Trump in danger



History has shown that civilizations evolve with time, become decadent, and are finally overwhelmed by different populations, different cultures, different religions that invade their territories. Will the West as we know it be an exception to the rule?

Last year, two important events, BREXIT and the election of Donald Trump, gave us ground for optimism. In 2017, however, it has become evident that the forces of decadence (FODs) will do anything to turn the tables around. They have enormous advantages over the patriots, who support the President: they control the entertainment industry (e.g. Hollywood), most schools and universities, and the MSM (mainstream media).

FODs can even override the democratic process. They did it in the past: Nixon was impeached for lying. Bill Clinton’s lies, on the other hand, were not punished, neither were his more serious crimes going back to Whitewater. Our justice system is not immune to decadence; neither is it to corruption.

The bottom line is that Donald Trump is in danger. Assassination is possible, but unlikely. as it might prove impopular. Playing the impeachment card could work, but it would take over 2 years before yielding the expected results. There is a third way, however, and President Trump should be warned against its possible implementation in the next couple of months: a poison that does not kill, but makes the victim ill, incoherent, or both. Congress could then declare him unfit to remain in office. The more malleable Vice President, Mike Pence, would then take over. An ex-CIA man warns about this possibility in a number of interviews, such as this one: Robert David Steele.

Steele also blows the whistle about a likely 3-million strong demonstration in Washington on May 1st, whose participants could be bussed courtesy of George Soros and other bankrollers of the undemocratic “world governance” plot. This would give the false impression that a majority of Americans wants the President removed, and provide the media with more fuel for their all-out anti-Trump propaganda.

The ex-spy also thinks that Trump’s aides in the White House are not loyal. Filtering his mail, they maintain him isolated from people who, like Steele, want to save him, America, and western civilization from being toppled from within.

Steele’s blogs may be found here:


The Panama Papers manipulation

Will the media protect most offenders?

The Panama Papers are being released by the media in a selective manner.  We don’t hear anything that may embarrass big business, western politicians that think inside the box, and most public figures. A deal has been made, we are told, with the selected few that have been granted access to the leaked material. This is why the public has only heard about the usual villains, like Putin, or celebrities that do not enjoy the favor of the demophobic global governance coalition.

Craig Murray denounces this selective opacity in his blog:

Quote – The Suddeutsche Zeitung, which received the leak, gives a detailed explanation of the methodology the corporate media used to search the files. The main search they have done is for names associated with breaking UN sanctions regimes. The Guardian reports this too and helpfully lists those countries as Zimbabwe, North Korea, Russia and Syria. The filtering of this Mossack Fonseca information by the corporate media follows a direct western governmental agenda. There is no mention at all of use of Mossack Fonseca by massive western corporations or western billionaires – the main customers. And the Guardian is quick to reassure that “much of the leaked material will remain private.” Unquote
Read more here: Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% From Panama Leak

However, for those of you who wish to investigate people or companies for which you have a particular interest, here are a few tools that may be useful:

Offshore Leaks Database

Searching for documents

Someone already searched for Irish companies

BREXIT: what the BBC didn’t say


BREXITImage: courtesy of Tim Montgomerie and the Wall Street Journal. Read his article.

A referendum will be held on June 23rd in the UK to decide on “BREXIT” (Britain Exit), i.e. whether to leave or remain in the European Union. The BBC has outlined the pros and cons, but the list would not be complete without a few reflexions on the dismal failures of EU policies.

Foreign policy

The actions of some NATO countries have brought lasting, dangerous chaos to Irak, Afghanistan and Libya. So, why on earth did the EU help destabilize yet another muslim country by encouraging a rebellion in Syria? The result is a catastrophe of major proportions, which has backfired against Europeans through massive, often hostile immigration –  Video: The forced collective Suicide of European Nations – and primarily against the refugees themselves, some of which have drowned at sea, including many children.

Another misguided policy of the European Commission has been to systematically humiliate Moscow. First, they attracted former USSR satellite countries into the EU and NATO, regardless of the cost – political, social and financial. Then they helped dismember Yugoslavia, another country with special ties to Russia. This, by the way, fanned independence movements within EU countries, destroying their social fabric. It’s nowhere more evident than in Spain, which is slowly desintegrating into pieces.

Russia took the punches, and kept its cool. But then Brussels got greedy, and pushed its luck one bridge too far: it courted Ukraine. This led to a protracted coup d’état in Kiev, forcing the democratically elected pro-Russian president to resign.

It took naïve EU politicians to think that Russia would let a NATO power take control of Sebastopol, which harbors its main fleet since immemorial times. Ignorant ones too, because it doesn’t take a historian to know that Khrushchev had taken Crimea and the Donetz away from Russia, by ukase, to give them to Ukraine. Being a Ukrainian himself, he had no qualms about putting under Kiev’s orders the essentially Russian population of these two provinces. This wasn’t too serious an offense as long as Ukraine was part of the USSR; but when that country became independent, the sore thumb became a casus belli.

Whatever the real motive behind this folly, the EU bull had entered the china shop. The rest is still fresh in our memories: Ukraine’s Russian populations asked Moscow for help in view of the hostile coup in Kiev. Russia obliged, sending troops into Crimea and securing its fleet in Sebastopol. The Crimeans greeted their fellow-countrymen with joy, organized a referendum and voted overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian homeland. This happened so fast it became a fait-accompli.

Seeing this, the population of the Donetz organized their own referendum to reunite with mother Russia. But the EU scorned that democratic vote, oblivious to the Yugoslavia precedent. Instead, it helped quash the rebellion by sending weapons and money. In turn, Russia assisted the Donetz resistance, accusing the EU of double standards. Thousands died, and NATO came close to an open war with Russia, which might have led to the use of nuclear weapons.

The mess created in Ukraine by Brussels’ incompetent government is still unresolved, and the war-devastated population of the Donetz will be waiting years for an impossible solution to this stand-off between nuclear powers. One way or another, EU taxpayers will have to shore up Ukraine, a corrupt and bankrupt country, and subsidize EU farmers who can no longer export their products to Russia, an important market that has been lost in the process. As for business in general with Russia, it’s another huge loss for the EU economy. An independent Britain could benefit from that if it seized the opportunity.

Turkey is another blunder of epic proportions. For years the, er, let’s call them EU nullocrats, have been negotiating with Ankara the hypothetical admission of their country of 80 million muslims into the EU (one wonders on whose mandate, since the sovereign people of the EU were never consulted on this vital issue). This gave hope to the Turks, of course. But then European public opinion, upon finding out, reacted against this nonsense, and the negotiations were put on the back burner, humiliating the Turks in the process.

This year, following the disastrous exodus of millions of Syrians, Afghans, Irakis and Africans through Turkey and into the EU, the nullocrats offered a stupid deal to Turkey in exchange for a reduction in the flux of refugees: 6 billion euros, and the right for Turkish citizens to fly, drive or walk into the EU… without a visa! Ankara first agreed, then demanded more favourable terms still, e.g. €6 billion, yes, but every year!

We owe this mind-boggling piece of diplomacy to Angela Merkel, who brokered the deal. A final decision will be made this month on the new Turkish demands. By the way, there are really 140 million Turks, if one includes those living in central Asia.

The EU, it must be said, has no democratic authority to carry out these idiotic policies, which put Europe at considerable risk. Only two countries, Spain and Luxembourg, ratified by referendum the 2004-modified European Constitution. The French and Dutch people rejected it in 2005. The other member countries ratified it without calling a referendum. So, what happened next? – the nullocrats went around the negative referendum results by proposing a treaty to all member countries, which they signed the following year. This “Treaty of Lisbon” essentially put in force the Constitution that was rejected by the people.

In view of this, who can say that the EU is a democracy? Nullocracy, yes! Corruptocracy, certainly! (lobbyists are swarming in Brussels) But democracy? – absolutely not! Its constitution was imposed by a trick, and its government of Commissioners is not elected. All Europeans can do is watch in dismay, and brace themselves for a rough landing.

The environment

After spending millions to create a network of natural reserves throughout Europe (Natura 2000 areas), and enacting laws (“directives”) to protect biodiversity, the Commission proceeded to destroy both. Thousands of wind turbines sprouted throughout Europe, following Brussels’ diktat imposing the “energy transition”. It didn’t matter to these arrogant politicians and bureaucrats that the turbines would be killing millions of birds and bats, many of them endangered species that are controlling the proliferation of pests. They went as far as producing a Guidance document to make sure Natura 2000 areas could also have their bird choppers. Migration routes, even those of rare birds, were not spared either. Many species are on the decline as a result.

These huge machines desecrated landscapes from Finland to Portugal, destroying natural habitats, bringing rare species closer to extinction, and emitting dangerous infrasound affecting farm animals, wildlife, and people. Electricity prices have skyrocketed, but CO2 emissions keep rising: politicians had not figured out that wind is intermittent. So, we must have fossil fuels plants to back up the wind farms, and both must be subsidized. You couldn’t make this up!

