But are you aware of the link and do you know the consequences of doing nothing right now?

Well, I’m going to tell you.

First, get hold of the Climategate emails for yourself. They’re free to download as standard zip files from www.theclimategateemails.manyblogs.info

Ok. Now, you need to understand who the Bilderberg group is, and why Climate change is being so urgently stressed as a critical issue right now.

I draw the following from www.bilderbergergroup.net…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What are Bilderberg Conferences all about?

The Bilderberg Secretariat proclaims the conferences to be ‘…private in order to encourage frank and open discussion’. Frank and open discussion is a good thing in any forum but when those doing the discussing are some of the very most powerful financiers and media tycoons in the world it begs the question: If what they discuss is for the good of ordinary people why not publicise it! Isn’t it a perverted use of the word ‘open’ when no-one can find out what they’re saying?

Is Bilderberg a secret conspiracy?

When such rich and powerful people meet up in secret, with military intelligence managing their security, with hardly a whisper escaping of what goes on inside, people are right to be suspicious. But the true power of Bilderberg comes from the fact that participants are in a bubble, sealed off from reality and the devastating implications on the ground of the black-science economic solutions on the table.

No, it’s not a ‘conspiracy’. The world’s leading financiers and foreign policy strategists don’t get together at Bilderberg to draw up their ‘secret plans for the future’. It’s subtler than that. These meetings create an artificial ‘consensus’ in an attempt to spellbind visiting politicians and and other men of influence. Blair has fallen for this hook, line and sinker. It’s about reinforcing – often to the very people who are on the edge of condemning Globalisation – the illusion that Globalisation is ‘good’, ‘popular’ and that it’s inevitable.

Bilderberg is an extremely influential lobbying group. That’s not to say though that the organisers don’t have a hidden agenda, they do, namely acumulation of wealth and power into their own hands whilst explaining to the participants that globalisation is for the good of all. It is also a very good forum for ‘interviewing’ potential future political figures such as Clinton (1991) and Blair (1993). [see above for more on this]

The ideology put forward at the Bilderberg conferences is that what’s good for banking and big business is good for the mere mortals of the world. Silently banished are the critical voices, those that might point out that debt is spiralling out of control, that wealth is being sucked away from ordinary people and into the hands of the faceless corporate institutions, that millions are dying as a direct result of the global heavyweight Rockefeller/Rothschild economic strategies.

When looking at one of the (partially reliable) participant lists it should be remembered that quite a number of participants are invited in an attempt to get them on-board the globalisation project. These are carefully selected people of influence, who have been openly critical of globalisation. Examples are Jonathan Porritt (Bilderberg 1999) and Will Hutton (Bilderberg 1997) but there are many others. Most of these kinds of participants are happy to speak about the conference afterwards, and may even be refreshingly critical.

The Bilderberg organisers are accepted by those ‘in the know’ as the prophets of Capitalism. Will Hutton, deputy Editor of The Observer newspaper in London and left-leaning Economist, described private clubs of the elite as masterminded by ‘The High Priests of Globalisation’. The ecclesiastical allusion is not accidental. The Bilderberg high-priests are a force against good, out to wipe morality from the earth. For the organisers Bilderberg Conferences are an annual ideological assault by the world’s most power-hungry people. Not content with owning unimaginable amounts of money and property they want to use that wealth to acquire even more power for themselves. Power is the most dangerous and addictive drugs known to man. Will the craving be satisfied when a handful of men own and control everything on earth?

And just like the Nazi party in the 1930′s the global Capitalist Elite are rising in power by peaceful means. There are some very uncomfortanble and unexplained connections between Bilderberg and the Nazis through the Conference’s founder Prince Bernhard.

These crown princes of capital use violence at the sharp end – the destruction of dissent – the repossession of homes men and women have worked a lifetime for – needless deaths from starvation and geopolitical machinations – this violence is notable by its absence from the annual meetings.

One can’t help but wonder, when the Bilderberg organisers, Rothschild, Rockefeller, Kissinger and the rest have completed their project of enclosing all global goods and services into their own hands, enclosing too the media to stop people freely discussing what they are up to. What then?? What happens when the men who would be gods turn out to be the global devils?

Who is behind Bilderberg?

Bilderberg is run by a Steering Group – if you’re wondering who’s responsible for so much of the capital-friendly and dissent-crushing law-making, poverty and general misery in the world this may be the place to look. Up-to-date lists are available from the Bilderberg Secretariat. This is the closest approximation to a shadow world government. And this is another hidden agenda at Bilderberg.

