Nov. 30, 2009 (#461)

Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:

Poem Copyright Alan Watt Nov. 30, 2009:

Copenhagen Should be Axed or Into Poverty We'll be Taxed:

"New World Order Designed to Figure Skate
Around Trivial Nuisance Such as Climategate,
Each Part of Big Plan itself is a Con,
Justified in their Doctrine, No Right or Wrong,
Only That the Plan itself Must Succeed,
End Justifies Means to these Sell-Outs to Greed,
In Collectivist System, You're Degraded, No Hope,
Easy to Manage Under Surveillance Microscope,
Russell said, Apathy Inducement Would Work Alright,
Ensuring Docility, No Will to Fight"
© Alan Watt Nov. 30, 2009

 

Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Nov. 30, 2009 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)

 

Hi folks.  I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on November 30th 2009.  Newcomers should look into cuttingthroughthematrix.com  - that’s my main web site – scroll down and look at all the other sites I have up there, bookmark them for future use because sometimes the big ones put me on hold and freeze my account for some reason or another, even though I’m on unlimited bandwidth.  If you’ve got these other sites, you can always get the latest shows if the big ones go down again.  [Sites listed above.] 

 

Remember, you are the listeners that bring me to you.  No one is backing me here.  I don’t have an alternate agenda.  I don’t come out on behalf of the public or any side or other and then spin it off into the usual socialist side of things.  That’s how most things really go, into the socialist side, a very old technique.  They’ve been using for a hundred years or more.  No one is backing me so I can say what I want to say.  The ads you hear on the show are paid directly by the advertisers to the station RBN to broadcast this show.  It pays for their staff, their equipment and their time.  So it’s up to you to keep me going and you can do so by buying that which I have for sale on the main site.  You can donate as well [Payment and donation options listed above.] and I look forward to hearing from you. 

 

It’s up to you to keep me going.  I do depend on you.  It is expensive here.  The equipment I’m using is obsolete by today’s standards, which changes all the time, mind you, but this is really obsolete stuff and I’ve got to upgrade shortly to keep this all going because I’m going backwards all the time.  You also know too that I’ve got a lot of problems uploading with XplorNet because someone in the government has put the word in to a friend from the old school tie club to give me a hassle.  I’m uploading no more that I have been for the last couple of years.  It’s the same every night, Monday to Friday, but they’ve cut me back by over HALF the speed, OVER half the speed and often below that.  So when this show is over, I always upload and I’m generally finished in about 3 hours or so, 4 hours max.  Now it takes 4 hours at night and another 2 or 3 the next day to get the show up because of the speed they’ve given me. 

 

People do target you.  That’s how the real world really works.  They can target you but it’s nothing you can take into court.  They can always pull out their ‘unfair use’ policy stuff, even through I’m not using any more bandwidth than I used before.  That’s how they do it.  It’s just through harassment and trying to get you off the air by trying to make things impossible for you.  I’ve had the same thing when I was using dial-up even at times and even just talking on the phone; I had the telex type machine sounds going through phone calls and phone calls getting dropped in the early days when I was on the phone DOING the shows.  I’ll be back with more after this break.

 

Hi folks.  I’m Alan Watt and we’re Cutting Through The Matrix, just mentioning that you support me so it’s up to you to keep me going.  No one is backing me and as I’ve said before, many times in the past, if it just ends up into more poverty than I am, then it’s bye-bye and I’ll do something else that’ll make some cash as the world goes down the tubes.  Because it IS going down the tubes, it’s PLANNED to go down the tubes. 

 

It’s one incredible agenda.  It’s TOO big for most people to comprehend.  Last night for instance, they had on The Fifth Estate on Canadian television, a sort of 9/11 truth investigation.  In all these mainstream investigations, they always slip in the little bits that make up the viewers’ minds for them because they’re aiming it at the general population who’ve never looked into anything for themselves.  They pretty well said that America has a history of conspiracy theories.  Then they bring on a book writer who makes his living on the conspiracy theorists and why they like conspiracy theories, and then they continue with the show.  That’s really what it is; it’s how they present things, what they omit, the questions that are not asked, and what the conclusions they leave listeners with.  That’s how all these exposés are done.  It’s not new, this technique; it’s been going on for ever and ever and ever. 

