Are you an evil climate change denier? If so, in the past few years you would have probably had many heated arguments with deluded “greenies”, government operatives posing as deluded “greenies” or masses of brainwashed public, but damning evidence has now been leaked which proves the deniers are most probably correct, and it is the greenies that are harming the world by supporting global governance and taxes; rather than environmental solutions.

A few days ago hackers compromised the computers of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and mined thousands of emails and documents that show government funded scientists are manipulating and exaggerating data, blocking independent research and overall conspiring to promote Global Warming as a catastrophic problem that needs a global solution. When in truth it poses little threat, is not yet scientifically proven and is being used to push forward a corrupt globalist agenda or “New World Order” as both Obama and Gordon Brown have been quoted as saying in recent months.
(Download Hacked Files Here).

The documents exposed in “Climate Gate“, too many to list, reveal damning quotes such as this gem that shows how Prof. Phil Jones explains one of their many tricks to manipulate data…

“Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. 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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.”

Somebody named Paul even questions the agenda at hand. “It was good to see you again yesterday – if briefly. One particular thing you said – and we agreed – was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO.”

Although it seems he’s happily gone along with it like a little Nazi sellout any way.

To get a broader perspective on what’s going on, here’s the Global Warming chapter from my upcoming book “The history of Global Corruption – from Ancient Babylon to Swine Flu” (working title). Please do not post this section anywhere else:

The Global Warming Hoax

Lionel Richie melted female hearts just by saying “hello” and the rest of the girls just wanted to have fun, but despite a host of musical hits, 1984 was not a happy year for the Holmes family. Thanks to the banker’s controlled 10 year recession cycle, times were hard and many were facing a bare Christmas. The Government’s tax increases and reduced spending could not be understood by families below the poverty line, who had no idea about banking and national debt. To them it was unfair, the bigger picture didn’t matter.

Like a lot of other Brits at the time, father of two Trevor Holmes was unemployed. Not deterred by the bleak outlook Paul, 15, and his younger brother Darren, 13, whipped on their anoraks and adventured in to the sharp November morning air. Their Dad couldn’t afford to give them pocket money so they were going to earn it themselves.

Kicking stones with their scuffed shoes along the Doncaster streets, the young lads came across a perfect railroad embankment, stacked high with colliery waste. They looked at each other. “We could get a few quid out of this,” they thought. The mission was underway. Spades and tools in hand they began to hack away at the shale and clay. They were soon joined by friend Jim Rawson, 16. The extra man power allowed them to burrow a fair way in to the tall pile.

“Got some!” Shouted Paul. He lobbed a nice chunk of coal in to a pile, rubbed his cold hands and soldiered on. Over the next few hours the other lads contributed to the heap.

Unlike the 70s most homes had been converted to gas and electricity, but during winter there was always those few that had been forgotten by the world and struggled to keep warm by their traditional fire places. With the miners on a violent strike the boys had found a way to make some small change; selling stray bits of coal.

It’s not certain who’s to blame for what was about to happen. Was it the bankers for bankrupting the economy, the Government for inciting the strikes, the miners for being selfish, or the parents for not keeping a close eye?

As the boys chipped away to find more coal, one of them heard a rumbling sound from above. Before he had chance to look up the entire embankment caved in and buried them alive under several feet of debris. Trevor Holmes spent more than one hour with fire fighters and striking miners in a desperate plight to hear his sons voices one more time. They were dead; collapsed lungs and broken limbs. The older friend Jim Rawson was saved, but the Holmes family Christmas would be more than just bare this year.

The coal miner’s strike of the 80s affected many families. Six strikers died in clashes with police and non-protesters. Even an innocent taxi driver was crushed while driving a working miner to his pit. Strikers had dropped a concrete post on to the vehicle from a bridge. How could Margret Thatcher, the first Lady Prime Minister with only a science degree, justify all of her tough economic policies and the closing down of an industry that provided much needed jobs to the lower classes? She would use her science against them.