There may be other groups pulling the strings behind even the Steering Group possibly even high degree occult groups such as The Masons or Illuminati! [eg.] – but that is ‘conspiracy theory’, Bilderberg is not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I apologise for any broken links in the excerpt. You can read the original page at www.bilderbergergroup.net

So, it is critical to understand that the Bilderberg group run the European Union as well as steering if not totally controlling the United Nations as well.

Once you realize the magnitude of their influence, it is easy to understand why the Climategate scandal is not receiving much coverage in the mainstream media, and why ordinary people must use the power of the internet and what remaining “freedom of speech” we have to spread the truth and call for an immediate halt to the Copenhagen Climate Conference.

So the Bilderbergers have enlisted the aid of a collective of scientists to develop alarmist hysteria about global warming – or climate change as it is now referred to. One point that is sadly missed is that the scientists leading the campaign are not those at the CRU in England. CRU was more or less bullied into subscribing to the plot, as some of the leaked emails indicate.

Remember, you can download all the emails for free at:

www.theclimategateemails.manyblogs.info

The following is an email showing an example of the collaborative process at work. I have blanked out the email addresses concerned but they are intact in the downloadable files.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx, Rob.Swart@xxxxxxx
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: alcamo@xxxxxxxxxx

Mike, Rob,

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions –

Distribution for Endorsements –
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements.   I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say  “1000 scientists signed” or “1500
signed”.  No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without.  They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.

Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.)  Get those
names!

Timing — I feel strongly that the week of 24 November  is too late.
1.  We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
a sag in related news,  but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2.  If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
time to pay attention to it.  We should give them a few weeks to hear
about it.
3.  If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement.  On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so
bad to release the Statement  in the same week,  but on a
diffeent day.  The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
very different directions.

Conclusion — I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
November at the latest.

Mike  — I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
with the list you can get from the Dutch.  But I am still
willing to send you what I have,  if you wish.

Best wishes,

Joe Alcamo

—————————————————-
Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo,  Director
Center for Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel
Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
D-34109 Kassel
Germany

Phone: +49 561 804 3898
Fax:  +49 561 804 3176

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And another email…

From: richard.tol@xxxxxxxxx
To: “m.hulme” <m.hulme@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: re: positives and negatives
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 97 15:09:29 CET
Cc: “timothy.mitchell” <timothy.mitchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>It would indeed be interesting to poll all of our invitees using a more
>sophisticated
>questionnaire, but this is not what we are about.  For example, if you
>disagree
>with the Statement I would be interested to know the grounds of your
>disagreement.

Mike,

Thanks.

I am always worried about this sort of things. Even if you have 1000
signitures, and appear to have a strong backup, how many of those asked did
not sign?

Also, I happen to be of the opinion that the US proposal for Kyoto is too
ambitious. But of course I am thinking of real policies, not of
negotiation-rhetoric.

Finally, I think that the text conveys the message that it is a scientific
defense for the EU position. There is not any. Even DG11 finds a hard to
defend (at least, in the draft version of their attempt — I don’t think the
final version has appeared yet). Whatever you think about long-term goals,
2010 is pretty soon. At the moment, no country has any experience with
serious emission reduction POLICY. Minus 15% is serious, particularly because
of the effort that will be spend on the monetary union and because the UK and
Germany are too optimistic on their baseline emissions. Rash action instead
careful thinking may well run serious, international climate policy deep into
the ground.

Cheers

Richard

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This next email shows the absolutely corrupt collaborative process in full swing. Note the reluctance of Tom Wigley to get involved and the strength of his complaint.

The “Statement” is one of the foundation documents that the entire Climate Change agenda is based on… and its validity is clearly questioned here…

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: jan.goudriaan@xxxxxxxxxxx, sl_h@xxxxxxxxx, Klaus Hasselmann <klaus.hasselmann@xxxxxx>, Jill Jaeger <jaeger@xxxxxxxxx>, rector@xxxxx, oriordan@xxxxxxxx, uctpa84@xxxxxxx, john@xxxxxxxxx, mparry@xxxxxxxxxx, pier.vellinga@xxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST)
Reply-to: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxx>, t.mitchell@xxxxxxxx

Dear Eleven,

I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it.  Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the
IPCC “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.”  In contrast
to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3
review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting
arguments in support of both “immediate control” and the spectrum of more
cost-effective options.  It is not IPCC’s role to make “convincing cases”
for any particular policy option; nor does it.  However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper.  This is contrary to your
statement.