 

That’s why I’m very weary of some of the big mainstream ones.  I’ve been asked by some of the big ones who are doing reporting on global warming what my views were as a sort of pre-interview to see if they wanted me on their show.  It was a whole group owned by Ted Turner.  They asked me few questions and I recognized right away, by the questions they asked and how they responded to the answers, that they were not expecting someone who knew their stuff.  I was quoting the Club of Rome and the United Nations and various pieces they had written, statements they’ve made and books they’ve written, all about the creation of global warming and how it would have to be done - the CREATION of it would have to be done - “that would fit the bill”.  They were astonished.  They talked about half an hour, the two of them on the phone, and I knew they would never get back to me.  They were looking for someone who doesn’t really KNOW their stuff.  They want people who go into wild imaginings and then they can laugh at you; but when they find someone who simply quotes facts to them by the big players themselves, they can’t come against you so therefore you don’t get on.  And that was the last I heard of them.  As I say, be very careful of these mainstream exposés.  They’re really meant to leave Joe Average, you know the couch potato type that watches the sports and believes the news, it’s meant to leave them with an opinion that there are a lot of cranks out there.  This has been going on for years, this kind of documentation and documentaries. 

 

I get a lot of people who write to me, who are nice people, who are awfully naïve, incredibly naïve and enthusiastic about life, very enthusiastic as all young people technically should be.  We all should and we should have the RIGHT to be enthusiastic about life.  Of course, when you’re young you don’t know that most of what you have been taught in school is nonsense or filler, as I call it.  It’s like putting soya flour in all your candies; it’s a filler.  It pads the time at school but the rest of it is social indoctrination to make sure that you actually THINK in a CERTAIN linear fashion which is taught to you.  That way you’re easy to direct and program in the future by the media.  That’s why they also use young people for the military.  They’ve grown up with movies and video games and they can not imagine ever being killed.  You’re too young to imagine being killed.  When you’re very young, elderly people seem like a different species to you.  You can’t imagine that you will ever, ever look like that.  That’s how it really is.  We’ve all been there. 

 

I get some people who occasionally call me up and say ‘what about free energy?  That would solve the world’s problems.’  That’s your first clue this person really is incredibly naïve, but enthusiastic and happy.  The whole point of the new world order is not allow ANYBODY any independence in any area whatsoever of sustainability, SELF-sustainability.  That’s what INTERdependence means.  It means you are totally reliant on the system that controls you and that’s the key, it CONTROLS you for everything that you need to survive.  It’s a shame people can’t really get that. 

 

Power is power; it must be USED if you want to retain power.  You retain it by making people DEPENDENT on you.  A welfare state does the same thing.  It makes you dependent upon them for everything you need.  It takes your life over.  Social work departments will run your whole life for you.  Employment specialists and all the rest of it, they will run your life for you.  Some people who have been brought up in those situations in families and I mentioned an email a while back where a man’s daughter actually talks about her social workers as though they’re her friends because she’s grown up with social workers advising the whole family.  Everything in life that happens to her, they will advise her for personal things and all the rest of it.  Government is her friend and advisor.  That’s TRUE socialism you see, and that’s where we are; and we’re going into it worse than ever today. 

 

The global warming scam… I get sick talking about it because I was talking about it years ago.  I mentioned over and over about the Club of Rome who came up with the idea.  They were GIVEN the TASK of finding a way to make the United Nations the king boss, the big boss - as it was intended to be when they first set it up - to give it powers of taxation, to raise it to its proper status where it will RULE every country.  It will rule them through blocs; the same blocs that Karl Marx talked about.  He called them ‘regions’, ‘trading regions’ in Das Kapital in the 1800s.  That’s not a coincidence either.  We’ve followed that agenda.  Those regions, trading regions would be under a super governmentWell that’s the United Nations.  Now it’s rising to power. 