Prior to the 1980s the idea of man made C02 resulting in Global Warming was an obscure, understudied theory with no major scientific consensus. The hypothesis was that C02 being a greenhouse gas would increase the greenhouse gas effect, if production of C02 itself increased. When the sun’s light energy hits the earth some is reflected back immediately, some is taken in by plants and some is absorbed by the earth’s surface, warming it up. This surface heat is gradually released as infrared radiation back in to the atmosphere where it is met by a layer of greenhouse gases. This is mainly water vapor, but also methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide (C02). Some heat escapes in to space, but the layer of gasses also absorb some of the heat, keeping it in the earth’s vicinity. Another portion is re-emitted back down to the surface and the cycle continues. This greenhouse gas effect keeps an equilibrium of heat energy below the earth’s atmosphere and therefore controls its climate. The theory of Global Warming suggests that man is increasing the level of C02 in the atmosphere and thus making it harder for heat to escape through the layer of gasses, ultimately warming the planet.

The coal industry made up a large percentage of man made C02, so Lady Thatcher saw a solution to her problem. If she could scientifically prove beyond a doubt that the coal industry was responsible for harming the planet, the closing of the mines and the move towards Nuclear energy wouldn’t seem so drastic or dangerous. She might even prove to be the earth’s savior. The real question was how could she prove it? Was it even provable? Is it provable today?

Thatcher did not discover the theory of Global Warming herself, this is attributed to Swedish Scientist Svante Arrhenius, an ardent proponent of early Eugenics, the campaign to create a master race. He published the first works that discussed the idea of C02 causing warming in the early 1900s when researching the causes of previous ice ages, theorizing that halving or doubling C02 would cause a deduction or rise of up to 5 degrees Celsius respectively and that burning fossil fuels would cause a warming effect in the future. In this case Arrhenius saw the warming of the planet through industrialization as a positive measure against falling in to a new Ice Age. Global warming would be the best way to cultivate the planet to help feed the rising population. Despite his theories temperature did not significantly rise.

Despite having later backing by amateur scientist G.S. Callendar in the 50′s, people were uninterested in the theory and new studies in the 1960s dismissed it outright in favor of Serbian geophysicist, Milutin Milankovitch, who linked climate change predominantly to the orbital changes of the earth’s axis. Although studies continued in to Arrhenius’ theory, other scientists claimed that we were in a trend of global cooling since the temperature had actually dropped since 1945. In the 1970s the media admittedly over-hyped that a catastrophic ice age was even on the horizon. Scientists such as W.S. Broecker admitted that there might be another ice age in the future, but claimed temperature goes in cycles and in the meantime the world would be heating back up with help from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In the years to come this idea would go from predicting a slight increase in temperature, maybe due to C02, to the world being destroyed by melting ice caps, rising sea levels and apocalyptic weather, due to man’s evil C02 emissions. What happened in-between to cause such exaggerations?

Lets go back to Mrs Thatcher. There was no scientific consensus about C02 global warming by the 80s and there is still no consensus now, despite what Al Gore might preach. Were we heading for an ice age as the media were spouting or were we really getting hotter and possibly heading towards global warming as some scientists hypothesized? And does C02 play a big part in this cycle?

It didn’t necessarily matter, the Prime Minister had a conflict of interest for the C02 theory to be true and was advised by British Ambassador to the UN, Crispin Tickell (of the Huxley Brave New World bloodline) to pursue it. What she did have on her side was a very real rise in temperature from the 70s onwards and a degree in science which would give her an air of authority on the subject in the political realm. As soon as the media realized politicians were now worried about the environment they began feeding the debate. Everything from acid rain to deforestation was now mainline news.

As the LA Times reported on May 21, 1989: “Some Western leaders-particularly Britain’s Margaret Thatcher, who was educated as a scientist and has lined the walls of the prime minister’s residence with portraits of Britain’s most eminent scientists-have looked into the political future and perceived environmentalism.” The article continues, “President [George Bush], in particular, has drawn fire-for slowness in putting together an acid rain program and for reluctance to have the United States take the lead for an international convention to curb activities contributing to the greenhouse effect.”

As soon as one major nation takes interest in an idea, all major nations must follow at risk of falling behind a profit making scheme or gaining negative publicity for not being on par with their counterparts. Thatcher became the leading figure for global warming, bringing up the subject at summit meetings and media interviews. Other nations had no choice but to follow her lead. Eventually “George Bush abandoned Ronald Reagan’s cavalier insensitivity to the environment,” and “strongly worded” pleas were being made to the UN General Assembly to take action. Politics was influencing science, not the other way around.