The economy, and its social consequences

The euro crisis is a result of Brussels’ irresponsible foreign policy of expansion at all costs, compounded by a lack of control that allowed even the most profligate member countries, such as Greece, to borrow money as if there were no tomorrow. The EU economy, and its bankrupt financial system, are now being artificially maintained by the European Central Bank which, like the FED in the US, is creating money out of thin air, pumping it into the banking system. This has sunk interest rates to their lowest possible level (negative in some cases), so that over-extended sovereign debts are easier to service. But that’s highly unorthodox, and has caused the European currency to lose much of its value. The euro used to be as strong as the deutsche mark, it is now weaker than the dollar. Yet Greece, Spain and some other countries may still have to breakaway from the euro in the not too distant future.

There are many other failures to mention, such as the common agricultural policy, the fisheries policy, or the biggest fiasco of them all, the energiewende (transition to renewable energy). See for yourselves:
Biofuels cause food crises: article in The Guardian

Biofuels emit more CO2 than petroleum: REUTERS: Biofuels cause more carbon emissions than fossil fuels
Biofuels destroy crucial natural habitats all over the world, for example that of the tiger, rhinoceros and orang utan in Sumatra (to make room for palm oil plantations) – see: The Cost of the Biofuel Boom
Biomass causes entire forests to be felled, for example in the US, whose wood is being shipped to be burned at the Drax plant in the UK, causing CO2 emissions which will take many years to compensate (in part) by growing new trees. (that’s if these trees are not felled when grown – a big “IF”).  See: the biomass delusion

Solar energy is expensive and intermittent. Countries in finantial difficulties, such as Spain, have had to cut off subsidies to solar plants which were 12 (twelve) times higher than the market price.  Even Germany is now phasing them out
Wind energy is also intermittent and unaffordable. Like solar energy, it must be backed up by flexible fossil fuel power plants, which produce more CO2 per kWh than combined cycle gas turbines, and more still when following the variations of the wind. At the end of the day, there are no savings on carbon emissions. And the back-up plants must be subsidized too! This whole charade has proven to be a humongous waste of money, while being harmful to people’s health, to their savings (home values), to the economy, jobs, farm animals, wildlife, natural habitats, landscapes, tourism, residential and other investments, water quality, etc.

EnBW To Launch Offshore Windpark In Baltic Sea
Are European leaders daydreaming?

One government after another have found that they could not afford the high cost of wind and solar energy. Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and more recently Quebec, have cut off subsidies that support these intermittent, non-performing industries. Others, like Denmark, Poland and the Netherlands, are applying the brakes. Bavaria, to save its idyllic countryside, has imposed a setback from habitations of 10 times the height of wind turbines, leaving only 1% of the territory for wind development. Investors in the wind industry are worried, but windfarm victims worldwide are welcoming this ray of hope.

Even a large, successful economy like Germany can’t afford to pay forever annual subsidies of €25 billion just to maintain the fiction that it can run on intermittent energy. With electricity prices now three times as high as in the United States, fuel poverty is affecting millions of Germans, and energy-intensive industries must be subsidized to stay in business.

In the UK, the two largest aluminum smelters had to close down, and more energy-intensive industries are in jeopardy. Countries that don’t penalize fossil fuels, such as China or India, attract these industries, providing them with cheap, dirty energy. Globally, CO2 emissions actually increase as a result of these delocalizations; but the nullocrats don’t care: they have their secret agendas.

Renewable energy is not the only dead horse the EU has been flogging. The other is Global Warming, a buzz word that was soon replaced by Climate Change in case the predicted warming would turn to cooling. Forecasting one thing and its opposite is a sure way to be right no matter what, rain or shine. It’s a con game by any standard, but one that has been taught in schools along with other politically correct nonsense. Children have fallen for it, and many adults too. Endless repetition by the media is an efficient form of brainwashing – especially by television.

Global temperatures are now coming down, after an exceptionally powerful El Niño event, one which lasted till March. They will continue to decline due to lower solar radiation, evidenced by solar cycle 24, the weakest in 100 years. It was all predicted here on November 9th: See: Democracy to die next month at COP21? Many climate scientists think that the resulting cooling period will last at least a couple of decades. This is the result of natural factors, and CO2 has nothing to do with it. In fact, anthropogenic global warming is a fraud, politically motivated and abundantly financed by public money.

Don’t expect politicians, or scientists paid by them to “prove” the warming, to admit they have a hidden agenda (except Christiana Figueres). There is money in Global Warming – er, Climate Change – money to be raised through carbon taxes and other extortion methods. These may stifle the economy, but who cares? – certainly not the alliance between utopists and corruptocrats.