 

The Club of Rome were given the job of finding a religion you might say.  A religion, a BELIEF system – a religion is a BELIEF system based on faith – to bring the world together under authority, under authority to obey, a world where people would give up more rights than ever before.  The only scenario they could come up with was a wartime scenario.  We do what we’re told to ‘save us all’, ‘we’re all in it together’ – that’s what the slogans say – ‘we’re all in it together’.  We must ALL sacrifice together.  So they came up with a war scenario.  They had to have a warfare scenario.  Along comes the war on terror; I call it a war OF terror because the radical socialists use a war OF terrors and reigns of terror. 

 

That’s what we’re going through now.  That’s why 9/11 had to happen.  It was a ‘must be’ scenario to get all this kicked off.  It’s no coincidence that every country signed the EXACT same bills at the same time, in unison, all together; where we are now all under global sharing of intelligence data.  We will all have the ID cards coming along; some countries have got them already and you’ve got to carry them wherever you go.  You have no rights of privacy whatsoever; it’s out the window.  It’s a warfare scenario.   During this time too, for the few years past, we’ve had little bits in newspapers from the World Health Organization, from the Agricultural Association at the United Nations, about the coming FOOD SHORTAGES.  They also have a massive think tank working on this permanently and have had for 16 years, the coming food shortages, at the Royal Institute of International Affairs.  (I’ve got all this stuff in my archives in the web site cuttingthroughthematrix.com.)  So they’ve been PLANNING the coming food shortage for a long time.  In warfare scenarios, you not only have ID, you also have restriction in travel and DIFFICULT travel through roadblocks and checks and all that kind of stuff.   And you get food RATIONING as well coming along.  Everything starts to get rationed.  ENERGY gets rationed.  In World War II you had to get special permits to get gasoline or petrol, as they called it in Britain, and everyone suffered.  The government ruled with absolute authority.  It could get away with incredible powers during warfare scenarios and that is what the war on - what I call OF - terror is all about; the same thing. 

 

It was dreamed up by the Club of Rome back in the 1970s.  Now we’re seeing it implemented.  They put all their eggs in one basket, at the top.  They said that at the Club of Rome, the two authors who wrote the book, The First Global Revolution and it was published it the 1990s.  They said back in the 70s, they were given the task.  They thought about it all; they wanted a warfare scenario.  So it would be man at war with the planet.  That would be the war scenario.  They said the threat of global warming, famine and the like ‘would fit the bill.’  That’s an exact quote from their own book, that ‘would fit the bill’.  If you think communism was dead… no, communism spread out and mated with its partner on the other side and merged together into this super new system, the supra communistic society of collectivism, as they are calling it.  The Club of Rome also said that of all the systems they would have to use to work this into existence worldwide, it would have to be a COLLECTIVIST system.  That’s the one they favored the most.  That’s what we’re under now.  It’s called governance.  Back with more after this break.

 

Hi folks.  I am Alan Watt and we’re Cutting Through The Matrix, just sort of quickly bringing people up to speed on how the world really is run.  The richest people on the planet of course, are in on it.  They’ve been in on it from the very beginning.  They were in on it during the whole Cold War scenario. 

 

We find that Professor Anthony Sutton wrote so many books about who funded Hitler; it was astonishing to find people like the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers and all the big boys funding the war machinery that set up Adolf Hitler under the big umbrella corporation called IG Farben.  They also funded the communists all throughout the communist era as well.  I’ve always said that.  You’ve got to understand that the dialectic is played with two sides.  Two sides are meant to get change on the go.  Without the two sides, you won’t get change on the go; you’ve got to have conflict.  But you can guide conflicts when the ones at the top of either side are on board in the same direction.  It’s the outcome they want. 

 

It’s no coincidence that the Club of Rome came out with the idea of a collectivist society, meaning a communistic-style running of society, under law.  Law is a very big thing in all this, under law.  No one ever asks them what they mean.  What laws, explain these laws.  It’s very much like the American Constitution, you know, ‘one people under God’.  They say ‘under law’.  Well, explain these laws.  Explain these laws because you might think you know what the laws are, or what law is, but you’ll be surprised to find how other people will differ with you.  It’s like sitting talking about God.  You get 10 folk in the same room talking about God, they’d have tea and biscuits and a good chat and they’ll like each other and go home and you’d never know that each one had a completely different idea of a God or a different kind of God even, if you’re using the term just ‘God’. 

 

The Club of Rome is a big player.  They call it the PREMIERE think tank for really creating the future, futurism for the United Nations.  It comes up with all the ideas and sci-fi scams of how to rule the world and how to implement it.  From there it’s given to Round Table Societies that then come up with the ideas to actually MAKE it work through media, magazines, advertising, and education at school, especially the very young.  The same as the communists did all through their era.  Long ago they decided to centralize everything.  Centralization is KEY to world collectivism, or communism, or socialism if you want; it depends on which name you want to call the same thing.  Centralization of a national government that then makes treaties with other central governments in other nations and they become BINDING.  Through that you get a network.  You need a place for the network to meet so you get a United Nations.  The United Nations becomes the kind of boss and arbiter.  Then the United Nations comes up to power.  This is how Karl Marx saw it all working… and here it all is. 

 

It’s not to be a totally communistic society.  Under this odd Fabian Socialism they realized they could not go the same way as the Soviet system.  They would use all of the Soviet tactics and have the ‘Soviet’, meaning rule by councils, NGOs, front groups funded by the foundations that would pretend to demand on behalf of the public more social programs or freedoms for this that or people with one leg or something like that, whatever it happened to be, whatever would suit the bill.  They wanted an elitist, wealthy, intellectual elite at the top, which also fitted with communism; they wanted an intellectual, scientific elite running a country, a world in what they called a ‘rational’ fashion.  That’s why SCIENCE now is being risen up to what they call in science ‘their proper place’ on the boards of all governments. 

 

We don’t elect scientists to boards.  NO, government itself was infiltrated long ago and the people within the infiltration then brought them on board.  All you have to do is make anything legal, put a bill through and then it becomes legal and you can put an elephant on the board if you want to.   That’s how easy it is to do.  Once in a while you get a disclosure from one of the guys on the inside and how they’ve been influenced by the Club of Rome.  This is from a Dutch newspaper.

 

Minister Cramer at the Club of Rome’s Global Assembly

"Minister Cramer at the Club of Rome's Global Assembly" (vrom.nl)

 

My friends and colleagues, (Alan:  He’s speaking at the Club of Rome.)

 

As Minister of the Environment I am 'on the road to Copenhagen' almost every day. Therefore I see myself more as a Minister for Climate Change. And change is what we need! (A:  Remember, ‘change is good’, ‘century of change’.   The stuff they were spouting off in academia in the 20th century.  No one else knew about it.  What did they mean by that?)  Here in Amsterdam we will send a powerful message. We are here to work on the Amsterdam Declaration, which I will carry to the negotiations in Copenhagen, as your ambassador. And as a friend of the Club of Rome, to which I owe so much.

 

Like so many of you, I was inspired by the Club of Rome to pursue a green career. I read The Limits to Growth as a young biology student in 1972.  (A:  That’s exactly how the communists work.  They had ALL the professors put in all the right places, through universities all over the world teaching this socialist policy as far back as 1972.  Back with more after this break.)

 

Hi folks.  I am Alan Watt and we’re Cutting Through The Matrix, just giving a little history leading up to different articles.  The history of how this has come about and it comes about when all the little people – that’s all of us at the bottom – are busy scratching away trying to earn a living and cope and get bills paid and all the rest of it to survive.  That’s when all the big meetings take place and these guys in ivory towers have no problems.  They don’t have the problems that you have at the bottom.  They live off the public. 

 

It’s very much like Plato’s Republic.  Plato talked about the guardian class that would rule the world that would be heavily interbred for better genes you might say, intellect and so on.  He said why bother buying a castle and then having to get soldiers to guard the castle and pay for that and pay for servants who will steal your property and your ornaments inside and everything else.  Instead of that, this perfect republic, world republic, would be one where the PUBLIC paid for everything that the guardian class needed.  Technically everything would be owned by the people, just like the Soviet system but the castles and that were only lived in by the high-level Politburo. 

 

Today, it’s the scientific elite, the political elite and all of these appointees.  They don’t have to pay for any of this.  The public pay for it through their taxes.  They pay for the maintenance of everything, the maintenance of their cars, buying them new cars, their chauffeurs.  The public pay for their big world meetings.  I read in an article recently that the prostitutes in Copenhagen are really looking forward to this big treaty to-do because whenever the UN comes in with all these different people their business skyrockets, it skyrockets.  That’s the kind of people that are ruling us, as they get up there on stage with their nice suits and ties and we’re told they’re very respectable and well gifted people in the area of intellect and so on and we should do as they say. 

 

Getting back to this article from Minister Cramer at the Club of Rome at the Global Assembly.

 

Like so many of you, I was inspired by the Club of Rome to pursue a green career. I read The Limits to Growth as a young biology student in 1972.  (A:  That’s how the agenda is taught.  Here you are learning a science but you’re really learning a political agenda, a social agenda… and it creates true believers.)  After I had digested its importance, I couldn't wait to do my part to help save the planet. I have no regrets that I went for green - it has been a lifelong challenge and adventure.  (A:  And he doesn’t say he’s been awfully well paid as well.)

 

One of the fascinating concepts in The Limits to Growth is the equilibrium scenario. Not only did the Club of Rome forecast global overshoot and collapse between 2025 and 2050.  (A:  Interesting, that’s the same dates basically; the 2050 that the military keep talking about in their 50-year projections of what they see in the future.)  It also gave us a promising description of the sustainable economy: the equilibrium scenario. I asked the Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency to produce a report entitled 'Growing within limits' especially for the Global Assembly of the Club of Rome. I asked them to present model calculations of what is possible, feasible and desirable. In other words, how can we achieve a sustainable economy?  (A:  This is what’s in the newspapers today is all this sustainable economy.  We have to produce less because we give off carbon, we use up energy but somehow we have to get by on a lot less as we’re forking out billions of dollars to Africa and third world countries at the same time.  It means you’re going to go down into utter poverty and that IS the intention, a FLATTENING of the world.)

 

This is an urgent question and the answers are promising. But there is a contradiction here: why do we ask ourselves whether it is in our economic interest to save the planet? I have some answers, but I'd like to stipulate two conditions first.

 

To begin with, we need to revise the policies that are currently driving the world to squander and deplete the earth's natural resources. Secondly, we must drastically increase energy and resource efficiency. Most experts consider this a particularly difficult task, because of the entrenched policies and practices that reinforce inefficiency. The array of potential and necessary measures can be reduced to two top priorities.

 

Our first priority should be to stop further losses of biodiversity by halting the expansion of agricultural land and the erosion and desertification of arable land.  (A:  Now that’s one of the biggest lies out there because you can go across so many countries in the world now, and just go through the States, and you’ll see nothing but abandoned farms EVERYWHERE.  There’s no expansion; it’s a retraction of them, a constriction of them.  The governments since World War II have been putting farmers out of business because of all their policies.  In their place they’ve been putting up the big agri-food business, the Big 5, the Archer Daniel Midland boys - the ADM, Adam - Conagra and a whole bunch of them to take over the world’s food supply.  That’s what’s happening.  You can not control the public unless you control the food.  THAT is what Kissinger said in one of his talks: you control the oil industry and you control the nations, basically; they need transportation.  He says you control the food and you control the whole world.  So they lie here about everything, but nothing is new about lying from the United Nations because they have an incredibly communistic-style agenda, on behalf of their very elite, wealthy masters.) Secondly, we need to decarbonise the energy system. Both of these priorities can be achieved at a cost of 1 to 2 per cent of GDP by 2050, according to the Environment Assessment Agency report.

 

To put this into perspective, this would mean an increase in global GDP of 225 per cent instead of 240 per cent in the coming forty years. (A:  So your standard of living is going to really start dropping big time.)  Even without climate policy, our energy investments would be massive. But with a strong climate policy, they will be 30 per cent higher than in a business-as-usual scenario. But: if we fail to take action, we will pay an even higher price in the future.  (A:  Then he prattles on and prattles on and prattles on with their statistics.  They’re very good at making graphs and statistics and fudging them all to suit their agenda.  That’s what graphs and all this stuff is for.  That’s what it’s all for.)

 

There’s a good site here.  I’ll put this link up on my web site at the end of the show.  It’s called ihatethemedia.com.  It’s quite interesting.  There’s a lot of good comedy in there too and a lot of good facts.  It says the Weather Channel founder, the guy who founded the Weather Channel - I couldn’t understand why folk would want to watch 24 hours of the Weather Channel, but anyway he says…

 

Weather Channel founder: global warming 'the greatest scam in history'

January 31, 2009 (ihatethemedia.com)

 

John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel says global warming is a “hoax” and “bad science” and that Al Gore refuses to admit his cause is based on bad research.

 

“I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it,” Coleman said. “Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high-jacking of public policy. (A:  That’s exactly what it is, high-jacking of public policy.  It’s a coup.)  It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.”

 

It is.  We’ve had the ClimateGate come out there and the big boys are going ahead as though nothing had happened; exactly as I said it would.  They CAN’T go back now because they’ve spent 40 years planning this whole thing, this VERY scenario, this time in history, and how to control us.  This article is from the Telegraph. 

 

Climategate: sack 'no longer credible'

Michael Mann from IPCC urges climatologist

(A:  So they should sack Michael Mann who’s only one of the many involved in the scamming.  Australian and New Zealand both have come out now and admitted their charts were all scammed as well.)

By James Delingpole November 27th, 2009 / (telegraph.co.uk)

 

Not everyone shares the BBC’s rosy view of discredited Climategate scientist Michael Mann (inventor of the roundly discredited Hockey Stick graph (A:  That’s what the graph looks like.  He fudged it all and made it look like a hockey stick when you turn it on its side and it points upwards… with their fudged figures.) and unlikely Youtube comedy musical star) (A:  Doing comedy on television, that’s where he should be.) (hat tip: Bishop Hill) (Still less will they do so after the gobsmacking revelations by Steve McIntyre that in his latest paper, he’s actually got his data UPSIDE DOWN!)  (A:  He did.  This guy Mann got his data upside down; the graph is upside down and you can see that upside down graph on that last site I just mentioned there, ihatethemedia.com.  You’ll see the article there about that.  They show you the graphs [Alan laughing] and how they simply reversed it, they turned it upside down.)

 

One of his IPCC co-authors Eduardo Zorita (A:  This is a scientist who worked for the IPCC, for the United Nations.) has demanded that Mann should be banned from contributing to future reports because his scientific assessments are “not credible any more.” Zorita also calls for the barring of CRU’s director Phil Jones and another IPCC lead author, Stefan Rahmstorf.

 

Zorita, who works in the paleoclimate department of the Institute of Coastal Research, has issued a statement on his website in which he complains that the “scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.”

 

“These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. (A:  He’s still a believer.  He’s giving himself a back door for his employment.)  On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed (A: …if they don’t’ go along with it, by these other scientists and the IPCC.  So he’s admitting blackmail, threats, go on, you’ll never work again, all that kind of stuff.). In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research.”

 

Zorita was one of the contributing authors to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. He’s unlikely to be asked to contribute to the Fifth. Indeed, as he ruefully acknowledges, this brave admission could well be the death of his career: 

 

By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication.  (A:  That’s what’s really going on.  It’s like the Politburo.  THIS is like the Politburo.  That’s exactly how it works, EXACTLY HOW IT WORKS and I don’t think it’s all coincidence.)

 

November 30th, New York Post.

 

Climate-cult con is hard to 'bear'

By ANDREA PEYSER / November 30, 2009 / nypost.com

 

When did global warming turn into a forced religion?

 

My daughter came home from school recently with a spring in her step and a song on her lips. With no foreshadowing -- or time to call an exorcist -- out came this chilling refrain:

 

" . . . You can hear the warning -- GLOBAL WARMING . . . "

 

By the time her father and I removed our jaws from the floor, we had learned that:

 

A) All the kids had been coerced into singing this catchy ditty, which we called "The Warming Song," at a concert for parents.

 

B) Further song lyrics scolded selfish adults (that would be us) for polluting our planet and causing a warming scourge that would, in no short order, kill all the polar bears and threaten the birds and bees.

 

C) There was no deprogramming session on the menu. And no arguing allowed.

 

The international "Climategate" scandal is now moving into its third week. And reaction from folks on the scientific and political left -- or is that redundant? -- who treat global warming as a cult in which naysayers must be crushed has been depressing:

Total denial.

 

The scandal began when someone hacked into the server at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, and uncovered a cache of messages between leading warming gurus. These e-mails revealed guys deeply frustrated by planetary temperatures that, stubbornly, had refused to rise in some time. Were they afraid of losing their scientific juice? Or their funding?  (A:  Well, I’ve gone into the funding of some of them.  It’s incredible, multi-millionaires some of them.)

 

So, as the e-mails prove, the scientists did something about it. They cooked the books to exaggerate global warming.

 

Of course! How can you scare the bejeezus out of little kids and small animals if you can't make the mercury move a millimeter? Simple. You lie.

 

But while one rival scientist predicted the shocking revelations would blast a "mushroom cloud" over theories of climate change, that has not come to pass.

 

The Obama administration's "climate adviser," Carol Browner, totally ignored the smoking e-mails, and attributed the scandal to "a very small group of people who continue to say this isn't a real problem, that we don't need to do anything."

 

"What am I going to do?" asked Browner. "Side with the couple of naysayers out there, or the 2,500 scientists?" (A:  What about the 3,500 they won’t let in to give their opinion on it?  That’s never mentioned.) -- who've drunk the Kool-Aid. "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists."  (A:  I think it was Theo Roosevelt that said, ‘There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics.’  I would add to that, there are graphs.  In other words, it’s science see, it’s science.  Meaning that’s a fact.  That’s how it’s presented.  See that graph there, that’s a fact.  Just like a statistic.  That’s how they start beating you in arguments now, they quote statistics.)

 

No less an authority than The New York Times sought to explain away the most damning e-mail, sent by scientist Phil Jones, who said he employed a "trick" to make temps appear higher than they were.   (A:  On and on it goes doesn’t it?  On and on it just goes.)

 

It will go on until we all forget it because we’ve got other crises coming along to take our minds off it and before you know it we’ll all adapt.  That’s what people do at the bottom, they all adapt to whatever system we are in, feudalism, capitalism, communism and then maybe something new… they just adapt, adapt, adapt at the bottom.  Once one generation passes, it’s all normal.  It’s always been like that.  That’s how it is.  It’s always been that way.

 

From the Sunday Times…

 

Climate change data dumped

From The Sunday Times November 29, 2009 / Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

 

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.  (A:  That’s because scientists ask for it.  This is standard policy.  Scientists ask for the raw data to see how they arrive at their conclusions and they try and match it.  It’s the only thing you have to go on is the raw data.  Anything else is simply conjecture if you don’t have the raw data there.)

 

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

 

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

 

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted (A:  Boy were they adjusted.) to take account of variables in the way they were collected. (A:  I hear the music coming in so I’ll be back with more on this article after this break.)

 

Hi folks.  I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix, reading from the Times Online on what happened to the climate data, all the raw material that must be there for investigation by other scientist because that’s what science is.  You ask for the raw data and then you try to repeat the formulas to find out if they’re correct.  If it’s all gone, all you’re left with really is someone’s idea.  You have nothing to PROVE anything with

 

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper (A:  This is what they are trying to tell us here, this multi-million dollar scheme, that they stored it on paper…) and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space (A:  This is what we’re told.) when the CRU moved to a new building.

 

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.  (A:  He also tells them how to scrub stuff.) 

 

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”  (A:  Meaning all the fudged stuff, but not how they got to the fudged stuff.)

 

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

 

So we’re going to change our ENTIRE ways of living because of something that can’t be found, that’s been scrubbed.  We have to take their word for it…  An entire change of living, massive taxation, MASSIVE TAXATION on every citizen of the so-called first-world countries, MASSIVE like we’ve never seen before, into carbon credits and personal carbon credits and personal punishments for using too much energy and so on and so on and so on.  They’re going to get billions, supposedly.  It won’t arrive in Africa.  They’re supposedly going to give it but it won’t arrive to Africa or wherever.  You know that.  They’ve been in Africa for 500-odd years. 

 

This stuff is just a way to bring us all down to the same global plantation where the scientists can rule us.  Bertrand Russell said the same thing and so did Huxley, ‘If there is going to be a tyranny, I’d prefer it to be a scientific tyranny.’  That’s what they envisaged, rule by scientists.  You know, the intellectuals who run on rationality.  That’s what we’re told.  They will be RELENTLESS.  If you think it’s bad now, you ain’t seen nothing yet.  If you though that communism was bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet.  You’re on communism with steroids.  A collectivist society with a fascist elite at the top who believe they’ve got better genes, better intellect because of better breeding than YOU do at the bottom.  They want to bring your populations down drastically AS you fork out all your cash to them.  Not a bad plan eh? 

 

We also know that the UN Chief was at that Commonwealth meeting recently telling them all to sign on.  Why should HE be telling our supposed leaders to sign on to anything?  What kind of democracy is this?  Well, the UN is not meant to be democratic at all, never was. 

 

UN chief urges deal at Copenhagen

(news.bbc.co.uk) - Nov. 28, 2009

 

The United Nations chief has urged world leaders to "seal a deal" on climate change when they meet in Copenhagen next month.

 

From Hamish and myself in Ontario, Canada – where I’ve got one inch of snow, they called it a snow storm on the weather program – it’s good night and may your God or your Gods GO with you.

 

 

Topics of show covered in following links:

 

"Minister Cramer at the Club of Rome's Global Assembly" (at rijksoverheid.nl).

Mann's Hockey Stick Graph without Imaginative Science
("What does the global warming hockey stick look like when you don't 'hide the decline?' " (ihatethemedia.com) - Nov. 30, 2009.

IPCC Scientist says Scientists Should be Fired
("Climategate: sack 'no longer credible' Michael Mann from IPCC urges climatologist" by James Delingpole (telegraph.co.uk) - Nov. 27, 2009.)

Climate Cult Con--Children Taught Propaganda Songs
("Climate-cult con is hard to 'bear' " (nypost.com) - Nov. 30, 2009.)

Climate Data Dumped--Cannot Be Verified
("Climate change data dumped" by Jonathan Leake (timesonline.co.uk) - Nov. 29, 2009.)

UN Chief Urges Leaders to Sign Deal on Copenhagen Treaty
("UN chief urges leaders to 'seal deal' on climate change" (news.bbc.co.uk) - Nov. 28, 2009.)

 

 

Transcribed by Diana