“In the latest bid by a head of state for leadership on the environmental crisis, President Francois Mitterrand of France is host for scientists from around the world today and tomorrow at a two-day conference in Paris on the greenhouse problem.”
Boston Globe June 12, 1989.

Slowly but surely the idea that carbon, the building blocks of life, being a pollutant doing damage to earth entered mainstream consciousness, and Maggie as well as other world leaders were constantly in the news reaffirming that belief. The trouble was, none of these people were qualified to be speaking on the subject and the scientists were finding themselves pressured in to going along with the theory, even when a lot more research needed to be conducted. Because the media is generally owned by elites not only did they push the political theory on global warming to support their buddies in office that were declaring it, but as they do with all stories, they embellished headlines to incite fear and newspaper sales. Ever since this time we have been lead to believe the world is coming to end unless we pay taxes and make unrealistic and contrived sacrifices; but why?

The UK Conservatives were strongly for nuclear power and nuclear weaponry in conjunction with the US soviet deterrent policy, but the Labour Party were against any upgrades to the program. There had become widespread opposition to anything nuclear, partly due to the Chernobyl Ukraine disaster, which scared the public about Nuclear plants and possible meltdowns, and it had also came to light that UK nuclear powered electricity actually cost four times more than traditional coal powered electricity. This goes without mentioning the fear of nuclear war. Global warming whether a hoax or very plausible, became Thatcher’s political life line to justify nuclear energy against the C02 laden coal and to keep her voters from turning to other puppet, Labour.

In 1990 Thatcher opened the Met Office Hadley Centre, which quickly became the primary climate research centre in the UK and across the world. It has been a strong foundation for all of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, and you guessed it, the focus was on Global Warming, specifically C02. In fact if your research was not linked to global warming it was extremely difficult to obtain any government research funds.

We tend to think that when a scientist or expert is quoted on the news, or when a governmental group makes a scientific statement, that we are getting not only the truth, but the truth from the best scientists in the world. However the system is fundamentally biased.

As we’ve established the government is in the game of politics, money and power, and cannot be trusted as far as you can throw them. They are quite literally bought and paid for by elites and bankers. So when they put all their effort behind some branch of science we need to be prepared for an agenda and some corruption. It would be naive to think the world’s politicians just wanted to save the environment.

Scientists have to be funded with great sums of money to be able to conduct worthwhile research. They need state of the art equipment, support and a network to promote their findings. The only possible way they could get this was through government funding or donations from elite foundations. If these people do not support you and your work, it is not going to see the light of day. So when the United Nations and your home government decides that they want research in to global warming and C02, you damn well better focus your work on global warming and C02, else you aren’t going to get any funding or support, and you can kiss a mainstream career goodbye.

The IPCC is nothing more than a group of scientists that know which side their bread is buttered. A peer reviewed paper is not a peer reviewed paper at all; it is a government biased opinion. Independent scientists that fund their own work don’t get to review these findings. So how is it truly peer reviewed? When politicians throw around the idea of a consensus amongst the scientific community, what they really mean is all of THEIR own funded scientists that have been instructed to go in a certain direction are the ones that are in agreement. When these biased findings hit the media they go through publications such as “New Scientist Magazine,” which is edited by Dr. Roger Highfield, a strong global warming advocate who received an elite education at the private “Christ’s Hospital” school set up my Royalty and Freemasons, and which gets funding from all sorts of dubious charities. This magazine is part of an international corporation “Reed Elsevier” that puts out nearly 40 publications and has ties to the military arms trade. Most mainstream media outlets are owned by multinational corporations or the government and have ties to defense contracts. There are too many conflicts of interest to list and it is rare to find an editor that is not some how tied to the elite’s web. If its on the shelf at 7-11 then its part of the Establishment.

On top of this convoluted chain of information, all scientists that are given government grants have to compete for their share of the funding; there is only a certain amount set aside each year, and at the beginning of the 90s this pot was shrinking while the global warming hysteria was expanding. If you were a scientist it was in your best interest to relate your work to global warming in order to secure funds. It’s the most logical route if you want to be successful and feed your family without going in debt to the banksters. It’s nothing short from having a gun to your head.

So with politicians and their scientists working hand in hand, another group that had a vested interest in the theory of man made global warming before a real consensus was reached, was Greenpeace. An organization that is so “green” they’d wipe-out humanity to save the earth.

Originally set up as an anti-establishment hippie-esque movement in the 70s, opposed to nuclear power and other environmental issues, by the 90s they had jumped on the global warming bandwagon and were now indirectly supporting nuclear energy, the very thing they were created to oppose. They claim to be anti-establishment, anti-capitalist, anti-a lot of things, but in truth they are a multimillion dollar organization that has the full support of the global elite. Their protests are always on the news, because they are really doing the elite a favor. What better way to push through a climate bill than to have a seemingly independent organization of environmentalists demanding that you take action and push through the bill? The masses begin to feel guilty that they aren’t as radical.

This isn’t a wild accusation either, Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore no longer recognizes the group he started and claims they were infiltrated after the fall of communism. “Suddenly, the international peace movement had a lot less to do,” he told Insight On The News in 1997. “Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.”

Members of movements that had been funded and manipulated by the elite through the communist plot were now hijacking a movement that was to be fundamental in spreading the idea of man-made global warming, which is funded and manipulated by the elite agenda today.

Moore continues. “A lot of those in the peace movement were anti-American and, to an extent, pro-Soviet. By virtue of their anti-Americanism, they tended to sometimes favor the communist approach. A lot of those people, a lot of those social activists, moved into the environmental movement once the peace movement was no longer relevant.” Social activists, he suggests, “are now using the rhetoric of environmentalism to promote other collectivist agendas, such as class struggle — which I personally believe is a legitimate area, but I don’t believe it’s legitimate to mix it up with environmentalism.”

It’s one thing to be an environmentalist, it’s another to suggest some kind of communist world order as a solution.

Moore explains that as society adopted many of Greenpeace’s original social and economic goals in business ethics, the movement “abandoned science and logic and moved to the left…Unfortunately, environmentalism is still defined by the media and by our culture as an adversarial role. If you want to remain in that adversarial role while society is adopting many of your more reasonable positions, you have to become more extreme in your positions.”

Greenpeace are renowned for their radicalism and sensational ideas, and the mainstream media are of course deeply interested in selling newspapers and boosting TV ratings with shocking headlines. Even if you dismiss any over-arching global agenda with the news working in cahoots with the elites, Greenpeace is still a perfect group to give airtime to, because of their exciting and shocking antics. The possibility of a world catastrophe caused by global warming has newspaper editors frothing at the mouth. With official statements from politicians and scientists, and radicals from Greenpeace staging stunts and protests, what is the general public supposed to think?

…Sometimes however the greenies shoot themselves in the foot.

One example of how their agenda has emerged from beneath their urgent rhetoric was when they were forced to admit that they put out false alarmist data about global warming. One of their many fantastical claims was that Arctic ice would melt entirely by 2030 despite it being perfectly fine during much warmer periods in history. In a rare glimmer of BBC truth, interviewer Stephen Sackur questioned them on this statement and Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold fumbled, calling it a “mistake”. Even more revealing was what he said in defense of the group, claiming they had no problem “emotionalizing issues”, to convince the public. In other words they don’t mind making things up to support their own agenda.

Credibility is obviously a very important factor for proponents of global warming. Yet upon investigation it appears that a lot of claims being fed to the general public are alarmist and down-right false, just like Greenpeace’s above claim. This sensationalism has more to do with politicians, the media and questionable environmental movements, and less to do with the scientists doing the research. What starts off as “man might be responsible for some heating of the earth,” turns in to “thousands will die as man destroys the earth, global tax needed”. Unfortunately the general public’s main source of information is always alarmist and biased mainstream news, so most cannot make up their own minds from the raw facts. Then when people try to debate global warming and some of these sensational claims, scientists vehemently defend their research and pooh pooh the idea that its a fraud because they are proud about the data they do have, and their intelligentsia position in society. The truth probably lies somewhere in-between. The real question should be, “is global warming actually dangerous and does it warrant a global carbon tax?” Sure it might exist, but does that mean world apocalypse or just riper Tomatoes?

Some claims that are widely accepted definitely need further research before humanity accepts a “global solution” to this alleged “global problem”.

One book full of wild and oversimplified information that has been pushed vehemently by the mainstream media and has even wound up in schools, is the “Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook”. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic. The very author of the book is David “Mayer” de Rothschild; yes Satan spawned another one, and this time he’s a ruggedly handsome designer stubbled “eco-warrior”, that brushes shoulders with celebs and could charm the hind-legs off a donkey. The Rothschilds have restrategized and created a very likable front-man. Their own Obama. He was born to the current head of Rothschild affairs Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild and got a degree in “Political Science”, which is the study of human behavior relating to politics and the scientific rational behind political decisions. So he’ll probably be able to bluff on the political stage and quite happily kill off the world’s population because he thinks it has a scientific basis.

Accusations aside, what we can prove is that his work is false and alarmist, possibly because he is a useful idiot to the establishment or because he fully supports their agenda, being a Rothschild and all. Either way the book should not be in schools or in print for its sheer propaganda.

The cover of the book shows a lonely polar bear floating in the melted ice. The idea that the polar bears are drowning and dieing out due to climate change is a common sensationalism thrust on to the masses. It makes a perfect tale for indoctrinating children who want to save these cute little bears. However when one looks at the facts the polar bears are doing just fine. 8,000 years ago during the Bronze age it was far warmer than it is today, in fact it has been warmer than today at numerous points throughout history. At no time have the polar bears been wiped out or significantly harmed, so where is the evidence that they are dieing and being wiped out today? There isn’t any. In the 200,000 years of polar bear evolution, from the great ice age, to the medieval warm period to the heatwaves of the 30s and all the fluctuations in-between, polar bears have done just fine. Just like people have.

Even if a good portion of the Greenlandic ice or the Arctic did melt, it’s not as though they’ll drown. Why? Because they can swim. In fact they can swim for hundreds of miles. And it’s not as though they’ll wake up one morning and see what looks like somebody running the bath with only an ice cube remaining. Climate change, even by alarmist’s standards is very gradual. They’ll know when to find new regions of ice. They also have a very varied diet, they eat seals, fish, kelp, caribou, ducks, sea birds, walrus and whale. There’s plenty of places for them to survive quite merrily.

What alarmists seem to forget is that nature has a natural order, and species eb and flow with fluctuations in the earth’s great balance. Who are we to meddle with it? Human arrogance has us marching around screaming “save the planet”. The planet has been fine for millions of years! At the very most we need to save ourselves; it has nothing to do with the planet.

Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”, which rightfully cannot be shown in UK schools without a warning and contrary documentation because of its misleading information, also peddles the myth about the cute little polar bears dieing. So how many polar bears died in the study used in Gore’s documentary?…only four, and how many of the deaths can be attributed to global warming?…none. Yes Gore’s reference to dieing polar bears was actually caused when they were caught in a routine storm, not because they drowned from melting ice caps. We’ll leave Mr. Gore alone for now though and wrap up the polar bear insanity with some facts. Only two groups, accounting for a quarter of the total population are decreasing. Ten groups are stable, making up around 50 percent of the total population, and two groups, about a quarter are increasing. Since the 1950s the polar bear population has risen from around 5,000 to 250,000 and just in Canada by 25 percent. They have survived for thousands of years and and there is nothing to say they won’t continue to survive for thousands of years to come.

The rest of Rothschild’s book is full of sheer arrogant stupidity. He tells us to move in to a smaller house, buy smaller cars, turn down the heating when its cold and wear a sweater instead. He tells us to suddenly stop going to work (if is banking relatives have left us any jobs anyway) and work from home, to eat certain foods and wear certain clothes. Yes we can all maybe be a little more conservative in our everyday life, but this is coming from one of the most wealthy men in the world, who is from a family that has mansions coming out of their rear ends and our economy by the balls. Elites already micromanage most of society; they’d froth at the thought of entering our homes and dictating ever little facet of our lives. What’s scary is some of these ideas are already being picked up.

Starting with radical environmental groups and extreme animal activists like PETA and carried on by hardcore veggies, we have started to see an influx of “meat tax” articles. Taxing the very food that we’ve eaten for thousands of years and labeling it as an environmental hazard. Being a vegetarian or a vegan is a fair lifestyle choice in a “free” society, but when these views are forced on everybody else, freedom starts to disappear.

Peter Signer a new age eugenicist who claims that “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living,” and who has advocated the harvesting of disabled people’s organs, is a big proponent of the meat tax. He wrote in the New York Daily News on October 25, 2009, (with tonnes of worrying positive comments; not doubt edited) that firstly “eating red meat is likely to kill you” and that the US should bring in a “a 50% tax on the retail value of all meat”. You’ll even have to tax fido because they also eat meat, if you count that poisonous slop in the can meat.

Lets not be naive, it is highly likely that excessive consumption of some types of meat might be bad for you in the long run. All diets including a Vegan diet can be unhealthy if consumed ignorantly. It is also highly likely that excessive TV watching might make you fat. If we’re playing an odds game it is also more likely that you’ll die in a car crash if you drive to work everyday. Where does it stop?

A lot of people advocating a meat tax are proud vegetarians, animal lovers and members of questionable groups like Greenpeace and PETA; they may not necessarily see a bigger picture. The problem is if we have a meat tax why not have a tax on everything? As Rothschild points out, why not tax central heating, car size or clothing? Why don’t we just hand over all of our earnings straight to the government and bankers?

The whole of this chapter has focused on the political motivation behind global warming, some of the interest groups that help push the idea in to the mainstream and some of the wild claims made by alarmists. The common thread running through all of these topics, from Margret Thatcher, to Peter Singer’s meat tax is that C02 is to blame; but it is only to blame when it suits their agendas. Coal burning causes C02, beef production causes C02, alleged rises in sea levels (that isn’t killing polar bears), is reportedly caused by this C02. The initial research in to global warming at the Hadley Centre and the IPCC was based around man made C02. World leaders are pushing a global carbon tax. In the public’s mind C02 is currently the world’s number one threat beyond Muslims and Al-CIAda.

I guess Margret Thatcher, the IPCC and all of their scientists must have proven that C02 is responsible for global warming beyond and shadow of a doubt to be making these claims? Not exactly…

The general consensus amongst government backed scientists, corporate media, environmentalists and those looking to use it as support for their agendas is that man made C02 is causing a dangerous rise in temperature, and this trend was triggered by the industrial revolution and its sequential rise in population, the burning of fossil fuels and manufacturing. Fine, it’s reasonable to believe that when man started pumping bellows of black waste in to the air that it might have an adverse effect on the environment. Nonetheless being reasonable doesn’t always stand up to scrutiny. All earth temperature graphs show that the trend of warming actually started before cars, planes and mass meat production had been invented; long before this pollutant industrial age. Indeed if we take a chart that goes back beyond the 19th century, we see that most of the heating trend happened prior to 1940. Veritably, after the evolution of industry was well underway the average temperature actually dropped for 20 years and remained relatively stable until the 80s. If C02 from the beginning of industry was directly linked to the temperature you would think there would be a straight rise, yet it went up and down from year to year with an average decrease. This is why they were predicting an ice age; temperature had dropped! You could even say C02 caused a reduction if you’re a statistician and that way inclined. Marget Thatcher and the UN conveniently jumped on the bandwagon when temperature actually began to increase after the 70s, but it wasn’t until the 90s before we saw a real warming trend.

What this suggests is that C02, at least before the 90s doesn’t seem to have been directly responsible for the warming, and the fluctuations from year to year (discounting the average) shows that there are many more factors at play than just the industrial revolution. If that’s the case, why is C02 responsible now, and why is it the only factor that is researched by the United Nations? I’m sure you can guess, but lets go on…

Historical data shows that there has been plenty of times in history when C02 in the atmosphere was literally much higher than it is today. Not only higher, but also during a colder climate. Huh? During the Ordovician-Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods, CO2 levels were 4000 parts per million by volume (ppmv) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. Was old Deano the Dinosaur driving around in a hummer and working in a coal mine? Also, during those periods there was mass ice glaciation, so what happened to global warming caused by C02 melting all the ice? Again it appears that there must be other factors that cause climate change, the blame cannot solely be on C02 if at all.

This is where politics come back in to play. It is the politicians that are screaming the loudest about C02 not the scientists, who simply hand out the data to be public relationed or are coaxed in to using “tricks” to manipulate it.

Global Warming idol Al Gore was born in to a family of politicians and was educated at Harvard, naturally. If he wasn’t already living in the elite bubble, here, like the younger Rothschild he studied political science and majored in Government. He has no business heading up anything to do with climate; he is trained quite literally to lie and push through agendas. If Gore really was an earth loving savior of all humankind, why is he an homophobe that calls homosexuals “abnormal” and “wrong,” and does “not believe it is simply an acceptable alternative that society should affirm.” Why is he a woremonger, one of only ten Democrats that voted for President Bush Sr.’s Gulf War? Why can he support the death of people one day and then want to save the world the next?

Perhaps we can ignore all of the above. A politician is a politician, after all what do you expect? There are unfortunately still many anti-gays out there, and many uninformed people have supported all wars. No, what really takes the new world order biscuit is that fact that Albert Gore, the killer of coal, obliterator of oil, master of meat tax and C02 Czar is actually in the back pocket of the elite oil barons! Yes Mr. Gore, who’s supporters try and accuse those that don’t follow the government line on global warming of receiving funding from the oil companies, IS actually receiving funding from the oil companies. Can anyone trust what this man says even BEFORE ripping his movie to shreds?

After his father, Al Gore’s corporate interests aligned with Russian born oil tycoon Armand Hammer and his Occidental Petroleum corporation. Occidental is one of the many corporate oil polluters in the pyramid of power that are quite happy destroying the environment, and that doesn’t mean poisoning some poor foreign natives; they do it on US turf as well. Occidental was caught dumping thousands of tons of toxic chemical waste right next to the residential area of Love Canal, New York. This savage crime caused hordes of birth defects, miscarriages, and even cancer in the surrounding communities. All in a days work for the savior of planet earth!

In 1996, in return for democrat campaign contributions Gore abused his power and maneuvered Occidental in to having drilling rights for Elk Hills National Petroleum Reserve; previously a strict federal oil resource, by using his agent Tony Cohelo on the environmental board. But it’s alright, Gore doesn’t mind giving power to foreign companies. None of the elites do. This resulted in the destruction of over a hundred native archaeological sites, ancient burial grounds, and much of the Kitanemuk people’s native lands.

To put this dodgy deal in to perspective, the Elk Hills deal was the largest transfer of public assets in to private hands in American history (if you don’t count the banking system). It tripled the company’s US reserves, increased their stock by ten percent and gave them political footing and power over night. Gore himself was of course rewarded not only through campaign funds but through stock he had bought prior to the deal.

Peasants being massacred in Columbia, the stealing of pipelines, deals with Colonel Gaddafi, the poisoning of Peruvians, and of course lots of C02…all linked to Occidental Petroleum and Al Gore. He couldn’t care less about polar bears or humans for that matter – yet this man is dictating to us about changing our evil ways?

To further expose the fickleness of the environmental movement, they were perfectly happy to condemn Gore after his dealings with Occidental, but 10 years later they support him like fundamentalist Christians. It would be like supporting Bin Laden if he reappeared and started supporting the War on Terror (that’s if you believe that can of worms to begin with, but more on that later).

One of Gore’s mentors was an unnerving man called John Holdren, the current (Czar) Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), who had a similar position under Clinton. If you want to see who’s pulling the strings of Al Gore and Obama’s stance on climate then we need to look at the theories of this man, who co-wrote the controversial “Eco Science” text book….

That’s enough for now. I think you can pretty much grasp what is going on here. I urge everyone to download the leaked documents above and spread them like wild fire. Because if we don’t make the mainstream take notice, they’ll go ahead with their evil plans anyway. It hasn’t stopped them in the past. In fact they seem to like revealing themselves and laughing at the sheep that still go along with it. Wake up people!

Other Videos Exposing Climate Change Scam: