The protocols of the elder climate scientists and “banksters”: is the media twigging to just how extreme some sceptics are?

Statement by WtD: let me state I do not equate climate change denial with holocaust denial. The term “denier” is used to refer to one who denies a consensus position in science. This includes climate change, evolution and Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. All three scientific theories continue to elicit opposition.

For some time I have been travelling the darker corners of the climate change “sceptic” movement, investigating the some times puzzling and absurd claims of the movement. I have posted extensively on the culture of conspiracy that permeates parts of the sceptic community.

I have stated that the Australian media has ignored the very public, and easily sourced, claims about conspiracies, international bankers and world governments by the likes of Lord Monckton, David Evans and Jo Nova.

However the media is now starting to became aware that this something not-quite-right about parts of the sceptic community.

To his credit Andrew Bolt has distanced himself from the extreme views of the Galileo Movement and Malcolm Roberts.

Bolt reproduces an email he sent to Roberts:

On now receiving an email from Malcolm Roberts, I’ve sent this reply:


Your conspiracy theory seemed utterly stupid even before I knew which families you meant. Now checking the list of banking families you’ve given me, your theory becomes terribly, shamefully familiar.

Two of the three most prominent and current banking families you’ve mentioned are Jewish, and the third is sometimes falsely assumed to be. Yes, this smacks too much of the Jewish world conspiracy theorising I’ve always loathed.

Again, I insist: remove me from the list of people you claim are prepared to advise you.  I’ve never advised you, Malcolm, and would never want to. I am offended to be linked to you.

Andrew Bolt

Bravo Andrew!

But Roberts is merely the tip of the iceberg Andrew… you need to spend far more time investigating the claims of the “sceptic” community to see who you have aligned yourself with.

Without doubt climate change scepticism is held by a variety of individuals, of different political views, religious beliefs, demographics and level of education. I respect that many sceptics are honest – if mistaken – in their scepticism. Ones values will shape the acceptance or rejection of scientific facts.

The climate denial spectrum

On one end of the spectrum we have “luke warmists” such as Bjorn Lomborg, who accept that humanity is having some impact on the climate and that “it won’t be as bad” or we’re better off simply adapting to changing conditions.

The middle position is taken by those like Andrew Bolt who think the science isn’t settled, and somehow its all just a fantasy of those on the left who love government intervention and tofu.

At the other end of the spectrum are the true outliers, the “super conspiracy” theorists like the Australian sceptic Dr David Evans, Monckton and Jo Nova.

If you want to understand how extreme parts of the sceptic movement is, then look no further than the paper published by Evans, “Manufacturing money and global warming” on October 27 2009 through the Science and Public Policy Institute.

This is the same institute that counts Christopher Monckton, Bob Carter and Ian Plimer as personnel. Another recent “convert” to the super conspiracy theory is James Delingpole in his latest work “Watermelons” (more on this coming).

It was this paper that alerted me to the fact that climate change denial had merged with the pulse of conspiracy culture. Indeed, climate change denial slots easily into the pre-existing fantasies of “super conspiracies” and hidden agendas.

New world order and the finance industry

For several decades’ conspiracy theorists have posited a mysterious “them” have been influencing events and shaping history through financial institutions such as banks and the United Nations. No doubt you would have heard of phrases such as “New World Order”: it is the belief that the world is about to be taken over a shadowy cabal that has been planning such a coup for centuries. They work behind “front groups” such as the media, academia, UN… and just about everyone else in the world.

Understanding conspiracy culture

In seeking to understand conspiracy culture I have been guided by the work of Michael Barkun (A culture of conspiracy), Mark Fenster (Conspiracy theories) and Robert Alan Goldberg (Enemies within: the culture of conspiracy in Modern America).

Much of what I will post over the next few weeks is rough drafts and research I’ve accumulated over the past few years. I had hoped to shape this into a more coherent – and published – form.

What is important to note about the work of these scholars is the links conspiracy communities make between banks and the coming NWO. According to the more extreme theorists “they” have been planning a “coup” for centuries.