There is also plenty of illicit money to be made with the other super scam, renewable energy: Newsweek: green graft

The bigger picture

As evidenced by Christiana Figueres, it is not just about corruption. Politically incorrect media tell us that Brussels is an essential part of the UN plan for global governance, which has the support of the political establishment in the US. A plan that imposes multiculturalism (to eliminate national identities), curbs freedom of speech (zero-tolerance political correctness), and redistributes wealth from the middle classes of rich countries to the ruling classes of the Third World. We are to be turned into obedient sheep, easy to fleece, ruled by clueless bureaucrats such as Ms Figueres.

How would the world be governed under that plan? Well, pretty much like the EU: unelected officials eating in the hand of powerful lobbies, with the help of a vast, incompetent and unaccountable bureaucracy. Results: ever-increasing taxes, skyrocketing electricity prices, and cultural suicide.

In a recent speech, Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban warned Europeans about the loss of identity: “hidden, faceless world powers will eliminate everything that is unique, autonomous, age-old, and national” –   Destroying Europe forever.  He may also have been referring to the video mentioned earlier (second parag. above) when he concluded: Shall we be slaves – or men set free?

R. Reagan Freedom is...


On June 23rd, Britons will have a chance that is unlikely to present itself ever again: that of voting themselves out of the incompetent, undemocratic super-state that is ruining its members and welcoming Islam as its fastest growing religion. A positive vote to leave the Union would not only save Great Britain, but other European countries which are thinking about leaving as well. So don’t be shy, have no fear, take pride in your country, and vote to LEAVE the EU. Free men and women around the world will cheer you for it.

The start of Global Cooling

More evidence, more thoughts on Global Cooling

The graph below, from NOAA, confirms what I said in my previous article on the coming of global cooling – Global Cooling will start next Spring?
i.e. El Niño causes temperature peaks (red bars).

NOAA chart on Niño-Niña flavored months
Source: How will El Niño affect 2015’s placement among the warmest years on record?

On the above chart we can see clearly the plateau in global temperatures from 1998 todate, even though the dataset used by this US government agency is not wholly reliable, is subject to manipulations, and generally shows more warming than actually occurred – whereas the first graph from our previous article is based on satellite data.

In a release from University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), we read: “early indications are that 2015 will end as the third warmest year in the satellite temperature record, behind 1998 and 2010. That is the early indication. Typically, the warmest temperatures are seen in the second year of an El Niño warming event, although there have been exceptions. If the typical pattern holds true, the second year of the current El Niño would be expected to bring more record high temperatures in 2016, perhaps including a new record high temperature for the year.”
Source: Satellite data shows globe will stay below 1.5°C target
Also reported by Warming under UN target

Thus, “if the typical pattern holds true”, Global Cooling would start in 2017, not in 2016 as predicted in my article. So, we’ll just have to wait and see…

COP21 : l’asservissement

English version

Cet article peut être reproduit librement.

COP21 : la mort programmée de la démocratie ?

Et… refroidissement global au printemps ?


Le résultat de la COP21, pour nous Français, sera une pression fiscale accrue et une augmentation de la cherté de la vie – électricité, carburants, appareils ménagers, immobilier, nourriture, etc. L’effet sur l’emploi sera désastreux, car de plus en plus d’entreprises délocaliseront. Ce sera « pour sauver la planète », promettent nos politiques, qui jetteront allègrement des dizaines de milliards d’euros supplémentaires dans le gouffre de la dépense publique, appauvrissant les Français davantage mais profitant de façon générale à la classe politique, qui compte chez nous près de 500 000 élus, pas tous dévoués à l’intérêt général.

Ce n’est pas tout : il s’agit aussi de perte de souveraineté nationale. Ce n’est pas nouveau : une partie de la nôtre a déjà été transférée aux institutions européennes, malgré notre « non » au réferendum sur la Constitution de l’UE en 2005. Mais notre gouvernement a trouvé le moyen de contourner ce refus en faisant approuver par le Parlement le Traité de Lisbonne, qui donne des pouvoirs accrus à Bruxelles.

La COP 21 est en train d’employer la même méthode pour nous mettre sous la coupe de l’ONU par le biais d’un traité international. On a même parlé d’un tribunal qui sanctionnerait les pays qui n’appliqueraient pas les directives climatiques, aussi suicidaires qu’elles soient pour l’économie, et inefficaces pour sauver la planète. Ce projet de tribunal sera peut-être mis de côté, pour le moment. Mais en attendant, la bureaucratie climatique s’incrustera dans nos institutions, prenant ses consignes de l’ONU et appliquant le traité international qui est sur le point d’être signé.

