browns gas or egas. Takes water and through a simple elecrolosis process creates hydrogen.
    ***(see this)****
    http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/nov/04/energy.science

    You have to look at the real motivation. The end game. Is it fixing the problem through sound solutions or a preplanned agenda of taxing the shit out of us with a global watch dog, suspending more human rights and personal libertes,and supressing new technologies while desroying national soverty on a global scale with a global government anwerable to no one.
    The answer to this should be obvious.

    I’m not going to debate this issue with you. If you are the one that needs proof, then you go prove it. I dont neeed to prove it. I know my ideas are true. When I feel something is true I have faith and trust in my concious instincts…. and even if its not, just knowing that there exists a possibility of massive manipulation is concerning. Then, when evidence, claims, events or inside whislteblowers imply reasons to question things, it becomes more alarming. Add that to the the idea that if we go on denying that possibility, and it does turn out to be true, it could be like, or worse than the denying of the actual man made global warming.!!”Tragic”!!

    If we go on debating this, we are avoiding the real issues and solutions and we are truely missing the boat.
    Discussing the”irresponsibility and… gong show reporting” is secumbing to the left right, seperatist paradigm that is so cleverly used to control our thought process through Machiavellian principles. … and quoting something only to say you will reserve your opinion is unneccesary.

    Which brings me back to the whole point I am tying to make:
    We must together look at the problems, but focus on the solutions. We must do this as awake individuals, and from a diferent perspective using our perifial vision. If we can see through the manipulations together, and together force resposible solutions, we have a chance to successfully confront the enormous challenges facing us in the near future.

    I would like try to finish up, this long post here by, quoting and linking, one of my favorite authors and researchers; David Icke, who is so much more articulate and concious than I.

    ” The whole conspiracy is founded on keeping humanity in a very very low level of perception. Perception about self, perception about the world. This is why we have, the dumbing down of education. This is why we have the controlled, so called information, that comes through the media.
    The idea is to keep people in ignorance of anything, that would be a problem to the control system. So, we are kept in ignorance about the nature of reality itself, the nature of life itself, who we are, where we are, what we are doing here. We are kept in ignorance of the true forces that are manipulating behind the people we see in the public arena…”
    All these conections have to be kept from people, so that we behave and perceive the world and everything in a way that suits the control system. So any awakening, any opening of the mind to see things that people didn’t see before, is a real big problem for the conspiracy, for the manipulators. And what we are seeing now as more and more people are awakening, is a panic stricten attempt to put the lid on this. To dumb people down…”
    ” …that becomes obvious and so we’re at this fork in the road, where people have to choose. Are they going to go on being controlled sheep and robots of the control system or are they going to wake up and take the road to freedom. That’s the fork in the road, and thats the choice that people are facing now and will face ever more blatently in the next few years.”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs0bODlPRbw

    Ironically, controversy is being created consciously and we are being bombarded on so many different levels in order to keep humanity from waking up to our false sense of reality.
    Once we open up to the true magnitude of who we are, to our multi dimensional infinite
    genius and power, we can no longer be a magicians party trick. Once you know the trick the game is over. You can no longer be fooled.

    Waking up from the hipnotic trance or uncovering the secret to the magicians trick is the revolution.

  19. admin Says:

    Andy, great comments.