This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
dis-service.  To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
balanced scientific assessment.  What is unfortunate is that this will not
be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted.  In
issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
scientific research.  I think you have failed to do this.

Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal
views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible.  No
scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever
endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully
themselves.  You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just
this!  I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief
that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science
– when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords
with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on
the subject.

Let me remind you of the science.  The issue you address is one of the
timing of emissions reductions below BAU.  Note that this is not the same
as the timing of action — and note that your letter categorically
addresses the former rather than the latter issue.  Emissions reduction
timing is epitomized by the differences between the Sxxx and WRExxx
pathways towards CO2 concentration stabilization.  It has been clearly
demonstrated in the literature that the mitigation costs of following an
Sxxx pathway are up to five times the cost of following an equivalent
WRExxx pathway.  It has also been shown that there is likely to be an
equal or greater cost differential for non-Annex I countries, and that the
economic burden in Annex I countries would fall disproportionately on
poorer people.

Furthermore, since there has been no credible analysis of the benefits
(averted impacts) side of the equation, it is impossible to assess fully
the benefits differential between the Sxxx and WRExxx stabilization
profiles.  Indeed, uncertainties in predicting the regional details of
future climate change that would arise from following these pathways, and
the even greater uncertainties that attend any assessment of the impacts
of such climate changes, preclude any credible assessment of the relative
benefits.  As shown in the WRE paper (Nature v. 379, pp. 240-243), the
differentials at the global-mean level are so small, at most a few tenths
of a degree Celsius and a few cm in sea level rise and declining to
minuscule amounts as the pathways approach the SAME target, that it is
unlikely that an analysis of future climate data could even distinguish
between the pathways.  Certainly, given the much larger noise at the
regional level, and noting that even the absolute changes in many
variables at the regional level remain within the noise out to 2030 or
later, the two pathways would certainly be indistinguishable at the
regional level until well into the 21st century.

The crux of this issue is developing policies for controlling greenhouse
gas emissions where the reductions relative to BAU are neither too much,
too soon (which could cause serious economic hardship to those who are
most vulnerable, poor people and poor countries) nor too little, too late
(which could lead to future impacts that would be bad for future
generations of the same groups).  Our ability to quantify the economic
consequences of “too much, too soon” is far better than our ability to
quantify the impacts that might arise from “too little, too late” — to
the extent that we cannot even define what this means!  You appear to be
putting too much weight on the highly uncertain impacts side of the
equation.  Worse than this, you have not even explained what the issues
are.  In my judgment, you are behaving in an irresponsible way that does
you little credit.  Furthermore, you have compounded your sin by actually
putting a lie into the mouths of innocents (”after carefully examining the
question of timing of emissions reductions, we find the arguments against
postponement to be more compelling”).  People who endorse your letter will
NOT have “carefully examined” the issue.

When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make
categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such
statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what
they are doing.  You have failed to do so.  Indeed, what you are doing is,
in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than
the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al.  I
find this extremely disturbing.

Tom Wigley

On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Tim Mitchell wrote:

> Reference:  Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect
> Global Climate
>
> Dear Colleague,
>
> Attached at the end of this email is a Statement, the purpose of which is
> to bolster or increase governmental and public support for controls of
> emissions of greenhouse gases in European and other industrialised
> countries in the negotiations during the Kyoto Climate Conference in
> December 1997. The Statement was drafted by a number of prominent European
> scientists concerned with the climate issue, 11 of whom are listed after
> the Statement and who are acting as formal sponsors of the Statement.
>
> *****  The 11 formal sponsors are: *****
>
> Jan Goudriaan        Hartmut Grassl    Klaus Hasselmann    Jill Jäger
> Hans Opschoor        Tim O’Riordan        Martin Parry        David Pearce
> Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber            Wolfgang Seiler    Pier Vellinga
>
> After endorsements from many hundreds of other European climate-related
> scientists are collected (and we hope that you agree to be one of these), the
> Statement will be brought to the attention of key decision-makers (e.g. EU
> Kyoto negotiaters and Environment Ministers) and other opinion-makers in
> Europe (e.g. editorial boards of newspapers) during the week beginning 24th
> November. The UK and other European WWF offices have agreed to assist in
> this activity, although the preparation of the Statement itself has in no
> way been initiated or influenced by WWF or any other body.  This is an
> initiative taken by us alone and supported by our 11 Statement sponsors.
>
> WHAT WE ASK FROM YOU
>
> We would very much like you to endorse this Statement.  Unfortunately, at
> this time we can no longer take into account any suggested modifications.
> Nevertheless, we hope that it reflects your views closely enough so that
> you can support it.  If you agree with the Statement, then:
>
> 1. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY FILL OUT the form below and either reply via email
> (preferably) or telefax (only if necessary) to the indicated fax number.
> Replies received after Wednesday 19th November will not be included.  If
> replying by email please do not use the ‘reply all’ option.  If this
> invitation has been forwarded from a colleague, please make sure your reply
> is directed to the originators of this invitation, namely:
> t.mitchell@xxxxxxx (on behalf of Mike Hulme and Joe Alcamo).
>
> 2. We have identified about 700 climate-related scientists in Europe who
> are receiving this email directly from us.  If you feel it is appropriate,
> PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE to up to three colleagues in your country who
> are working in climate-related fields, who you think may support the
> Statement and whom we have not targeted.  To identify colleagues whom we
> have already invited you can examine the email address list we have used
> for your country in the email header (or else appended to the end of this
> email).
>
> We realize that you are very busy, but this action may have a very positive
> influence on public discussions during the critical period leading up to
> Kyoto and during the Conference itself.
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Michael Hulme, Climatic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich
> Joseph Alcamo, University of Kassel, Germany
>
> (On behalf of the other signatories of the Statement)
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> I agree to have my name placed on the list of scientists that endorse the
> Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global
> Climate.
>
> Full Title and Name
>
> Affiliation                        Country
>
> Signature (for fax replies only)
>
> Date
>
> Other comments:
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> We would prefer you to return this email message to us by email, having
> duly completed the form above.  You should be sending the form to:
>
>                            ****************************
>                            **                        **
>                            **  t.mitchell@xxxxxxx  **
>                            **                        **
>                            ****************************
>
> If you would rather not use the email reply function, then please print out
> the form above and fax it (filled in) to:
>
> “Attention: European Climate Statement”
> Climatic Research Unit,  University of East Anglia
> Telefax: +44 1603 507784
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate
> =============================================================================
>
> In 1992, the nations of the world took a significant step to protect global
> climate by signing the Framework Convention on Climate Change. This year,
> at the coming Climate Summit in Kyoto*, they have the chance to take
> another important step.  It is our belief that the nations of the world
> should agree to substantive action for controlling the growth of greenhouse
> gas emissions.
>
> Our opinion is bolstered by the latest assessment of scientific knowledge
> carried out by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The
> IPCC reported that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human
> influence on global climate”. They also gave examples of observed climate
> change up to now, including:
>
> · Global mean surface air temperature has increased by between 0.3 to 0.6
> degrees Celsius since the late 19th century, and recent years have been the
> warmest since 1860.
> · Global sea level has risen between 10 and 25 centimeters over the past
> 100 years.
>
> Based on estimates from computer models, the IPCC also maintained that
> humanity will have a continuing and cumulative effect on climate in the
> future. Future society may find that some climate impacts are positive, as
> in the possible increase in rainfall and crop yield in some dry regions;
> and society may be able to adapt to some impacts, such as by building dikes
> against rising sea level. But many, if not most, climate impacts will
> increase risks to society and nature, and will be irreversible on the human
> time scale. Among the possible changes are further increases in sea level,
> the transformation of forest and other ecosystems, modifications of crop
> yield, and shifts in the geographic range of pests and pathogens. It is
> also possible that infrequent but disastrous events, such as droughts and
> floods, could occur more often in some regions. At particular risk are
> people living on arid or semi-arid land, in low-lying coastal areas and
> islands, in water-limited or flood-prone regions, or in mountainous
> regions. The risk to nature will be significant in the many areas where
> ecosystems cannot quickly adapt to changing climate, or where they are
> already under stress from environmental pollution or other factors.
>
> Because of these risks, we consider it important for nations to set limits