La conférence de Paris est accompagnée d’une vaste opération d’enfumage. On a appris récemment que le Sénat des Etats-Unis soupçonne la fameuse NOAA* de manipuler les données climatiques afin de pouvoir nier que le réchauffement global plafonne depuis 1998. Mais cette administration, qui est sous les ordres de la Maison Blanche, refuse de fournir ses calculs aux Sénateurs. C’est du jamais vu, et le Sénat a porté l’affaire devant les tribunaux (1). Mais la supercherie aura payé car, en attendant, le traité préparé par la COP21 sera signé.
* NOAA : National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Cette propagande climatique est omniprésente. La quasi-totalité des médias ne fait que régurgiter les slogans et la science adultérée de ce qu’on pourrait appeler la Coalition du Changement Climatique (CCC), qui regroupe la plupart des gouvernements occidentaux, des associations politiques de haut niveau (le Groupe Bilderberg, le Club de Rome, la Trilatérale, etc.), les Verts, les grandes ONG (Greenpeace, WWF, Amis de la Terre etc.), le très riche lobby éolien, des fondations aux poches pleines et très influentes (Rockefeller, Pew, etc.), et tous ceux qui vivent de la manne financière générée par cette conspiration (car c’en est une, ne vous y trompez pas) : le GIEC, des sociétés scientifiques, des universités, des ONG etc.

Le 24 novembre a d’ailleurs éclaté un autre scandale : celui des manipulations, par la NASA cette fois, des données du réchauffement climatique (2). Mais les médias “climatiquement corrects” n’en parlent pas. Les informations honnêtes ne se trouvent plus guère que sur Internet, si l’on sait poser les bonnes questions. Voici par exemple un graphique que l’on trouve sur le site du Dr Roy Spencer, l’un des grands scientifiques du climat, mais dont on sait qu’il reste indépendant de la CCC (un coup d’œil à Wikipédia vous le dira).

2015 10 - UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2015_v6
Source : Dr Roy Spencer, University of Alabama

Il ressort de ce tableau que le réchauffement climatique plafonne depuis au moins 18 ans, et que des phénomènes climatiques naturels de courte durée tels que El Niño causent souvent des pics de chaleur, par exemple celui du « très fort » El Niño de 1998, du « très rapide » El Niño de 2009*, et du « fort » El Niño de 2015**. Ce plateau climatique que nous observons contraste avec les émissions massives de CO2 provenant de pays émergents comme la Chine, l’Inde, le Brésil, etc. Il jette un doute, par conséquent, sur le lien de causalité entre la quantité de gaz carbonique dans l’atmosphère et la température moyenne globale. La validité des prévisions du GIEC est par là même remise en question.
* El Niño 2009
** El Niño 2015

Sur un autre graphique, ci-dessous, on remarque ceci : les variations de la superficie globale de la banquise (ligne rouge) par rapport à la moyenne des trente dernières années (ligne noire), ont été nulles dans les années 2013 et 2014. En 2015, avec le retour d’El Niño, on note à nouveau une contraction significative de cette surface de glace, ce qui n’est guère surprenant :

global_daily_ice_area_withtrend Oct 2015
Données fournies par la National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Selon les spécialistes de la NOAA, la présente épisode du Niño se terminera au printemps 2016. Beaucoup de scientifiques pensent donc qu’un refroidissement climatique se fera sentir très bientôt. En fait on est en droit de penser qu’il aurait déjà commencé en 2015 s’il n’y avait pas eu El Niño. Ils notent en effet que le rayonnement solaire, selon le nombre de taches observées sur le soleil, est plus faible qu’il ne l’a été ces 100 dernières années. Il est revenu aux faibles niveaux du début du XXe siècle, quand les températures étaient d’environ 1° C plus basses qu’aujourd’hui. Pour voir l’évolution du rayonnement solaire de ces 4 derniers siècles, voir le graphique ci-dessous  :

400 years of sunspot observations
Date : 2006 – Source : 400 ans d’observation des taches solaires

Si l’on assume avec Svensmark, et de nombreux autres scientifiques du climat qui ne sont pas financés par la CCC, que les variations de la radiation solaire sont la cause principale des changements climatiques, alors la température moyenne globale devrait baisser bientôt jusqu’à retrouver son niveau du début du XXème siècle, soit environ 1° C de moins qu’aujourd’hui. Voici à quoi ressemble le cycle solaire nº 24, qui est celui où nous sommes présentement. Ces cycles durent environ 11 ans :

2015 12 solar cycle 24 sunspot number to November
Source: Space weather prediction center – NOAA

Ce graphique montre clairement que:
– le cycle 24, à droite, comporte environ deux fois moins de taches solaires que le cycle 23, à gauche.
– le cycle 24 a atteint son sommet, et nous sommes maintenant dans sa phase descendante.

Combien de temps cette nouvelle période de refroidissement global pourrait-elle durer ? Quelques décennies comme il y a 100 ans? Un siècle ou deux comme pendant la Petite Période glaciaire (1600 – 1750)? Ou bien 100.000 ans si elle s’aggravait et se transformait en ère glaciaire – ce qui est possible vu que nous sommes proches de la fin d’une période interglaciaire (celles-ci ne durent qu’environ 10.000 ans). La CCC bloque toute information relative à ce refroidissement imminent, ce qui montre bien que l’enjeu véritable de la COP21 n’est pas le climat. Il s’agit, comme je disais, de justifier une taxation et un coût de la vie accrus, et d’asservir les souverainetés nationales à une bureaucratie planétaire toute-puissante et corrompue.

Ronald Reagan avait lancé cette mise en garde visionnaire: «La liberté n’est jamais à plus d’une génération de distance de son extinction. »

Lord Christopher Monckton, ancien conseiller politique de Margaret Thatcher, abonde dans ce sens. Voici une vidéo étonnante, où il a correctement prédit en 2014 que les premiers ministres (sceptiques) Abbott (Australie) et Harper (Canada) seraient renversés par le CCC afin d’ouvrir la voie à une gouvernance mondiale (« la tyrannie verte »). Le titre de sa conférence :  Notre dernière année de liberté ?


Ce texte fut d’abord une traduction libre de celui d’Helena Greenberg  :  democracy to die next month at cop21/
Puis il s’est étoffé pour devenir un article à part entière, avec le consentement d’Helena.

Traducteur/auteur : Philippe Lastin


(1) – L’enfumage le plus scandaleux depuis Climategate – par James Delingpole

(2) – Fraude climatique à la NASA

Democracy to die next month at COP21 ?

Global Cooling to start next Spring?

Suspected of dishonest manipulations to show continued warming, the US Administration refuses to provide its raw data to the US Congress.  “NOAA Attempts To Hide The Pause In Global Warming: The Most Disgraceful Cover-Up Since Climategate – by James Delingpole” – see:  Breitbart, Oct. 29th

With COP21 to take place at the end of this month, dirty tricks were to be expected – in addition to the usual bad science and cooked figures on climate. How can we tell the truth, you ask, from doctored graphs and misleading articles? The answer is: Internet. When 99% of the media take their cues from the Climate Change Coalition (CCC), it is necessary to look elsewhere for honest information. We reproduce below a chart from the website of Dr Roy Spencer, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, who remains independent from the CCC. It’s a graph obtained from the satellite temperature dataset of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), a world-renowned source of climate data. Luckily for us – “we, the people” – the CCC does not control all of the datasets, yet.

2015 10 - UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2015_v6
Click on the image to enlarge.
Source: Dr Roy Spencer, University of Alabama

It is clear from this chart that the warming has reached a plateau after 1998. This happened in spite of massive increases in man-produced CO2 in China, India, Brazil etc. Let’s note as well that, in 2015, temperature is on the rise.

On the other graph below, about the Arctic and Antarctic, we note that in the years 2013 and 2014, global sea ice was back to its average level of the past three decades (red line, comparing to average 1979-2008). Here again, it is apparent that world temperatures had stopped rising, and were even starting to recede. In 2015, however, the chart shows that sea ice has been shrinking again:

global_daily_ice_area_withtrend Oct 2015Click on the image to enlarge.
Source:  data provided by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

This increased warmth in 2015 is due to El Niño, which made a strong comeback this year. According to the specialists, NOAA, it is expected to last into Spring 2016: ENSO prediction – Climate Prediction Center – NOAA

This leads many climate scientists to believe that, with El Niño out of the way in early 2016, Global Cooling will start to be felt soon thereafter. In fact, cooling may be happening already, but its effects are masked by El Niño on much of the globe.

It must be noted that solar radiation, as measured by sunspots, is weaker than it has been in the past 100 years. It has returned to the low levels of the early XXth century, when temperatures were about 1ºC lower than today. To see the evolution of solar radiation over 4 centuries, see the graph below (not updated since July 2006):

400 years of sunspot observations
Click on the image to enlarge.

If we are correct to assume (with Svensmark and many other climate scientists) that the sun, not CO2, is the main driver of climate, then we are most probably about to return to 1900 temperature levels, about 1ºC lower than today.

Since the above graph was published (2006), solar activity has been weaker, continuing the downward trend shown about year 2000. Here is what the present 11-year cycle looks like (solar cycle 24):

2015 10 solar cycle 24 sunspot number
Source: Space weather prediction center – NOAA

The chart clearly shows that:
– Cycle 24, to the right of the graph, is about half as strong as Cycle 23, to the left, i.e. fewer sunspots, lesser radiation emitted by the sun.
– Cycle 24 has peaked, and we are now in its descending, cooler phase.

How long this new period of Global Cooling would last is anyone’s guess: a decade or two, a century or two, or 100,000 years if it worsens and turns into a new Ice Age – God forbid. Obama, Merkel, and the whole CCC are probably aware of this, but they will continue to act as if Global Warming were the threat. They are not about to admit they were wrong, 30 days before securing a deal in Paris that will mean the loss of sovereignty for western democraties. Global governance is the name of the game, with a transfer of power from we, the people, to the UN and the CCC. From thereon in, many predict a bureaucratic tyranny will gradually take away our freedoms.

Ronald Reagan had warned about it: Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

Lord Christopher Monckton, who was policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher, has been trying to warn us over and over again. Here is an amazing video, where he correctly predicted in 2014 that Abbott (Australia) and Harper (Canada) would be removed from office, to pave the way for Global Governance (read: “green” tyranny): Our last year of freedom?

Will we bid farewell to Liberty in December, at COP21? China and other BRICS countries may sign with their fingers crossed behind their backs, or not sign at all, but western countries, led by the CCC, are poised to sign away their sovereignty with the will to surrender it for good. Thereafter, the threat of economic sanctions by other countries will keep governments in line. There will be no way out, as warned by Monckton. It would be a check mate situation.

Helena Greenberg

… Agenda 21 or Agenda 1984 ?

George Orwell’s nightmare has materialized


We all remember 1984, described by Wikipedia as: “Nineteen Eighty-Four, sometimes published as 1984, is a dystopian novel by English author George Orwell published in 1949. The novel is set in Airstrip One (formerly known as Great Britain), a province of the superstate Oceania in a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance and public manipulation, dictated by a political system euphemistically named English Socialism (or Ingsoc in the government’s invented language, Newspeak) under the control of a privileged Inner Party elite, that persecutes individualism and independent thinking as “thoughtcrimes“.”

Likewise, Agenda 21 is about putting collective rights ahead of individual rights

Here is what has been said about its undemocratic agenda (imposed by the UN bureaucracy):
“Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” Redistribution of wealth ensues. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice.”

Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project scroll down to last article: Globalists Green with Envy.

The plan is to hide Agenda 21’s UN roots from the people

“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.

“Smart growth”? – I say, we already have smart meters, smart cars, bird-smart wind turbines, which are all marketing lies that have disappointed us. But “they” are one step ahead: they have renamed smart growth. It’s now called “sustainable development”, “green jobs”, “energy transition”, and will undoubtedly be called more things. Just remember: in marketing, if you have a product that is bad for your wallet you call it a “money-saving investment”; if an energy is ineffective and prohibitively costly, you call it “renewable energy”, etc. It’s all a matter of semantics, which are the tools of professional liers, like PR men, crooks, and politicians.

Remember: COP 21, the Paris Conference scheduled for November 30th, is the next big step on the way to turning into obedient slaves Americans, Europeans, Australians, Canadians and other champions of Freedom.

Renewable corruption

Revolving door politics in the UK

Walney offshore windfarm, Off Barrow in Furness, Cumbria

“…the chairman of Forewind, the consortium behind the North Sea project, was Lord Deben (aka John Gummer), until it was thought appropriate that he should resign when he became chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, set up to give the Government “independent” advice on its energy policy. But he was replaced as Forewind’s chairman by Charles Hendry, who had just stepped down in turn from being Ed Davey’s colleague as Minister of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. All very cosy. But at least it means that some of those £900 million a year we pay in subsidies will be going to a good British home.”
Christopher Booker, The Telegraph.

Note: £900 million yearly in subsidies to a single offshore project!

Read more:

Dirty financing in the US

“the windfarms’ raison d’être is that they are being used to finance political parties. In a nutshell, windfarm-related interests finance election campaigns, and in return politicians vote huge subsidies.”
Mark Duchamp, president of the World Council for Nature.

Read more:

Europe’s economic suicide

Is bureaucracy killing the European Union?

From Roger Helmer’s blog

EU Energy Policy is Industrial Suicide

Posted on January 21, 2015

The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) was introduced in 2005 as a “Cap & Trade” scheme to reduce emissions. The theory was that the right to emit CO2 would be traded, and therefore permits would go where they were most economically useful. The price of the units would send a “signal” to the market, which would promote energy conservation and new low-carbon technologies.

It was anticipated that the price would start out around €25 a ton (a level at which very “dirty” fossil fuels like lignite would start to be squeezed out), and progress over the years to €75, which would virtually exclude all fossil fuels.

The ETS was hailed as “a market system” that would allocate a scarce resource – the right to emit CO2 — in an efficient way. In fact, for almost all of that time the price has languished below €10. It has failed to give the market signals intended. But it has created a huge administrative burden on industry, and spawned a new (and totally non-productive) business in “carbon trading”, in which many people have made a lot of money without benefitting the economy in any way.

Recognising the effective failure of the grand scheme, the EU introduced a sticking-plaster response – “back-loading”. This removed some 900 million “allowances” from the current auction round for permits, but the effect on pricing was negligible. Some member-states became so frustrated with this failure that they introduced country-specific measures (undercutting the pretence of a Single Market). One such measure was George Osborne’s “Carbon Floor Price”, introduced in April 2013, a measure which directly impacted the competitive position of UK industry against continental competitors.

Recognising the on-going failure of the ETS programme, the EU institutions are now debating yet another sticking-plaster solution: the “Market Stability Reserve”, or MSR. Under the Commission’s proposal, starting from 2021, with the fourth ETS trading period, 12% of the allowances in circulation would be placed in a reserve if the number of allowances in circulation two years earlier exceeds 833 million.

No one seems to recognise the irony of a “market mechanism” which requires constant regulatory intervention to achieve the price levels originally envisaged. Markets set their own prices autonomously – that’s what a market is. We now have the worst of all possible worlds – the cost of operating a market, but a price being set by repeated regulatory intervention. It’s not a real market at all. It’s simply the most expensive and cumbersome method yet invented to impose a tax.

The MSR has been the subject of heated debate in the parliament, and the battle lines are drawn. The left and the greens are keen to impose the MSR as soon as possible, and want to bring it forward to 2017. Those who understand Europe’s competitive position in the world (and that includes UKIP) don’t want it at all.

On the industry side, a similar split is emerging. Energy suppliers want the MSR, as the only mechanism available to enable them to achieve the emissions targets the EU has set out. And they are confident that they can pass on the higher costs – forgetting that many of their most energy-intensive customers will move – indeed are already moving – out of the EU altogether to escape the suicidal energy policies which Brussels is imposing.

Intensive energy users, on the other hand, are in despair. Already clinging on by their finger-tips in the face of global competition, they fear that this is the coup-de-grace. In the past week I have met with the aluminium, steel and petroleum refining industries. They all tell the same story: EU production in decline, plants closing, jobs lost, imports rising. We are exporting production and jobs and investment, outside the EU altogether. And emissions. Often this activity goes to jurisdictions with lower environmental standards, leading to higher emissions. In steel, imports can represent twice the emissions per ton compared to EU production. In petroleum refining, it’s plus 35%.

Aluminium has lost 42,000 jobs since 2007 (while imports rise). Steel 80,000. Petroleum refining 10,000 direct jobs, and an estimated 40,000 indirect. Chemicals, glass and cement can tell similar stories. This is what former Industry Commissioner Antonio Tajani called “an industrial massacre in Europe”.

Yesterday I attended another debate on MSR (and intervened robustly). I told them that if their MSR project failed, as previous sticking plaster solutions have done, then we should be back in the same debate again in five years’ time But if it “succeeded”, that meant higher energy prices in Europe (the steel industry reckons energy prices up 40% by 2020). More job losses. More plant closures. More industry and investment moving out of the EU. The deindustrialisation of Europe. And quite possibly, higher emissions. That’s a very strange kind of “success”.

The word “mad” is hardly strong enough. This is economic and industrial suicide. And the EU institutions are determined to press ahead with it.

Roger Helmer, MEP


If an ad appears below, it’s from WordPress. Nothing to do with this blog.

Aussies don’t take it lying down


Which people are leading the fight against useless, expensive, destructive wind turbines?
– Australians!

Those of us fighting the wind farm scam around the world pay tribute to the courageaous people who, from Down Under, are threatening that evil industry.

In the latest article on their epic fight, we found the following to be of interest:

“Another resident on Blowholes Road, who did not want to be identified, said residents had been pro-wind energy before the project was constructed, but now realised there were alarming side effects.

“He said as well as health concerns, property values had plummeted to the point where some were almost unsaleable.”

And also this, which is something to look forward to:

“Six people took part in acoustic testing for eight weeks in June and July related to the Pacific Hydro wind facility at Cape Bridgewater.

“Acoustics expert Steven Cooper is expected to present his final report on February 9 in Portland, with Senator John Madigan also likely to attend.”

some houses on Blowholes Road, where turbines tower over the popular coastal spot, have been vacated.


If an ad appears below, it’s from WordPress. Nothing to do with this blog.