    First off, let me clarify a few things as I see them based on your comments now and in the past. One, a debate isn’t necessarily a contentious discussion. It can also be open discussion from an equal perspective. Either way, it is a great way to gather information that may enlighten all of us. I really haven’t missed any of your points, as I have never said you are wrong, just that your perception appears to be skewed in one direction with a kind of religious faith that I don’t agree with. I have clearly stated that I don’t know what the truth really is — who does? However, you have stated that I am wrong, which is clearly contrary to your statement above, “Who is right??” The problem, from my perspective, is that however people are labelled (since we prefer to categorize everything rather than evaluate shades of gray), the most fervent reactions and postings seem to come from those who have “faith” or “hope”, illustrated in your comment, “I know my ideas are true”, when quite clearly you cannot truly know this. You can have faith or hope that these ideas are true, but you do not truly “know”. Although, I do understand from where you formed these opinions, the danger, as I see it, is succumbing to any body of supposed knowledge completely — accepting something completely on faith in those who you consider smarter than you or possibly more enlightened. Think of all your arguments against the “power structures”, then reverse that thinking and assign it to the conspiracy theories. Are they any different? Do they use the same tactics? Do they purport to know more than you would normally? Do they inspire “religious” or “patriotic” feelings (aka emotional) in you that distract from the understanding of the greater picture? Do they embody fear? I submit to you that a lot of what these theories hold true are plausible and I definitely lean in that direction; however, some are not plausible and risking reducing the respect for the ideas that may be true. When a foundation of truth is present (whether we actually know it to be true, or not), human nature is shown to expound on that and create untruths that most people tend to follow, because the premise in the beginning seemed true. The conclusion tends to end up a far cry from the premise though.

    As for your comments on Tesla and others, THAT is what this blog is about! As I have stated before, I am interested in these conspiracy theories to enlighten me further, at the very least, to the extent that I understand other perspectives; at the most, to paint a clearer picture (with all the colors of the rainbow) of the world that we live in.

    I submit to you that if Tesla had the cunning to outsmart the power structures in his time, we may live in a very different world today. As for Teslamotors.com, I quote them in the first article posted. They now have a couple models (or more?) and I actually thought about buying their first model. Brilliant vehicle and truly something that would assist in reducing emissions (whether global climate change as a result of these emissions is true or not :-) ). Your links are invaluable to this blog and I thank you for that.

    You wrote:
    “… a preplanned agenda of taxing the shit out of us with a global watch dog, suspending more human rights and personal libertes,and supressing new technologies while desroying national soverty on a global scale with a global government anwerable to no one.”
    I wholly agree. I keep alluding to an article on this subject, so maybe I should just write it! (Soon, my friend, soon.)

  20. Andy Says:

    admin,
    With all due respect sir;
    Your arrogance clearly attributes to your ignorance.

    You state: “I have clearly stated that I don’t know what the truth really is”

    And because you don’t know what is true you assume everybody else doesn’t either. You even go as far to say that what I see as truth could not possibly be the truth.

    As a blog administrator, your job is not to ridicule others posts. A good blog will listen to all sides with an open mind and the administrator will reserve judgments. Which goes back to my original post as well as Richards, and Ed’s that the blog is manipulative, biased and flawed and lacks sufficient research on the subject from the very beginning.

    You must be living in the jungle not to know that this whole global warming scam is being blown wide open.

    You have actually started an interesting blog here. I feel it has potential. However, you are obviously new at this and could use some help. I have many suggestions that I will reserve until I am invited to comment.

    Here I link to a blog that is very interesting and broaches an interesting angle on the subject of conspiracies and fear mongering. I especially found interesting the comments. I hope you have the time to read them as there is no ridiculing or condescending in them. Each one expressing their unique take on the subject.
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread521327/pg1

    Here is another very important link to a video of Lord Christopher Monkton speaking on climate change in a very clear and simple way separating the scientific truths and facts and exposing the lies. He actually won a huge court case against the movement. It is well worth the time to see this.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8

    My comments here are meant to be constructive criticism. Please don’t take them out of context or be offended. The reason I have stayed with this blog is to try to add a different perspective and to make it a better blog. If I have done that for you, you are welcome and if I have not. Well, you’re welcome.

  21. admin Says:

    Andy and Ed, I’ll address both of you even though you are the same person. I let it go, having you pose as the same person, until this last rude comment, but no more. Of course, the remote possibility exists that you are two different people using the same computer, but I highly doubt it. Your grammar and spelling seem to be consistent.

    Andy or Ed, whatever you choose to go by, I will address your comments one last time and then change the subject as you simply refuse to see another perspective and consistently argue the same points without backing it up with anything but third-hand, dubious evidence. You seem to completely miss the points I make to you and then resort to insults.

    You wrote:

    “admin,
    With all due respect sir;
    Your arrogance clearly attributes to your ignorance.”

    I’m not sure why you seem to want to insult me, when quite clearly I am not ignorant of the topics you have brought up. I know them very well, but again, you seem averse to understanding anything but your own belief system.

    You wrote:

    “And because you don’t know what is true you assume everybody else doesn’t either. You even go as far to say that what I see as truth could not possibly be the truth.”

    Please reread my comment. I, in no way, said that your beliefs could not possibly be true. I think you read and maybe hear what you want to read and hear. Don’t confuse rational and logical thought with an assumption of ignorance on the part of me or others.

    You wrote:

    “As a blog administrator, your job is not to ridicule others posts. A good blog will listen to all sides with an open mind and the administrator will reserve judgments. Which goes back to my original post as well as Richards, and Ed’s that the blog is manipulative, biased and flawed and lacks sufficient research on the subject from the very beginning.”

    Actually, to make it clear to you, my “job” is anything I want it to be. This is my blog and my site. For you to even comment on what you believe my “job” to be is absolutely ludicrous. If you take my comments as ridicule, because I do not agree with your belief system, then your foundation for belief may be a little shaky. Believe what you want, but don’t tell me or anyone else that you know the “truth”. You don’t. Simple as that.

    You wrote:

    “You must be living in the jungle not to know that this whole global warming scam is being blown wide open.”

    What?? Try replying to debatable subject matter instead of attacking me.

    You wrote:

    “You have actually started an interesting blog here. I feel it has potential. However, you are obviously new at this and could use some help. I have many suggestions that I will reserve until I am invited to comment.”

    LOL. You have been invited to comment all along – try adding something useful now. Please don’t presume that you can help though. Based on your dual persona comments, I really don’t want the kind of help you seem to be offering, but thanks anyway.

    You wrote:

    “Here I link to a blog that is very interesting and broaches an interesting angle on the subject of conspiracies and fear mongering. I especially found interesting the comments. I hope you have the time to read them as there is no ridiculing or condescending in them. Each one expressing their unique take on the subject.”

    Really? Do they all agree with you? Is that why you think it is interesting? I will look at the blog though. I’m pretty certain what I will find, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

    You wrote:

    “Here is another very important link to a video of Lord Christopher Monkton speaking on climate change in a very clear and simple way separating the scientific truths and facts and exposing the lies. He actually won a huge court case against the movement. It is well worth the time to see this.”

    Although, I’m sure from the first article you commented on (which you still have not bothered to rebut), you probably can guess what I feel about Monkton, but I’ll certainly take a look. D you see how easy it is to post your opinion and references without being rude and insulting?

    You wrote:

    “My comments here are meant to be constructive criticism. Please don’t take them out of context or be offended.”
    Clearly your comments are meant to be “constructive” rather than offensive. May I remind you of your statement, “Your arrogance clearly attributes to your ignorance.” And that was a comment made under your Andy persona. Ed was more offensive.

    You wrote:

    “The reason I have stayed with this blog is to try to add a different perspective and to make it a better blog. If I have done that for you, you are welcome and if I have not. Well, you’re welcome.”

    Your comments are welcome, but please refrain from insults in the future.

  22. Andy Says:

    hahahaaha

    Must of really hit you where it hurts. Your EGO.

    I am totally dedicated to working together with open and like minded individuals in a cohesive and respectable manner, in search of cooperative solutions to current and near future problems. Unfortunately, I am not finding that here.

    I would rather refrain from further postiings on your blog as I am interested in a more positive, fact finding and intersting blog.

    Your right about one thing though. This is your blog and your site.
    Have a ball with it!!!

    Good luck

  23. admin Says:

    Trying to debate anything with you Andy aka Ed, is like arguing with a 3 year old. I just wish you would have taken the time to actually respond to any of my comments, rather than just ignoring them and throwing out insults and negativity. I think your perspective is very interesting, but it’s too bad you can’t counter any arguments. Good luck to you on your mission to only see one perspective.

  24. Dave Says:

    A really well thought out article on this whole issue:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=2&th&emc=th

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.