> on the increase of global temperature due to human interference with the
> climate system. We recommend that European and other industrialized nations
> use such long-term climate protection goals as a guide to determining
> short-term emission targets. This approach has been adopted, for example,
> by the European Union and the Alliance of Small Island States.
>
> Some may say that action to control emissions should be postponed because
> of the scientific uncertainties of climate change and its impact. Our view
> is that the risks and irreversibility of many climate impacts require
> “precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent, or minimize the causes of
> climate change”, as stated in the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
>
> We also acknowledge that economic arguments have been put forward for
> postponing the control of emissions in Europe and elsewhere. However, after
> carefully examining the question of timing of emission reductions, we find
> the arguments against postponement to be more compelling. First, postponing
> action could shift an unfair burden for more severe reductions of emissions
> onto future generations. Second, it will lead to a greater accumulation of
> greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and hence make it more difficult to
> prevent future climate change when action is finally taken. Third, the
> latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate
> control of emissions.
>
> Rather than delay, we strongly urge governments in Europe and other
> industrialized countries to agree to control greenhouse emissions as part
> of a Kyoto agreement. Some controls can be achieved by reducing fossil fuel
> use at little or no net cost through accelerated improvements in the
> efficiency of energy systems, the faster introduction of renewable energy
> sources, and the reduction of subsidies for fossil fuel use. Moreover,
> reducing the use of fossil fuels will also reduce local and regional air
> pollution, and their related impacts on human health and ecosystems.
>
> We believe that the European Union (EU) proposal is consistent with long
> term climate protection. This proposal would reduce key greenhouse gas
> emissions by 15% from industrialized countries (so-called Annex I
> countries) by the year 2010 (relative to year 1990). Although stronger
> emission reductions will be needed in the future, we see the EU, or
> similar, goal as a positive first step “to prevent dangerous anthropogenic
> interference with the climate system” and to lessen risks to society and
> nature.   Such substantive action is needed now.
>
> *Third Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate
> Change, Kyoto, Japan, December, 1997.
>
> Signed:
>
> Jan Goudriaan            Hartmut Grassl        Klaus Hasselmann
> Jill Jäger            Hans Opschoor            Tim O’Riordan
> Martin Parry             David Pearce            Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber
> Wolfgang Seiler        Pier Vellinga
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> **  This message originated from the
> **     Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
> **  It was sent out by
> **     Mike Hulme and Tim Mitchell on behalf of the 11 key signatories.
> **  If you object to being on this email address list,
> **     please accept our apologies and inform us;
> **     we will then remove your address from the list.
> **  Please direct any comments to:
> **     t.mitchell@xxxxxxxx
> ************************************************************************
>
> The list below consists of the people with UK email addresses to whom this
> message has been sent:
>
> all CRU staff
> Adger, N
> Alcock, Graeme
> Allan, P
> Allan, Richard P
> Anderson, Dennis
> Armstrong, Adrian
> Arnell, N W
> Audsley, Eric
> Baker, Richard
> Baran, A J
> Barker, Terry
> Benestad, R E
> Bentham, G
> Bigg, G
> Boucher, Keith R
> Bouma, D
> Bramwell, Penny
> Brooks, Roger
> Brown, Philip RA
> Brugge, Roger
> Bullock, P
> Burkhardt, Ulrike
> Butterfield, Ruth
> Cai, Xiaoming
> Cannell, Melvyn
> Carling, Bob
> Castleford, John
> Chan, Angela H Y
> Clark, Douglas B
> Cluckie, I D
> Collins, Matthew
> Colman, Andrew
> Connolley, William M
> Cornford, Dan
> Costigan, Peter
> Cox, Peter
> Cox, Peter M
> Cui, Zhiqiang
> Culf, Alastair
> Cullum, Dave
> Dale, Ian
> Davis, Gerald R
> Dewhurst, Nicola
> Doherty, Ruth
> Dokerty, T
> Dorling, S
> Downey, Ian
> Downing, Tom
> East, M.
> Easthope, Mark
> Evans, Sam
> Favis-Mortlock, David
> Ferris, Rachel
> Fisher, Helen
> Folland, Chris
> Foot, John S
> Ford, I J
> Fowler, David
> Friend, Andrew
> Fruh, Wolf-Gerrit
> Gallop, Rowland
> Gawith, Megan
> Geer, Alan
> George, Glen
> Gibson, J K
> Giles, Brian
> Goode, Helen Rachel
> Gregory, David
> Gregory, Jonathan
> Gregory, Ken
> Griggs, D
> Grubb, Michael
> Hannah, David M
> Hansen, Jim
> Harrison, Paula
> Hawksworth, Kevin Stuart
> Hedger, Merylyn
> Hewitt, Chris
> Highwood, Eleanor
> Holt, Chris
> Horton, Briony
> Houghton, J
> Houseago, Richenda
> Huntingford, Chris
> Hutchings, Jenny
> Ingram, John
> Ingram, W J
> Jackson, Tim
> Jakob, Christian
> Jeffree, Christopher E
> Jenkins, Geoff
> Johns, Tim
> Johnston, Peter
> Jolliffe, Ian
> Jones, Clive
> Jones, Colin
> Jordan, A
> Joyce, Andrew N
> Keen, Ann
> Kennedy, Hamid
> Kenworthy, Joan M
> Keramitsoglou, Iphigenia
> Kilsby, Chris
> King, Ben P
> King, John
> Kings, John
> Kniveton, Dom
> Lamptey, Benjamin Lantei
> Lary, David J
> Liss, P
> Livermore, Matt
> Lloyd, Colin
> Lynagh, Norman
> Marshall, David
> Marshall, Stewart
> Maskell, Kathy
> Matthews, B
> Mavromatis, Theodoros
> Mayes, Julian
> Mayr, Thomas
> McClatchey, John
> McGregor, Glenn Russell
> McKay, Douglas
> McLaren, Alison
> McMichael, Tony
> Medlyn, Belinda
> Merchant, Chris
> Mitchell, John
> Morison, James
> Morse, Andy
> Mulligan, Mark
> Murphy, James
> Murrill, A
> Nicholls, Robert
> Noguer, Maria
> Orr, John
> Palmer, Tim
> Palutikof, Jean
> Parker, David
> Parkinson, Stuart
> Parry, M
> Pedder, Mike
> Perry, Allen
> Pierce, Clive
> Pilling, C
> Pope, V D
> Pugh, D
> Ravetz, Jerome R
> Read, P L
> Rey, N
> Reynard, Nick
> Reynolds, David
> Roberts, D L
> Rosier, Suzanne
> Rounsevell, Mark
> Rowell, Dave
> Ryan, Sonja
> Sanderson, Michael G
> Scaife, Adam
> Sear, Chris
> Semenov, Mikhail
> Shackley, Simon
> Shao, Jianmin
> Shine, Keith P
> Simpson, I
> Simpson, V
> Sims, Graham
> Skea, Jim
> Slingo, Julia
> Smithson, Peter
> Snow, Keith
> Spellman, Greg
> Standley, Andy
> Stott, Peter
> Subak, S
> Sumner, Graham
> Sutton, R T
> Tait, Andrew
> Taylor, C M
> Tett, Simon
> Thorncroft, Chris
> Thornes, John E
> Thornton, Tim
> Thorpe, Robert
> Thuburn, John
> Todd, Martin
> Tullett, Michael
> Turner, R K
> Unwin, David
> Veal, Anthony
> Viterbo, Pedro
> Walker, Malcolm
> Wang, Kuoying
> Warrilow, David
> Washington, Richard
> Webb, Mark
> Wheeler, Tim
> Wigley, Tom
> Wilby, Rob
> Wild, Richard
> Williamson, P
> Woodward, Stephanie
> Wright, Peter
> Wynne, Brian
> Yamin, Farhana
>
>

**********************************************************
*Tom M.L. Wigley                        *
*Senior Scientist                     *
*National Center for Atmospheric Research                *
*P.O. Box 3000                                *
*Boulder, CO 80307-3000                    *
*USA                                                     *
*Phone: 303-497-2690                                     *
*Fax: 303-497-2699                                       *
*E-mail: wigley@xxxxxxx                                 *
**********************************************************

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ok. Refer to your downloaded emails to verify what I have posted. Further reading goes on to show such heavy0handed standover tactics, blatant deception and outright thuggery that any right-minded person would not believe true scientists were involved.

This is the basis for not only the earlier Kyoto agreement, but the current Copenhagen Climate Conference.

At Copenhagen as you are well aware, agreements are being signed that will impose massive carbon taxes on literally billions of people worldwide.

Let me make this crystal clear: A globalized tax is being forced upon us as the first act of the global government.

This is the New World Order in full swing. And it is happening right now, today, tomorrow and for the next couple of weeks. Think about this carefully, as the world is about to change.

What you, I and everyone who is able to must do, is spread the truth about the scientists, the Copenhagen Climate Conference, and the Climategate scandal.

Mainstream media is obviously not going to help us at all – they are owned and controlled by the very people who seek to control us all. It is up to us.

Download the emails and read them for yourself. Do some research on the Bilderberg group, and take some action now to stop the madness.

Climate change is an absolute farce, and a carefully prepared hoax to force the global government upon us. You have the power to stop it. Act NOW!

Ok, I don’t think Letterman is actually a billionaire but I do know Tiger is.

What’s the deal then? Once you get a few hundred million in the bank it becomes all about the power?

I do feel sorry for Tifer’s wife; it always sucks getting cheated on.

You know, I will actually make the prediction, right here – right now.

I predict Mrs Woods will leave him now and take half a billion dollars from him. He’s admitted to screwing around with a bunch of chicks, so the courts won’t have any sympathy. I think he just cost himself a pile of dough.]

Of course, he may have had good reason to seek companionship outside of the marital bed, and he has admitted he’s not perfect. But whatever his reasons, I would say he has his work cut out for him to keep his marriage together. And ANY divorce is going to cost him bigtime, you can be sure of that.

As for Letterman, no – that’s just too creepy to think about.

Talk later hunniiiieeeezzzz

Katie Kay Holmes.

SO just about every good blog has a post on the climategate scandal, yet hardly any of the big newspapers and NONE of the major TV networks are running the story…yet.

It’s disgusting, and shows the gutless nature of the main stream media who refuse to put the story at the top, or on the front page where it belongs.

Really makes me question who’s calling the shots.

Lots of people have emailed me and asked me in chat room where to download the climategate emails. Apparently some of the big servers have been taken offline or had mysterious power failures – how convenient.

I was able to download all the emails and other documents 2 days ago, and got busy reading a stack of them. Some amazing reading, and a lot of it, very damning indeed for the so-called climate scientists.

What it reinforces is the principle that we should not just take for granted everything that experts tell us. Of course many of us know we should always do our own research, but when it is scientists who hold all the data and decide to slant it in a way that supports their own theories and ideologies, you would think it would have been reasonable to take it on face value.

Personally I never believed much of the global warming saga, other than there have always been fluctuations in the earth’s temperature. However, I, like most people, never did much to directly challenge the scientists.

Anyway, now that I’ve read many of the climategate emails and documents myself, I feel comfortable in flipping the bird at all those involved. Screw all of you scientists and media people involved, you seriosuly suck.

And to all the politicians who have chosen to use the bad data even when some of them knew it was bad, screw you as well.

The Climategate scandal should put an instant halt to proceedings at the Copenhagen Climate Conference, but of course, the same people who drove the fake reserch also own and control the media, so with the story being hushed at least for the time-being, the conference marches happily on, and ridiculous carbon and emmission trading schemes and taxes are forced upon the public regardless.

Again, screw you all.

We bloggers need to keep putting pressure on media people to talk about the scandal. Smaller networks are running it, which is great to see, but we need to get the biggies to pick it up as well. The fact is that most reporters and news channels already HAVE all the emails, but seem to act like they know nothing about it. This is sickening, and more needs to be done.

I suggest that ANY media organization that knows about the scandal yet isn’t running it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law as being part of the conspiracy. It really makes me mad.

Here is the site you can download all the emails, computer data and other documents from:

www.theclimategateemails.manyblogs.info

The files are available on that site as regular zip files so you don’t need to sod about with torrents, and they’ve been split into a number of smaller downloads which makes it easier too.

It’s also good to see a number of good Climategate videos on youtube as well. Remember, the more we all do to share the emails around and put pressure on media people, the sooner all the b.s. emmissions and carbon taxes will be scrapped, so we will all save a lot of money by working together.

Ok hugzz people, I’m going to bed.

Katie Kay Holmes

xxxxxxxxxxx

Did you ever get to a certain age, found yourself divorced, out of work or somehow else at a loose end and wonder how you go there?

Have you had cause to reflect on your life and question who you are?

Consider this:

So many of our institutions seem hell-bent on making us lose ourselves to serve their purposes. I’m referring to those structures that compartmentalize the individual, making the person feel less than a person and more like a commodity or a number – then they gradually rebuild you in the form they wish to use you as.

For example: the way the army breaks a new recruit then builds them into a soldier. Or an education system that attempts a similar method to create a new accountant/scientist/lawyer etc.

Do we subconsciously also do this to ourselves over time?

In our quest to define ourselves through our relationships, jobs and possessions, do we lose the knowledge of our own essence?

Do we sometimes take stock of our lives, realize we’ve “lost” something crucial, then seek to replace it by getting busier?

For many of us, the answer is Yes, of course we do. We fill our lives up with stuff we think we need to make us perfect people. Better jobs, better friends, more money. When what we really needed was just to rediscover ourselves. Because once you re-/discover who you are, you realize you are already a perfect person. Flawed sure, but perfect. After all, you only wanted all that great stuff so you had the perfect life, right?

So ok, we get too busy and fill our lives up with stuff.

Now, I’m not saying that all that stuff is bad, or that accumulating nice friends and assets is wrong per se, I’m just saying that we need to remember ourselves first – have the base right; establish what our needs really are before chasing after this and that.

There are various techniques you we use to mentally strip away the layers that have been built up over time. The main thing is to accurately describe  then remove those things that we usually use to define ourselves. Our relationships, career, assets. I’m not saying physically strip them away (although in some cases this may help) but mentally strip them away from our own definition of ourselves. What you are left with is the core of yourself – I think someone has proposed an Onion theory, so that could be a good starting point, although the onions I’ve known never had a core – they were layers right to the middle.

Just peeling back the layers to find who you are today isn’t enough. You need to rediscover who you were as a child or teenager – who you were before you became a totally different person. Because the nutty truth is – you are the same person. You just had a bunch of stuff happen to you. Yes you changed, but the essence of you is the same essence you had when you were 7 or 17.

I urge you to seek that essence, find out who you are, even if it means losing who you think you are, and maybe then you can define again who you want to be. Re-plan your life starting from today – a good life plan that fits with you you really are.

So much for the holiday – today turned out to be one of my busiest days ever. I’m finding lately that in being involved in so many projects in different spheres that I am spreading myself thin, or maybe it is just the surface that is becoming thin and the core itself is solid.

My daytime job as an advertising copywriter is busy enough to keep most people satisfied, and admittedly I could come home each night and kick back, watch tv and just blob out like so many other americans. That was my style for quite a while but nowadays it hardly ever happens – I just don’t find it refreshing or rewarding anymore.

Increasingly of late, I have been putting my hand up for new projects, both online and offline, with the ambition that someday I can leave my regular 9-to-5 and work solely from home. I certainly won’t miss the downtown L.A traffic, for one thing.

I read an enormous amount daily, with the vast majority of it being online. News feeds, ezines and of course my share of blogs and emails. Sometimes I get information overload but I have learnt to read and mentally sift: take everything in but let the irrelevant drop out, and just work with the juicy bits.

Sadly I no longer have time for novels anymore. However, I do find enough “fiction” in a lot of the stuff I read online that keeps me amused and entertained that novels hardly seem important at this stage. My old habit was to watch tv til 10pm then hit the sack with a good old tearjerker or romantic tome. These days I get just as much enjoyment from staying up a bit later and cruising the blogs; heck, I even get to post my own comments now   Grisham, King and Collins never took any notice of the things I said when reading their books.

Not being a “webmaster” as such, I find myself limited to commenting and posting on exisitng sites, which in itself is fine. Yes I managed to get this blog up and running, although wordpress makes it fairly easy to get going, and all the plugins let you personalize it just the way you like. Quite amazing how simply you can add a widget to display all your archived posts, for example.

Ok, bedtime. I have amazing things to write about tomorrow at work *cough* and am excited to get back on here. It’s quite addictive really – I wish I had discovered blogging earlier. Or maybe now is just the right time.

Goodnight.

Katie Kay.

Here in L.A, it seems everyone is crazy about stringing up colored lights, and the place feels so much more of a community. One big party atmosphere. Still a mexican flavor to the place but with the cooler temps and earlier sunsets it doesn’t have that endless-lazy-day feeling.

I hear the snow skiing season is going to be massive this year. My g/f  who works in a travel agency says flying is the only way to do it these days – the sweet skifields are really only a quick flight away but if you drive it totally sucks and takes forever – plus you have to mess around with chains on your tires.

I’ve actually been saving up some snow over the summer (think old chest freezer) and am planning one of those crazy get-drunk-and-build-a-snowman-on-the-beach missions. Never seen it done but I heard if you time it right you can make one and have him survive for quite a while. Was thinking of Santa Cruz for that as it’s my favorite place. Anyone with an ice-cream truck and wants to volunteer their services would be most welcome LOL.

I’m still looking for a nice guy to keep me warm this winter  so guys, don’t be shy.. there are lots of us lonely L.A girls just dying to meet nice guys this winter. A few of us got together and joined a dating site, to the shock of our mothers (hehe) but there are hardly any decent guys. So please please come and keep me/us (well me anyway) warm. Personally I like guys between 22 and 30, but I have friends who date guys outside of that range. Anyway I’m not saying desperate but I am saying keen.

Ok. I will post again soon. Be good people.

Katie Kay.