WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the  HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that don’t understand computer programming, don’t fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you.

To say that the CRU code might be “buggy” would be…well I’ll just let CRU’s programmer tell you in his own words.

• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
• FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
• FOIA\documents\harris-tree\calibrate_nhrecon.pro;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)
;
• FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon1.pro
  FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon2.proFOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon_jones.pro;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline
;
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt17. Inserted debug statements into anomdtb.f90, discovered that
a sum-of-squared variable is becoming very, very negative! Key
output from the debug statements:
(..)
forrtl: error (75): floating point exception
IOT trap (core dumped)
..so the data value is unbfeasibly large, but why does the
sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software
suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the
definitive failure of the entire project..
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtgetting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented. Every time a
cloud forms I'm presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with
references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with
one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have
it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtI am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO
and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I
know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh!
There truly is no end in sight.
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt28. With huge reluctance, I have dived into 'anomdtb' - and already I have
that familiar Twilight Zone sensation.
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtWrote 'makedtr.for' to tackle the thorny problem of the tmin and tmax databases not
being kept in step. Sounds familiar, if worrying. am I the first person to attempt
to get the CRU databases in working order?!!
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtWell, dtr2cld is not the world's most complicated program. Wheras cloudreg is, and I
immediately found a mistake! Scanning forward to 1951 was done with a loop that, for
completely unfathomable reasons, didn't include months! So we read 50 grids instead
of 600!!! That may have had something to do with it. I also noticed, as I was correcting
THAT, that I reopened the DTR and CLD data files when I should have been opening the
bloody station files!!
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtBack to the gridding. I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by
Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station
counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived
at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented
sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps?
Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding
procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtHere, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtWell, it's been a real day of revelations, never mind the week. This morning I
discovered that proper angular weighted interpolation was coded into the IDL
routine, but that its use was discouraged because it was slow! Aaarrrgghh.
There is even an option to tri-grid at 0.1 degree resolution and then 'rebin'
to 720x360 - also deprecated! And now, just before midnight (so it counts!),
having gone back to the tmin/tmax work, I've found that most if not all of the
Australian bulletin stations have been unceremoniously dumped into the files
without the briefest check for existing stations.
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtAs we can see, even I'm cocking it up! Though recoverably. DTR, TMN and TMX need to be written as (i7.7)./code>
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtOH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\mxdgrid2ascii.proprintf,1,’Osborn et al. (2004) gridded reconstruction of warm-season’
printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).’
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro
  FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.proprintf,1,'IMPORTANT NOTE:'
printf,1,'The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density'
printf,1,'records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer'
printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\combined_wavelet_col.pro;
; Remove missing data from start & end (end in 1960 due to decline)
;
kl=where((yrmxd ge 1402) and (yrmxd le 1960),n)
sst=prednh(kl)
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\mxd_pcr_localtemp.pro; Tries to reconstruct Apr-Sep temperatures, on a box-by-box basis, from the
; EOFs of the MXD data set. This is PCR, although PCs are used as predictors
; but not as predictands. This PCR-infilling must be done for a number of
; periods, with different EOFs for each period (due to different spatial
; coverage). *BUT* don’t do special PCR for the modern period (post-1976),
; since they won’t be used due to the decline/correction problem.
; Certain boxes that appear to reconstruct well are “manually” removed because
; they are isolated and away from any trees.
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\pl_decline.pro;
; Plots density ‘decline’ as a time series of the difference between
; temperature and density averaged over the region north of 50N,
; and an associated pattern in the difference field.
; The difference data set is computed using only boxes and years with
; both temperature and density in them – i.e., the grid changes in time.
; The pattern is computed by correlating and regressing the *filtered*
; time series against the unfiltered (or filtered) difference data set.
;
;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.pro;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\calibrate_correctmxd.pro; We have previously (calibrate_mxd.pro) calibrated the high-pass filtered
; MXD over 1911-1990, applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\calibrate_correctmxd.pro; No need to verify the correct and uncorrected versions, since these
; should be identical prior to 1920 or 1930 or whenever the decline
; was corrected onwards from.
• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree5\densplus188119602netcdf.pro; we know the file starts at yr 440, but we want nothing till 1400, so we
; can skill lines (1400-440)/10 + 1 header line
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1980, which is
; (1980-1400)/10 + 1 lines
(...)
; we know the file starts at yr 1070, but we want nothing till 1400, so we
; can skill lines (1400-1070)/10 + 1 header line
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1991, which is
; (1990-1400)/10 + 1 lines (since 1991 is on line beginning 1990)

Gold now at $1,185. What happens when the DXY hits 70 in a few days?

And the diagonal, soon to be vertical channel

DXY at 70?

Tim Duy – Director of Undergraduate Studies of the Department of Economics at the University of Oregon and the Director of the Oregon Economic Forum – noticed an amazing sentence in the minutes of the most recent meeting of the Fed Open Market Committee:

As has already been widely noted, the minutes of the most recent FOMC meeting reiterated the Fed’s eagerness to reverse, not extend, policy:

Overall, many participants viewed the risks to their inflation outlooks over the next few quarters as being roughly balanced. Some saw the risks as tilted to the downside in the near term, reflecting the quite elevated level of economic slack and the possibility that inflation expectations could begin to decline in response to the low level of actual inflation. But others felt that risks were tilted to the upside over a longer horizon, because of the possibility that inflation expectations could rise as a result of the public’s concerns about extraordinary monetary policy stimulus and large federal budget deficits. Moreover, these participants noted that banks might seek to reduce appreciably their excess reserves as the economy improves by purchasing securities or by easing credit standards and expanding their lending substantially. Such a development, if not offset by Federal Reserve actions, could give additional impetus to spending and, potentially, to actual and expected inflation. To keep inflation expectations anchored, all participants agreed that it was important for policy to be responsive to changes in the economic outlook and for the Federal Reserve to continue to clearly communicate its ability and intent to begin withdrawing monetary policy accommodation at the appropriate time and pace.

Read that carefully and realize this: An apparently not insignificant portion of the FOMC believes that there is a terrible risk that banks loosen their credit standards and increase lending at a time when, even if the economy posts expected gain, unemployment remains at unacceptably high levels. Silly me, I thought increased lending was the whole point of the exercise to lower interest and expand the balance sheet. That whole credit channel thing. If not to expand lending during a credit crunch, then what else are they expecting?

I am in shock that this sentence made it into the minutes. One can only conclude that a significant portion of policymakers are simply clueless. Or, more disconcerting, they have lost all faith in the ability of financial institutions to channel capital into activities with any hope of financial returns. Has the Fed now embraced the view that they manage the economy through little else then fueling and extinguishing bubbles?

Yves Smith has the definitive last word on the issue:

These statement is an indication of intellectual bankruptcy at the Fed, that they have learned nothing from the crisis. But that isn’t surprising. CEOs usually need to be fired after they have presided over a disaster. They are incapable of seeing and remedying their errors. Why should senior bureaucrats be any different?

Below is a text of the letter sent to clark Hoyt, the public editor (ombudsman) for the New York Times:

Mr. Hoyt,

Shouldn’t Andrew Revkin haved recused himself from his Nov. 21 front-page article, “Hacked E-mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute“?

First, as Revkin briefly acknowledges in the article, he is part of the story. Isn’t it a breach of journalistic ethics for a reporter to report on a story of which he is part?

Moreover, his story to a great extent defended his sources. It’s one thing to rely on sources; it is quite another to defend them at the expense of unbiased and accurate reporting about them.

This is not an innocent faux pas either.

Revkin tried to whitewash the significance of the story — including distracting readers away from the embarrassing/incriminating contents of the files and, instead, focusing them on the alleged hacking.

Finally, as we will report tomorrow, there seems to have been no “hack” at all.

The files appear to have been accumulated in preparation of a possible court-ordered FOIA release on a server to which the public had access. It is not “hacking” to access files that are publicly available. It may have been unwise/improper to store the file on a public server, but that is a different matter. There is no evidence that anything illegal occurred in the release of the files.

The hacking allegation, of course, was a terrific distraction device.

Perhaps a journalist more interested in unbiased reporting and less interested in defending his personal relationships with the subjects in the e-mails and his personal pro-climate alarmist agenda would have investigated and caught this. But then Andrew Revkin was the wrong man for the job.

Steve Milloy
Publisher, JunkScience.com

America is in the most severe unemployment crisis since – and perhaps including – the Great Depression.

And yet Obama, like Bush, has done virtually nothing to create more jobs. Instead, they both gave trillions to the biggest banks (who are not loaning it out to the little guy) and for waging wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Obama is apparently escalating – not ending – the wars. And its not cheap.

According to the White House, the cost of deploying new soldiers to Afghanistan could be $1 million per soldier. Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says that the Iraq war will cost $3-5 trillion dollars.

As I have previously pointed out, protracted war increases unemployment, shrinks the economy, and causes recession. See this, this and this.

But deficits don’t matter, right? Wrong.

But We Had No Choice … We Had to Fight Those Wars

But – you may say – we had no choice, we had to fight those wars because of 9/11.

Well, top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change long before 9/11. In fact, they say that regime change was advocated one month after Bush took office:

The chairman of the British Joint Intelligence Committee in 2001 told investigators Monday that elements of the Bush Administration were pushing for regime change in Iraq in early 2001, months before the 9/11 attacks and two years before President George W. Bush formally announced the Iraq war.

Sir Peter Ricketts, now-Secretary at the Foreign Office, said that US and British officials believed at the time that measures against Iraq were failing: “sanctions, an incentive to lift sanctions if Saddam allowed the United Weapons inspectors to return, and the ‘no fly’ zones over the north and south of the country.”

Ricketts also said that US officials had raised the prospect of regime change in Iraq, asserting that the British weren’t supportive of the idea at the time.

***The head of the British Foreign Office’s Middle East department, Sir William Patey, told the inquiry that his office was aware of regime change talk from some parts of the Bush Administration shortly after they took office in 2001.

“In February 2001 we were aware of these drum beats from Washington and internally we discussed it,” Patey said. “Our policy was to stay away from that.”

The Brits previously revealed that intelligence and purported facts of Iraq’s weapons programs were “fixed around” the pre-set policy of invading Iraq.

 It’s not just the Brits.

Former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11.

Everyone knew the WMD claims were fake. For example, the number 2 Democrat in the Senate, who was on the Senate intelligence committee, admitted that the Senate intelligence committee knew before the war started that Bush’s public statements about Iraqi WMDs were false. And if the committee knew, then the White House knew as well.

The CIA warned the White House that claims about Iraq’s nuclear ambitions (using forged documents) were false, and yet the White House made those claims anyway.

Cheney was largely responsible for generating fake intelligence about Iraq in order to justify the war. For example:

• Falsified documents which were meant to show that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein regime had been trying to procure yellowcake uranium from Niger can be traced back to Vice President Dick Cheney

• “Cheney’s office was pulling the strings” on the shop which twisted Iraq intelligence

And see this.

And you may have heard that the Energy Task Force chaired by Cheney prior to 9/11 collected maps of Iraqi oil fields and potential suitors for that oil. But you probably don’t know that a secret document written by the National Security Council on February 3, 2001 directed the N.S.C. staff to cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the “melding” of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: “the review of operational policies towards rogue states,” such as Iraq, and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields”.

In other words, it is difficult to brush off Cheney’s Energy Task Force’s examination of Iraqi oil maps as a harmless comparison of American energy policy with known oil reserves because the N.S.C. explicitly linked the Task Force, oil, and regime change. Indeed, a former senior director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian affairs at the N.S.C. said:

If this little group was discussing geostrategic plans for oil, it puts the issue of war in the context of the captains of the oil industry sitting down with Cheney and laying grand, global plans.

(and see this).

Cheney’s role in getting the U.S. into unnecessary military confrontations is not new. According to former high-level intelligence officer Melvin Goodman, during the Ford administration, Cheney orchestrated phony intelligence for the Congress in order to get an endorsement for covert arms shipments to anti-government forces in Angola.

And in the 1970’s, Cheney was instrumental in generating fake intelligence exaggerating the Soviet threat in order to undermine coexistence between the U.S. and Soviet Union, which conveniently justified huge amounts of cold war spending. See also this. This scheme foreshadowed Mr. Cheney’s role in generating fake intelligence in Iraq by 30 years.

And Cheney was the guy who directed all counter-terrorism activities in 2001 and who directed the U.S. response on 9/11, accidentally allowing hijacked planes to fly all over the place, and perhaps – as implied by Secretary of Transportation Norm Minetta – to slam into the Pentagon (confirmed here). Heck of a job, Dick …

The government also apparently planned the Afghanistan war before 9/11 (see this and this).

But you don’t even have to even think about all of the complex facts discussed above. It’s really simple: when asked to specify exactly why we are still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama cannot really explain why we are still there.

(It’s also simple because the top bipartisan experts say that the Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this and this).

The Wars Are Unnecessary and Are Killing the Economy

Bottom line: The wars are unnecessary, and they are draining resources which could be used to reduce unemployment and help the economy.

Note: This is not a Republican versus Democratic issue. For example, Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, calling for regime change in Iraq. And Obama is escalating wars started by the previous administration.

The Danish government has appointed a Trilateral Commission member to chair the United Nations Copenhagen climate change summit. Lykke Friis, the former pro-dean at Copenhagen University, will replace Connie Hedegaard (a Bilderberg member) who has been nominated for the post of the European Union’s first climate commissioner. Hedegaard’s nomination will be assessed by European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso, who last month announced the creation of the new role to oversee the EU’s plans to cut emissions 20 per cent by 2020 and thus undercut modern civilization in Europe.

Danish Trilateral Commission member Lykke Friis will chair the United Nations Copenhagen climate change summit.

 Lykke Friis attended a Trilateral meeting in 2005. “Lykke Friis is member of several committees and councils, for instance the Board of Sport Event Denmark, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council of the Danish Atlantic Treaty Association. She is also responsible for organizing the Research Congress on Climate Change in 2009,” a Zoom Info entry states.

The Danish Atlantic Treaty Association works with NATO and the Atlantic Treaty Association, an atlanticist organization (connected to the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations) consisting of the Atlantic Councils of NATO. The current president of the Atlantic Treaty Association is Robert Hunter, a senior adviser at the RAND Corporation, chairman of the Council for a Community of Democracies (supported by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund), and a consultant for the death merchant Lockheed Martin.

The Trilateral Commission is the brainchild of David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski (who served as the Commission’s first executive director) with help from the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Ford Foundation. The Commission’s agenda is to create a one-world government.

“If the Council on Foreign Relations could be said to be a spawning ground for the concepts of one-world idealism, then the Trilateral Commission was the ‘task force’ assembled to assault the beachheads. Already the Commission had placed its members in the top posts the U.S. had to offer,” writes Patrick Wood. “The philosophical underpinnings of the Trilateral Commission are pro-Marxist and pro-socialist. They are solidly set against the concept of the nation-state and in particular, the Constitution of the United States. Thus, national sovereignty must be diminished and then abolished altogether in order to make way for the New World Order that will be governed by an unelected global elite with their self-created legal framework.”

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

The under-reported (except in the European press) appointment of Friis follows the ascension of Herman Van Rompuy (a Bilderberg member) to the presidency of the European Union. The EU is the most advanced of the regional building blocks for world government.

Pascal Lamy, Director General of the World Trade Organization and frequent attendee of Bilderberg meetings, sees the European Union as a testing ground for the machinery of international governance, that is to say world government (see Daniel Taylor, WTO Director General: Global Governance Based on the EU Model).

Mario Borghezio, an Italian member of European Parliament, questioned the proposed appointment of Van Rompuy earlier this month. “Is it possible,” Borghezio asked during a EU session, “that no one has noticed that all three frequently attended the Bilderberg or Trilateral meetings? I believe we need to apply the principles of transparency, so often mentioned here in our institutions. We need to establish clearly whether these are the candidates of their own countries’ political forces, or whether they are simply the candidates of these occult groups that meet behind closed door to decide matters over the heads of the people.”

On November 19, Van Rompuy announced that 2009 is the “first year of global governance.” He said the “climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet,” i.e., the establishment of a One World Order.

Considering Van Rompuy’s comments, it makes sense that a Trilateral Commission member was appointed to chair the Copenhagen proceedings, scheduled to take place between December 7 and December 18 at the Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Prior to his comments on November 19, Van Rompuy announced at a Bilderberg dinner at Hertoginnendal, Brussels, on November 15th, that the elite plan to implement EU-wide taxes that will be paid directly to Brussels.

“A former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher [Lord Christopher Monckton] says the real purpose of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Dec. 7-18 is to use global warming hype as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world government,” Jerome R. Corsi wrote for WorldNetDaily in October. “Your president will sign it. Most of the Third World countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it,” Monckton warned during a recent speech.

According to former presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin, Monckton may have understated the case. “In my opinion, Lord Monckton did not exaggerate; if anything, he may have understated the situation,” Baldwin wrote on October 30. “It appears that what a U.S. President and Congress (Republican or Democratic) could not do through the constitutional legislative process, they are attempting to do through international treaty. Therefore, it is my studied opinion that Lord Monckton’s assessment that this upcoming Climate Change Convention in Copenhagen is a ‘pretext’ for the establishment of one world government.”

Van Rompuy has admitted as much. The Trilateralist Lykke Friis’ appointment is another indication that the one-worlders plan to stack the deck and push their “global governance” agenda next month under the pretext of climate change.

The Climate Research Unit revelations will not slow them down. The corporate media is now attempting to stifle and bury the story as it goes viral on the internet ahead of the meeting predicated on the farce of global man-made climate change.

It remains to be seen if the story will push back the globalist agenda to use junk science as an excuse to establish a one-world government.

This is one of the more disturbing things I have seen in a while. To think of the way that our society is programmed and conditioned is becoming sickening. How our children are manipulated into believing that certain things are normal when most of us would be outraged if we stopped and paid attention.  Of course that’s the key, if we paid attention.  We live in a time when we are forced to not trust; a time when toys or games can be used to form ideals not just entertain. Face it, you could probably go on all day long about how messed up it is that propaganda and social programming rules our lives on a daily basis. It’s a constant that most don’t see, let alone understand. When those of us, who have seen through the smoke and mirrors, truly get an understanding of what is going on, only then do we see how disturbing so many things have become.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, one of the most popular games of the year was released last week.  Many people rushed to stores at midnight the day of its release to be one of the first to check it out. I have to admit, graphics are great and the game play looks pretty real.  Some of my friends say its one of the best games they have ever played.  And no, I am not upset about the violence, shooting people has been apart of the gaming world forever now, like it or not, our kids shoot people in video games. It’s on us to teach them that it’s only a game, or do the unimaginable and not let them play it at all.  So what’s the deal?  Why such a grand lead in?  Modern Warfare 2 has a controversial level that even gives the option to skip over it two separate times. (Watch video below to see the whole level) The level is set up in an airport, and you have infiltrated a terrorist group and you are earning their trust. Your objective is to kill every civilian in the airport then get out while sending some sort of a message by doing so. Unarmed, people in an airport, hands in the air and running for their lives, being shot down like they are in some sick parallel scenario of a Columbine or Fort Hood. That’s pretty messed up folks, to think your kids are playing a game that makes it “cool” to play the forbidden level. I can see it now, 10 year old kids telling their parents they are going over to Bobby’s house after school to play, when the whole thing is orchestrated just to play this game before Bobby’s older brother gets home from his (insert after school activity here). But that’s not the worst part, it gets worse then just killing defenseless people.  The idea that is forced on your kids in this level is this: You are a double agent fighting terror, therefore you must join up with other terrorists to commit acts of violence such as killing everyone in an airport for the sake of the war on terror or for national security. It actually asks you to kill innocent people for the betterment of the fight against terror. Yeah, killing people is fine, just as long as you have a really good reason Bobby!  Sometimes we need to kill the good innocent people to catch the bad guys and that’s just fine, I mean you don’t want Bin Laden to come to your house and kill you and your family, do you Bobby?  Then pick up that fully automatic assault rifle and start shooting, because that’s the way we do it in America, and it’s the only way to keep us safe from the boogieman! That’s the only way we can save America!  

Ok, so that’s a little much right?  Wrong, that is the message that is being sent to our youth.  You have to understand that it’s done over and over again too.  Movies, kids shows, prime time TV, and commercials (well commercials are kind of supposed to do this and at least we expect it more).  The Fox network and others have just announced last month that the U.S. Government will be using fall television programming to send messages to the American people about climate change and government service.  So our loving government is now openly announcing that they push their agenda on the American people through popular TV shows.  I will resist the chance, or at least not go into great detail about it, to point out how our tax dollars go to use against us over and over again. 

So if that’s what we know about, then what don’t we know?  How far have they really taken it?  Just watch Alex Jones’ new film, Fall of The Republic, to see how television has been used for mind control for years. (Clip below)  To understand how our memories can be changed though the images in our mind being slightly altered is amazing.  By altering these images, we can then be manipulated into thinking and remembering differently. It’s really not too hard to believe if you give it just a little thought.   

We need to understand what is going on, inform ourselves, and stop mindlessly staring at television sets. Let me paint a hypothetical picture for you; this will sound far fetched at first but that’s the point.  Try to imagine you wanted to make someone believe, lets say, that paper was made from old Christmas ornaments and every other form of paper production was toxic.  I know that most people will stare at their televisions for hours a day, so this becomes an obvious avenue for information.  I would then figure out a way to tell people in the shows you watch and through the news that non-toxic paper is running out to create a social awareness.  Then I show in another show that someone is gathering Christmas ornaments to take to the ornament-recycling center to make paper.  I make that person out to be a responsible good person who is doing the right thing, someone that everyone likes, and has great hair.  Without even trying I have already put into the minds of the people watching this that the paper supply is low and the only way to save the paper supply is to take your Christmas ornaments to be recycled.  Well after getting the idea out there, I have decided to bring it up a notch.  Now I will make a show that has someone putting up old ornaments for Christmas and how the whole neighborhood is appalled.  Now the culture has changed to adapt the new idea, and people who are uneducated on the subject use this social programming as a learning tool.  They then begin to enforce this idea, and spread the message to others because of the fake social responsibility that has been created though the media.  As disturbing as it sounds, people really do use television shows and movies to educate themselves. These are merely illustrations on how media and pop-culture demonize people for doing something seemingly harmless and promote a new idea at the same time. Now without telling you why, you have been conditioned.  Little do you know, this whole time, I own all the new “safe” paper companies and new ornament companies where you will replace the old ones, the recycling centers, and at the same time, I have driven my competitors out of business and probably got some kind of government incentive to run the program.  All with propaganda and the fact that you cant get enough CSI.

Propaganda is truly everywhere you look.  If you spend any time at all looking around, you will find more then you could ever imagine. This has been going on forever, and it just keeps getting worse.  Call of duty, makes me even more concerned though because of the life like terror ideals.  With so many questions around 9-11, and many pointing to U.S. involvement, would it be totally off to think our military and government would do something like that?  When video games show our military teaming up with terrorists to kill an airport full of people just to what? Get in with them more to prove some false loyalty? As if there is something more important out there you would be saving your cover for.  Obviously saving an airport full of innocent people isn’t enough.  At the end of the level the real terrorists kill the character the gamer is playing because they know he is a spy or double agent anyways. Even after shooting down hundreds if not thousands with an assault riffle, “you still get killed every time,” one gamer told me when researching the game. When you have a government that has time and time again been caught with its hand in the cookie jar, how could this not be disturbing.  The Obama administration is no different then Bush, if not worse.  Same plans, same agenda, just like the administration before that, and the trend has continued for quite some time now.  For instance, when you look into Operation Northwoods, and see that our government has had plans for false flag terror you start to see the picture that maybe things are not so black and white.  Maybe it isn’t as clear as “red blooded American” vs. “Terrorist.” When we have plans to attack the American people, on our soil, just to start a war with someone else it makes the possibilities endless.  Lets hope the last part of the games trailer that shows Washington DC burning down in flames with several dead just lying on the ground isn’t some sick preview of what’s to come. The Globalist Elite do have a sick need to announce several things before they happen; only to have the media act like it was never said in the first place. To see this and understand it is to know you cannot trust and believe in a government that has these kinds of thoughts and ideas.  And for those of you who would point out that the government didn’t make this video game so why would I suggest that they have something to do with it or the games message, understand that if they had a problem with it, it would not have been in the game in the first place.  The military recruits video gamers and trains with xbox and wii controlers now to ease transition from the games on the market to the actual weapons system controls that they use today.  So many things seem to link together, and in this day and age it is hard not to connect the dots.

Just pay attention because it’s all around you.  For your sake and your kids, you need to be aware of what kind of world is out there and what we are moving towards. Its time we stop living in our bubbles, and stop being unaware of what is going on with our television sets and video game consoles. We don’t have the luxury of being uninformed anymore, that time has passed as a new world is been laid before us.  Things are about to change on a global scale, and just so you don’t wake up one day and not know where you are, you better start paying attention.

First the good news. George Monbiot – aka the Great Moonbat – has issued a personal apology for the shabby behaviour of his climate-fear-promoting scientist chums in the Climategate scandal.

It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).

Now the not-so-good-news. He’s trying to limit the damage by pinning the blame on one (admittedly very deserving, but there are others, Lord knows there are others) man.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

Now for the bit where it gets unpleasant. So seriously unpleasant that I’m not sure I should be posting such things in a family newspaper. You ready? I’m warning you, it’s not pretty. The Moonbat makes a brave but not – I fear – wholly successful foray into the unfamiliar terrain of humour and satire. Here goes:

To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email which confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn’t have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.

No, no. Keep up there at the back! The Moonbat isn’t really experiencing “intense disappointment.” This is a joke, geddit? He’s about to show you the kind of letter which really would be a smoking gun, if it existed, which of course it doesn’t because you see – (ho ho!, stap me vitals, ooh nurse, etc) – George made it up using the humorous medium of comical exaggeration for satirical effect.

Full article here

EXPOSED: Man-Made Global Warming Fraud!!!

I was pleased last week when we won a vote in the Financial Services Committee to include language from the Audit the Fed bill HR1207 in the upcoming financial regulatory reform bill. As it stands now, if HR 3996 passes, because of this action, the Federal Reserve’s entire balance sheet will be opened up to a GAO audit. We will at last have a chance to find out what happened to the trillions of dollars the Fed has been giving out.

Finally, the blanket restrictions on GAO audits of the Fed that have existed since 1978 will be removed. All items on the Fed’s balance sheet will be auditable, including all credit facilities, all securities purchase programs, and all agreements with foreign central banks. To calm fears that we might be trying to substitute congressional action for Fed mischief in tinkering with monetary policy, we agreed to a 180 day lag time before details of the Fed’s market actions are released and included language to state explicitly that nothing in the amendment should be construed as interference in or dictation of monetary policy by Congress or the GAO. This left no reasonable objections standing and the amendment passed with a vote of 43 to 26.

This was a major triumph for transparency and accountability in government. With unprecedented turmoil in the financial markets, the people are demanding to know and understand the extent of the Federal Reserve’s involvement in the creation of out-of-control business cycles, who they are helping, and how. We need information. The excuses for not giving out this information are flimsy at best, and the passage of this amendment is a major step to finally getting at the truth.

Of course I could not have done this without the help and support of many other members who have been strong allies in this fight. Having over 300 cosponsors was obviously helpful.

However, as great as this victory is, we have to remember that this amendment is attached to a bill that would give sweeping new powers to the Federal Reserve. The Fed has taken its mandate to maintain stable prices and full employment and used its immense power to help elite friends at the great expense of everyone else. The answer is not to increase their powers and ability to interfere in the economy, but that is what the legislation will do. It is a disaster waiting to happen, and unfortunately it looks as if it will pass.

At least with the Audit the Fed amendment attached to the bill, the Fed will not be able to do its destructive work in secret. The people will know exactly who the beneficiaries are of this immoral system of money management.