Sadly, many aspects of this belief draw upon older, and more sinister forms of anti-Semitism.

Conspiracy belief defined

Barkun provides the following definition of what a conspiracy theory is:

“…a conspiracy belief is the belief that an organisation made up of individuals or groups was or is acting to covertly achieve some malevolent end.”

Attributes of conspiracy belief include (again Barkun):

  • Nothing happens by accident
  • Nothing is as it seems
  • Everything is connected

Types of conspiracies

Barkun classifies conspiracies into the following classes:

  • Event conspiracies – limited objectives and a discreet event or set of events (i.e. the Kennedy assassination)
  • Systemic conspiracies – “the conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control over a country or region, or even an entire world
  • Super conspiracies – multiple conspiracies are linked together.

Thus, some sceptics see climate change as an event conspiracy, i.e. scientists are lying or fudging temperature records to obtain funding. Climategate is an example of an event conspiracy (allegedly) exposed by hackers. This event conspiracy grew in scope as the event merged into the greater conspiracy “narrative” of Evans

Without douht the writings and activities of Evans and Monckton indicate belief in a super conspiracy:

Manufacturing money and global warming: “gold smiths” and “international bankers control the world

I will state this: the tone and content of Evans paper is very similar to not only “New World Order” conspiracy theories but to the language of anti-Semitism.

It demonstrates all the attributes that Barkun describes: everything is connected in Evans world, and there are conspiracies within conspiracies.

Evans blends “New World Order” conspiracy theories with climate change denial to weave a pattern of events that has been centuries in the making. It would be funny if it wasn’t tragic, given Evans receives the support of the likes of Gina Rinehart.

The following extracts highlight what I regard as deeply concerning, in particular the repeated use of terminology used as “code words” by extremist right-wing groups.

Evans on the “goldsmith” and “international bankers” link

Evans on “gold smiths”:

“…In the Middle Ages, goldsmiths took gold deposits from individuals for safekeeping. The receipts for these deposits circulated as money, because they were more convenient than the metal itself. But the goldsmiths learned they could issue many more “receipts” than they had gold. They would typically lend out receipts for ten times as much gold as they had, on the assumption that not everyone would try to redeem their receipts for metal at the same time. Money was thereby manufactured, or created out of thin air. Furthermore, the goldsmith would charge interest on the receipts they lent out, to compensate for the risk of not being repaid and to make a profit.

For example, if customers deposited 200 ounces of gold with a goldsmith, then the goldsmith would issue them with receipts for 200 ounces. But he would also issue receipts for another 1,800 ounces to people as loans, and charge interest on them — for a total of receipts for 2,000 gold ounces. Notice that 1,800 of the gold ounce receipts that the goldsmith manufactured were for gold that did not exist. For a typical interest rate of 5%, the goldsmith is earning 90 gold ounces per year by lending out these receipts to gold he does not have — pretty profitable eh? If any customer came to the goldsmith with one of the goldsmith’s receipts and asked for “their” gold, the goldsmith would hand over some gold and destroy the receipt. In normal business, they knew from experience that keeping back 10% of the gold was enough to keep this scheme working and, if it wasn’t, they could simply borrow gold from another goldsmith. The only downside for the goldsmith was an unpaid loan—he owed gold on all the receipts issued, so he would ultimately have to pay any unpaid loan out of his own pocket.”

This quote in particular is alarming:

“…Over time the goldsmiths became bankers, governments introduced central banking, and finally, in 1971, the world financial system switched from using gold as its base money to using cash (paper money). The world financial system is now unpinned by cash, which governments can print at will. We have a fully paper system, with no hard constraints on how much money there is.”

In Evans reasoning is that “goldsmiths” from the medieval period – let’s be frank he is clearly talking about Jews – founded a “paper aristocracy” that secretly rules the globe.



Got it?

Do I really need to spell it out? [1]

Evans use of the “banksters” term: they killed two presidents!

The term “banksters” came into vogue in the 1920s and 1930s at the height of the Great Depression when feelings against banks ran high. It was also a term used by the so-called “Austrian” economists.

However it also has darker connotations in that it is a code word used by anti-Semites for Jews (search Google for “bankster and Jew” for evidence if you must, I refuse to link to such sites).

We see Evans using the term:

“The paper aristocracy has overwhelming wealth. They own or influence all the media – if only because every media organization borrows from banks. They influence almost all the institutions that employ professional economists, by supplying the money for PhDs and providing most of the lucrative consulting jobs for economists. They buy politicians by the truckload. The banksters have even killed the occasional thorn in their side—including, probably, two US presidents, Lincoln and Garfield. If no one knows or objects to their activities, why shouldn’t the paper aristocracy do what they want? If they don’t flaunt it, and the system seems to basically work for most people most of the time, what’s so bad? (In southern Italy some people say the same about the Mafia.) If people don’t know that the system would run better if the paper aristocracy weren’t there skimming off their take, are they really being ripped off?”

Yes, the banksters killed two presidents. Come on really? These people are feted by conservative politicians and the Murdoch Press?

It gets better, as Evans explains just how “cunning” the banksters are:

“Bankers know far more about banking and its subtle ramifications than politicians, and have usually been able to persuade, con, or bribe governments to do their bidding. The politicians, our representatives, are the patsies here. The banksters have conned government big time, including when they talked US President Woodrow Wilson into setting up the Federal Reserve in 1913 (which, by the way, Wilson later bitterly regretted)…”

Climate change and the international bankers

For Evans climate change is a manufactured “crisis” created by the “paper aristocracy” as part of a conspiracy to control the globe. No really, that is what he states:

“Like fiat currency and all the games with money manufacture, this is another game brought to you by the paper aristocracy: you pay, they enjoy. Ultimately people who produce real goods and services will pay—because there be will another bunch of bureaucrats and financial smarties living off our efforts.

Controlling who can emit carbon dioxide gives the government and the paper aristocracy an excuse and mechanism for controlling every activity on the planet. We all breathe out carbon dioxide, and nearly all energy use emits carbon dioxide. Further, the whole world has to be involved for the emission restrictions to be effective, so this will be the start of world government—you will no longer be able to escape by moving to a different country.

Note the “parasitic” metaphors that are sprinkled throughout Evans paper. Clearly he is drawing on much older and darker analogies about “Jewish financiers”.

Paper aristocracy: the inheritors of the “gold smith’s” power

Evans is engaged in broadening and furthering the conspiracy culture in drawing together long-standing views on the roles of Jews, international bankers and the coming New World Order.

This is typical of conspiracy theories: in general they broaden pre-existing theories and reshape them to incorporate contemporary anxieties.

Evan’s chronology of world events posits the “paper aristocracy” as the literal inheritors of money and power from centuries ago and that they have been actively shaping history for centuries:

“There are a small number of families who, over the centuries, have amassed wealth through financial rent seeking. They are leading members of the paper aristocracy. For example, the Rothschilds are the biggest banking family in Europe, and were reputed to own half of all western industry in 1900. That sort of wealth doesn’t just dissipate, because unless the managers are incompetent the wealth tends to concentrate. The banking families don’t work for a living in the normal sense, like the rest of us. They avoid scrutiny and envy by blending in and make themselves invisible. Since they own or influence all sorts of media organizations, it isn’t too hard. There are unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories, but nobody can really credibly say how much wealth and influence they have.

What are the paper aristocracy going to do in the aftermath of the current huge bubble? The course and end of the bubble are quite foreseeable, so they must have a plan.

There are unsubstantiated rumors that they influenced the system to make an almighty bubble, and intend to buy lots of real stuff, such as real estate and businesses, in the ensuing bust, when everything is dirt cheap. By the way, this is how the paper aristocracy has made most of its wealth over the last few centuries, and how those banking families originally became wealthy. Bankers would introduce excess bank money, then deliberately cut it back on it one day, watch prices plummet as businesses failed, then buy distressed assets cheaply. Earning interest was a second way of earning money but less important. Bank fees were just for pocket money and to keep customers distracted.

Perhaps today’s fiat currencies—the US dollar, pound, yen and so on—will go up in smoke in an inflationary crescendo in the next few years, perhaps as planned by the paper aristocracy. Maybe they will reintroduce an asset backed currency. And guess who has all the gold? Those banking families have been salting it away for years. Possibly a global currency, so one cannot escape the predations of the paper aristocracy. This is not just about money, but about power, of course. Anyway, these are only unsubstantiated rumors. We shall see.

Yes, we shall see. Nothing is at it seems, everything is connected…

As I and others have noted, the Rothschild’s have long been the favorite target of conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites for decades.

Evans and the conservatives: why such unqualified support for a conspiracy theorist?

What alarms me is that Evans is treated as a serious commentator on the climate debate.

In addition to written pieces in The Australian and The Age, Evans was one of the “experts” former Senator Nick Minchin took Anna Rose to meet in the show “I can change your mind about climate change”. Andrew Bolt often links to pieces on Jo Nova’s blog.

Let me stress, I do not believe Bolt and Minchin share these views: however I believe the claims of Evans and Monckton are glossed over and ignored because they have proven useful to vested interests and those fighting the culture wars.

Bolt and Minchin are culture warriors, they see AGW as a left-wing “belief” that should be countered in much the same way conservative Christians oppose Darwin’s theory of evolution. It is a case of values driving a world view and the acceptance – or rejection – of a particular scientific theory.

Quite frankly, on any other issue conspiracy theorists such as Evans would be ignored. However because climate change has become so politically charged that Evans scant qualifications (he has a PhD) and his seeming authority on the issue have made him a cause-célèbre in the sceptic community.

His claims are endlessly repeated throughout the climate sceptic echo chamber so by the time it reaches more “respectable” sceptics such as Bolt, Minchin and the pages of The Australian the ugly conspiracy theories are glossed over and weened out to make the climate scepticism of Evans more “respectable”.

Remember this as well: shock jock Alan Jones has been a vocal front man for the Galileo Movement. Jones nursed it into being… and that does my head in.

Think: some of the most powerful media players in the country have thrown their clout behind these people.

Unwittingly Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, Minchin and the conservative movement have helped the trojan horse of radical conspiracy theories distort public debate in Australia. One wonders how quickly they will come to realise just what they have done.

The sleep of reason produces monsters.

Here Andrew, here Alan – here are your monsters.

[1] This is a bold claim, and thus will warrant further research and investigation. I’ll leave it in here because that is what I published originally, but I will expand on this point and a provide a far more nuanced explanation. At best the claims made by Evans parallel the language and claims made more more extreme forms of conspiracy theory. Mike @ WtD

29 thoughts on “The protocols of the elder climate scientists and “banksters”: is the media twigging to just how extreme some sceptics are?

  1. john byatt says:

    Three years ago I read a prediction that as the science became more and more certain then the conspiracy theories would become more and more incredible, finally no one left but the certifiable insane

    Bolt will still distort the science but this is a body blow to the denier movement.

    • Same thing happened with Relativity: strongest opposition came *after* definitive confirmation. The same is happening here, all that will be left of the sceptic movements is bunch of cranks.

      However, the patronage these people received to help push the denial agenda has halted delay on mitigation efforts.

  2. john byatt says:

    It is getting a run at Geoff Brown’s ( TCS ) Galileo thread at just grounds, will get interesting


  3. john byatt says:

    Part of reply from Roberts at andrew’s blog

    I’ve never spoken to or met Andrew. I’ve enjoyed email correspondence with him. I’ve given him tips for which he has expressed appreciation.

    Andrew has my street address, my email address and my phone numbers. I’m wondering why he didn’t discuss it with me?

    I’d be happy to discuss any of these topics with him privately or publicly on air. Preferably after he’s done the research.

    It’s ironic that climate alarmists criticise The Galileo Movement for listing Andrew as an adviser (on media). They say TGM’s listing of Andrew Bolt discredits TGM. (We disagree.) Now Andrew seems worried about being being discredited by association with TGM. Gotta laugh.

    Maybe Andrew is Aging. Or maybe he’s upset with another part of Fairfax, Mike Carlton who did raise religion in association with climate:

    Until learning of Mike Carlton a few minutes ago I was at a loss as to Andrew’s reason for raising religion. It seems Andrew didn’t. Mike Carlton did the day before.

    I wonder if Mikey’s the same Mike Carlton who ran from me when I inadvertently sent him facts in response to emails received in a conversation with some alarmist ‘scientists’ funded by government. Mike doesn’t seem to like facts. He runs from them. Either directly as he did by email on 08.03.2010 or by cleverly implied smear on August 4th, 2012.

    Notice the pattern in Fairfax Press? And they wonder why circulation plummets and losses grow?

    Malcolm Roberts

    Malcolm Roberts of Brisbane (Reply)
    Sun 05 Aug 12 (08:36pm)

  4. Read that, they sent him stuff to read and he rejected it. Gotta make you laugh: when Andrew Bolt rejects your views as extreme, how bad to you have to be?

  5. john byatt says:

    Roberts ” Who did raise religion” re Carlton


    Australia’s very own Galileo Movement of crackpot deniers (patron Alan Jones, booster-in-chief Andrew Bolt) fears that evil forces are at work. The Galileo manager, Malcolm Roberts, assured the Herald’s environment editor, Ben Cubby, this week that climate science had been captured by “some of the major banking families in the world” who form “a tight-knit cabal”.
    In Rightspeak, I understand, that’s code for the Great Jewish Conspiracy which, as everyone should know, also controls the international drug trade and was responsible for starting both world wars. It’s all there in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    Read more:

  6. EoR says:

    I expect Bolt will very shortly expose the massive rort of people claiming to be Jewish in order to obtain lucrative government positions and massive government handouts. He will prove his argument by showing photos of people with noses he has determined are ‘small’.

  7. Sou says:

    If Andrew Bolt stopped confusing ‘independence’ with ignorance, he might learn something.

    Funny thing about David Evans – he and JoNova are gold bugs – advocating hoarding gold and going on about ‘fiat money’. They are tin foil hat crackpots.

  8. They [great bankster dynasties] avoid scrutiny and envy by blending in and make themselves invisible.

    Yes, I’ve seen them! They’re the Lizard People.

  9. Mike If you look through the comments you’ll find that Bolt has gone full circle and strongly praised the good work of The Galileo Movement. he’s distancing himself from what he suspects is Malcolm Roberts’ anti semitism.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      I thought that would happen, sacrifice Roberts and Jones and Bolt admit no fault or culpability.

  10. J.H. says:

    I suggest you read Ludwig von Mises “The Theory of Money and Credit”…. Before you embarrass yourselves too much with claims that David Evans is a conspiriacy theory nut, etc… He is simply writing an academic opinion on quite reasonably understood history. Try first year economics course if you wish to know about the English Goldsmiths…;-)

    As for Andrew Bolt being anti semitic…. You have got to be joking?

    There seems to be quite a bit of bloviating on this blog…. but very little thought.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Andrew Bolt is anything butt anti-Semetic, as he clearly states.

      Re the Mises reference, I’m familiar with this thinker of the Austrian school.

      The thinking about shadowy cabals and centuries long conspiracies is conspiracy thinking.

      I will be clear here, the language used mimics many conspiracy theories about the finance industry and banking in conspiracy culture.

      In the paper Evans states that the “bankers” have killed at least two US presidents. How is that not conspiracy thinking?

      Re the alleged anti-Semitism of some of the language: it is important not to make unsubstantiated claims. This is why I published large extracts and pointed people to the full paper. I share Andrew Bolts position here and for the exact some reasons I am alarmed by the theories about banking families.

      What we see I think is seen is a libertarian world view with a very large dollop of conspiracy theories borrowed and adopted to create the world view a small cabal of bankers are pulling the strings.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      By the way, can you comment on the following:

      – do “banking families” control governments?
      – did they organize the killing of two US Presidents?

      Also I would recommend two works – which I have read – on the history of finance and money:

      The Ascent of money by respected economic Niall Ferguson:

      Strangely it does not resemble the crude theory outlined by Evans.

      The other is “The birth of plenty” by William J. Berstein, which again does not resemble Evans theories:

      Also the history of banking, briefly outlined in this Wikipedia article is notable for the rich history of banking:

      Let’s be honest: the genesis of banks as an institution can be traced back not only to the Romans but we can find archaic forms of banking in ancient Mesopotamia – 3000-4000 years ago.

      What about the banks of the medieval Italy? Of Venice? Of Florence? The Medici’s? The banks of crusading orders? Then there were the Dutch finance houses of the 17th century? Or the rise of joint stock companies such as the Dutch East and English East companies. The growth of capital markets…

      Evans argument is a gross distortion of the history of banking and capital which – in opposition to his conspiracy theories – is rich, well understood and documented.

      There is a *grain* of truth in there: in the UK during the 17th century gold smiths played a role in establishing banking practices in that country. So why make such a song and dance about these obscure practices and link them to climate change? What do 17th century banking practices have to do with physics and chemistry?

      Honestly, suggesting that the same small cabal of families have existed for centuries and are currently shaping world events to usher in a one-world government is not scholarship but the work a crank.

  11. J.H. says:

    ….. Oh, and how are those observed positive feedbacks on water vapor working out for you? Found any that didn’t fall off the back of a computer model yet?…….:-)

  12. […] Some follow-up material which clearly demonstrates Perth climate sceptic Dr. David Evans is drawing upon conspiracy culture (for background see the post Protocols of the elder climate scientists and banksters): […]

  13. James says:

    Mike I guess you can say anything here because you run the blog and you hide behind anonymity unlike those you criticise. I may be missing something but I didn’t read in anything you ascribed to Evans the word ‘bankster’ or a reference to Jews. Though you certainly twisted what he wrote to imply it was ‘just like’ anti-semitic conspiracy theories. By writing such material, it makes you the one with the conspiracy theory.

    I went to the trouble of reading the background you provide on yourself after reading you quite derogatory claim that Evans has “scant qualifications (he has a PhD)”. I then did a little research and find that the PhD is one of a number of Undergraduate and postgraduate degrees earned by Evans in multidisciplinary areas. If his qualifications are “scant” then yours could are what, ‘pre-school’?

    I certainly do not believe that every scientist or environmental activist or individual who believes that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous climate change are part of a global conspiracy, and I have read widely and not read a serious skeptic make such a claim. However, I do believe that those ‘believers’ do not have science on their side (I know that is not something you or most of your readers agree with, and that is best left for another debate), but I also know that there is ample historical, documented evidence that a number of global organisations have recognised that the ‘environment’ is the one tool which can be used to obtain a one world government, which is the objective of a number of global organisations. This ‘one world government’ would trump the sovereign rights of nations in areas such as population control, trade, carbon emissions, taxes, resource production and usage, land utilisation and a whole lot of other factors all in the innocuous name of ‘sustainability’.

    There are many people who see the benefit in such an organisation from people such as the recently retired leader of the Greens, Bob Brown who suggested it in his last major speech, to others like John Holdren, Obama’s Chief scientific adviser who co-authored a book with proposals along those lines. I am sure you are aware it if you have done as much reading as you claim you have. The Club of Rome really exists and and their reach into the financial and political centres of influence around the world are extensive to say the least. They don’t just get some of the world’s richest and most influential people together including the leaders of old European nobility, ex prime ministers and presidents (including ex US and USSR presidents), and ex Secretary Generals of the UN, leaders of major global financial institutions and corporations and have a nice little chit chat every now and then. Their meeting are held in secret. Occasionally they publish papers. But mainly it is up to their members to go away and use their influence to achieve the Club’s goals and report back to the next meeting. Of course those with the inside knowledge can also make all the right financial decisions! Handy that.

    Current members from Maurice Strong who was essentially responsible for the establishment of UNEP (and eventually the IPCC), and AL Gore are key to the whole Global Warming theme. But if you and your readers really want to get an idea of how The Club of Rome is so easily linked to part of the key thrust of funding and support for something which will reign in human growth (and CO2 is the best way to do it), then check out this brief synopsis:

    You can read that, understand that ‘climate change’ has a huge global ‘conspiracy’ of support behind it of bankers, politicians and bureaucrats connected to the Club of Rome, while still believing that human CO2 emissions cause dangerous climate change. In that case, you may feel relieved that with that kind of support your ‘side’ is assured of victory, provided that you have no qualms about your democratic freedoms being taken away from you. Though if you are in the same camp as rabid Green Professor of Ethics and Public Policy Clive Hamilton, you would agree that Climate Change is such an urgent issue that democracy needs to be suspended so that immediate action can be taken.

    You would therefore also support the United Nations Agenda 21 : which is a ‘voluntary’ code which has been signed up to by (from memory) 179 countries around the world. Your own shire council may have also pledged to meet the requirements of Agenda 21 even though we have never voted on it’s contents as a shire, State or Country. But again, if you aren’t concerned about the suspension of democracy, and you believe you can always trust an all powerful bunch of ever growing unelected bureaucrats who can rule over almost every aspect of your life and who you can’t vote out, then you have nothing to worry about.

    Agenda 21 is essentially exactly the goals as set by the Club of Rome. The fact that the Agenda was formulated and put forward by leading members of the Club of Rome, well I guess that’s just a coincidence, not a conspiracy.

    Mike as the Blog master I know it would be easy to snip this or pick one little area which may be easy to pull apart, I’ve written it late at night so it probably isn’t the best, but hopefully it does answer why people do see a genuine global conspiracy towards a one world government which does involve ‘banking families’ but has nothing to do with being anti-semites, and which does have real, supporting and historical, factual evidence.


  14. Tony Hutch says:

    This post is nothing more then a load of tripe ……. this guy has expressed his opinions and drawn conclusions that a normal thinking person would be embarrassed to print let alone discuss in public. It is nothing more then a thinly veiled attempt at character assassination !!

  15. Keith AB says:

    One grows weary of being accused of anti-Semitism, paranoid conspiracy theorist, flat Earther, creationist, birther, moon landing denier, 911 false flagger, in the pay of big oil, coal or whatever, etc. etc. etc. just because I don’t buy the Man Made Global Climate Change Caused by Carbon Dioxide story.

    That, at base, is the problem all of us skeptics have. The stuff we humans burn causes an additional Carbon Dioxide load which will result in the end of the world that we can live in seems to be the theory. That the climate catastrophists believe this is not in doubt and I don’t think that this is necessarily a deliberate fraud or conspiracy to deny us our freedom to self actualise but I do think there are those who do see it as an opportunity to increase their power and wealth. However, in the absence of clear scientific evidence that shows an increase in global CO2 results in an increase in global temperatures then I am skeptical.

    My skepticism starts with the logarithmic effect of CO2 and the realisation of just how much stuff we would have to burn to double the CO2 concentration and thereby add 1deg C to the global temperature. It continues with the knowledge that all of the so called extreme weather events we experience today have happened in the past. Add to that my understanding that the huge alkaline buffer that is the ocean contains 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of water which acts as a huge brake on global temperatures and would require more CO2 than could be created in millions of years before it stops being alkali and starts being acid. I have noted no acceleration in sea level rise over the last century or decade which is odd if temperatures are rising faster than ever.I am also skeptical because where I live the climate hasn’t changed beyond it’s natural variability, in other words each year is different but in a similar way yet all of the so called climate change is supposedly happening in far away places, on mountains or deserts or rain forests or far away islands, why not where we all live and could see it? Is it , perhaps, because the changes such as they are , are so small as to be undetectable by the old Mk.1 Human body? If so what is catastrophic about it?

    The fact is we have no knowledge of how much CO2 is actually generated by natural processes nor how much it varies over time naturally. We know that the climate models are not good at hindcasting and failed to predict future climate for even the last 10 years when atmospheric CO2 has risen consistently yet global temperatures have been going sideways.

    The problem is the man made CO2 story. The rest of the speculative nonsense you write here and that I see around the web is just insulting and fails to adress the weakness in your CO2 narrative. I can see how severely restricting human economic activity, and even the human population appeals to many people and that the man made CO2 meme plays into these political aspirations but that doesn’t make it true. It is also indisputable that there are skeptics whose position is driven by their politics but a huge majority of us are simply unconvinced of the science underpinning AGW. Whats up with that?

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Thanks for your reply Keith, though it is rather long and does not cite any actual evidence or sources. Nor is it “my narrative”, it is the facts reported by the world’s scientific community. I won’t debate the science with you, as I place my trust in experts and the 97% of the world’s climate scientists whose work supports the the theory. If you have evidence that falsifies climate change, I heartily recommend you publish your results in a peer reviewed scientific journal. A Noble Prize would be yours to collect.

      I also agree that there are people who sincerely doubt the science – of which you claim you do. That these sceptics are wrong is not the point. The above documentary and video evidence demonstrates:

      – Dr Evans claims bankers killed two US presidents
      – He claims the Rothschild family is involved in some fashion
      – He claims this conspiracy has been in operation for centuries
      – He claims a one world government is imminent

      Do you agree with this? Are these not claims of a conspiracy? I have provided quotes from Evans and video in which he makes these claims. Do you deny this evidence?

      Of course, what I find is that sceptics/deniers never talk about this evidence because it is too uncomfortable to confront. Which is of course a form of denial. Or are you a true sceptic and prepared to look at this evidence?

      Note: that people feel insulted is not so concerning to me.

    • john byatt says:

      Keith “My skepticism starts with the logarithmic effect of CO2 and the realisation of just how much stuff we would have to burn to double the CO2 concentration and thereby add 1deg C to the global temperature”

      Keith this is not your scepticism it is your misunderstanding, confusing concentration with emissions, The logarithmic effect is to the radiative forcing, The warming will be linear since the more we emit the less of our total emissions will be taken up by the oceans as has already commenced with ten percent less of our emissions being taken up over the past decade. This will in the medium term cancel out the logarithmic effect.

  16. john byatt says:

    Keith “We know that the climate models are not good at hindcasting and failed to predict future climate for even the last 10 years when atmospheric CO2 has risen consistently yet global temperatures have been going sideways.”

    This is another misunderstanding, the models are based on calendar year averages ie. jan thru dec.

    NASA also records the rolling twelve month averages and this is where we find the real trend ,0.37DeGF per decade which has continued over the past three decades.

    The warmest twelve month period keith was Dec 2009 thru Nov 2010, It is in these rolling twelve month averages where we find the actual trend.
    The hindcasting was excellent as revealed here

  17. john byatt says:

    Keith ” However, in the absence of clear scientific evidence that shows an increase in global CO2 results in an increase in global temperatures then I am skeptical.”

    I wonder just what evidence would convince you, that such predictions were made 116 years ago, that the predictions actually predated the warming. It is not as if the warming started and then we came up with some ad hoc theory to explain it after the event,

    adding co2 to the atmosphere will warm the planet. was the prediction
    when it happened you want some other non human explanation. well find one if you can, we will give you a Nobel.

  18. Chris Harper says:

    I read this with growing discomfort until I reached the discussion about gold smiths. I found your smear linking Dr Evans fairly uncontroversial description of how gold smiths invented fractional reserve banking with an unwarranted ‘da jooos control the banks’ antisemitism to be rather foul.

    That progressives are obsessed with race is well recognised, that they have difficulty accepting that others aren’t is equally well recognised.

    I see nothing in Dr Evans writing to justify this vile smear on your part.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: