Global Non-Warming and the Big Green Lie Machine. By Alan Franklin.

Obama, who has yet to say anything wise or even sensible in his evil misrule of America, is predictably gung-ho for the myth of global warming. This has the effect of putting America at a needless disadvantage, as while coal burning is cut back in the USA, China gladly uses  all it can get its hands on. So if America, Britain and every western nation closed all mines and installed hundreds of thousands of windmills  it would make zero difference to carbon output. Carbon output, by the way, is a good thing. It’s what plants eat. That’s a really inconvenient truth for global warmists.

When Pat and I wrote our book Cults and Isms: True or False? I included a chapter on the green religion. I called it “The Big Green Lie Machine.” I said that back in the 1970s it was commonly accepted “wisdom,” unquestioned by big media, that the earth was heading for a new ice age. I remember the BBC, which I dub The Biased Broadcasting Corporation as it has its own radical leftist, secular, agenda, putting out a documentary about Britain as the new Arctic.

A solemn commentator intoned about icy woes to come, as simulations of the River Thames frozen over, with the Houses of Parliament almost buried under ice, flashed on the screen. A courageous young filmmaker put out a documentary on Britain’s Channel  Four some years back, demolishing the ridiculous notion of global warming. It was called The Great Global Warming Conspiracy. The funniest item was when he confronted one of the global warming fanatics from the University of East Anglia, where the myths of warming are propagated. This flexible theorist was pictured in an old documentary, droning on about global cooling. I kid you not.

Who cares as long as those Government grants keep coming? Never let the facts spoil a good scare story. Incidentally, a book called Climategate exposes hitherto unseen e-mails in which fanatical greenies at universities in America and Britain are shown to conceal the truth about the earth’s temperature. Fact: it is not rising. Fact: Neither are sea levels.

  • As I put it in one of the Cults and Isms presentations I give to anyone who invites me, The world has cooled .74 of a degree F since Al Gore made his propaganda film “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006 (Source, Dr Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NASA scientist)
  •  Top CIA thinkers predicted a new ice age in the 1970s. Science fashion changes. God does not.

Politicians think that if they scare us half to death about threats to the “planet,” which are taught as fact is state-run propaganda classes in schools across the western world, we are putty in their hands. They are right. You can only bring in draconian controls, like the UN sponsored Agenda 21, which is restricting land use across America and other nations, if people are too scared and ill-informed to argue.

Young people are today not encouraged to properly evaluate the nutty theories they are taught, with no right of reply. The ridiculous notions of global warming and evolution being but two. Both can be utterly demolished in about half an hour of hard facts, but no opposing views are allowed in state-run brainwashing camps, often called schools and colleges. The main TV channels are just as bad, with endless documentaries presenting warming climates as fact while claiming the earth to be “millions of years old” when there is not a shred of scientific evidence to back up this lie.

This, incidentally, is why people like Obama and his ilk hate home schooling, because when Christians teach their children a truthful, Biblical worldview they are seen as a threat to the establishment. An establishment built on a pyramid of lies.

I could fill this website with endless facts proving what I say. Get more truthful articles by using our search engine, top right. In a moment I will show you what a writer in the secular Daily Telegraph of London had to say about the myth of a warming world. Our books are full of truth: you and your church need to get them before they are banned. I am also happy to consider invitations to talk to church groups, in America or Britain, although clusters of dates are better than going from one end of the country to the other in one trip. I wouldn’t want to increase my carbon footprint (That’s a joke, by the way!)

Now here is part of a blog by a writer on Britain’s Daily Telegraph newspaper: James Delingpole He is the author of numerous  books, including Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future, also available in the US, and in Australia as Killing the Earth to Save It. His website is

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming  James DelingpolePolitics459

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka  CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

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

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

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

"In an odd way this is cheering news."

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

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

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

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as "How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie" -  CRU's researchers were exposed as having "cherry-picked" data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium.  CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because  CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that's sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore's Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called "sceptical" view – which  some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled 'Barbecue the Polar Bears' in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I'VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN'T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.

Unfortunately, we've a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

Finally, here is a tailpiece comment from The American Enterprise Institute's Benjamin Zycher:

"No crisis should go to waste, an eternal truth highlighted in bold by a purported climate change apocalypse that is now the target of actions newly proposed by President Obama. This so-called 'crisis' will flood not various coastlines, but instead the front pages, replacing other, less flattering political headlines for the administration. ...

“Whatever the weakness of the evidence on greenhouse gases (GHG) and climate effects, the real goal of carbon policy is a regional redistribution of wealth.... In the president's speech there appears the phrase 'carbon pollution' no fewer than 30 times. In the Orwellian language of the environmental left, 'carbon pollution' is carbon dioxide -- a natural substance that is not toxic to humans at many times greater than current ambient concentrations and that protects plants from various environmental stresses.

“It is unlike any other effluent regulated by the EPA for which less is better. Too little carbon dioxide would make life difficult, and in the extreme case, the Earth uninhabitable. That obviously will not be the result of the president's proposals if implemented. But the large expansion of government power and centralized planning authority inherent in the proposals is not an end to be pursued."


Insert key words to search our site and archives

'Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.'
1 Corinthians 15:58

© Copyright 1995-2024 Designed by
visitors counter