The Danish government has appointed a Trilateral Commission member to chair the United Nations Copenhagen climate change summit. Lykke Friis, the former pro-dean at Copenhagen University, will replace Connie Hedegaard (a Bilderberg member) who has been nominated for the post of the European Union’s first climate commissioner. Hedegaard’s nomination will be assessed by European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso, who last month announced the creation of the new role to oversee the EU’s plans to cut emissions 20 per cent by 2020 and thus undercut modern civilization in Europe.

	Danish Trilateral Commission member Lykke Friis will chair the United Nations Copenhagen climate change summit.

Lykke Friis attended a Trilateral meeting in 2005. “Lykke Friis is member of several committees and councils, for instance the Board of Sport Event Denmark, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council of the Danish Atlantic Treaty Association. She is also responsible for organizing the Research Congress on Climate Change in 2009,” a Zoom Info entry states.

The Danish Atlantic Treaty Association works with NATO and the Atlantic Treaty Association, an atlanticist organization (connected to the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations) consisting of the Atlantic Councils of NATO. The current president of the Atlantic Treaty Association is Robert Hunter, a senior adviser at the RAND Corporation, chairman of the Council for a Community of Democracies (supported by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund), and a consultant for the death merchant Lockheed Martin.

The Trilateral Commission is the brainchild of David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski (who served as the Commission’s first executive director) with help from the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Ford Foundation. The Commission’s agenda is to create a one-world government.

“If the Council on Foreign Relations could be said to be a spawning ground for the concepts of one-world idealism, then the Trilateral Commission was the ‘task force’ assembled to assault the beachheads. Already the Commission had placed its members in the top posts the U.S. had to offer,” writes Patrick Wood. “The philosophical underpinnings of the Trilateral Commission are pro-Marxist and pro-socialist. They are solidly set against the concept of the nation-state and in particular, the Constitution of the United States. Thus, national sovereignty must be diminished and then abolished altogether in order to make way for the New World Order that will be governed by an unelected global elite with their self-created legal framework.”

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

Pascal Lamy, Director General of the World Trade Organization and frequent attendee of Bilderberg meetings, sees the European Union as a testing ground for the machinery of international governance, that is to say world government (see Daniel Taylor, WTO Director General: Global Governance Based on the EU Model).

Mario Borghezio, an Italian member of European Parliament, questioned the proposed appointment of Van Rompuy earlier this month. “Is it possible,” Borghezio asked during a EU session, “that no one has noticed that all three frequently attended the Bilderberg or Trilateral meetings? I believe we need to apply the principles of transparency, so often mentioned here in our institutions. We need to establish clearly whether these are the candidates of their own countries’ political forces, or whether they are simply the candidates of these occult groups that meet behind closed door to decide matters over the heads of the people.”

On November 19, Van Rompuy announced that 2009 is the “first year of global governance.” He said the “climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet,” i.e., the establishment of a One World Order.

Considering Van Rompuy’s comments, it makes sense that a Trilateral Commission member was appointed to chair the Copenhagen proceedings, scheduled to take place between December 7 and December 18 at the Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Prior to his comments on November 19, Van Rompuy announced at a Bilderberg dinner at Hertoginnendal, Brussels, on November 15th, that the elite plan to implement EU-wide taxes that will be paid directly to Brussels.

“A former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher [Lord Christopher Monckton] says the real purpose of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Dec. 7-18 is to use global warming hype as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world government,” Jerome R. Corsi wrote for WorldNetDaily in October. “Your president will sign it. Most of the Third World countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it,” Monckton warned during a recent speech.

According to former presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin, Monckton may have understated the case. “In my opinion, Lord Monckton did not exaggerate; if anything, he may have understated the situation,” Baldwin wrote on October 30. “It appears that what a U.S. President and Congress (Republican or Democratic) could not do through the constitutional legislative process, they are attempting to do through international treaty. Therefore, it is my studied opinion that Lord Monckton’s assessment that this upcoming Climate Change Convention in Copenhagen is a ‘pretext’ for the establishment of one world government.”

Van Rompuy has admitted as much. The Trilateralist Lykke Friis’ appointment is another indication that the one-worlders plan to stack the deck and push their “global governance” agenda next month under the pretext of climate change.

The Climate Research Unit revelations will not slow them down. The corporate media is now attempting to stifle and bury the story as it goes viral on the internet ahead of the meeting predicated on the farce of global man-made climate change.

It remains to be seen if the story will push back the globalist agenda to use junk science as an excuse to establish a one-world government.

A BBC Weather presenter who was discussed by scientists in the “climategate” emails says he was forwarded the material more than five weeks before it was made public on the internet.

Paul Hudson, a weather presenter and climate correspondent for the BBC, notes on his blog “I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October,”.

Hudson says he saw the exact emails that were either hacked or leaked from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University placed on the internet last week.

“The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic.” Hudson notes.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

Hudson’s article, which pointed out that there had been no increase in global temperatures since 1998, spurred Kevin Trenberth, one of the leading authors of the IPCC report on climate change to make the following comment within the private emails to his colleagues:

“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.”

Climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University also commented on Hudson’s piece, writing:

“extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?”

As we reported yesterday, in addition to showing that the scientists manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, the thousands of leaked emails have already revealed several references to efforts by the CRU scientists to exclude skeptical warming viewpoints and evidence from important scientific publications and the media at large.

If it is confirmed that the emails were forwarded to the BBC’s Paul Hudson on October 12th, it would provide a strong indication that the source of the leak is an insider at the CRU, rather than an external hacker.

Hudson says he is in the process of providing a more detailed write up on the matter.

RELATED: CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Hacker leaks thousands of emails showing conspiracy to “hide” the real data on manmade climate change

One of the leaked climate emails was apparently a press release from “Earth Government” Newsletter dated 27 Mar 2003. The document calls for a ‘democratic’ world government that would amalgamate and reform the prevailing global institutions including the United Nations, IMF, World Bank WTO, NAFTA, FTAA and others “for the good of all.”

It further refers to an “Earth Court of Justice to deal with all aspects of the Governance and Management of the Earth.” The document also makes mention of the “Foundation for the new world order, Earth Government” and “The splitting of America into separate independent states living at peace for the good of all.” Is this a revelation of the true intentions of certain environmental advocates, or just one of many emails in the background of calls to “hide the decline” of global temperatures (despite intense claims of global warming).

It is eerily similar to newly named EU President Herman Von Rompuy’s calls for Copenhagen to establish “global management” of the planet and Queen Elizabeth’s recent declaration during her throne speech at the opening of Parliament that “My government will seek effective global and European collaboration through the G20 and the European Union to sustain economic recovery and to combat climate change, including at the Copenhagen summit next month.”

The bulk of the leaked or hacked climate emails can be found at Wikileaks. If you download the emails and look for email #1048799107.txt you will see it. Thanks to Jonathan at NWObabylon.blogspot.com for the tip.

Below is the email in full:

————————————–

From: Earth Government
Subject: Press release from Earth Government and April Newsletter
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:05:07 -0800

Press release from Earth Government and April Newsletter
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

This Press release from Earth Government is found at
[1]http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/HNewsPR05.htm

Formation of Earth Government for the good of all

March 27th, 2003

To all Peoples of the Earth,

Earth has long been waiting for a truly global governing body based on universal values,
human rights, global concepts and democracy. Earth Government might as well be created now,
there is no longer any reason to wait. We are the Earth Community, and we will form the
Earth Government. Earth management is a priority and is a duty by every responsible person.
A democratically elected Earth Government will now be formed, and we want you to reflect on
future effects of such an event on the history of humanity. Certainly one will expect
extraordinary changes: a reorganizing of human activities all over the planet;
participation by all societies on the planet in solving local and global problems; new
alliances forming; north meeting with south (eradication of poverty will be the price to
pay to get votes from the south) in order to gather more votes within the newly created
Earth Government to satisfy power struggles between European, Asian and Western countries;
adoption of democratic principles, human and Earth rights, global concepts, and universal
values by every human being; expansion of consciousness; gathering and coordinating of
forces to resolve social and political problems in a peaceful way (no more conflicts or
wars); gathering and coordinating of forces (technologies, scientific research, exploration
work, human resources, etc.) to resolve global problems such as global climate,
environment, availability of resources, poverty, employment, etc. Thousands more changes!

Let your heart and mind reflect on ‘the good’ of a democratically elected Earth Government.
Everyone is part of Earth Community by birth and therefore everyone has a right to vote.
Everyone should be given a chance to vote. Decisions will be made democratically.

Earth Government is proposing that:

a) different nations may require different political systems at different times
b) a democratic system is not a “must have it” to be a responsible member nation of the
Earth Government
c) all democracies are to be upgraded, or improved upon, to be a responsible member nation
of the Earth Government. The Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the Charter of the Earth
Government are the newly added requirements to all democratic systems of the world.

In today’s Earth Government it is important for our survival to cooperate globally on
several aspects such as peace, security, pollution in the air, water and land, drug trade,
shelving the war industry, keeping the world healthy, enforcing global justice for all,
eradicating poverty worldwide, replacing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the
Scale of Human and Earth Rights, and entrenching the Charter of Earth Government as a way
of life for the good of all.

Earth needs urgently a world system of governance. The United Nations fail to satisfy the
needs of the people of the 21st Century. It has never improved upon the old ways and
thinking of the middle of the 20th Century. Its voting system no longer satisfy the 6.157
billion people on Earth. The challenges are different and require a world organization up
for dealing with the needs of all these people.

During the past several years, the Earth Government has been pleading the United Nations
leaders to make changes in the UN organizational structure and ways of doing things. There
has been an urgent need for fundamental changes in the United Nations organization. The
decision of the United States Government to invade the Middle East nations and Afghanistan
has shown to be a result of this incapacity for changes on the part of the United Nations.
A lack of leadership at the United Nations is a major threat to the security of the world.
The world wants a true democratic world organization. The UN is not!

The most fundamental requirement of a world organization is a democratic system of voting.
Democracy must be a priority. The right that the greatest number of people has by virtue of
its number (50% plus one) is a human right. It should be respected. The actual UN system of
voting is undemocratic, unfair and noone likes it. It does not work! Earth Government has
proposed a voting system based on democracy.

Of the 190 Member States of the United Nations, it takes only one of the five permanent
members to overthrow any decision or proposal during a meeting. This means 1/189 or 0.5% of
the membership is more powerful than the remaining 99.5%. If that is not a dictature, what
is it? It does not say much about democracy at the UN. More like a dictature of the five
permanent members. In the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations, it says “WE THE
PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS ” but in fact it should say “WE THE FIVE PERMANENT MEMBERS”.

The voting system for Earth Government is very simple and practical. One representative per
million people. If all countries in the world had decided now to participate with this
process we would have today 6,114 elected representatives to form Earth Government. They
would form the Legislative body of Earth Government. They could actually all stay home to
govern or from some place in their communities. Today communications are more than good
enough to allow voting and discussing issues, etc. through the Internet and video
conferencing. That would cut cost of governing down to a minimum, at least administrative
costs. The Executive body would also govern in this way to cut cost down to a minimum.
Ministers can administer their Ministries from where they live if they wish to. There will
be a place for the Headquarters. We will show that it costs very little to administer Earth
Government, and that we can achieve immense results. There is no limit to the good the
Earth Government can achieve in the world. Think! What can do a unified 6.114 billion
people determined to make things work to keep Earth healthy?

For the first time in human history, and the first time this millennium, humanity has
proposed a benchmark:

* formation of Earth Government
* formation of global ministries in all important aspects of our lives
* the Scale of Human and Earth Rights as a replacement to the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights
* an evolved Democracy based on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the Charter of
the Earth Government
* a central organization for Earth management, the restoration of the planet and Earth
governance: the Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC)
* the Earth Court of Justice to deal with all aspects of the Governance and Mangement of
the Earth
* a new impetus given to the way of doing business and trade
* more new, diversified (geographical, economical, political, social, business,
religious) symbiotical relationships between nations, communities, businesses, for the
good and well-being of all
* the event and formation of the human family and the Soul of Humanity
* proposal to reform the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank,
the IMF, NAFTA, FTAA, and to centralize them under Earth Government, and these
organizations will be asked to pay a global tax to be administered by Earth Government
* the Peace Movement of the Earth Government and shelving of the war industry from
humanity
* a global regulatory framework for capitals and corporations that emphasizes global
corporate ethics, corporate social responsibility, protection of human and Earth rights,
the environment, community and family aspects, safe working conditions, fair wages and
sustainable consumption aspects
* the ruling by the Earth Court of Justice of the abolishment of the debt of the poor or
developing nations as it is really a form of global tax to be paid annually by the rich
or industrialized nations to the developing nations
* establishing freshwater and clean air as primordial human rights

The political system of an individual country does not have to be a democracy. Political
rights of a country belong to that country alone. Democracy is not to be enforced by anyone
and to anyone or to any community. Every community can and should choose the political
system of their choice with the understanding of the importance of such a right on the
Scale of Human and Earth Rights. On the other hand, representatives to Earth Government
must be elected democratically in every part of the world. An individual country may have
any political system at home but the government of that country will have to ensure (and
allow verification by Earth Government) that representatives to Earth Government have been
elected democratically. This way, every person in the world can claim the birth right of
electing a democratic government to manage Earth: the rights to vote and elect
representatives to form the Earth Government.

In order to elect representatives to Earth Government it is proposed the following:

A. Each individual government in the world will administer the election of
representatives to Earth Government with an NGO and/or members of Earth Government be
allowed to verify all aspects of the process to the satisfaction of all parties
involved.
B. Representatives be elected every five years to form a new Earth Government.
C. It is proposed here that there will be one elected representative per 1,000,000
people. A population of 100 million people will elect 100 representatives. This process
will create a feeling of belonging and participating to the affairs of the Earth
Community and Earth Government.
D. A typical community of a million people does not have to be bounded by a geographical
or political border. It can be a million people living in many different locations all
over the world. The Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic. We need to let go
the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where I live and contained by a
border. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a
heart, a mind and a Soul, and as part of a community with the same.
E. Earth population is now 6.114 billion people. If all representatives had been elected
this year there would be 6,114 representatives to form Earth Government. They would be
the Legislative elected body of Earth Government. They would participate in some ways in
choosing the Executive and Judiciary bodies of Earth Government.

Humanity has now a Vision of the Earth in the years to come and a sense of direction.

May the DIVINE WILL come into our lives and show us the way.
May our higher purpose in life bring us closer to the Soul of Humanity and God.

Germain Dufour, President
Earth Community Organization (ECO) and Earth Government
___________________________________________________________________________________________

The Newsletter can be found at the following location:
April 2003 Newsletter
[2]http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/NewsA.htm

There are no costs in reading our Newsletters
([3]http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/EarthGovernment.htm).

The Table of Contents of the Newsletter is shown here.

Table of Contents

1.0 President’s Message
2.0 Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chretien, concerning Peace in the
Middle East
3.0 Letter to the American and British Peoples concerning the invasion of the Middle
East
4.0 Letter to all Canadians concerning the total and global embargo on all US products,
all goods and services
5.0 Letter to the Moslem and the Arab Peoples
6.0 Letter to Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji of China, and to the Chinese People
7.0 Letter to the United Nations

8.0 Articles

A) How women matter in decreasing world population
B) The energy we need
C) Mining the impacts
D) Symbiotical relationship of religion and global life-support systems
E) Celebration of Life Day
F) The hidden agenda: China
G) Earth Government now a priority
H) The splitting of America into separate independent states living at peace for the
good of all
I) The war industry: the modern evil at work in the Middle East
J) Earth security
K) Earth governance
L) The Earth Court of Justice holds the people of the U.S.A. and Britain as criminals
M) Foundation for the new world order, Earth Government

Improved Democracy, Nonviolence, and Peace
Respect and Care for the Global Community of Life
Ecological Integrity
Social and Economic Justice
A new symbiotical relationship between that of spirituality and the
protection of the global life-support systems
Scale of Human and Earth Right
Earth Court of Justice
Charter of Earth Government

May the DIVINE WILL come into our lives and show us the way.
May our higher purpose in life bring us closer to the Soul of Humanity and God.

Germain Dufour, President
[4]Earth Community Organization (ECO) and [5]Earth Government

Website of the Earth Community Organization and of Earth Government
[6]http://www.telusplanet.net/public/gdufour/
[7]http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov
Email addresses
[8]gdufour@globalcommunitywebnet.com
[9]gdufour@telusplanet.net
[10]earthgov@shaw.ca

References

1. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/HNewsPR05.htm
2. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/NewsA.htm
3. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/EarthGovernment.htm
4. http://www.telusplanet.net/public/gdufour/
5. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov
6. http://www.telusplanet.net/public/gdufour/
7. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov
8. mailto:gdufour@globalcommunitywebnet.com
9. mailto:gdufour@telusplanet.net
10. mailto:earthgov@shaw.ca

Herman Van Rompuy, the first President of the European Union, recently announced during his installment that 2009 was the first year of global governance. Indeed, 2009 has seen major steps towards global governance. The establishment has also taken severe blows this year, which will be discussed shortly. Pascal Lamy, Director General of the World Trade Organization and frequent attendee of secret Bilderberg meetings, sees the European Union as a testing ground for the machinery of international governance. In a speech in Italy on November 9th, Lamy stated that the EU model should be used on a global scale.

Herman Van Rompuy.

National sovereignty has no place in Lamy’s ideal globalist vision. Local communities, states and countries’ laws would be superseded by a regional – as is the case with the EU – or international body. Lamy points to the EU, where, “The fact that Community law takes precedence over national law. The creation of a supranational body such as the European Commission that has been given the monopoly of initiating legislation. A European Court of Justice whose decisions are binding on national judges.” This governance structure – along with the EU Presidency – is now possible after the recent ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, which, according to the Wall Street Journal, means that “…individual countries will have a harder time blocking EU legislation.”

Pascal Lamy admits that global governance is an abstract and distant idea. Historically, especially with the United States and its libertarian roots, governance is local and familiar with the people and their needs. He states, “In sum, the specific challenge of legitimacy in global governance is to deal with the perceived too-distant, non-accountable and non-directly challengeable decision-making at the international level.”

Ultimately, Lamy sees the United Nations playing a central role in global governance, with the G20 and other international groups reporting directly to the “parliament” of the UN. This beginning stage, according to Lamy, will eventually condense into a solid world government.

“Menace of a new war”

Global and regional governance faces another problem, specifically the fact that without the perception of an outside threat the coherence of the system falls apart. Lamy states,

“The anthropological dimension of supranationality has probably been underestimated. Once the imminence of the menace of a new war has disappeared from our horizon, it is as if the glue that holds Europe together as a community will also disappear. As if there were no common myths, dreams and aspirations.”

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

Lamy goes on to admit that, “…We are witnessing a growing distance between European public opinions and the European project.” Despite popular resistance, the establishment is continuing its agenda. Outside of war, global warming hysteria is, as the 1991 Club of Rome report The First Global Revolution proposed, a unifying threat – or perhaps more appropriately a unifying myth, as Lamy stated – that the global government needs to maintain any veil of legitimacy. The Club of Rome report states,

“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… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Herman Van Rompuy has stated that the upcoming Copenhagen climate change treaty “…is another step towards the global management of our planet.” Additionally, the anthropogenic global warming theory will give the global government a taxing mechanism on a world-wide scale.

Amidst this sobering news, there is hope. Recently, shocking e-mails from the England based Climate Research Unit were hacked. They reveal that leading global warming scientists worked together to actively block “climate deniers” from having papers published. Most shockingly, they show that the science behind global warming was in fact manipulated by these scientists to fit their agenda. These revelations are devastating to the entire push for carbon taxes and global governance to combat the boogey man threat of man-made global warming.

The establishment is moving forward, but not without resistance.

The fall of the Republic, Obama’s unkept promises and lies, the economic crisis as part of a bigger new world order strategy, the swine flu hoax, the fraud behind the fed – Alex Jones talks about all this in an exclusive interview with RT’s Anastasia Churkina.

Top climate alarmists have conceded that the climategate scandal represents a huge blow to the global warming movement and that the debate is not over, and yet establishment media organs are still invoking South Park’s Officer Barbrady in downplaying the story despite the fact that it clearly illustrates how evidence which directly disproves global warming is being censored by agenda-driven scientists.

The Guardian’s George Monbiot, a climate change zealot and a staunch defender of the faith, concedes that the science now needs “reanalyising” and that CRU Director Phil Jones should resign.

“It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them,” writes Monbiot.

“Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.”

“Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.”

Another prominent global warming alarmist, Tim Flannery, now admits that there are holes in the “science is settled” mantra.

“We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate…We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend,” said Flannery.

“And on these now-admitted uncertainties we must scrap all coal-fired generators, impose massive new taxes, shut entire industries, hand billions to the UN and change the way we live?” asks Andrew Bolt.

However, while some alarmists have embarked on a course of damage control, the establishment has closed ranks and, after failing in their efforts to float the hoax that the emails were manufactured, are now ludicrously invoking South Park’s Officer Barbrady and crying in unison, “Move along, nothing to see here!”

In an article entitled, Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer, Reuters’ Timothy Gardner writes, “Revelation of a series of embarrassing e-mails by climate scientists provides fodder for critics, but experts believe the issue will not hurt the U.S. climate bill’s chance for passage or efforts to forge a global climate change deal.”

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

Oh really? With numerous influential individuals calling for criminal investigations, and with climate alarmists themselves admitting that scientists closely affiliated with the UN IPCC exposed by the hacked emails should resign, only the wilfully naive could believe that this will not hamper the Copenhagen agenda for a global carbon tax, which was already being derailed before the scandal broke.

The latest to weigh in on the controversy was prominent skeptic Lord Monkton, who labeled the CRU scientists crooks who should be criminally prosecuted. “They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers,” writes Monckton. “With Professor Fred Singer, who founded the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, I have reported them to the UK’s Information Commissioner, with a request that he investigate their offenses and, if thought fit, prosecute.”

The Reuters story quotes Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change, who claims there is no smoking gun contained in the emails, despite the fact that they expose how scientists used “tricks” to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.

In another email, a scientist talks about changing temperature data on a graph in order to disguise evidence of global cooling that has been in play for the last few years.

“I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.”

To Leiserowitz, this isn’t evidence of conspiracy, merely “embarrassment” which would “provide fodder for the 2 to 3 percent of the general public that are hard-core climate change doubters.”

In reality, polls show that a huge and growing number of both Americans and Brits are “climate change doubters.” A recent Pew Research Center survey showed that only 36 per cent of Americans believe man is to blame for climate change, whereas in Britain, “Only 41 percent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made.”

Far from being a tiny minority, as Leiserowitz claims, climate change skeptics are now in the majority, as belief in global warming alarmism whittles away increasingly to the fringe.

The Reuters story also quotes Kevin Book, an analyst at ClearView Energy Partners, LLC, who characterizes the scandal as “scientists behaving badly.”

“This does nothing to the U.S. climate bill, which will be decided mostly by economic forces, not environmental ones,” said Book.

Precisely – this has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with companies like ClearView getting fat off the spoils of the climate fraud that they are intimately invested in. Obviously, to the scientists at the CRU, it has little to do with the environment either, since they are more than willing to block FOIA requests, change data and hide evidence of global cooling in order to make the science fit their agenda.

To dismiss this as “behaving badly” shows unparalleled ignorance of what science is supposed to be all about, namely empiricism, not bias and fraud, which is exactly what the global warming movement has now come to represent.

Police in the UK have begun an investigation into the theft and publication on Russian internet servers of private emails, which are thought to prove that global warming theory was fabricated. Alex Jones, the renowned filmmaker and radio host, dubs this scandal as one of the biggest hoaxes and financial frauds in the history of mankind. He says that it appears to be a global ‘Ponzi scheme’ which allowed bankers to profit from bogus carbon taxes for years.

In 2006, just as global cooling was beginning to make things uncomfortable for people who believed that manmade CO2 was warming the earth, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ran a documentary that was meant to bring an increasingly skeptical public back on board with the idea of manmade global warming. Airing on The Fifth Estate, an influential and respected investigative journalism program, “The Denial Machine” attempted to throw mud at any scientist who dared to question the so-called ‘consensus’ on manmade global warming by implying all such scientists were secretly funded by oil companies.

The CRU was well-funded for making up scare stories about the CO2-induced end of the world.

As the recent exposure of the UK’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and its decidedly unscientific research demonstrates, the truth is almost exactly the opposite. Rather than a vast, oil company-funded conspiracy, skepticism about climate fearmongering appears to have been quite correct: the CRU’s bluster was hiding the fact that even they couldn’t understand their own climate models or data. However, as their internal documents show, they were being well-funded for making up scare stories about the CO2-induced end of the world. This was part of a process where public grants would routinely go to the researcher with the most dire predictions about the ravages of global warming. Call it The Alarmist Machine.

The archive of emails and documents leaked out from behind the academic Berlin wall of the highly-secretive CRU sheds light on the vast sums of money these researchers were playing with. As this hacked spreadsheet demonstrates CRU Director Phil Jones himself received a mind-boggling 22 million dollars in grants for his work over the past 20 years. Sadly, the leaked data also shows just how willing these scientists were to lie and cheat in the pursuit of those funds.

One of the most outrageous emails (1056478635) features one CRU scientist openly advising a colleague to cook the books from their last research grant in order to receive more money from the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration):

“Ninh

NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.

How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious. Politically this money may have to go through Simon’s institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!

Best wishes

Mick”

The contempt shown for the taxpayers who are funding and supporting these research efforts through institutions like the NOAA is appalling. Certainly any researchers who are found to have participated in such duplicity should never receive another cent of taxpayer money again.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

But the chicanery does not end there. In a well-researched article on American Thinker, Marc Sheppard points out that while the alarmists imply that the skeptics are being secretly funded, it is in fact the climate scientists who are being funded by the energy companies. The fact that CRU members received significant funding from renewable energy companies, however, and not Big Oil, presumably puts their motives beyond reproach.

Of course, this is not to say that these practices are confined to a few ‘bad apples’ in the scientific community. As skeptical scientists have been pointing out for years, scientific studies about doomsdays and catastrophes—no matter how unlikely the predictions or how shakey the underlying assumptions—tend to get greater funding and grant money than studies that show there is no such disaster on the horizon. This is the inherent bias toward alarmist science and the inherent danger of The Alarmist Machine: not that there is some vast, secret conspiracy funding these alarmist scientists, but that this is a natural and predictable result of the funding process itself. Even rational people can be stampeded into throwing money hand over fist at a team of scientists who are promising to save the world from disaster, especially when those rational people are blatantly misled by an unquestioning media that unproblematically reports on highly problematic science. And all the while the scientific economy is shifted until the entire process becomes one of scientists competing to come up with the most panic-inducing findings.

As someone who spent his entire scientific career fighting the alarmists—first the ones who were whipping up hysteria over the coming ice age and then the ones (sometimes the same ones) who were whipping up hysteria over global warming—Dr. Tim Ball is no stranger to the “Denial Machine” smear. In fact, he was one of the scientists singled out in the CBC documentary. He doesn’t tow the global warming line, therefore he must be funded by Big Oil. It doesn’t seem to bother the producers of the documentary that they offer not one shred of evidence for that assertion: the logic of the situation demands it, so it must be true.

For someone who supposedly receives secret backdoor money from the Exxon bigwigs, Dr. Ball lives a remarkably low-key life. When I met him for an interview in Victoria earlier this year, he was neither lighting cigars with Big Oil-supplied $100 bills nor driving a gas-guzzling SUV. Instead he was on foot and he took me on a walking tour of the beautiful B.C. capital, regaling me with stories about the town’s history and demonstrating a genuine enthusiasm for the local tradition and culture of his adopted hometown. We passed several hours talking about the history and philosophy of science, and what strikes one about him when engaged in such a conversation is that he has read, researched, and retained a voluminous amount of material, not just on his specialty of climatology, but of scientific history generally. It is not surprise, then, that his take on the climategate scandal is one of the most thoughtful (and damning) yet:

It is still too early to say what the ultimate fallout from this scandal will be, but unless the scientists who have been implicated in this stop dismissing all criticism as out of context and start addressing the real issues raised in these documents, the backlash is likely to be massive. And as Dr. Ball points out, that backlash (rightly or wrongly) will not be merely directed at this group of researchers, but on the very scientific processes and institutions that they have so shamefully abused. From their private expressions of doubt over science that they publicly touted as unassailable to their use of data that they themselves did not seem to understand to their collusion to keep skeptics out of the peer reviewed literature, how can the public simply put blind faith in blanket statements about ’scientific consensus’ and ‘listening to the experts’ again, especially when there are literally trillions of dollars hinging on the science skewing towards the alarmists?

“The Denial Machine” ends with the words: “Not everything in life is about politics.” If only that were the case.

Lord Monckton, who challenged Al Gore on man-made climate change and was rebuffed by a gaggle of peevish Democrats, wants the climate “scientists” caught red-handed fiddling with climate stats prosecuted.

“They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers,” writes Monckton. “With Professor Fred Singer, who founded the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, I have reported them to the UK’s Information Commissioner, with a request that he investigate their offenses and, if thought fit, prosecute.”

Alex Jones on the CRU emails and the globalist plan to use the climate change hoax to impose one-world government.

Monckton does not hold out much hope for that, however. “But I won’t be holding my breath: In the police state that Britain has now sadly become, with supine news media largely owned and controlled by the government, the establishment tends to look after its own.”

The corporate media is doing its best to downplay the story. “Revelation of a series of embarrassing e-mails by climate scientists provides fodder for critics, but experts believe the issue will not hurt the U.S. climate bill’s chance for passage or efforts to forge a global climate change deal,” reports Reuters. Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change, said the release of the emails will be remembered mostly as “embarrassment” to the researchers. “But there’s no smoking gun in the e-mails from what I’ve seen.”

No smoking gun? The so-called researchers colluded to modify climate data in favor of their man-made climate change fairy tale.

“The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the ‘global warming’ fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures,” writes Monckton in a bog entry today. “One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant ‘global warming’ for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.”

Russia Today reports on the CRU emails.

Instead of demanding researchers answer questions about inventing and fiddling with data, the University of East Anglia has asked the cops to investigate the hackers who revealed the bogus work of “our globally-respected Climatic Research Unit” that supposedly produces “research [that] is, and has always been, fully peer-reviewed by the relevant journals, and is one strand of research underpinning the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world’s climate in ways that are potentially dangerous.”

In other words, fake data used to impose a one-world government and global serfdom is “fully peer-reviewed.”

“In addition to supporting the police in their enquiries, we will ourselves be conducting a review, with external support, into the circumstances surrounding the theft and publication of this information and any issues emerging from it,” states a CRU update posted earlier today.

“It’s definitely a crime to do that in the U.K., and we have reported it to the police,” said Simon Dunford, a spokesman at East Anglia, which is conducting an internal probe.

The University of East Anglia should be consulting lawyers. Antonio Regalado, writing for Science Magazine, notes that “university researchers may also find themselves in legal jeopardy if they deleted emails requested under the U.K.’s Freedom of Information (FOIA) legislation, a crime under U.K. law.”

Professor Phil Jones, for instance, apparently engaged in a criminal conspiracy to destroy evidence formally petitioned under a Freedom of Information request. “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise,” Jones emailed Michael E. Mann, a climatologist and statistician at Pennsylvania State University, on May 29, 2008.

As noted above, deleting emails subject to a FOI request is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, punishable with a fine.

The “arrogant fraudsters,” Monckton continues, “have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up.”

Meanwhile, over at the Huffington Post, Katherine Goldstein and Craig Kanalley dismiss the CRU scandal out of hand. It provides ammo for the right-wing nuts who are — according to the ADL and the Department of Homeland Security — a threat to the nation.

“Despite the lack of evidence of some sort of conspiracy in the scientific community, this criminal activity has created fodder for right-wing groups and websites to promote their own agenda that global warming is not real. This comes at a time when international attention is more and more focused on the climate crisis in advance of the UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December,” they write.

Naturally, the climate change “progressives” — and the globalist foundations that support and nurture them — are worried about the CRU scandal because the United Nations conference on climate change is right around the corner. In December, the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will meet in Copenhagen to work on a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.

As Lord Monckton explained in October, a realized Copenhagen treaty will establish a “one world Marxist government.”

On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton gave a presentation in St. Paul, MN on the subject of climate change.

“The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, ‘climate debt’ – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement,” Monckton warned. “They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.”

Replace “Marxist” with “bankster” and you get a better idea of what our rulers have up their sleeves. Moreover, wealth is never transferred to the third world. It is transferred to the global elite. Feel-good palliatives about feeding the poor are merely a parlor trick to steal your money and reduce you to indentured servitude.

One of the most striking revelations to immediately emerge from the “climategate” scandal has been references to efforts by scientists espousing the human-caused warming theory to exclude contrary viewpoints from important scientific publications.

Among the thousands of emails and documents hacked or leaked from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University last week are several references to an agenda to shut down scientific debate on global warming by stifling counter-evidence from other scientists.

Dating back to 1996, the emails show that both U.S. and U.K. based scientists referred to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation”,“misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain.

The emails include deliberations amongst the scientists regarding efforts to make sure that reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change include their own research and exclude that of dissenting scientists.

In one of the emails, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

This is a startling quote, given that Jones and Mann as climate scientists have the authority to review papers and determine whether they are eligible to be published by scientific journals.

Mann even discussed how to destroy a journal that had published papers with contrary views, telling his colleagues that he believed it had been “hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board” who had “staged a coup”.

“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” Mann wrote.

In another of the emails, Tom Wigley, climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), says that the journal in question, Climate Research, “encourages the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’”.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

Wigley also wrote that a group of 50+ scientists could be gotten together to put their names to a letter to add weight to the claim and hopefully help to remove the editorial board of the journal.

Other emails show that some of the scientists declined to make their data available to independent scientists whose views they disagreed with, clear evidence that they were simply unwilling to engage in scientific debate – a core ethic of the scientific community.

Renowned climate scientist Dr Tim Ball sums up the stunning gravitas of the leaks with regards to the process of peer-reviewing and the publication of papers on climate change in journals.

“What you’ve got here is confirmation of the small group of scientists who, by the way, Professor Wegman who was asked to arbitrate in the debate about the hockey stick, he identified 42 people who were publishing together and also peer-reviewing each other’s literature.” Dr Ball explains.

“So there’s a classic example of the kind of thing that bothered me. About twenty years ago, I started saying ‘Well why are they pushing the peer review?’… And now of course we realise it’s because they had control of their own process. That’s clearly exposed in these emails.”

“On a global scale it’s frightening because this group of people not only control the Hadley Centre, which controls the data on global temperature through the Hadley Climate Research Unit but they also control the IPCC and they’ve manipulated that. And of course the IPCC has become the basis in all governments for the Kyoto protocol, the Copenhagen accord and so on….”

We have long covered the fact that the so called “scientific consensus” on global warming is wholly manufactured and that there are thousands of scientists who have differing viewpoints to the human-induced warming theorists.

Indeed, over two years ago we reported the fact that a survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, concluded that less than half endorsed the “consensus view,” that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

We now have clear evidence that a concerted effort has been made by the IPCC connected climate scientists to block dissenting opinion on climate change, regardless of it’s scientific merit.

“This is horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is directly threatened with physical violence in the emails. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”

John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville attacked in the emails for asking that an IPCC report include dissenting viewpoints, said, “It’s disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested.”