More Child Exploitation as the Globalist Climate Project Creates its very own Bana Persona

People who followed with awful fascination the Bana account, designed to facilitate the destruction of Syria, will have a sense of deja vu at the arrival on the ‘climate’ scene of another shocking example of cynical child exploitation and manipulation: that of Swedish girl Greta Thunberg.

The Bana Alabed twitter account tweeted ostensibly from Aleppo in the months leading up to its liberation from terrorist forces. Her task was to claim war crimes on the part of “Assad” and Russia and demand action on Syria from world leaders, WIII if necessary, but at least a Libya-style “no-fly-zone”.

War: what’s in a word? | IRRUSSIANALITY

From the age of seven Bana Alabed has been shamelessly exploited by the world’s media, forced to dissemble, to take part in bogus interviews where she clearly had no idea of what she was saying, and to pose with a series of mature men from terrorists to Erdogan to UNICEF’s Justin Forsyth. Although she became a citizen of Turkey, there is no evidence that Bana has ever been to school in Turkey, or given the opportunity to learn the Turkish language,. Instead, she has been given the star treatment, appearing at conferences and flying all over the world (The Crucifixion of Bana Alabed). At the same time her role as a puppet exposes her to eternal ridicule.

We are now being treated to another gruesome spectacle of child abuse, the creation of the Greta Thunberg persona. At 15 Greta is older than Bana, but is self-described as suffering from Asperger’s syndrome, a fact which if anything appears to make the exploitation more acceptable in the eyes of the mainstream and ‘alternative’ media). Bana has been a media star from the age of seven – all the signs indicate that normal life is over for Greta Thunberg too. (For further information on Greta, she now has her own Wikipedia page, in eight languages.)

Greta Thunberg’s function is not to call for destruction, but on the contrary, to warn of impending doom for the planet if we do not do something about CO2 – presumably something which gives more power to the United Nations and helps pave the way for global government. She first hit the headlines with a call to school children to strike to save the climate.

Being both older and a citizen of Sweden, many of the flaws in the Bana accounts are not obvious with Greta. When her account opened Bana’s spoken English was non-existent, and so the contrast between the speech in her videos and the perfectly idiomatic English of her tweets was positively embarrassing. In the case of Greta, however, one could argue that a well-educated Swedish girl might just have the immaculate English of her speeches. Furthermore, the completely passionless delivery of her claims of ‘climate breakdown’ and fast-approaching ‘extinction’ can be put down to her Asperger’s Syndrome.

As with the Bana account, but even more so, Greta’s social media accounts are completely focused on the task in hand (creating ‘climate panic’ in defiance of the facts), and certainly nothing like what might be expected from a 15 year-old, Aspergers or no Aspergers. The Facebook account is series of self-promotional posts with no interraction with comments. The list of people that Greta follows on twitter parallels in an eerie fashion those favoured by Bana Aalbed: world leaders and major political figures such as Antonio Guterres and Bernie Sanders, climate and environment accounts like Soros-funded Greenpeace and WWF (i.e. all supporting the UN’s climate/world government project), like-minded celebrities such as Michael Moore and Ricky Gervais, and like-minded media such as the Guardian.

Bana was never more than media and political spin, promoted by the likes of the New York Times and the BBC, as well of course by the United Nations, but without any mass following. Although she bought up thousands of twitter followers, the majority of comments on her tweets came either from critics or from obvious trolls or bots with a handful of followers. At the very least the same thing will happen with Greta, however the plan is more ambitious. There are clearly genuine hopes of galvanising the world’s youth in her support.

Greta works in tandem with Extinction Rebellion (XR), which appears to be the climate cult’s Antifa, promoting civil disobedience in order to force action on the ‘climate emergency’ (see Frances Leader, From Occupy to Extinction Rebellion: Exposing the Common Purpose).

Within a few short months Greta’s stature was such that she was invited to address the UN’s Climate Change Conference at Katowice, making her plea for ‘climate justice’.

Extinction Rebellion and Greta are both heavily promoted by media specialising in climate catastrophism, from the Guardian’s George Monbiot

to ‘independent analysts’ Media Lens.

Greta was motivated, it seems, by a heatwave in Sweden, due of course to “climate change” -never mind the fact that Swedish high temperature records go back many decades, still unbroken by July 2018, which is hardly consistent with runaway global warming whatever may have happened later that summer.

Sweden June July August high temperature records

Greta’s very first tweet back in June 2018 was to post an article (in English of course) which warned that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.

For the first time in 33 million years, it seems, we are almost at a point where there is no ice at either pole. ‘The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero,[…] with 75 to 80 percent of permanent ice having melted already in the last 35 years’.

This is obviously claptrap, the Arctic was never anywhere melting away, and latest reports indicate that the poles are putting on ice. The earth has not returned to the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period when Greenland was colonised – how can we be approaching temperatures not seen in 33 million years?

Being both older and a citizen of Sweden, many of the flaws in the Bana accounts are not obvious with Greta. When her account opened Bana’s spoken English was non-existent, and so the contrast between the speech in her videos and the perfectly idiomatic English of her tweets was positively embarrassing. In the case of Greta, however, one could argue that a well-educated Swedish girl might just have the immaculate English of her speeches. Furthermore, the completely passionless delivery can be put down to her Asperger’s Syndrome.

As with the Bana account, Greta’s social media accounts are completely focused on the task in hand (creating ‘climate panic’ in defiance of the facts), and certainly nothing like what might be expected from a 15 year-old, Aspergers or no Aspergers. The list of people that Greta follows on twitter parallels in an eery fashion those favoured by Bana: world leaders and major political figures such as Antonio Guterres and Bernie Sanders, climate and environment accounts like Soros-funded Greenpeace and WWF (i.e. all supporting the UN’s climate/world government project), like-minded celebrities such as Michael Moore and Ricky Gervais, and like-minded media such as the Guardian.

As with the Bana account, there is growing concern at the unashamed exploitation of Greta Thunberg:

The spectacle of the globalist media using a young girl in order to panic the world into giving more power to the United Nations is both bizarre and horrifying.

Thousands of the world’s scientists (see here and here) have called climate alarmism a hoax. However, ludicrous as it may seem, we are expected to ignore the facts about geological history, Co2 and global climate, and to follow the lead of a 15 year old who parrots arrant nonsense embedded in unending cliché, on the say-so of the likes of George Monbiot and Media Lens, the very people who have themselves been parroting the same nonsense for years.

And as with Bana Alabed, the media serving the globalist agenda have absolutely no qualms about the callous exploitation and manipulation of a child in order to further the goal of world government.

See also:

Jamie Spry, Global Warming Is The Greatest And Most Successful Pseudoscientific Fraud In History

Windows on the World have produced a series of articles and videos on Extinction Rebellion, see Globalist Fake Revolution

A large number of people have pointed out the function of the climate scare is actually to scare the world’s populace into accepting an ever increasing role for the United Nations, and eventually global government by the Club of Rome elite that control the corrupt United Nations bureaucracy. See for example Agenda 21: The Plan for a Global Fascist Dictatorship. or Maurice Newman, The Corrupted UN Must Not Be Allowed to Lecture Us.

The Gardasil Criminal Enterprise Still Defies Gravity

If thalidomide had been developed in the ’80s, it would have been presented as a vaccine, it would be on all immunisation schedules, all hint of dangerous side effects would be ruthlessly suppressed, and doctors would still be giving it – just look at the Gardasil experience.

HPV vaccines are not indicated, not effective and not safe. There is substantial evidence to show that:

  • HPV vaccines cause, not cure, cervical cancer
  • HPV cause, not cure genital warts.  Moreover,
  • Many thousands of children have died, or are paralysed or epileptic or otherwise manifestly damaged because of HPV vaccines

But with government agencies and the mainstream and ‘alternative’ media almost totally on side, and the vaccine industry immune from prosecution in America, the Gardasil train seems unstoppable.

Gardasil 9

The purpose of HPV vaccines is to immunise against the human papilloma viruses that are considered most likely to cause cervical cancer (there are over 100 hpv viruses).

HPV vaccines have been widely approved since 2007 (US 2006).  In December 2014, the United States’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fast-tracked approval for Gardasil 9 ‘to protect females between the ages of 9 and 26 and males between the ages of 9 and 15 against nine strains of HPV’.

Fast tracking means that the the FDA approved without consultation with VRBPAC (the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee) which is responsible for reviewing and evaluating data concerning the safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of vaccines and related biological products. (See FDA Approved Gardasil 9: Malfeasance or Stupidity?)

The ingredients

The ingredients, according to the Gardasil 9 package insert, are as follows:

Each 0.5-mL dose of Gardasil 9 contains approximately 20-60 micrograms of nine different HPV proteins, approximately 500 mcg of aluminum, 9.56 mg of sodium chloride (commons salt), 0.78 mg of L-histidine, 50 mcg of polysorbate 80, 35 mcg of sodium borate, <7 mcg yeast protein, and water for injection.

  • Aluminium: is a known toxin, and Gardasil contains more aluminium than any other vaccine.
  • Histadine, an essential amino acid, has been linked to inflammation , and also to autoimmune disease. It is not used for any other vaccine.
  • Yeast is linked to autoimmune disease
  • Sodium borate (Sodium tetraborate, Borax), according to the Material Safety Data Sheet, is an eye, skin, and mucous membrane irritant, that may impair fertility, and may cause harm to the unborn child.
  • Polysorbate 80 causes infertility and anaphylactic shock. The function of polysorbate 80 in vaccines and other pharmaceuticals is to ‘affect’ the blood-brain barrier, in order to facilitate access of toxins to the brain, see here and here (archived here and here).

The insert says there is no preservative in the vaccine. But according to a German study on the presence of heavy metals in vaccines, Gardasil 9 also contains a small amount of

It is frequently argued that the ‘poison is in the dose’, i.e. the amounts of toxins in vaccines are too small to do any damage to the patient, while somehow still being in sufficient quantities to be efficacious.

There is no evidence that HPV vaccines have prevented a single case of cervical cancer

‘the chance of Gardasil actually helping an individual is about the same as the chance of her being struck by a meteorite’. (Diane Harper, Merck scientist and Gardasil developer)

The argument for HPV vaccines is that the virus causes cervical cancer and genital warts.  In fact, HPV alone is unlikely to cause cervical cancer.

US Food and Drug Association, 2003:  “The HPV DNA test is not intended to substitute for regular Pap screening. Nor is it intended to screen women under 30 who have normal Pap tests. Although the rate of HPV infection in this group is high, most infections are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer.”

Peter Duisberg, professor of molecular and cell biology at University of California, has declared that HPV does not cause cervical cancer and is both useless and dangerous, asking:

  1. Why would only 1 in 10,000 HPV-infected women develop cervical cancer?
  2. Why would cervical cancers only develop 20 to 50 years after infection? – In other words, why would the virus not cause cancers when it is biochemically active and causing warts, namely before it is neutralized by natural anti-viral immunity?
  3. Why are cervical carcinomas individually very distinct from each other in terms of malignancy, drug-resistance, cell histology, as originally described by Papanicolaou et al. in Science in 1952, although they are presumably caused by the same viral proteins?
  4. Why are cervical carcinomas that are presumably generated by Human Papillomavirus proteins not immunogenic and thus not eliminated by natural antibodies?

A Canadian study of 2013 found that ‘the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death)’.

Merck insiders blow the whistle

Diane Harper, a former Merck scientist and Gardasil researcher who appears to have had a crisis of conscience, has dismissed the possibility of Gardasil being effective:  ‘In fact, there is no actual evidence that the vaccine can prevent any cancer.’   Dr Harper also stated that reported side effects of the vaccine prove HPV vaccines are more dangerous than the cervical cancer its makers say it prevents

Dr. Bernard Dalbergue, who has also worked with Merck,  described the Gardasil vaccine as ineffective, deadly and very profitable.

‘I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all times because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine […] has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers.’


HPV vaccines cause cancer

This report describes three young Czech women who subsequent to receiving an HPV vaccine showed cervical abnormalities, and had to undergo radical surgery, such as conisation of the cervix or vulvectomy.  Michaela comments, ‘After further tests I have been informed that apart from other viruses present on my cervix there were also the ones contained in the vaccine, namely HPV types 16 and 18. It is apparent that the vaccine did not protect me against HPV types 16 and 18.’

A French oncologist has shown while cervical cancer was decreasing in a number of  countries due to the implementation of regular pap smears, in some countries where mass Gardasil vaccination took place, the incidence of cervical cancer actually increased.   One report indicates that in the case where the patient already has an HPV virus, the vaccine may increase the possibility of cancerous lesions by 44.6%.

See also:

The Gardasil controversy: as reports of adverse effects increase, cervical cancer rates rise in HPV-vaccinated age groups.)

Cervical cancers after human papillomavirus vaccination

 HPV vaccines cause genital and other warts

New Zealander Jasmine Renata developed warts on her hands after each Gardasil vaccine -after the second they were under her finger nails.  Jasmine eventually died after coming down with a cold, a year after her first Gardasil shot.

In a separate case also from New Zealand, a 19 year old woman developed a severe case of genital warts after completing all three doses, at appropriate intervals, of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, prior to becoming sexually active.  The case study was described in the Healthy Home Economist, and several respondents reported a similar experience – the daughter of one respondent also developed cervical cancer.

‘My daughters is 18 years old and her final doses was on July 2016. On August she observed some genital warts around her vulva. In december 2016 not only her vulva but also inside her canal was full of genital warts. On diciembre 22, 2016 the Doctor decide to cauterize them in the operating room. On January 2017 the genital warts returned and after doing biopsy came the positive result for cervical cancer. On January the doctor freeze the cancerous cells and we need to wait 6 months before he do a new PAP.’

HPV vaccines can destroy ovaries and cause infertility

A large number of studies have shown a link between HPV vaccines and ovarian failure, meaning irregular periods, premature menopause and infertility.

In 2012 the British Medical Journal reported on the case of premature ovarian failure following three years of irregular menstrual periods after being being given the HPV vaccination.

Adolescent Premature Ovarian Insufficiency Following Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: A Case Series Seen in General Practice

Human papilloma virus vaccine and primary ovarian failure: another facet of the autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants.

A study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health found ‘A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection’.

The evidence is so strong that in 2016 even the very pro-vaccine American College Of Pediatricians issued a rare warning that Gardasil could cause premature ovarian failure (original study here).

HPV vaccines have caused death, epilepsy, paralysis and a raft of other illnesses in countless young people.


In England, Mia Blesky had her first Gardasil injection as a healthy 12 year-old on 21 September 2016, and woke the next morning unable to walk.  Within a few week Mia was paralysed from the neck down. Although Mia went was taken first to a doctor and then to a hospital the day after her vaccine, and although there have been many similar cases (see e.g. Ashleigh Cave, 2008), British doctors have decided her paralysis is purely psychological. Her mother told the Daily Mail:

‘They discharged her after a few days. They gave her no treatment. We had to buy her a wheelchair. I had to carry her to the car. It has been absolutely awful, but the doctors say it’s psychological and down to bullying or sexuality issues, which is rubbish. The only thing they have offered to do is section her.’

According to the FDA a serious adverse event must fit one of the following criteria: death, life-threatening, hospitalization, disability or permanent damage, congenital abnormality/birth defect, or the requirement to intervene to prevent permanent impairment.

Clinical trials for Gardasil, described in the package insert, show the following:

Insert Adverse events

The trials also showed autoimmune disorders arising after vaccination.

Insert Autoimmune

(Tables from Norma Erickson, FDA approved Gardasil 9: Malfeasance or Stupidity?)

So Merck’s clinical trials show almost 4.7%, about 1 in 21 girls or young women, experiencing either a serious adverse event, or developing a systemic autoimmune illness.

The dangers of Gardasil shown clearly in the trials have been confirmed subsequently. Since Gardasil was licensed and placed on immunisation schedules, there have been thousands of reports of serious adverse events, including:

‘deaths, convulsions, paralysis, paraesthesia, demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system (i.e., multiple sclerosis and acute disseminating encephalomyelitis), Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), transverse myelitis, facial palsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, anaphylaxis, autoimmune disorders, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolisms, pancreatitis, visual impairments and spontaneous abortions’ (Kelly Brogan, Gardasil: Guarding or Gutting Our Youth?)

A study published in the internationally peer-reviewed journal Clinical Rheumatology in 2017 found that that severe harm is suffered with every 140 Gardasil 9 vaccinations (link to study proper here).

A study from Alberta, Canada, identified all reported adverse events following immunization (AEFI) and all emergency department (ED) utilization or hospitalizations within 42 days of immunization, 2006-2014.   195,270 females received at least one dose of vaccine, 192 reported one or more AEFI events, and 958 were hospitalized and 19,351 had an emergency department visit within 42 days of immunization.

Conclusion of the study was that ‘Rates of AEFI after HPV immunization in Alberta are low and consistent with types of events seen elsewhere’.

Let’s just review that, rounding up:

  • 200,000 received received at least one HPV vaccine;
  • 1 in 200 were hospitalised;
  • 10% had an emergency department visit within 42 days. However
  • these numbers are considered low (and untroubling).

Gardasil for boys

13.1 of the Gardasil 9 insert states: ‘GARDASIL 9 has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity or impairment of male fertility’. Not withstanding, drug oversight authorities insist that Gardasil is licensed, safe, and effective for males ages 9 through 26 years.

In 2013 Merck launched a campaign to have Gardasil 9 scheduled for boys. As New Zealand’s Strategy for Revitalising the National HPV Immunisation Programme makes clear, this was purely a marketing decision, and nothing to do with health outcomes.


There is no indication that Gardasil is safer for boys than it is for girls:

13 year old Joel Gomez of California, healthy and fit, was found dead the morning after his second Gardasil injection on 19 August 2013.  His doctor found damage to his heart caused by the first Gardasil injection.  The Gomez family are suing for compensation under the Vaccine Injury Compensation programme (vaccine producers are immune from prosecution under American law).

13 year old Christopher Bunch of Illinois died three weeks after his HPV injection.

In Utah, Colton Berrett developed crippling paralysis, beginning from two weeks after his third course of Gardasil. After four years enclosed in a breathing apparatus (the modern equivalent of the iron lung), and with no improvement in sight, he committed suicide.

HPV vaccines are not indicated

The vaccine insert clinical trial showed 2.3% serious adverse events (to say nothing of the risk of autoimmune disease).  As Norma Erickson points out:

‘Cervical cancer rates are always quoted as # per 100,000. Given the above information, for every 100,000 people using Gardasil 9 there would be 2,300 serious adverse events. The cervical cancer diagnosis rate in the United States is 7.9/100,000.   What health official in their right mind is willing to anticipate 2,300 serious adverse events to try and prevent 7.9 cases of cervical cancer?’

The New Zealand document Revitalising the National HPV Immunisation Programme states, ‘HPV is responsible for a substantial burden of disease in New Zealand women, most importantly in terms of cervical cancer’. In fact, the pap test has virtually eliminated cervical cancer in the Western world, or wherever it is routinely offered.   Total registrations for cervical cancer in recent years in New Zealand have been

  • 2014: 142;
  • 2015: 142; and
  • 2016: 180.

For breast cancer, in contrast, registrations have been far higher, for the same years:  32743292 and 3308.  Figures for prostate cancer are similarly high: 3160, 3080, 3383.


Merck is no stranger to court action and expensive payouts.  Studies showed problems with their arthritic treatment Vioxx as early as 2001, but it was not until 2004 that Merck pulled Vioxx from the market, after ignoring evidence that the drug was dangerous, and after reportedly killing 60,000 people.

Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, vaccine manufacturers have no liability in the United States, so they cannot be sued for injury from their product.  Injuries or death from vaccines can only be recompensed via the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). In 2013 the VICP awarded almost $6,000,000 dollars to 49 victims in claims made against the HPV vaccines., with more claims outstanding.

Merck itself  is, however, being sued for vaccine fraud, e.g. with regards to

  • Zostavax: thousands are suing Merck with regards to the shingles vaccine, which causes the very illness it is meant to prevent, as well as other injuries including blindness.
  • MMR: former Merck virologists allege that the efficacy tests for the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR) were faked.
  • Gardasil: The family of 16 year old girl diagnosed with POTS after her third Gardasil injection are suing Merck for
    1. Fraud and Deceit
    2. Negligent Misrepresentation
    3. Defective Product – Inadequate warnings & information
    4. Medical Malpractice
    5. Medical Battery

While Merck may have have a high degree of immunity in the United States, the company and local health authorities are facing court action regarding Gardasil in a growing number of other countries, including Australia, India, Japan, Colombia  and France.  In Spain, Merck-Sanofi Pasteur and health authorities are charged with a long list of serious misdemeanors, including:

  • fraudulent marketing and/or administration of an inadequately tested vaccine;
  • failure to inform the public about the potential risks of using Gardasil;
  • ignoring established and new scientific evidence illustrating the potential harmful effects of Gardasil ingredients and manufacturing methods;
  • callous disregard for those suffering new medical conditions post-Gardasil;
  • failure to inform the public of the true facts about HPV and cervical cancer

The New Zealand Safety Record – Thalidomide

Thalidomide was widely marketed as ‘completely non-poisonous’, ‘safe’, ‘non-toxic’ and ‘fully harmless’. Instead, it led to a range of serious complications, among which the most notorious was severe birth defects. By late 1961, at least 10,000 living children from an estimated 46 countries suffered disabilities as a consequence of their mothers’ ingesting thalidomide.

In New Zealand, thalidomide was introduced to doctors and hospitals in 1960, added to the drug tariff in 10961 and available until at least August 1962.

After publication of adverse effects of the drug, manufacturers on 4 December 1961 recalled the drug in New Zealand. Nevertheless, it took the Department of Health until July 27, 1962 – almost eight months – to issue an official a directive to destroy remaining stocks of the drug. It was still available until at least August 1962 when it was seized from chemists’ and hospital shelves under section 12 of the Food and Drugs Act. (From Chemical legacies: Thalidomide in New Zealand)

It is hard to see the New Zealand authorities taking action in the case of Gardasil unless Merck itself withdraws the vaccine, and Merck is unlikely to do this, given its legal immunity in the United States.


See also:

Big Pharma Irrefutable proof that Big Pharma is a criminal racket: Bribery, scientific fraud, felony crimes and more

Norma Erickson,  HPV: time to Follow the Science and Reject the Vaccine

Laura Hayes, Why is This Legal?


Over 50 studies relating to HPV vaccines, collected by Chris Kirckof

Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis Following Immunization with Human Papillomavirus Vaccines…/55/21/55_55.7217/_article

Adolescent Premature Ovarian Insufficiency Following Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: A Case Series Seen in General Practice

Adverse events following HPV vaccination, Alberta 2006-2014

Ampiginous choroiditis following quadrivalent human papilloma virus vaccine

Association of acute cerebellar ataxia and human papilloma virus vaccination: a case report

Autoimmune hepatitis type 2 following anti-papillomavirus vaccination in a 11-year-old girl

Behavioral abnormalities in female mice following administration of aluminum adjuvants and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil

Bivalent HPV vaccine safety depending on subtypes of juvenile idiopathic arthritis

Brachial plexus neuritis following HPV vaccination

A case-control study of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine-associated autoimmune adverse events

Cervical cancers after human papillomavirus vaccination

CNS demyelination and quadrivalent HPV vaccination

Current Safety Concerns with Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: A Cluster Analysis of Reports in VigiBase® (2017)

Demyelinating disease and polyvalent human papilloma virus vaccination

Demyelinating disease and vaccination of the human papillomavirus

Development of unilateral cervical and supraclavicular lymphadenopathy after human papilloma virus vaccination

Erythema multiforme following vaccination for human papillomavirus

Fibromyalgia-Like Illness in 2 Girls After Human Papillomavirus Vaccination…/Fibromyalgia_Like_Illness_in

HPV-negative Gastric Type Adenocarcinoma In Situ of the Cervix: A Spectrum of Rare Lesions Exhibiting Gastric and Intestinal Differentiation

HPV vaccination syndrome. A questionnaire-based study

Human papilloma virus vaccine and primary ovarian failure: another facet of the autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines as an option for preventing cervical malignancies: (how) effective and safe?

Human papillomavirus vaccine and systemic lupus erythematosus

Human papilloma virus vaccine associated uveitis
Human papillomavirus vaccines, complex regional pain syndrome, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, and autonomic dysfunction – a review of the regulatory evidence from the European Medicines Agency

Hypersensitivity reaction to human papillomavirus vaccine due to polysorbate 80

Hypersensitivity reactions to human papillomavirus vaccine in Australian schoolgirls: retrospective cohort study

Hypothesis: Human papillomavirus vaccination syndrome–small fiber neuropathy and dysautonomia could be its underlying pathogenesis

Immune thrombocytopenic purpura following human papillomavirus vaccination

Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease following vaccination against human papilloma virus infection and Japanese encephalitis

Lichenoid Drug Eruption After Human Papillomavirus Vaccination

A link between human papilloma virus vaccination and primary ovarian insufficiency: current analysis

Neurologic Complications in HPV Vaccination

Neurologic Complications in HPV Vaccination

On the relationship between human papilloma virus vaccine and autoimmune diseases

Orthostatic intolerance and postural tachycardia syndrome as suspected adverse effects of vaccination against human papilloma virus

Pancreatitis after human papillomavirus vaccination: a matter of molecular mimicry

Pancreatitis following human papillomavirus vaccination…/pancreatitis-following-human

Panuveitis With Exudative Retinal Detachments After Vaccination Against Human Papilloma Virus

Peripheral sympathetic nerve dysfunction in adolescent Japanese girls following immunization with the human papillomavirus vaccine

Pharmaceutical Companies’ Role in State Vaccination Policymaking: The Case of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination

Postural tachycardia syndrome following human papillomavirus vaccination

Potential cross-reactivity between HPV16 L1 protein and sudden death-associated antigens

Premature ovarian failure 3 years after menarche in a 16-year-old girl following human papillomavirus vaccination

Severe manifestations of autoimmune syndrome induced by adjuvants (Shoenfeld’s syndrome).

Severe somatoform and dysautonomic syndromes after HPV vaccination: case series and review of literature

A 16-year-old girl with bilateral visual loss and left hemiparesis following an immunization against human papilloma virus

Small Fiber Neuropathy Following Vaccination

Syncope and seizures following human papillomavirus vaccination: a retrospective case series

Telogen effluvium following bivalent human papillomavirus vaccine administration: a report of two cases

Two Cases of Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis Following Vaccination Against Human Papilloma Virus

Two unclear cases of death. Can we still recommend HPV vaccination?].

An unmasking phenomenon in an observational post-licensure safety study of adolescent girls and young women

Vaccine-related serious adverse events might have been under-recognized in the pivotal HPV vaccine randomized trial


Is Bernie Sanders Planning to Use Climate Catastrophism to Accelerate Agenda 21 and Global Governance?

‘Consensus is the first refuge of scoundrels’ (Michael Crichton)

Bernie Sanders, who is on the campaign trail, has just released a video, Why Is There a Climate Change “Debate” in Washington?  (Youtube video below)

Bernie Sanders utters one great truth in this broadcast and makes one portentous announcement.

The Great Truth

‘The debate over climate change in Washington really has nothing to do with science.’

The debate on ‘climate change’ never had anything to do with climate change, at least on the part of climate alarmists. The purpose of the narrative was always to fulfill a political agenda, to divert more and more wealth to the already rich and powerful, and to divest more and more power away from nation states and their citizens to the bloated and corrupt United Nations bureaucracy, which is essentially controlled by the rich and powerful.

The global warming idea is a project of the (very) elitist Club of Rome, whose members have included Al Gore, Ted Warner, George Soros, Bill Gates and members of the Rockefeller and Rothschild families.  The Club of Rome is the active division of a group of entities serving a globalist agenda, which have played the major part in the establishment of the United Nations, the European Union and NATO. They include the Bilderberg Group, the Committee on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission (see Robert Galyon Ross on the ‘Elite Conspiracy’).

climate.jpg large

(Windows on the World, Climate Catastrophobia – The Big Lie)

The global warming project enables further enrichment of the already very wealthy, through the carbon trading scheme (Al Gore was projected to become the first carbon millionaire).  However, United Nations publications such as Agenda 21 make it very clear that climate alarmism has another purpose: to enable and justify expansion ofUN bureaucracy, the empowerment of NGOs, inevitably controlled by the globalists, and to control and contain the populace, all in the name of the Earth and the ill-defined ‘sustainability’.

‘The Global Warming debate […] is a concept by the New World Order to justify the dismantling the industrial society and returning the mass of humanity to obedient serfdom.’  (The Great Climate and Global Warming Fraud invented by the Club of Rome)

Bernie Sanders usefully lays out the false, fallacious, or intellectually dishonest arguments for eco-catastrophism.

  • ‘99% of scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made and that it is already causing devastating harm.’ Scientists do indeed agree that climate change is real, but careful analysis by Lord Monkton and others has shown that while claims of 97% or 99% of support for the Club of Rome’s alarmist narrative are certainly made, the reality is more like 0.3%.
  • ‘The scientific debate is over’: Scientific debate is never over – that’s the thing about science – but moving on
  • ‘The real issue is politics’: Yes.
  • ‘… and the power of the fossil fuel industry’. Rather than cater to the wealthy and powerful special interests in the fossil fuel industry ….’  Well, no.  The empirical evidence shows that wealthy and powerful interests associated with the Club of Rome, such as Ted Warner, the Rockefellers, Rothschilds and Bill Gates, have successfully invested in controlling the climate debate, far beyond anything Big Oil has even attempted.
  • ‘A group of internationally renowned scientists, the IPCC ….’  Back in 2007, New Zealander Dr Vincent Gray, a long-time IPCC reviewer, declared that the IPCC was too blinkered and corrupt to save. His assessment has only been confirmed with time, see this from 2014.   The latest report has been slammed by top climate scientists who have trashed the methods, findings and claims of the IPCC. The climate data set they used has turned out to be an embarrassment, using freezing tropical islands, boiling towns and boats on land.  As regards the scientists themselves, it has been observed that amongst the authors, ‘there are very few of what could be described as “climate scientists, but lots of geographers, energy analysts, economists, sociologists, engineers, sustainability experts and the odd Eco-Psychologist thrown in for good measure, together with considerable UN and World Bank affiliations’.
  • ‘We have 12 years […] to stop the worst impacts of climate change’: The UN and climate catastrophists have been giving us points of no return for decades, but all the ridicule in the world makes no difference.  Given that the world still has not recovered sufficiently from the Little Ice Age to regreen Greenland, highly fertile back in the Medieval Warm Period, projecting only 12 years to bring the world past that point to dangerously hot seems pessimistic.
  • ‘Increase in extreme weather disturbances’: Even the IPCC agrees that there has been no increase in extreme weather events.
  • More acidification of the oceans’: Scientists have found that higher Co2 and lowered pH levels (acidification) have little to no effect on ocean-dwelling organisms.
  • More rising sea levels‘:  Vincent Gray reported in 2007 that in response to Gore’s warnings about the island of Tuvalu sinking below the waves, scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands, including Tuvalu, confident that they would show that all of them are sinking. ‘Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose.’  There was a similar story with the Maldives which have, however, recently built another sea-level airfield.  Sanders makes no specific mention of global warming per se – very wise, as warming leveled out around 1998, and in fact the climate appears to be cooling, leading to dire predictions of a new ice-age, so what actually is causing these rising sea levels is unclear.
  • Hundreds of millions of people [will be] forced to leave own communities, in order to find the food and water they need to survive:”  Given the above, it is not quite clear why.
  • ‘We have a President and a Republican leadership who reject science’:  Trump’s crime was to say, in answer to the accusation that the climate is changing, ‘it will change back’. Which shows a better grasp of science than almost any other Western politician.
  • ‘Trump is a conspiracy theorist’: Trump has said that alarmists have a very big political agenda.
  • ‘They do not have a political agenda’: Yes, they do.

The Portentous Announcement: an action plan to address this fictional problem –  flagged, not specified

  • ‘Unless we take bold and drastic action …’
  • ‘The action we need to take has no historic precedent.’
  • ‘In the coming months I will be working with fellow senators to bring forth the most sweeping climate change legislation ever introduced in the senate.’
  • ‘We need unprecedented legislation …’

Bernie Sanders is clearly in tune with the globalist agenda. Of course the legislation he has in mind here may simply be to raise fuel taxes and build more bird-killing windmills, in which case this is a lot of hype.  On the other hand he may be planning moves in accordance with Agendas 21 and 30, to give more power to the UN and NGOs, and to accelerate the Wildlands Project, forcing people increasingly out of the countryside and into the ‘more sustainable’ cities.

Sanders’ sweetener is that renewable energy, he says, creates more jobs than fossil fuel industries, and is actually cheaper, claims which require more analysis to say the least.  Even so, Bernie Sanders supporters could be turkeys voting for Christmas.

See also:

Jamie Spry, Climatism : State Of The Climate Report

Video on Youtube

Trump is Right to Question the ICC and the Institutions of the United Nations

One of the ‘side events’ of the the opening week of the 73th UN General Assembly was a meeting of the Syria Impartial International Investigative Mechanism. The SyriaIIIM was apparently the brainchild of Aurelia Frick, Liechetenstein’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the meeting was hosted by Liechtenstein together with Qatar.

Nobody from the Syrian government, to present atrocities against its people by terrorists and Western regime-changers alike, was at the meeting. Representing Syria were Syrian Civil Defense, also known as the White Helmets.  The White Helmets are funded by NATO countries and George Soros’s Open Society to produce propaganda against the Syrian government in order to promote a Libya-style no-fly zone in Syria.  They are staffed by the most vicious gangs operating in Syria, notably the ISIS-aligned al ZInki, which is known for atrocities such as bombing bakeries


and sawing off the head of young Abdullah Issa.



The fraudulent nature of White Helmet activity is explored in this Photo Tutorial on the Death Squad Helmets from Miri Wood.  Perhaps the most blatant and most unequivocal example of fraud was the staging for the cameras of a chemical attack in a hospital in East Ghouta, Damascus, in order to provoke a punitive strike against Syria, or even open war.  The White Helmets rushed some children into the hospital, hosed them down, rubbing water in their eyes, and later rewarded them with sweets and cookies.  Neither local residents nor hospital staff knew anything of a chemical attack.

Also invited to speak at the SyriaIIIM meeting was Simon Adams of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, likewise funded by George Soros to facilitate the partition and/or the destruction of Syria.  In the speech he planned to give, Adams claims that ‘millions’ of civilians in Syria still face the threat of mass atrocity crimes’.  As time was short, Adams gave way to ‘our friends from Syrian Civil Defense’, which included its chief spokesman Raed Saleh.

In a paper ‘Failure to Protect: Syria and the UN Security Council’ ( here),  Simon Adams argues for an agreement by the Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council to refrain from using their veto in future mass atrocity situations – Russia and China have in the past vetoed any attempts to have Syria referred to the ICC.

The relentless propaganda against the Syrian government and its president Bashar al Assad, funded by agents intent on regime change in Syria, all the while ignoring al Assad’s popularity with his people, has been discussed by a number of analysts, including Daniel Lazare in ‘A New Anti-Assad Propaganda Offensive‘.

The underlying assumption of the meeting and of the SyriaIIIM is that it is the Syrian government that should be held accountable – certainly there is no indication that the agenda included any investigation into atrocities carried out by members of the gangs staffing the White Helmets. Thus the Syria ‘Impartial’ Investigative Mechanism clearly has not the remotest intention of being impartial, and ‘by accountability to shape Syria’s future’, Frick means getting rid of Bashar al Assad by hook or by crook, so that NATO and its partners can shape Syria’s future according to their own priorities.

The SyriaIIIM was founded in 2016 as is an ‘independent investigative panel to work toward the prosecution of those responsible for war crimes or crimes against humanity in Syria. Its functions are:

  • the collection and consolidation of evidence regarding violations of international humanitarian law and human rights violations and abuses as
  • the preparation of files in order to facilitate and expedite fair and independent criminal proceedings, in accordance with international law standards, in national, regional or international courts or tribunals that have or may in the future have jurisdiction over these crimes, in accordance with international law.

Syria’s position is that the body is illegal and violates the UN Charter.  As Syria is not a signatory to the ICC, at present Syrian can only be tried in the ICC by referral from the United Nations Security Council.

The purpose of the SyriaIIIM, therefore, is to prepare and present a case for prosecution to the UNSC.  That someone like Raed Saleh, associated with both fraud and atrocities in Syria, should have a role in bringing members of the Syrian government or armed forces to ‘justice’ in The Hague destroys the credibility of the SyrianIIIM, and undermines that of the United Nations and the concept of international law.

Recently John Bolton, speaking on behalf of Donald Trump and the US government, caused a stir when he announced that the U.S. considered the ICC illegitimate. Of course any suggestion that US citizens should have impunity when it comes to war crimes, but not others, is obnoxious, and people leapt to condemn his position, even outlets one would expect to be critical of the United Nations, such as Global Research, here and here.  The Trump administration has also pulled out of UNESCO, the Human Rights Council, the  negotiations for the Global Compact on Migration, and tragically for Palestinian refugees, their mainstay the U.N. Reliefs and Works Agency.

Whatever Trump’s own motivations and intentions, it is right in principle to question the ICC and the United Nations bureaucracy.  UN institutions are frequently corrupt and should not automatically be given credibility.  All UN personnel and institutions that have concerned themselves with Syria, for example, have been consistently biased, including Staffan de Mistura, the OPCW , who like SyriaIIIM rely on the White Helmets for informtion, and UNICEF  – it is hard to forget UNICEF’s Justin Forsyth pretending to hold a conversation  with propaganda tool Bana Alabed, despite knowing that Bana could not speak a word of English, while at the same time participating in her exploitation.


The World Health Organisation (WHO) forms, with America’s Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the pharmaceutical companies, a dangerous network of corruption with no regard for the safety of the public (see also the WHO’s role in the flu epidemic scam.)  The description of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as an amateurish, ramshackle operation’ is perhaps too kind – others have pointed to its propensity for manipulating data to suit a political agenda.  The bodies concerned with nuclear proliferation are a farce – there is no pressure on the UK, for example, not to upgrade its Trident nuclear capability, and the The Secretary-General’s five point proposal on nuclear disarmament mentions neither this issue nor Israel’s undeclared nuclear programme. 

As for international justice, as represented by ICC it is, in Tyler Durden’s words,  a noble ideal but a flawed institution. Those who might not normally agree with John Bolton will be startled to learn that he predicted back in 1998 that the ICC would be ineffective, unaccountable and overly political.  The ICC has failed to bring the likes of Bush, Blair, Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy to trial for their open warring on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and their scarcely concealed warmongering in Syria, with the result that ICC cases against personnel from the former Yugoslavia give the appearance of bullying weaker countries rather than seeking justice.

While the U.N. Reliefs and Works Agency may do more good than harm, the same can not be said for many of the UN’s other institutions, and their very existence needs to be questioned and reevaluated.

Media Lens and other Globalist Assets


‘Founded in 2001 by [David] Cromwell and David Edwards, Media Lens is a media analysis website which monitors the broadcast and the print media in the UK, attempting to show evidence of bias, distortions and omissions on such issues as climate change, Iraq and the “war on terror”. The founders of Media Lens draw on the ‘Propaganda Model’ of media control advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky.’ (Wikipedia, David Cromwell).

As a ‘media analysis site’ Media Lens portrays itself as providing an alternative view to the increasingly mistrusted corporate media.  They claim to focus on calling to account the ‘liberal media’, e.g. the Guardian and the Observer. (See FAQ, Why do you concentrate on the ‘liberal’ media?).

Scrutiny of Media Lens output, however, indicates that rather than being objective analysts of the media, they are promoting their own agenda, and strongly, and this agenda has much in common with that of the media they claim to be critiquing.

Media Lens rely heavily on social media for impact, especially twitter, rather than a high volume of articles (termed ‘Alerts’). The two editors, David Cromwell and David Edwards, have also authored some books, most recently Propaganda Blitz.  They tweet, retweet and write about failings of the media on issues where the corporate media see their role as propaganda or suppression rather than fact.  They are seen as progressive and anti-imperialist, as they largely make the right noises about Gaza, Yemen,  Syria and the Skripal farce.  E.g.

However, the  Media Lens response to the wars on first Libya, then Syria, appears dutiful rather than enthusiastic, even compromised. They are seemingly unaware that the tradition of the brutality of Gaddafi and Bashar al Assad owes more to Western propaganda than to evidence.

Not being seen to defend ‘Assad’ is very important:

Media Lens aspires ‘to show evidence of bias, distortions and omissions on such issues as climate change, Iraq and the “war on terror”‘, drawing on ‘the model of media control advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’.  As well as stressing their left-wing credentials (Iraq), this claim brings together two major issues that are arguably topmost on the Media Lens agenda: promotion of Noam Chomsky and climate change alarmism.

Media Lens and Noam Chomsky

‘Noam Chomsky is often hailed as America’s premier dissident intellectual, a fearless purveyor of truth fighting against media propaganda, murderous U.S. foreign policy, and the crimes of profit-hungry transnational corporations.

‘He enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture. To them, Chomsky is the supreme deity, a priestly master whose logic cannot be questioned.’ (Daniel L. Abramson)

Chomsky has a reputation for being a ‘progressive’, a critic of government and the corporations, and an advocate of democracy.  He has also been strongly criticised as a gatekeeper for the globalist narrative, suppressing discussion on any issue that threatens globalist interests, from the Kennedy assassinations, to 9/11, the activities of the CIA, the Federal Reserve and above all the plan for global government.  The organisations mostly closely involved with global government, the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, the Committee of Foreign Relalations are ignored or dismissed as ‘nothing organisations’.  Chomsky facilitated the invasion of Libya by whitewashing the rebels and demonising Gaddafi, and went on to support the United States with regard to the war on Syria. Chomsky pushes the NATO propaganda line of:

  • the popular Syrian uprising,
  • the brutal response first by ‘Assad’ and then ‘Assad’ in conjunction with the Russians, and
  • the necessity for regime change, by negotiation if possible and if necessary by arming ‘rebels’.

See, for example, Is Chomsky Manufacturing Consent for Regime Change in Syria? and Noam Chomsky on Syria: A “Grim” Set of Alternatives. There is also the Corbett Report, Meet on Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper.

Media Lens, however, has steadfastly ignored the growing disillusionment with Noam Chomsky on part of anti-imperialists, and lose no opportunity to promote him as a cult figure.


Media Lens is anxious to defend Chomsky against the charge of being pro-Assad:

Fortunately the admiration for Chomsky is mutual:

Anthropogenic Global Warming

David Cromwell , we are told, has a PhD (1987) in solar physics from Glasgow University and then carried out post-doctoral research in Boulding Colorado, according to Wikipedia at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).  (NCAR is a partner of the World Bank in the Climate Change Knowledge Portal, and also carries out research on geoengineering.)  Cromwell subsequently worked for Shell in the Netherlands (four years) and then for 17 years in a research post at  National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, United Kingdom, before leaving in 2010 to work full-time on Media Lens.

Cromwell’s impressive qualifications both explain an interest in global warming and give credibility to his position. However his manner of engagement on the issue is hardly consistent with a scientific interest.  While Media Lens claims to be scrutinising the mainstream media, they are actually in lockstep with the corporate media who are pushing the same message.  Media Lens promotes the globalist position by uncritically tweeting endless alarmist articles from the Guardian, e.g.

or the BBC:

There is no scientific debate on any point.  A recent ‘Media Alert’  could well have come from the Guardian.

‘What will it take for society to make the deep-rooted changes required to prevent the terrifying and awesome threat of climate breakdown? This summer’s extreme weather events are simply a prelude to a rising tide of chaos that will be punctuated by cataclysmic individual events – floods, heatwaves, superstorms – of increasing severity and frequency. How long before people demand radical action from governments? Or, and this is what is really needed, how long until citizens remove corporate-captured governments from power and introduce genuine democracy?
‘Consider just some examples of this summer’s extreme weather. In Japan, ferocious heat killed more than 80 people and flooding killed more than 200. In Greece, 80 people died in terrible wildfires. In Canada, a heatwave killed more than 70. In many places around the world, including northern Europe, central America, Russia and parts of the US, extreme drought has put harvests at risk. Across the globe, 118 all-time records were broken or tied. In the United Arab Emirates, a record temperature in excess of 51C was recorded, Montreal broke 36C, the Baltic Sea reached 25C and the Swedish polar circle saw temperatures in excess of 32C. The Russian Arctic experienced ‘anomalously high temperatures’ more than 20C warmer than usual. And on and on.’

And so on and on ….  The claim of 118 all-time records came from the Daily Mail (previously condemned as a  ‘mainstream climate sceptic‘) apparently quoting the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, but no details are given.  The DM article claims that ‘normally chill Norway, Sweden and Finland all saw temperatures they have never seen before on any date, pushing past 90 degrees’ – oddly enough, July high temperature records for Sweden, for one, have remained unchallenged since 1901 (Götaland), 1933 (Svealand) and 1945 (Norrland). Climate alarmists have been warning of a an ice-free Arctic for decades, and continue to do so, but the ice is, if anything,  increasing.

Media Lens’ cry, ‘In Greece, 80 people died in terrible wildfires’, completely overlooks the fact that in 2007 there were fires which killed 84 people, and that then as now, Greeks blamed arson, as do many in California.

The Media alert is sensationalist popular journalism of the worst kind, designed to uncritically push the corporate agenda. Their position is totally partisan – what happened to the objective ‘media analysis’ website?

The Virtue Signalling Left

The Guardian recently reported on the discovery of a 5000 year old burial site in Kenya. The grave was of a community of herders, and the co-director of the dig concluded that an egalitarian and communal spirit prevailed, commenting, ‘There are lessons here for us today’.

Media Lens took advantage of this thought to sneer about ‘Bleeding heart lefties and their crazy ideas about peaceful communities that shun social hierarchies and work together to overcome challenges!’.  Only ‘lefties’, according to Media Lens, would aspire to peaceful and cooperative communities.  Which is of course false, as the cooperative spirit of small conservative communities in Texas, Greece and throughout the world is surely greater than what will be enjoyed by ‘lefties’ in the lifestyle they are working to achieve at the behest of the globalists, living in their soulless (but sustainable) tower blocks next to the railway station.

The Media Lens spin on this story is similar to that of the Guardian on other ‘discoveries’, whereby new findings are supposed to bring out the worst prejudices in people, such as the declaration that 10,000 years ago the British were all black.

‘A great many widely held – but incorrect – assumptions about the expected pale-skinned, fair-featured nature of Britain’s founders were promptly overturned, to the rage of some commentators and the joy of many.’

The science is questionable, as is the assumption that people would be enraged, but in any case, the information is presented in such a way as to make the ordinary Brit feel defensive or threatened.

Soul Mates

‘We also hope to encourage the creation of non-corporate media – good examples are Democracy Now!, The Real News Network and ZNet – that offer genuine alternatives to the corporate mainstream.’  This statement is currently on the ML website (accessed 22 August 2018).  ZNet appears to have folded, but Democracy Now! and The Real News Network remain  Media Lens’ outlets of choice, and have a number of shared interests with Media Lens.

Apart from some start-up support from foundations like the Lipman Milliband trust Media Lens claims to rely on donations from readers.  Both Democracy Now! (DN!) and The Real News Network (TRNN), however, are funded by corporate money: DN! by the Carnegie Foundation, George Soros’s Open Society and Tides Foundations, and the Ford Foundation; TRNN by the the Ford Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation.

Both DN! and TRRN claim to be independent and progressive, however the corporate hand has shown itself very clearly, for example on the issue of the Syrian war, where both outlets are firmly squarely on the side of imperialism and regime change.

Marwan Hisham, interviewed here on TRNN, collaborated with Molly Crabapple on a book Brothers of the Gun which romantises the insurgents and the insurgency.

Both DN! and TRNN promote heavily the anthropocentric global warming narrative, with  DN! inevitably warning of melting icecaps (blithely ignoring all reports that both Antarctica and the Arctic are putting on ice).  TRNN makes the ridiculous claim that the mainstream are ignoring climate change,  one much favoured by Media Lens, see here and here.

TRNN and DN! are strong promoters of the Noam Chomsky cult, quoting or interviewing him on a regular basis:

In an interview with Media Lens published by BS News in 2016, the editors mooted:

‘Do you think people around the world wouldn’t support a media commune made up of Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Jonathan Cook, Glenn Greenwald, Edward Herman, Chris Hedges, Robert Fisk, Nafeez Ahmed?’

As a group, this does not inspire as one that will take on the globalists and Agenda 21, or even be first choice for revealing the truth about imperialist wars.  Glenn Greenwald, like Amy Goodman, has been referred to as the ‘cruise-missile left’. , ie complicit in American escalation towards WW III. In Nafeez Ahmed, Media Lens is again promoting a fervent propagandist against the Syrian government and its allies.

Back in 2012, Ahmed wrote, admittedly while opposing direct intervention,

‘The brutality of Assad’s regime cannot be underestimated. The Syrian Army has not only routinely fired into crowds of peaceful protestors. It has followed up with heavy artillery bombardments of civilian districts – including the use of fighter jets.’

The priorities of Media Lens – the commitment to the Club of Rome’s climate project, the Chomsky cult, the divisive sneering at non-‘lefties’, the anti-Assad propaganda, and the strong support for anti-Assad propagandists – are consistent with a globalist agenda. It could be that that the editors of Media Lens are simply naive and rather past it.  However the lip service to anti-imperialism in tandem with the rigorous promotion of supporters of the war on Syria, the scientific background of David Cromwell in contrast to the determinedly populist nature of climate change commentary, put their good intentions in doubt.

Sixty Narcissists Declare Themselves Above Debating the World’s Top Climate Scientists


With the help of the Guardian, the climate debate has descended into pure farce.

The Graun has just published a letter entitled, Climate change is real. We must not offer credibility to those who deny it, whereby a motley crew of journalists, politicians, activists and academics have announce their refusal to debate anthopogenic global warming sceptics: ‘If “balance” means giving voice to those who deny the reality of human-triggered climate change, we will not take part in the debate’.

The reason for this step, we are told, is that on the one hand there is an overwhelming scientific consensus and on the other, that there is a lobby, heavily funded by vested interests, that exists simply to sow doubt to serve those interests. Scepticism represents  ‘fringe views’ which should be ignored. Giving AGW sceptics a platform is apparently akin to showcasing flatearthers, never mind the fact that the official position of the Flat Earth Society is that it supports the climate alarmist narrative. (Of course it was sceptics who first argued that the world wasn’t flat.)

The purpose of the letter is to justify the already well-established practice of refusing to engage in debate on global warming, by marginalising and belittling opponents, and to deplatform them. Because of the shortage of real scientists prepared to put their names to the letter, we have the unedifying spectacle of the likes of Clive Lewis and Peter Tatchell declaring that they are above debating atmospheric physics with scientists of the calibre of  Eric Karlstrom or Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever.

  This exercise in dishonest narcissism demeans all who have signed or lent their support to it.

Why this Letter is a Farce and an Embarrassment

Climate alarmism is heavily funded by big money linked to the Club of Rome, such as the Bill Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.  Academic research is funded by these ‘charities’ to produce only results that serve the globalist narrative. Academics who speak out against the narrative do so at the expense of their careers. The claim that it is the sceptical position that is heavily funded is nonsense.

Counter-arguments from AGW sceptics have never been discredited. Michael Mann, for example, who is in litigation with number of people who have openly called his hockystick graph a fraud, such as Tim Ball and Mark Steyn, is still, to my knowledge, refusing to produce the data supposed to justify it.

The claim of ‘overwhelming scientific consensus’ is long debunked; the much vaunted 97% seems to be based on a figure of 76 peopleIn any case, given the huge numbers of scientists who have declared climate alarmism to be a hoax (see, for example, the American petition signed by 31,000 scientists, or this list of 1000 scientists) it is hard to see where this 97% could come from. 

The vast majority of the signees to the letter would have no show of debating science with a top climate scientist.  Of the 15 or so professors, maybe six are in relevant scientific fields, while the rest are in unrelated fields such as economics, law or psychotherapy. The same applies to others with impressive sounding qualifications – Dr Teresa Belton, for examples, wrote her thesis on the effects of television and video on children. In the case of 90% of the signees – academics, journalist, politicians, activists – the very idea that they could sensibly debate with serious climate scientists is ludicrous.

The letter comes out of the University of East Anglia. The letter was drafted by Dr Rupert Read, Green Party politician and Reader in Philosophy at the University of East Anglia; a the large number of signees have connections to the University. The UEA is notorious as the centre of the Climategate scandal, whereby emails between scientists at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) and their colleagues around the world revealed a consistent, deliberate effort to skew, hide or destroy data.

James Taylor wrote: Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:

  1. prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;
  2. these scientists view global warming as a political ’cause’ rather than a balanced scientific inquiry; and
  3. many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Signees may still be happy to debate global warming, just not with experts in the field. After I replied to one of the many twitter postings of this letter, Mark Maslin, Professor of Climatology, turned up in my mentions. It was interesting how quickly the debate was reduced to the personal – while I myself was not the politest, I did at least stick to the point.

Maslin Faud Fraud fraudABarbara

Maslin Faud Fraud fraud .PNG


(Nb: Maslin had also changed the timeframe, from 1000 years to 10,000.  My link is to ‘The Marcott Reconstruction Debunked’)

Maslin Ad hominem lmao2

Maslin used classic troll technique: dubious assertion, switch when discredited, ad hominem, personalisation of debate. But more importantly, he appears quite happy to debate with an AGW sceptic when she is a completely unknown to him arts graduate – just not a senior scientist.

After publishing countless alarmist predictions that have not delivered, the Guardian has finally destroyed its last shred of credibility in the matter of ‘anthropogenic global warming’.

However, while the letter invites ridicule and hilarity, it is a deeply worrying thought that climate alarmists can write any old rubbish, and know that the mainstream media, and most of the so-called alternative media, are going to make no attempt to expose them.

See also:

Climate activists have long history of ducking debates with skeptics

Climate Alarmism is a Scam and a Hoax

Climate Alarmism is a Scam and a Hoax


Man-made climate change (Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW) is a scam and a hoax and until the average joe and jane wakes up to the truth this nonsense will continue to corrupt the scientific community, which depends on grants from those same economic and political powers, and more importantly will corrupt politicians worldwide who too are dependent upon them for campaign contributions. (Dr Eric T. Karlstrom)

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.  And if it quacks like a fraudulent narrative, the same applies.

The climate change project was officially launched in the US on  June 23 1988, when NASA’s James Hansen told a Congressional committee that global warming had begun: that the then-current heat wave in Washington was caused by the relationship between ‘the greenhouse effect and observed warming.’ (To get the point across, Hansen and sponsor 98ii+68/Senator Tim Wirth chose what promised to be an exceptionally hot day and then sabotaged the air conditioning in the meeting room the night before.)

Global warming is one of those plain sight conspiracies, where the primary movers hardly bother to conceal the contrived nature of the project, or the vast sums of money they make from it.  The Club of Rome in 1990 put out a report called The First Global Revolution saying:

‘In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…’ (p. 75)

The motivation, then, was not to solve an urgent problem, but to find a threat, real or not, that would ‘unite’ people. And divert them from real issues.

The Club of Rome was founded in 1967, one of a group of organisations committed to a globalist agenda, including the Committee on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg and the Trilateral Forum.  The Club of Rome has been described as being at the apex of the New World Order pyramid: it drives the global climate change project as well being concerned with population control and vaccinations. Members are world leaders and captains of industry, and have included Al Gore, Tony Blair, George Soros and other people you’d buy a used car from.

Climate alarmism is seen as fraudulent by many (probably all) top scientists, who have described it as a scam, a hoax and dangerous nonsense.  As the science for significant anthropogenic global warming does not exist, the position relies on falsified data and especially on diversion from factual-based debate through emphasis on apocalyptic scenarios on the one hands, and spurious (and patently false) references to ‘consensus’.

Anthropogenic Climate Change: the Official Position

The International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) was founded with the task of providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change.  Major points of its 2007 report are as follows:

  • Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.
  • Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
  • Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming.
  • Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change.
  • Notable achievements of the UN and its Kyoto Protocol include the creation of an international carbon market.

Scientific rejection of the IPCC’s position

The IPCC’s findings were opposed by scientists worldwide. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, for example, slammed the IPCC report as ‘dangerous nonsense’  and produced a list of pillars of wisdom to counter the UN IPCC climate report.

  • Over the past few thousand years, the climate in many parts of the world has been
    warmer and cooler than it is now. Civilizations and cultures flourished in the warmer periods.
  • A major driver of climate change is variability in solar effects, such as sunspot cycles, the sun’s magnetic field and solar particles. […]  Evidence suggests warming involving increased carbon dioxide exerts only a minor influence.
  • Since 1998, global temperature has not increased. Projection of solar cycles suggests that cooling could set in and continue to about 2030.
  • Most recent climate and weather events are not unusual; they occur regularly. For example, in the 1930s the Arctic experienced higher temperatures and had less ice than now.
  • Stories of impending climate disaster are based almost entirely on global climate models. Not one of these models has shown that it can reliably predict future climate.
  • The Kyoto Protocol, if fully implemented, would make no measurable difference to
    world temperatures. The trillions of dollars that it will cost would be far better spent on solving known problems such as the provision of clean water, reducing air pollution, and fighting malaria and Aids.
  • Climate is constantly changing and the future will include coolings, warmings, floods, droughts, and storms.  The best policy is to make sure we have in place disaster response plans that can deal with weather extremes.

In essence, proponents of the theory of significant anthropogenic climate change need to show two things:

  • There is significant and dangerous global warming
  • This global warming is caused by human activity, ie greenhouse gas emissions, primarily co2 emissions.

Whereas sceptics need only show one thing:

  • global climate is not significantly or dangerously affected by human activity

It’s the Winning that Matters

The AGW cause has the richest people on the planet promoting and exploiting the narrative, including the late  David RockefellerBill Gates, several members of the Rothschild family (e.g. David Rothschild and Edmond de Rothschild, see also here and here). All of these are closely associated with the Club of Rome and related globalist organisations like the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg.  Vast sums of money are made available for research that produces the right results, and most of the corporate media is on message, churning out alarmist messages almost on a daily basis. The fact that neither science nor nature itself support the theory hardly seems to matter.

Like all narratives pushed by the powerful onto the masses, the global warming hoax is supported by relentless fallacious argument, so that the public are battered with endless ad hominem, cherry-picking and appeals to authority. Much of the data is suspect, to put it mildly, and a very large part of the ‘debate’ consists of apocalyptic scenarios, with threats of doom unless the public pours more money into the coffers of those profiting from the carbon hoax.

In 2009 Climategate scandal broke, when 3000 leaked emails between scientists at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) and their colleagues around the world revealed a consistent, deliberate effort to skew data as well as destroy and hide contradictory data.

After the second lot of climategate emails was released in 2011, James Taylor wrote:

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:

  1.  prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;
  2. these scientists view global warming as a political ’cause’ rather than a balanced scientific inquiry; and
  3. many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

The Data

Petition Slide01 Warming

[Source of image]

The IPCC’s position is still that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years, increasing at an exponential rate as we pump more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. Many scientists disagree, pointing to higher temperatures in the 30s, and a cooling since 1998.   During 2017, there were 150 graphs from 122 scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals indicating modern temperatures are not unprecedented, unusual, or hockey-stick-shaped — nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.

Data to promote the idea of runaway global warming has been questioned, for example the graphs used by NOAA ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and NASA have been shown to have been ‘updated’, as it were.

Temperature Graphs2

In 2015, German professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert accused NASA of ‘Massive’ Temperature Alterations’, i.e. of intentionally and systematically rigging the official government record of global temperatures

‘A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own data sets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.’

Back in 2008, the UK Telegraph reported NASA as claiming October as the hottest on record, by using September figures.

The name ‘hockey stick graph’ was coined for figures showing a long-term decline followed by an abrupt rise in temperature, specifically applied to the findings of ‘a little known climate scientist named Michael Mann and two colleagues’ as described here by the Atlantic Council.


Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional principal component analysis but it handles data in such a way that whatever data was fed in, it produced a hockey stick.  Mann has queried their findings, but refused to provide necessary additional data (McIntyre and McKitrick’s adventures with Mann are described here).

Michael Mann has been suing various critics for libel, including Mark Steyn, whose  A Disgrace to the Profession is a compilation of scientific commentary on Michael Mann and his work Steyn has also termed Mann a Big Climate huckster), and also emeritus Professor Dr. Tim Ball, who likewise suggested Mann was guilty of data fraud.  Mann has been reported as being in contempt of court in the Ball case for failing to provide essential data.

HockeystickT_comp_61-90Tim Ball.pdf

When the promised global warming failed to eventuate, the phrase ‘global warming’ gave way to ‘climate change’.  So when cherry-picked claims of extreme heat are met with examples of low temperatures, they are countered with, ‘there you go, extreme climate change!’.

Carbon Dioxide

The cause of ‘runaway global warming’ is, according to alarmists, the production of CO2.  Not carbon monoxide, note, the one that is poisonous (we’re not worried about that), but carbon dioxide, which is necessary for plant life, and which greenhouse owners often add to improve the growth of their vegetables. (See New York Times Hysterical over Global Greening)

Scientists have pointed out in vain that the level of carbon dioxide has been far higher in the past, during the Cambrian period about 18 times higher.  Moreover, during the glaciation of the late Ordocivian period, CO2 concentrations were nearly 12 times higher than today, according to one report. (This study has similar results.)

Winter is Coming

Ice age.jpg large.jpg

From the early 14th to the mid nineteenth century, Europe and other parts of the world experienced what is called the Little IceAge.  It led to much misery, with cold and hunger from the failure of crops, political upheaval, and the decolonisation of Greenland. In 1484, Pope Innocent VIII recognized the existence of witches and echoed popular sentiment by blaming them for the cold temperatures and resulting misfortunes plaguing Europe. (N.b. Greenland still has not recovered from the Little Iceage.)

For some years, scientists have been predicting the coming of a new mini-iceage. In 2009 Professor Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Technical University of Denmark, advised that ‘global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning – enjoy global warming while it lasts‘.

The response of British institutions like the Met Office and University of East Anglia has been interesting.  In 2012 they released data that showed that the warming trend ended in 1948, but insisted that cooling from natural sources will be offset by carbon emissions. See Scientists Predict Coming Iceage

The thought of the world’s governments being able to serious affect the climate is not a comforting one: ‘If we didn’t have the greenhouse affect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse affect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time.’  (Augie Auer)

Climate Alarmism

Evidence of the Earth cooling has not given any pause to alarmist claims of dramatic warming, which have been present from the outset. In 1989 Nasa’s James Hansen was predicting that global temperatures would rise up to 9 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050.  In his film An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore warned that increasing carbon dioxide emissions would spur catastrophic global warming that would cause more extreme weather, wipe out cities and cause ecological collapse. (The claims and predictions of An Inconvenient Truth were scrutinised 10 years on by Michael Bastasch in An Inconvenient Review.)

In his review of the book that accompanied Gore’s film, Hansen claimed: ‘As explained above, we have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions’.

To give a sense of urgency, the global warming threat has been described in the most extravagant terms. Hansen warned of a ‘global warming time bomb’ when he spoke to the Club of Rome in 2009.  The concept of a ‘tipping point’ came into vogue, the peak of climate alarmism. Marc Morano prepared a full list of apocalyptic declarations,  exclaiming ‘Hours, days, months, years, millennium  – the Earth is serially doomed’.  Some examples:

It is suggested that the only authentic climate ‘tipping point’ is the one proposed by New Zealand’s Augie Auer, who predicted in 2007 that it was all going to be a joke in five years time. (Auer reckoned without the powerful forces behind the climate hoax.)

The Melting of the Polar Icecaps

Poles 2018-04-10181524_shadow.png

[Source of image: Climate Science In A Death Spiral For At Least 10 Years]

Melting of the icecaps would be a truly dramatic event, a serious indication of warming.  Accordingly climate alarmists have seized on this ‘danger’, in defiance of all the evidence.  In 2007 — during his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech — Al Gore mooted that the northern icecap could be gone by 2014.

‘One study estimated that [the North polar ice cap] could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years.   Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.  [pause for effect] Seven years from now.’

In 2015 NASA data indicated that the polar icecaps were not receding, but in fact growing.  This did not deter Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics at Cambridge University from predicting in 2016 that the icecap at the North Pole would be completely melted in the next year or two, ie by the end of summer 2018 at the latest. As it is now August, and the Polar caps seems to be doing well, his prediction is hardly odds on.

Others are sure that the icecaps will be gone by at least 2050.  This view is expounded in an article by Gilbert Mercier, who is sure that by 2100, the countryside will be parched earth and major cities like London and New York will be under water.

The End of Snow

In An Inconvenient Truth Gore claimed that Kilimanjaro, Africa’s tallest peak, would be snow free within a decade.  On March 20, 2000, the British Independent reported that snowfalls were a thing of the past.

 ‘Global warming is simply making the UK too warm for heavy snowfalls. […]  Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.

The source of these claims was Dr. David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, of Climategate fame.  The Independent article appears to be gone from the Web, melted away as it were, but was well reported, and certainly criticised.


Apocalyptic predictions are supported by a relentless reporting of supposedly extraordinary events proving a trend towards global warming. The cherry-picking in many cases is both obvious and ludicrous, and often the actual facts open to question.

Earlier this year, for example, it was proclaimed that Nawabshah, Pakistan, had provided the hottest shaded temperature ever recorded for a reliable weather station in April, anywhere on Earth. ‘It’s only May, and this year is setting new standards in terrifying extreme temperatures.’

Coincidentally, it was also recorded that 2018 had the coldest April in the US for 30 years.  At the same time New Zealand and Australia (the Daily Mail always nice pictures, if nothing else) were predicting the coldest winter on record  -so far this has not come to pass, in NZ at least. It is probable that one could find (or contrive) an extreme temperature somewhere on the globe at any time in history.

Discrediting the Opposition.

(There are, of course, a LOT of bankers behind the climate hoax.)

There is no science behind the Club of Rome’s global warming project, and nature itself is not cooperating. In order to eliminate scrutiny of the facts, the campaign relies very heavily on totally discrediting the opposition. Sceptics are attacked with a barrage of fallacious argument: namecalling is inevitable (climate denier, climate change denier, flatearther etc), with an assumption of vicious motives or great stupidity.

The 97% Consensus

The claim that 97%  of the world’s scientists  support the climate hoax (99.9% according to George Monbiot) is a mantra repeated ever more shrilly in the face of unwelcome factual evidence.  One might well ask, who cares? The argument is an appeal to authority, a red herring fallacy, and the beliefs of a claimed 97% of ‘scientists’ don’t actually change the scientific facts.

As often happens with the use of fallacious argument, the premise is completely false as well. It is clear that the there has been concerted and substantial opposition from scientists to the AGW narrative and the carbon fraud. Essentially the 97% claim is a bare-faced lie, designed to make sceptics look like loonies.

Over 31,000 American scientists signed a petition in response to the 1997 Kyoto Accord:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Attached to the petition is a summary of peer-reviewed research with 132 references.

Marc Morano has given a breakdown of more than 1000 international scientists who dissented over man-made global warming claims from 2008 to 2010.  Morano refers to, for example:

  • U. S. Senate Minority Report:More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims:  Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus’ in 2008 & 2009.
  • 712 Prominent scientists from 40 countries signed the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, sponsored by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). The 2008 declaration states in part, ‘Global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life’.
  • In 2009, more than 100 international scientists rebuked President Obama’s view of man-made global warming. The scientists wrote: ‘Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.’
  • December 8 2009, an Open Letter to the UN Secretary-General from 166+ scientists declared ‘the science is NOT settled’.
  • 2010, 130 German Scientists called climate fears ‘pseudo religion’ and urged the Chancellor to ‘reconsider’ her views.
  • In 2010, more than 260 scientists who are members of the American Physical
    Society (APS) endorsed the efforts of skeptical Princeton University Physicist Dr.
    Will Happer to substantially amend the APS alarmist statement on man-made
    global warming.
  • A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 showed 90 per cent of
    the participants do not believe the IPCC report.

The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008. It prominently featured the voices of scientists sceptical of man-made global warming fears. This report from the conference, by someone, who does not himself appear to question the AGW narrative declares that ‘skeptical scientists overwhelmed the meeting, with ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ (full reports here & here ]

Professor Larry Bell of Houston University has also debunked the 97% claim, reporting.

  • A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.
  • A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming. And while 89% believe that global warming is occurring, only 30% said they were very worried.
  • A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that ‘…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.’ Only 26% of them attributed global warming to ‘human activity like burning fossil fuels.’ Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, ‘We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.’

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, and supervisor to James Hansen, Dr. John S. Theon has called Hansen an embarrassment, and added himself to the list of NASA scientists who dissent from man-made climate fears. Others include:

  • Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA,
  • Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA,
  • Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut,
  • Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt,
  • Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7,
  • Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor,
  • Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Ames Research Center,
  • Climatologist Dr. John Christy,
  • Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer,
  • Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA’s Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility].

In a New Zealand context, scientists who have opposed the man-made global warming narrative have included some of New Zealand’s top academics and scientists, including:

  • Professor Augie Auer (deceased June 2007) of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming,  and Chief Meteorologist with the MetService
  • Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealand-trained geologist with extensive research experience in palaeoclimatology, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University
  • David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research
  • Peter Oliver, BSc (Geology), BSc (Hons, Geochemistry & Geophysics), MSc (Geochemistry), PhD (Geology), specialized in NZ quaternary glaciations,Geochemistry and Paleomagnetism, previously research scientist for the NZ Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
  • Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics

Rather than there being a consensus of 97% of scientists who believe in climate alarmism, the opposite is more likely to be true: that 97% of scientists of integrity and without a financial interest believe that AGW alarmism is fraudulent.

Given that most scientists in fact reject the AGW scenario, and the public itself is growing increasingly sceptical, why has Augie Auer’s prediction, that it would be seen as a joke by about 2013, not come to pass?  Carbongate is seen as a victimless crime – ok, the taxpayer is paying out a fortune, but afterall, who hasn’t nicked a Biro from a government office? The other reason, of course, is money: AGW alarmism is a construct of the rich and (thus) the very powerful, who are practically unstoppable. And getting richer.

See also:

Climate Change: a Hypothesis. This is an article which aimed to address the relationship between war and global warming.  Unfortunately it relies on graphs provided by NASA which are almost certainly false, and so the article has little value except for some background information – I am probably the only person who has written about climate change who actually believed those graphs.

David Kear, former Director-General of NZ Scientific Research, says global warming is a non-existent threat. This should be of interest to New Zealand readers as, once upon a  time, Kear would have been considered NZ’s top scientist.

Guy McPherson – Human Extinction Within 10 Years [Video].  Good example of climate alarmist propaganda (the first 9:30 mins can be missed).  McPherson predicts an ice-free arctic by 2019, and the end to human existence by 2028.

Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom, The Green Agenda: Using false science to create a ‘global crisis’

In Is Man-Made Climate Change a Hoax and a Scam? Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography, California State University, provides an analysis of the global warming fraud (2010)

  1. ‘In this paper, I document some of the many disproofs of the hypothesis of unprecedented, catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming (AGW). In the process, I demonstrate that AGW is and has always been a fraud. I also:
  2. Demonstrate that there is no consensus amongst scientists in support of the AGW hypothesis.
  3. Show that natural climate fluctuations have had a far greater influence than humans on the climate system and that the claimed rate of modern warming (0.6° C in the 20th century) is well within the normal range for natural temperature fluctuations.
  4. Show that atmospheric CO2 does not drive temperatures and plays a minor role in the climate system.
  5. Discuss the historical benefits of relatively warm climates vs. more damaging colder climates.
  6. Demonstrate that human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere are minor (about 3.5%) as compared with nature’s contributions. And water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas.
  7. Detail the many ways in which science fraud has been systematically and is still being used to create the common misperceptions associated with AGW.
  8. Discuss problems and limitations of the GCMs (global climate models) that provide the basis of the alarmist claims of human-induced global warming
  9. Expose the fallacies of the many propaganda ploys, including melting glaciers, rising sea levels, die-off of polar bears, increase in extreme weather, etc., that are now commonly attributed to AGW.
  10. Speculate on the political, economic, and social agendas served by the AGW fraud.’

Dear Matrix, from Chris Kirckof


Ultimately Chris Kirckof is an optimist. 

Dear Matrix,

I am aware of your efforts to dumb down, sedate and control the world’s populations. I am fully aware of your destructive programs to sicken and alter humanity through the chemical, electromagnetic and genetic modification of our food, plants, animals and ourselves. I am aware of your careless destruction of our earth, skies and oceans through resource exploitation, geoengineering and weather modification. I see all of your many false flag events and devious schemes purposely designed to keep the world in perpetual fear and continual wars against fabricated outside enemies for control and profit. I have caught on to your fascist medical system designed to drain and destroy humanity via the decrepit allopathic medical system based on profit and ill health at every level, including the proliferation of pharmaceuticals, invasive and debilitating treatments and deliberately damaging vaccines.

I see every move you make toward a worldwide police state based on manufactured fear and disinformation to manipulate humanity in order to execute your program of control and subjugation. I see the con job and am aware that your political puppet establishment is all staged and designed to distract from the real issues and keep the populace occupied and feeling like participants while you work your manipulative program. I am aware of your falsely imposed taxation system that is designed to fund further the agenda that controls an overarching agenda of genocidal wars on innocent peoples. I know that a select few major corporations with vested interests in this global agenda now control almost all media and that mass media is nothing more than a mouthpiece of propaganda to further the elistist agenda.

I am aware that your “entertainment” industry is simply socially engineered mind control. I am informed of your AI, electromagnetic grid and mind manipulating designs and technologies that are being imposed to further expand your psychopathic control program. I know that you repress emerging technologies that threaten existing parasitic profitable ones, such as the hazardous petroleum and nuclear industries, when alternative energy sources and other such solutions have arisen for many decades which you have suppressed. I am aware that you sequester knowledge and information in a vast array of fields to keep the general populace in the dark and thereby disempowered as to our true historical context, while you are coveting secret information and carrying out advanced covert research for your own ends.

I know that you have stigmatized, marginalized and seek to outlaw any form of criticism, questioning or dissent using whatever excuse you can manufacture. I am aware of your oppressive, enslaving monetary and legal control scams, private fractionalized banking pillaging, and twisted cravings for money and power in an imposed control system that never needed to exist in the first place. I am aware of your agenda steering institutions, foundations, institutes, charitable organizations and international bodies such as the so-called United Nations and its many agencies and agendas being used to further develop your global control plans and programs. I know all about your secret societies, blood line allegiances and luciferian, freemasonic, Babylonian and otherworldly roots that propel the wickedness of your self appointed leaders. I know all about your ritual sacrifices, paedophelia, bestiality inclinations, and other insane practices.

I am aware that you know we are on to you. I stand fearless, fully committed to humanity’s well being. You are shallow, self-serving and seriously misled guns for hire working for a control system being engineered by powers beyond your knowledge that will devour you, just as you seek to devour us. I know who you are. Your days are numbered. You know it, and I know it. If there is an ounce of humanity left in any of you, defect and help us expose and bring down these dark forces.

A warning…

We are aware. We are awake and activated. We will do everything within and without our personal power to see our race and planet survive and shake this parasitic invasion. Our planet itself will not take this attempted overthrow. Know that, and expect repercussions from Her, as well as us, a gathering storm of sacred truth you cannot possibly fathom. Your opposition, resistance and puny, short-sighted efforts are dwarfed by what awaits you.

Will you find your humanity in time? We think many of you could, and those of you who do will be welcomed amongst the awakened. However, we realize many are beyond redemption. But don’t try to fool us. We’re more on to you than you could ever imagine. Just watch and see. We will surprise you, just as you fear. We’re here. We live. We cannot be stopped nor thwarted by any means despite your flimsy efforts.

Truth cannot be denied. Awaken and rise up.

We are coming….

The Arrest of Tommy Robinson and Questions of Due Process in Britain

Last Friday, 25 May, there were two events in Britain which raise serious questions relating to free speech, dissent, due process of law, but also of who is actually committed to those concepts. One of these was the conviction of Alison Chabloz for holocaust denial, although holocaust denial is not yet a criminal offence in the UK – the judge has indicated that she is almost certainly facing a custodial sentence.

The other is the arrest of Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.

Tommy Robinson is an activist heavily involved in exposing the Muslim grooming gangs in Britain.  He also campaigns against extremist Islam, specifically violence, intimidation and support for terrorism by extremist Islamic groups, and the double standards relating to the treatment of Muslims versus non-Muslims.  He is a strong supporter of the state of Israel.  Although he insists that he is only targeting extremists, he conflates, or is seen to conflate, all Muslims, by using the term so freely, while many of those involved in grooming gangs have a different history to those responsible for terrorism.

Robinson’s concerns are seen as valid by a large section of England, even those who do not like his style – he has been termed a working class hero.  He is also described as racist and a thug, and also a fraudster, Israeli agent, globalist.

Tommy Robinson was arrested while live streaming outside Leeds Crown Court.  This is the most common clip of his arrest.

The events on Friday appear to be as follows:

Tommy Robinson was live streaming into his cell phone outside the courthouse in Leeds where a group of men were being tried for raping underage girls – they were allegedly part of a grooming gang.   Robinson was already serving a suspended sentence of three months.

Robinson is left undisturbed by the police while he films and talks into his phone. However at a certain point the judge looks out the window and a few minutes later, police arrest him “on suspicion of breach of the peace”.

Inside the courthouse the charge is changed to contempt of court. Within a few hours, Robinson is convicted and sentenced to 13 months in prison.

The ban makes it difficult to verify the timing, but here is one breakdown:

A reporting ban is imposed, leading to a number of news outlets taking down their articles.

Gag order

There are reports that Robinson’s lawyer was unable to get to the court in time, and Robinson was obliged to make do with a court lawyer, who knew nothing about his case, possibly knew little about contempt of court law, and possibly was not sympathetic.

Robinson’s friends and family are concerned for his life. An alternative scenario, however, is that he will spend 13 months in solitary confinement.

Based on the clip above, widely disseminated, a number of aspects of the case are open to question:

1) The change in charge – did the judge tell police to arrest someone without specifying the charge? Or did he order an arrest on the grounds of disorderly behaviour and then change tack once he realised the disorderly behaviour charge wouldn’t stick?

2) The speed of the trial.

3) The severity of the sentence – the three months was increased to 13

4) The ban on reporting (sometimes referred to as a D-notice).

However, the highlights in the clip above do not give a full picture of the events leading up to the arrest.  According to the fuller version posted on facebook, Robinson was in front of the courthouse for an hour and a quarter, without any suggestion from the police that he move on.

As the accused arrive in court, Robinson calls out to them, “How do you feel about the verdict?, got your prison bags with your?  any guilt?”.

Robinson lists the names of and charges against those going into court, and then at 3:30 states “One of these men is actually working in a chicken shop in Huddersfield [..] would you want your children going into a chicken shop where men are alleged to have gang raped, prostituted and trafficked and drugged young victims”. Most or all of the alleged perpetrators are said to be from Huddersfield, and their names were already in the public domain.

The live stream also show that Robinson checked with police about where he could stand in relation to the courthouse. It was agreed with the police that while he could not stand on the steps of the courthouse, he could stand in front of or near them.

So there are further issues:

5) Whether reporters calling out to accused as they go into court  is acceptable and legal, and whether the disclosure of the information provided by Robinson, already in the public domain, constitutes contempt of court by prejudicing the trial.

6) Why did the police not warn Tommy Robinson that he was guilty of disorderly behaviour or in contempt of court?

There are also concerns over Robinson’s safety, given his high profile (or notoriety): one member of the House of Lords has threatened the Home Secretary with prosecution if Robinson is injured or killed in prison.

The Response

The response from those who involve themselves with alternative media in order, presumably, to find and disseminate the truth has been divided, as was to be expected.   There is much outrage from those who are totally in tune with all that Robinson stands for, or those who share some of his views, for example on the failure of Britain to address the problem of grooming gangs.

Many of those who feel a strong antipathy towards Robinson cannot see beyond the reasons for that antipathy.  The first response is to gratify that antipathy; the legalities and principles often come a poor second.


A good many people are confident that all due process was observed:

Questioning of the event has come from less obvious sources, such as the Spectator and Rob Liddle (both title and stub of the article have since been changed to “At last, a speedy police response”).


Several ex-police officers have posted statements giving their opinion that Tommy Robinson had not transgressed in anyway, such as this one.

Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris posted a video of their discussion about the arrest.  Mercouris make a reasonable fist of explaining Tommy Robinson’s appeal to a “large constituency in England”, though mistakenly assumes (3:05) that Robinson is still leader of the EDL (he left in 2013 citing concerns about right-wing extremism).

Mercouris echoes Liddle when he puts forward the view that

“he was arrested not because of anything he actually did, but because he was Tommy Robinson […].  I cannot see that anything that happened outside that courtroom justified it taking the action that was taken”.

Both Christoforou and Mercouris see the matter of the reporting ban as the most serious aspect:

[The reporting ban] “is even more worrying than the arrest itself, because when somebody is arrested in Britain, when somebody is threatened or placed in imprisonment, reporting of that fact ought to be in itself ought to be an important safeguard to ensure that there is no actual violation of due process, and that proper justice is being followed, because if it is not, then that is when things begin to go badly wrong, and abuses of the system happen […].   If there are things about him which justify what is being done to him, we should know more clearly what they are”. (Mercouris)

Christoforou and Mercouris discuss the influence of the deep state, and draw parallels between what is happening with Tommy Robinson and other events involving the British state, such as Julian Assange’s position and the Skripal affair, where there have been major violations of due process.

Several people have portrayed Robinson as an agent provocateur, a puppet of the government, or an Israeli agent. It is claimed that Robinson is working for dark forces in deliberately trying to create division, that he has exacerbated racial divisions and anger arising out of the grooming scandals in places like Rotherham, Telford and Huddersfield.

Mark Window, of the podcast Windows on the World, responded to the Tommy Robinson arrest by describing him in a series of tweets as a “state sponsored agent provocateur in court pantomime drama”, “This puppet and traitor to Britain”  and “glove puppet agent provocateur”.  Windows is implying that what happened outside the courthouse was actually a charade.

The idea that Robinson may have staged his arrest in collaboration with the UK or Israeli governments is of course far more interesting than the simple fact that he gives support to Israel (given that so many members of the UK and Scottish Parliaments, and of the British public, also strongly support Israel).

Assuming that Robinson, who has a wife and three children, was happy to go back to prison for at least three months, the arrest could in theory have been staged in order to create division, make Robinson a hero, or cause civil strife, possibly leading to draconian counter measures.  One should also bear in mind that the Tommy Robinson arrest has completely overshadowed the conviction of Alison Chabloz for holocaust denial, which also happened on Friday.

However, even presupposing that the arrest were indeed a “charade”, if it can be shown that the process was illegitimate then the British authorities are still complicit in this abuse of process, and this should still be of interest to everyone, not just to Tommy Robinson’s supporters.

At the very least there remains the issue of the reporting ban – not only do people not know what is going on but, as with the Skripal case, they do not know why they are not allowed to know what is going on.  As with the Skripal case, there is huge suspicion and anger at being kept in the dark.  Common sense dictates that a statement showing exactly where Robinson transgressed and whether he pleaded guilty (which would explain the speedy hearing) must reduce tensions.

If the British are not prepared to demand accountability and freedom of information over situations such as the Skripal case or the Tommy Robinson arrest, it will only embolden the authorities and make accountability even harder to achieve in the future.

Blog at

Up ↑