Problems in Paris pact

A reader posted a comment so stupid it demands a response to counter the mindless hyperbole that touts the Paris treaty to the world as a good thing.

The comment is just a cut-and-paste from CBC on key points of the Paris agreement, but it contradicts the crucial point of my earlier post—that the Paris agreement requires the signatories to submit to just two undemanding tasks. So it’s time to seriously check the words of the treaty, not merely the anodyne IPCC blandishments about the treaty.

For 24 years the United Nations has tried to coerce countries into a binding agreement to “fight climate change”. But they still haven’t managed it.

The CBC article echoes constantly-repeated and utterly wrong statements about the Paris agreement. It’s obvious that neither Haydn Watters, then a journalism student working for CBC News, nor Dennis Horne, who cited the article here, is aware of what the agreement itself actually says.

What are the five points and what is the truth? Follow—or correct!—this discussion with the original agreement at your elbow. That page contains only the orthodox UN feel-good summary with copious naive assertions about the future, beyond which no journalist seems prepared to go. But you may prefer to collect the English pdf linked there and learn what has actually been agreed. (NOTE: Nations that sign the agreement are called “Parties” to the agreement.) Here’s the original CBC version of the five points:

Five key points in Paris agreement on climate change

  1. Limit temperature rise ‘well below’ 2 °C
    The agreement includes a commitment to keep the rise in global temperatures “well below” 2 °C.
    Scientists consider 2 °C the threshold to limit potentially catastrophic climate change.
  2. First universal climate agreement
  3. Helping poorer nations
    Help … poorer countries combat climate change and foster greener economies. The agreement promotes universal access to sustainable energy in developing countries, particularly in Africa. It says this can be accomplished through greater use of renewable energy.
  4. Publishing greenhouse gas reduction targets
    The agreement … says that each country should strive to drive down their carbon output “as soon as possible.”
  5. Carbon neutral by 2050?
    The deal sets the goal of a carbon-neutral world sometime after 2050 but before 2100. This means a commitment to limiting the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally.

The truth

1. Limit temperature rise ‘well below’ 2 °C

Yes, Article 2 says the Agreement “aims” to strengthen the response to … climate change, … including by “holding the increase in … temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C.” Whatever that means. What does “aim” mean? What does “pursuing efforts” mean?

2. First universal climate Agreement

No, it’s not universal, though it can be called an Agreement, if you overlook the crucial parts that are self-determined.

3. Helping poorer nations

This Agreement is all about developed nations handing money to developing nations. Note that China is called a developing nation, though I have no idea why. Oh, wait: that’s simply what China wants, and who would say no to them?

4. Publishing greenhouse gas reduction targets

In Article 4, paragraph 3 says: “Each Party’s successive nationally determined contribution will represent a
progression beyond the Party’s then current nationally determined contribution and reflect its highest possible ambition.” So they can go up but not down.

However, in paragraph 11, it says: “A Party may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined
contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition.” Does this signal a potential watering down of the determination for NDCs ever to rise? It’s easy to imagine a nation saying: “We reviewed our NDC with a view to enhancing our level of ambition in accordance with paragraph 11, but the parlous state of our economy forces us to revise our NDC downwards. Sorry.”

There would be no punitive action whatsoever.

5. Carbon neutral by 2050?

Yes, Article 4 says: “In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century.”

But this is not an agreement; it is not even a partial agreement. This resembles the agreement of the sun to be circled by the earth—there’s no choice here. No matter how determined its “aim” or intention, no nation can achieve a “global peaking” of all nations’ greenhouse gas emissions, and thus achieve the “balance” of sources and sinks. It’s impossible.

This is a piece of verbiage intended to pull the wool over green, hopeful eyes.


Article 23 ensures a safe exit, without explanation, from difficulty, embarrassment or change of heart.

At any time after three years since this Agreement entered into force for a Party, that Party may resign on a year’s notice.


There is no mention of sanctions, legal, political or military, in the case of non-compliance. In any case, sanctions against non-compliance are completely abandoned by Article 15, which establishes an expert-based committee that is “to facilitate implementation of and promote compliance” with the Agreement but, fatally, is to function in a manner that is “transparent, non-adversarial and non-punitive.”

God bless us all. The UNFCCC couldn’t slap a non-compliant nation with a wet bus ticket, much less (say) imprison the head of the army. So much for being legally enforceable, as some wide-eyed, breathless zealots are claiming.

And thank God, since, for now, this defends our freedom.

Visits: 296

91 Thoughts on “Problems in Paris pact

  1. Dennis N Horne on 19/10/2016 at 10:31 am said:

    Ku Klux Klimates

  2. Andy on 19/10/2016 at 1:03 pm said:

    There was a time not so long ago when it was almost compulsory to be a member of the KKK to get anywhere in the US Democratic Party

    in fact a prominent member of KKK was described by Crooked Hillary as her mentor

    (Can’t remember the name, maybe Dennis can help)

    Edit: Robert Byrd is the name

  3. Richard C (NZ) on 19/10/2016 at 7:42 pm said:

    India – Declaration:

    “The Government of India declares its understanding that, as per its national laws; keeping in view its development agenda, particularly the eradication of poverty and provision of basic needs for all its citizens, coupled with its commitment to following the low carbon path to progress, and on the assumption of unencumbered availability of cleaner sources of energy and technologies and financial resources from around the world; and based on a fair and ambitious assessment of global commitment to combating climate change, it is ratifying the Paris Agreement.”

  4. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 8:34 am said:

    The UN’s Latest Global Warming Deal Is Really A Handout To US Chemical Companies

    The biggest players in the chemical industry were all too happy to line up behind the United Nations (U.N.) deal to cut hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) from air conditioners, freezers and other appliances.

    Why? A global agreement on HFCs is good for business

  5. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 9:20 am said:

    Hillary’s duplicity

    ‘What Hillary Said to Goldman Sachs for $675,000’

    In the [Goldman Sachs] speeches, Clinton takes positions that are not consistent in some instances with the positions she has taken publicly in her present presidential campaign. But, WikiLeaks has previously revealed that she told the National Multifamily Housing Council in a private speech in 2013,

    “You need both a public and a private position,” because “politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way.”


    Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department

    # # #

    With candidates like Trump and Clinton, small wonder a quarter of US millennials would prefer a giant meteor strike.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 9:43 am said:

    To Battle “Trolls,” Establishment Wages War on Internet Freedom

    The establishment’s false narratives about the world are imploding in spectacular fashion thanks to the Internet, and the establishment’s propagandists are increasingly being called out for their deception. That has the establishment extremely upset. So upset, in fact, that establishment propagandists and the federal government are busy demonizing online freedom and concocting ways to clamp down on voices that expose the false narratives


    In Europe, the establishment’s jihad on free speech is far more advanced. As The New American reported in June, U.S. technology giants such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft, and others have already promised to work with the totalitarian-minded European Union superstate to censor “extremism” from the Internet. People are literally arrested for quoting Winston Churchill, the Bible, the Koran, and more. [see below]

    Hate Speech: U.K. Political Leader Arrested for Quoting Winston Churchill

    # # #

    UN, US, EU, UK, China Russia, TIME, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft,…………

  7. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 10:14 am said:

    ‘New UN Chief: Globalist, Socialist, Extremist’

    Globalism-loving socialist Antonio Guterres of Portugal (shown), infamous primarily for helping to engineer the massive tsunami of Islamic immigration into the West, has been officially selected as the next secretary-general of the United Nations. His prescription for what ails the world: more socialism at the planetary level, more power for the UN, more “global governance,” and more mass migration from the Third World to Western countries. In other words, more of the same extremism that already has the world and the West on the brink.


    One of the many giant red flags (no pun intended) on Guterres’ troubling résumé is his presidency, from 1999 to 2005, of the Socialist International


    To understand just how extreme Socialist International is, consider that, in 2012, the alliance unapologetically held its annual Congress in an African nation led by a Marxist-Leninist member political party that, according to leading genocide experts, was at that very moment engaged in the planning and preparation phase of genocide in a bid to exterminate an embattled minority group. Earlier that year, the president and party chief who hosted the SI Congress even went on national television to sing songs in front of his military about massacring members of the minority group with his machine gun. SI profusely praised its hosts nonetheless.

    Representatives from murderous and unfree regimes and totalitarian parties from around the world came together, as they do every year, to demand more “global governance,” more wealth redistribution from Western taxpayers to their corrupt governments, what they call “Global Welfare Statehood,” and other extremism. “During this critical juncture for regional and world peace it is imperative that the role of the United Nations (UN) must be strengthened,” one SI resolution from that year stated before listing all the ways in which the controversial dictators club should be further empowered.

    At its 1962 conference in Oslo, the SI came out and said it: “The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government.” At its latest meeting last month, the SI also demanded that Western nations submit to international bureaucracies in the resettling of massive amounts of foreigners within their borders — at taxpayer expense. The SI’s members, over 160 parties from more than 100 nations, also demanded more global socialism and wealth redistribution.

    Of course, socialist and communist regimes have killed more than 100 million of their own people over the last century, according to conservative estimates. And yet, the totalitarians always insist that utopia is just around the corner — just a few more purges and executions and gulags will be needed before the glories of socialism and communism become clear to the proletariat. If there are any remaining doubts about the horrors, savagery, and barbarism of socialism and communism, a quick visit to the utopias of Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, or Zimbabwe — all voting UN members, some even on the UN “human rights council” — should put them to rest.

    Yet despite the utter failure, misery, terror, starvation, and mass death inevitably produced by the implementation of such collectivist “ideologies,” the proponents of the extremism remain firmly entrenched in power around the world, as evidenced by Guterres’ successful bid to lead the UN. Even the Obama administration and the allegedly conservative British government had to sign off on the socialist radical. Most of his fellow candidates for UN chief, too, were communists and socialists, in addition to being globalist radicals.

    Another red flag on Guterres’ CV was his decade-long stint as UN refugee boss, a position he held until last year. As Guterres and his office engineered a tidal wave of Islamic immigration into the West, he also implemented a policy to systematically discriminate against Middle East Christians — the very people who, even according to the U.S. State Department, are still facing genocide at the hands of Islamic extremists. Even though almost 10 percent of Syria’s population is Christian, for example, less than 1 percent of the refugees resettled by the UN refugee agency in the Western world have been Christian.

    Indeed, Guterres’ UN “refugee” officials preside over camps where Christians are systematically brutalized, beaten, and even murdered by Islamist “refugees.” U.S. taxpayer-funded aid is also doled out by the UN in a highly bigoted and discriminatory manner, bypassing Christians in favor of Muslims. “Since August 2014, other than initial supplies of tents and tarps, the Christian community in Iraq has received nothing in aid from any U.S. aid agencies or the UN,” said Stephen Rasche, the resettlement official for the Chaldean Catholic Archdiocese in Erbil, Iraq.

    As The New American has reported many times, the ancient Christian communities of Iraq and Syria are facing extinction thanks, at least in part, to U.S. and UN policy in the region. Yet Guterres insists that Christians must remain there to be butchered, while potentially radicalized Muslims must be imported to Europe and the United States by the millions, all at taxpayer expense under the auspices of UN officials. In a recent TV interview, Guterres even proposed using airplanes to fly massive numbers of Muslims into Europe from Africa and the Middle East because the optics would be better. He also referred to opposition to his open borders and mass-migration extremism as “irrational.” “Migration is, in my opinion, part of the solution to the global problems,” he claimed.

    The agenda, though, is clear, and it has nothing to do with “protecting refugees” or “humanitarianism.” Guterres and his fellow globalist-socialist extremists are not fooling everyone. In Hungary, for example, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has blasted what he termed a “criminal conspiracy” of internationalist fanatics. In essence, he has argued in multiple speeches that these globalist conspirators, based largely in European Union HQ in Brussels, were using mass Islamic immigration as a weapon to undermine Western civilization, Christendom, and the nation-state on the road toward what globalists often refer to as their “New World Order.”

    He is right, as even top Insiders such as former Goldman Sachs boss and Bilderberg leader Peter Sutherland, in his capacity as UN migration czar, explained publicly. In an interview posted on the UN’s own website, Sutherland said he would urge governments to “recognize that sovereignty is an illusion — that sovereignty is an absolute illusion that has to be put behind us.” He also said “the days of hiding behind borders and fences are long gone.” Westerners must take on “some of the old shibboleths” and “the old historic memories and images of our own country” and realize that we are all “part of humankind.” In other words, no more nations, no more borders — just global totalitarian rule, with people like Sutherland and his extremist cohorts at the helm.


    Not surprisingly, perhaps, outgoing UN boss Ban Ki Moon last year began preparing the way, loudly and repeatedly referring to the dictators club he leads as the “Parliament of Humanity.” He continually referred to the UN’s radical Agenda 2030, meanwhile, which demands national and international socialism and other extremism, as the world’s “Declaration of Interdependence” for “We The Peoples” of the planet. In short, the independence of the United States — and the God-given rights of her people by extension — are under direct assault by the UN and its allies in Washington, D.C., and worldwide.


    Venezuela’s Collapse: Horror Beyond Belief

    Let the father of one of the inmates who was eaten tell his story:

    “One of those who were with him when he was murdered saw everything that happened. My son and two others were taken by 40 people, stabbed, hanged to bleed, and then … butchered … to feed all the detainees. The inmate with whom I spoke to told me that he himself was beaten with a hammer in order to force him to eat the remains of the two boys.”

    It gets worse. According to Humberto Prado, coordinator of the Venezuelan Prison Observatory: “Prisoners have been dismembered … and some inmates have forced other prisoners to eat their own fingers. That happened in a detention center in El Tigre.”

  8. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 10:18 am said:

    ‘Behind Closed Doors, UN “Health” Agency Plots Global Control’

    The United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) will be meeting behind closed doors next month to push more and higher taxes around the world, sparking outrage from journalists, stakeholders, taxpayers, and more. Under the guise of reducing tobacco consumption and raising money for governments, the controversial global “health” outfit’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is also concocting broad policy measures having to do with border security, trade, “public health,” and more. And according to experts, some of those policy prescriptions, ironically, contribute to furthering illicit trade and, by extension, end up helping to fund terrorism. Others will fuel increased tobacco use, experts said.

    The FCTC will be meeting next month in New Delhi, India, to formulate its policy agenda for controlling human behavior under the guise of “health.” Perhaps to avoid the international scandal associated with its 2012 and 2014 meetings, when journalists were forcibly blocked and removed from the proceedings, the UN outfit has made clear in advance that journalists, the public, the affected parties — pretty much everyone — is entirely unwelcome. That is despite the fact that the scheming is funded by taxpayers, and the fact that the policy demands coming out of the meeting will have global implications. The obsessive and paranoid secrecy, though, is not surprising, especially considering that the WHO is controlled by unfree governments and is actually led by Communist Chinese apparatchik Margaret Chan.

    At the top of the agenda for this year’s WHO FCTC meeting, as usual with anything related to the UN, is the promotion of more and higher taxes around the world.

    # # #

    Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) = Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC].

  9. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 11:20 am said:

    ‘Is Google Being Evil? Lying About Helping Hillary?’

    Has Google been stacking its search engine deck against Donald Trump and in favor of Hillary Clinton? Is it front-loading its search results to emphasize negative stories on Trump, while at the same time burying negative stories on Clinton and boosting positive ones on her? That was the charge back in June, and now it’s resurfaced again.


    Second “Debate” Charade: Pre-set Anti-Trump Saturation

    In the 48 hours before the October 9 presidential debate, two major “leak” events occurred: the Trump sex-talk tape and the latest WikiLeaks batch of Clinton e-mails. The former featured lewd, crude, disgusting remarks by Trump from more than a decade ago. The latter featured remarks, speeches, and e-mails by Clinton confirming her dishonesty, duplicity, corruption, greed, hypocrisy, and her disregard of national security, particularly in her commitment to “open borders” and a European Union-style system of hemispheric governance. Of course, we know which leak the controlled media (including Google) obsessed over and which one they ignored for two days leading into the “debate.”

    It has been more of the same following the debate; saturation of “Donald Trump” search returns with page after page of links to articles hyperventilating over his sex talk, but one has to drill down several pages on “Hillary Clinton” searches to get any returns about her extremely damaging WikiLeaks e-mails.

    Google: “Don’t Be Evil”? “Do the Right Thing”?

    But let’s return to motive, which seems to stump Bump of the Washington Post. It’s really not that difficult, Mr. Bump: The folks running the mega-corp known as Google want the same thing as your bosses at the Post; to continue the same path toward centralizing all power in an omnipotent federal government, as an essential step on the road to centralizing all power in an omnipotent world government. Google billionaire Eric Schmidt is a key official advisor to President Obama on economic, technological, and defense matters. Schmidt is not only a member of the world government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) — which Hillary said, while secretary of state, told her what to think and what to do — but also a member of the ultra-secretive and conspiratorial Bilderberg Group. As we reported this past June, the 2016 Bilderberg Group meeting in Dresden, Germany, was clearly aimed at stopping Trump and electing Clinton. Schmidt was one of several key Clinton boosters among the would-be world rulers at that assembly. We noted of him:

    Eric Schmidt — The former chairman of Google and current chairman of its new parent company, Alphabet, Inc., Schmidt (CFR) is ranked by Forbes as the 100th richest person in the world. However, far more important than his personal direct cash contrbutions to Hillary Clinton’s campaign are the assistance he has provided through his stealth organization, The Groundwork, and the pro-Hillary bias allegedly built into Google search operations for which he is now being roundly criticized.

    Then, of course, there is Jared Cohen, who worked closely with Clinton at the State Department to destabilize Egypt, Libya, and the entire Middle East, before moving on to become a senior adjunct fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and CEO of Google Ideas/Jigsaw. However, even after leaving State for the private sector, Cohen has continued to advise Clinton and to assist her campaign, as WikiLeaks e-mails confirm. The leaked e-mails show Cohen coordinating pro-Clinton efforts with Lisa Shields, the head of communications at the CFR and the girlfriend of Google/Alphabet CEO Eric Schmidt.

    Google’s famous motto, “Don’t Be Evil,” has been reduced to shameless rubble by many of the company’s actions over the years, but the blatant pro-Clinton/anti-Trump bias in their search engine and their repeated denial of (lying about) what is patently obvious should qualify as evil in any reasonable, moral person’s book.

    “Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains,” Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page said in a letter to shareholders at their 2004 IPO. “Google users trust our systems to help them with important decisions: medical, financial and many others. Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, and we do not accept payment for them or for inclusion or more frequent updating.… We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see.”

    Google’s new parent company, Alphabet, Inc., has a new motto: “Do the right thing.” Evidently, both mottos are purely for show.

    # # #

    This Google search still turns up the goods:

    WikiLeaks batch of Clinton e-mails.

    Very little MSM analysis so far. Reminds of another email leak some time ago.

  10. Andy on 20/10/2016 at 11:22 am said:

    We live in extraordinary times, when there are two possible outcomes for Clinton: the White House, or prison

  11. Richard Treadgold on 20/10/2016 at 11:26 am said:

    ‘Is Google Being Evil? Lying About Helping Hillary?’
    Do me a favour, as this is nothing to do with the Paris Agreement: summarise this as a short post so the conversation can take place. I’d do it myself but I’m fighting the clock today.


  12. Simon on 20/10/2016 at 12:23 pm said:

    Conspiracy ideation is the last resort of people who can never admit that they are wrong. You never really lose if you fervently believe that the other side has been cheating and conspiring against you.

  13. Richard Treadgold on 20/10/2016 at 12:28 pm said:

    Hi Simon,

    Conspiracy ideation is the last resort of people who can never admit that they are wrong.

    You might be right, but please cite the statement/s you’re responding to, as it’s impossible to know what you’re talking about. Thanks.

  14. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 12:44 pm said:

    >this is nothing to do with the Paris Agreement”


    Look at the players. Look at the agendas. For example from ‘Is Google Being Evil?’:

    “Eric Schmidt [chairman of Google parent company, Alphabet, Inc] is a key official advisor to President Obama on economic, technological, and defense matters. Schmidt is not only a member of the world government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) ……….. ”

    OK, so big on “world government”. So is the UN of course. The Paris Agreement is just a part of the world government jig-saw and has “almost” nothing to do with the environment according to Edenhofer, and for the UN is about re-distributing the world’s wealth by climate policy i.e. global Socialism. But they need more than climate policy for that:

    UN Adopts “Education” Plan to Indoctrinate Children in Globalism

    United Nations Wants Taxing Power

    Now what is Trumps position on these? Ironically, just use Google’s search engine with Trump United Nations and Trump globalisation:

    [Trump] – “The United Nations is not a friend of democracy. It’s not a friend to freedom”. “It’s not a friend even to the United States of America, where as all know, it has its home” and “Globalization is killing the US economy”.

    So obviously Trump is a threat to globalists and global Socialists and they are doing everything in their power to shut him down (with Trump’s past indiscretions helping the effort immensely). The Paris Agreement and climate is not an issue in the US presidential debate and not an issue for Americans but it is vital in global command and control because losing on climate policy means losing on everything else global. Similarly losing to Trump means losing global command and control.

  15. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 12:59 pm said:

    >”Conspiracy ideation”

    Who needs ideation when there’s reality? If you want conspiracy try this from the Clinton emails:

    Clinton Campaign’s anti-Catholic E-mails: Will Catholic Voters React?

    John Podesta responded [to Newman] the following day, writing:

    “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up. I’ll discuss with Tara. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the other person to consult.”

    Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United are two of the many Soros-funded “Catholic” activist groups that push the “progressive” agenda (abortion “rights,” homosexual “marriage,” LBGT K through12 “education,” women priests, etc.) inside the church. The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue describes how Chris Korzen of Catholics United tried to get him kicked off of an appearance on CNN and then initiated an IRS complaint against him (Donohue), in an effort to intimidate. Donohue writes: “See the connection: Podesta creates Catholics United; Soros funds Catholics United; and Catholics United sponsors an IRS complaint against me (after trying to get me kicked off CNN). Their attempt to intimidate me was a monumental failure, but the fact that they tried is what counts.”

    Leaked memo proves George Soros ruled Ukraine in 2014, minutes from “Breakfast with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt”

    # # #

    Trump on CNN – “Clinton’s News Network”.

  16. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 1:17 pm said:


    >”Richard, ‘Is Google Being Evil? Lying About Helping Hillary?’ Do me a favour, as this is nothing to do with the Paris Agreement:”

    I watch a ‘Climate Science’ category in Google News, among others:

    The Equation: Blog of the Union of Concerned Scientists (blog) and The Guardian go immediately to top of list (see search) and “stick” there. Basically the Left’s perspective and I watch to see the latest tripe being promulgated.

    The odd contrarian article appears but you have to scroll down to find any and read quick because it wont be there for long.

  17. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 2:50 pm said:

    >”He [Ban Ki-moon] continually referred to the UN’s radical Agenda 2030, meanwhile, which demands national and international socialism and other extremism, as the world’s “Declaration of Interdependence” for “We The Peoples” of the planet.”

    Try this Google search:

    Agenda 2030 national and international socialism


    UN Agenda 2030: A Recipe for Global Socialism

    ‘2030 Agenda’: Latest UN Plan for World Government

    UN global ‘action plan’ indoctrinates children on wealth distribution. government healthcare and legal abortion

    United Nations Agenda 2030 (aka Agenda 21) is blueprint for total global enslavement by 2030

    Global Socialism: U.N. 2030 Agenda includes 17 goals that aim for the re-ordering of all human activity

    Obama Agrees To New UN Development Plan To Convert U.S. To A Socialist Nation By 2010


    UN´s One World Government Agenda 2030 – and What It Really Means: Communist Transformation of Our World – October 2, 2015

    While the eyes of the world were directed towards acts of war in the Middle East and the Ukraine, something more gigantic has taken place at the UN in New York: All countries of the world as well as the Pope have unanimously hailed the Communist New World order of Adam Weishaupt´s/Mayer Amschel Rothschild!

    Since 1992 and the terrible Rio Conference, where Edmund de Rothschild had 179 countries adopt his idea for one world government by means his Masonic errand boy, the UN Deputy Secretary-General and thief (stole from the United Nations, inter alia, 1 million dollars from the “Food for Oil” program), Maurice Strong, The New World Order (NWO) has a name: Agenda 21 – and it was adopted by the UN plenary assembly in 2013. This agenda means the crowding of people in megacities – like battery hens – without access to nature = Rothschilds mineral treasure Wildernesses. This Agenda 21 has now been signed by 183 countries – and is nothing but the One World Government of the Rothschild corporations: The Super capitalists want to suppress the masses by means of a huge lie based on world communist eco-dictatorship – and to reduce their number to 500 million.

    That the UN Agenda 2030’s 17 so-called “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) and its accompanying 169 targets are essentially a recipe for global socialism and corporatism is hardly open for dispute, as countless analysts have pointed out in recent weeks.

    Goal number 10, for example, calls on the UN, national governments, and every person on Earth to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” To do that, the agreement continues, will “only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.” The brutal communist dictatorship ruling mainland China even boasted of its “crucial role” in creating the UN agenda.

    But as the UN document makes clear, national socialism to “combat inequality” domestically is simply not enough — international socialism is needed to battle inequality even “among” countries.
    In other words, Western taxpayers: Prepare to be fleeced so that your wealth can redistributed to the UN and Third World regimes — not the victims of those regimes, impoverished largely through domestic socialist policies imposed by the same corrupt regimes that will be propped up with more Western aid.

    # # #

    Rio spawned, via the WMO, the UN FCCC and IPCC. But those are bit players in globalism and global Socialism goals, which although disparate, have “global” in common obviously.

    Hence the divisions e.g. Clinton vs Trump, which I’m listening to right now.

  18. Simon on 20/10/2016 at 4:14 pm said:

    Some examples of conspiracy ideation:
    UN Agenda 2030, Google bias in favour of left wing media, Catholic manipulation of USA politics, George Soros ruling the Ukraine, UN run by socialist extremists,….

  19. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 4:22 pm said:

    ‘Why There Is Trump’ – by Tyler Durden (Zero Hedge)

    It’s over! The entire model our societies have been based on for at least as long as we ourselves have lived, is over! That’s why there’s Trump.

    There is no growth. There hasn’t been any real growth for years. All there is left are empty hollow sunshiny S&P stock market numbers propped up with ultra cheap debt and buybacks, and employment figures that hide untold millions hiding from the labor force. And most of all there’s debt, public as well as private, that has served to keep an illusion of growth alive and now increasingly no longer can.

    These false growth numbers have one purpose only: for the public to keep the incumbent powers that be in their plush seats. But they could always ever only pull the curtain of Oz over people’s eyes for so long, and it’s no longer so long.

    That’s what the ascent of Trump means, and Brexit, Le Pen, and all the others. It’s over. What has driven us for all our lives has lost both its direction and its energy.

    We are smack in the middle of the most important global development in decades, in some respects arguably even in centuries, a veritable revolution, which will continue to be the most important factor to shape the world for years to come, and I don’t see anybody talking about it. That has me puzzled.

    The development in question is the end of global economic growth, which will lead inexorably to the end of centralization (including globalization). It will also mean the end of the existence of most, and especially the most powerful, international institutions.

    In the same way it will be the end of -almost- all traditional political parties, which have ruled their countries for decades and are already today at or near record low support levels (if you’re not clear on what’s going on, look there, look at Europe!)

    This is not a matter of what anyone, or any group of people, might want or prefer, it’s a matter of ‘forces’ that are beyond our control, that are bigger and more far-reaching than our mere opinions, even though they may be man-made.

    Tons of smart and less smart folks are breaking their heads over where Trump and Brexit and Le Pen and all these ‘new’ and scary things and people and parties originate, and they come up with little but shaky theories about how it’s all about older people, and poorer and racist and bigoted people, stupid people, people who never voted, you name it.

    But nobody seems to really know or understand. Which is odd, because it’s not that hard. That is, this all happens because growth is over. And if growth is over, so are expansion and centralization in all the myriad of shapes and forms they come in.

    Global is gone as a main driving force, pan-European is gone, and whether the United States will stay united is far from a done deal. We are moving towards a mass movement of dozens of separate countries and states and societies looking inward. All of which are in some form of -impending- trouble or another.

    What makes the entire situation so hard to grasp for everyone is that nobody wants to acknowledge any of this. Even though tales of often bitter poverty emanate from all the exact same places that Trump and Brexit and Le Pen come from too.

    That the politico-econo-media machine churns out positive growth messages 24/7 goes some way towards explaining the lack of acknowledgement and self-reflection, but only some way. The rest is due to who we ourselves are. We think we deserve eternal growth.

    And of course it’s confusing that the protests against the ‘old regimes’ and the growth and centralization -first- manifest in the rise of faces and voices who do not reject all of the above offhand. That is to say, the likes of Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage may be against more centralization, but none of them has a clue about growth being over. They don’t get that part anymore than Hillary or Hollande or Merkel do.

    So why these people? Look closer and you see that in the US, UK and France, there is nobody left who used to speak for the ‘poor and poorer’. While at the same time, the numbers of poor and poorer increase at a rapid clip. They just have nowhere left to turn to. There is literally no left left.

    Dems in the US, Labour in the UK, and Hollande’s ‘Socialists’ in France have all become part of the two-headed monster that is the political center, and that is (held) responsible for the deterioration in people’s lives. Moreover, at least for now, the actual left wing may try to stand up in the form of Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders, but they are both being stangled by the two-headed monster’s fake left in their countries and their own parties.

    Donald Trump, and I say this mere hours after the first debate, may still lose the election, but it doesn’t truly matter. He’s just the figure head -dare we say bobble head?- for a development, even a revolution, that he doesn’t control any more than you and I do. He’s got a role to play but he didn’t write it.

    If he wins, his program too, like all the others, will be targeted towards more growth, and there’s no such thing available. And while in a no-growth scenario it’ll be a good thing for America to bring jobs back home, as is trump’s message, they won’t spell anything that even comes close to growth.

    ‘Leaders’ such as Trump and Le Pen can only be seen as intermediate figures necessary for nations, and indeed the world, to adapt to an entirely different paradigm. One that is at best based on consolidation, on trying not to lose too much, instead of trying to conquer the world.

    But also one that is likely to lead to warfare and mayhem, because nobody’s been willing to address even the possibility of no more growth, and therefore everyone will be looking to squeeze growth out of any available place, starting with their neighbors, and the globe’s weakest. It’s the Roman empire all over again, where the core strangled the periphery ever harder until the Barbarians and the Visigoths decided it was enough and then some.

    That is the meaning of Donald Trump, and of Brexit. You’re not going to understand these things without taking a few steps back, and without looking at history, and especially without acknowledging the possibility that, in economics, perpetual growth may indeed be what physics has always said it was: an impossible pipedream.

    Trump has a role to play in this whether he wins the election or not. He’s the big red flashing American warning sign that the increase in poverty that has so far been felt only among those who it has hit, will shake the familiar political landscape on its foundations, and that this landscape will never return.

    Look at European political parties established for decades and you see the exact same thing. Only there you often have other ‘escape valves’, because new parties are easier to form and get onto national forums. But it’s still the same thing.

    Centralization, globalization, UN, NATO, IMF, all these ‘principles’ and organizations will see their influence and support dwindle, and rapidly. It’s really over. Debt did it. Or rather, our doomed mission to hide our downfall behind a veil of ever more debt did.

    And Donald Trump has a role to play in that. If Hillary wins, it’ll only be more, and ever more, and spastically more, attempts to convince everyone that more globalization is the way to go, and that going to war with Putin and sending young Americans into battle in fields lost before they enter is the way of the future.

    Both will be failures. All we really get to do is try to decide who may be the lesser failure.

    But anyway, that’s where Trump comes from, and he doesn’t understand the half of it. Trump is there because everything else failed. And he will fail too, win or lose.

    # # #

    >”Centralization, globalization, UN……..”

    The UN in this? See why the ‘United Nations Wants Taxing Power’ from upthread next comment

  20. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 4:43 pm said:

    >”Centralization, globalization, UN……..” The UN in this? See why the ‘United Nations Wants Taxing Power’

    ‘United Nations Wants Taxing Power’ [on sporting events, concerts, etc]


    What would such taxes pay for?

    In 2010, the U.S supplied $26 billion for the UN’s peacekeeping operations, $1.5 billion for the UN’s World Food Program, and $0.7 billion for the refugee program. Each of these expenditures was beyond regular dues payments.

    Right now, the United States pays the UN about $8 billion in dues and voluntary payments, far more than any other country. We pay 22 percent of the UN’s operating budget and 28 percent of the peacekeeping budget. As one observer noted, that’s more than the combined total supplied to the UN by 176 of its member nations. (There are 193 member nations in the UN.)

    A Heritage Foundation examination of the UN’s efforts in combating humanitarian crises found: 1) the UN’s aid efforts ranked among the worst in efficiency; 2) mismanagement, fraud and corruptionare common in peacekeeping operations; and 3) UN personnel have been accused of sexual abuses in at least a dozen nations where they were sent.

    In 2006, a Procurement Task Force established to investigate UN operations uncovered fraud, waste and shoddy management that led to firings and convictions of some UN officials. But the Procurement Task Force was abolished two years later. Nobody else is watching the UN’s operations with the result that no more incidents of such corruption have been discovered.

    As discouraging as all of this truly is, the possibility of the UN having its own taxing ability is frightening. What should be done before the UN gains such power becomes more obvious every day. Withdrawal from the UN is the answer, just as it has been the answer for decades.

    # # #

    The UN is reliant on Capitalist US for its existence. But the UN is Socialist to the core now. So a dilemma.

    Hence: Obama Agrees To New UN Development Plan [Agenda 2030] To Convert U.S. To A Socialist Nation and the necessity for a direct UN revenue stream from global taxation that is untainted by evil US Capitalist beneficence, itself on the skids..

  21. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 5:07 pm said:

    [Simon] – >”Some examples of conspiracy ideation: UN Agenda 2030, Google bias in favour of left wing media, Catholic manipulation of USA politics, George Soros ruling the Ukraine, UN run by socialist extremists,….”

    Which, if you delete the redundant “ideation”, is just as (some of those) examples reported upthread. You got “Catholic manipulation of USA politics” dead wrong BTW Simon – read upthtread again. The article was ‘Clinton Campaign’s anti-Catholic E-mails’ and reported Soros-funded infiltration and manipulation in US Catholic affairs.

    To deny those examples as just “ideas” is to deny the reality of what is hiding in plain sight right before your eyes. If you don’t think Guterres is a Socialist extremist then you have not been paying attention. See upthread here:

    ‘New UN Chief [Guterres]: Globalist, Socialist, Extremist’

  22. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 5:20 pm said:

    >”To deny those examples as just “ideas” is to deny the reality of what is hiding in plain sight right before your eyes.”

    Not a hope in the wide world of drilling down for truth either. Soviet citizens became experts in that:

    ‘Reading between the lines in Pravda’

    Although Pravda’s content was tightly controlled by its editors, it was not impossible to discern truth from the newspaper. Many readers became sophisticated in guessing at the truth. The phrasing of a news item was often an important clue when guessing about the real meaning. The most newsworthy items were usually mentioned briefly and placed in obscure sections of the paper; oftentimes, the back pages of the paper contained more real news than the front pages. Bad news that happened inside the Soviet Union was usually not mentioned directly; instead, the paper would fabricate a series of similiar disasters occurring in other nations.

  23. Andy on 20/10/2016 at 6:07 pm said:

    Join the NZ “climathon”

    No this isn’t a climbing and running multi sport event

  24. Andy on 20/10/2016 at 6:47 pm said:

    Funny how Simon’s ideas about “conspiracy ideation” closely align with my idea of “facts”

    I’m not sure about Soros running the Ukraine. However his family had a history of turning over Jews to the Nazis (despite being Jewish himself) and there is some evidence of him financing various Leftist groups like BLM

    As for the UN, they are a motley crew of socialists and Islamic Supremacists. I don’t see too many free market types in the organisation, which is hardly surprising

    Please take me to the gulag. I heard Madonna is offering sexual favours for voting for Hillary. I can’t quite cope with that thanks anyway

  25. Dennis N Horne on 20/10/2016 at 7:30 pm said:
    Data shows September was the warmest in modern temperature monitoring following months of record-breaking anomalies this year. Nasa has all but declared this year to be the hottest yet recorded, after September narrowly turned out the warmest in modern temperature monitoring.

    Last month was 0.91C above the average temperature for that time of year from 1951 to 1980, the benchmark used for measuring rises. The new findings follow record-breaking monthly anomalies throughout this year, leading the agency to believe that because of the highs reported so far, 2016 will take the crown as warmest in the 136 years of modern data-keeping.

    Last year was the hottest year since modern records began, brought about in part by a strong El Niño event, a Pacific weather system that can affect sea and air temperatures around the world, but also by strong underlying trends. Schmidt said earlier this year, when 2015’s status was confirmed, that it would have been the warmest year even without the El Niño.

    July 2016 was the hottest single month since instruments have been reliably used to measure temperature, followed by a similar effect in August.

    This year’s heat has continued to be affected by the tail-end of the El Niño weather phenomenon, as although the system has now dissipated, air temperatures tend to lag behind by several months.

    If a new temperature record is set for 2016, it will confirm the longer term trends of climate change. This in turn will help scientists to counter claims from global warming sceptics that the rise in global temperatures has “paused” and therefore that climate change is not a threat.

  26. Andy on 20/10/2016 at 7:54 pm said:

    “Warmest ever …..”


    Is my response

  27. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 8:08 pm said:


    >”I’m not sure about Soros running the Ukraine”

    I linked to an article upthread that documents Soros’ Ukraine influence circa 2014. “Conspiracy ideation” apparently, according to Simon. Odd, because I see Soros’ IRF minutes which speak for themselves but also commentary and interpretation of such which is little more than stating-the-obvious.

    Leaked memo proves George Soros ruled Ukraine in 2014, minutes from “Breakfast with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt”

    The power and control that George Soros held over Ukraine after the Maidan is beyond belief.

    We noted in a previous post [hotlink – see below] how important Ukraine was to George Soros, with documents from DC Leaks that show Soros, and his Open Society NGO, scouring the Greek media and political landscape to push the benefits of his Ukraine coup upon a Russian leaning Greek society.

    Now more documents, in the massive 2,500 leaked tranche, show the immense power and control Soros had over Ukraine immediately following the illegal Maidan government overthrow.

    Soros and his NGO executives held detailed and extensive meetings with just about every actor involved in the Maidan coup…from US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, to Ukraine’s Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Justice, Health, and Education.


    Soros NGO, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) plays a key role in the formation of the “New Ukraine”…the term Soros frequently uses when referring to his Ukraine project.

    In a document titled, “Breakfast with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt”, George Soros, (aka GS), discusses Ukraine’s future with:

    Geoffrey Pyatt (US Ambassador to Ukraine); David Meale (Economic Counsellor to the Ambassador); Lenny Benardo (OSF); Yevhen Bystrytsky (Executive Director, IRF); Oleksandr Sushko (Board Chair, IRF); Ivan Krastev (Chariman, Centre for Liberal Studies); Sabine Freizer (OSF); Deff Barton (Director, USAID, Ukraine)


    Full PDF of the 2014 George Soros minutes can be downloaded here: -Ukraine Working Group 2014-gs ukraine visitmarch 2014note. [“Breakfast with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt”]

    The meeting minutes documented present a clear and conclusive case that George Soros and his International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) manipulated Ukraine into moving towards an untenable and self destructive direction.

    [See quotes from “Breakfast with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt”] >>>>>

    ‘Leaked memo shows George Soros worked to push Greece to support Ukraine coup, paint Russia as enemy’

    Last week we reported on the DC Leaks hack [hotlink – see below] of what was over 2,500 documents detailing how George Soros and his NGOs influence world leaders, drive foreign policy, and help to create unrest in sovereign nations, that many times leads to chaos and civil war.

    One country of particular focus for George Soros and his NGOs is Ukraine.

    It is now accepted fact that Soros was deeply involved in the Maiden protests in 2014 and the violent coup, that saw a democratically elected government overthrown in the name of “EU values”.

    George Soros’ NGOs exposed manipulating EU elections in 2,500 document hack from DC Leaks

    Going through the George Soros leaked email cache is some scary stuff.

    The Hungarian Billionaire and his NGOs wield immense power, and the documents that are being shared by DC Leaks show how Soros topples governments and incites civil wars so he can make huge financial profits.

    This is an immense trove of Soros NGO minutes, white papers, excel budgets, and media plans that details how Soros and his NGOs run governments and financial institutions from behind the curtain.

    You can find the complete, searchable, files at the DCLeaks website., which describe Soros and his network of NGOs as having “slaves spill blood of millions and millions people just to make him even more rich.”

    George Soros is a Hungarian-American business magnate, investor, philanthropist, political activist and author who is of Hungarian-Jewish ancestry and holds dual citizenship. He drives more than 50 global and regional programs and foundations. Soros is named as the architect and sponsor of almost every revolution and coup around the world for the last 25 years. Thanks to him and his puppets USA is thought to be a vampire, not a lighthouse of freedom and democracy. His slaves spill blood of millions and millions people just to make him even more rich. Soros is an oligarch sponsoring Democratic party, Hillary Clinton, hundreds of politicians all over the world. This website is designed to let everyone take a look at restricted documents of George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and related organisations. It represents workplans, strategies, priorities and other activities of Soros. These documents shed light on one of the most influential network operating worldwide.

    Here is a full list of Soros NGOs manipulating elections in all EU member states, complete with goals of the project, contact persons and grant amounts.

    # # #

    “Soros is an oligarch sponsoring Democratic party, Hillary Clinton, ……” – ’nuff said.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 8:28 pm said:


    >”Please take me to the gulag.”

    You’ll be in good company. I’ve read some of Solzhenitsyn’s books and short stories, e.g. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, Cancer Ward, The Gulag Archipelago.

    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    When denied writing material he memorized by poetry and rosary beads. Each bead corresponding to every tenth line so that he could memorize 20,000 lines. For example from Wiki above:

    “The narrative poem The Trail (written without benefit of pen or paper in prison and camps between 1947 and 1952) and the 28 poems composed in prison, forced-labour camp, and exile also provide crucial material for understanding Solzhenitsyn’s intellectual and spiritual odyssey during this period. These “early” works, largely unknown in the West, were published for the first time in Russian in 1999 and excerpted in English in 2006.”

    Needless to say, but Dennis’ “poetry” doesn’t rate with me.

  29. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 8:58 pm said:

    >“Soros is an oligarch sponsoring Democratic party, Hillary Clinton, ……”

    Trump brought up Soros’ tax and his support for Hillary in the debate today in response to Hillary’s Trump tax accusations (Trump – “She should have changed the law”).

    Also brought up Clinton Foundation dealings, particularly Haiti (Clinton – “the Clinton Foundation did GREAT work” in Haiti). Plenty on this, just search – clinton foundation haiti hated

    Clinton Foundation ‘fraud began with exploiting earthquake’ – Wall Street analyst divulges his probe’s latest findings!

    Haitians at DNC: ‘We Hate Hillary’; She ‘Belongs in Jail’

  30. Richard Treadgold on 20/10/2016 at 9:30 pm said:


    Data shows September was the warmest in modern temperature monitoring following months of record-breaking anomalies this year. Nasa has all but declared this year to be the hottest yet recorded, after September narrowly turned out the warmest in modern temperature monitoring.

    Heard of El Nino? Gavin Schmidt has. But he still waffles on about September “coming in at a razor-thin 0.004C above the previous high for the time of year.” What nonsense. That 0.004 °C is no different from zero.

    Here’s the latest UAH graph showing the 2016 temperature going up and coming straight back down again under the influence of the largest El Nino ever recorded (as far as I’m aware). It hasn’t got any warmer!

    UAH MSU global temperature anomaly Sept 2016

  31. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 9:50 pm said:

    [Guardian] >”If a new temperature record is set for 2016, it will confirm the longer term trends of climate change. This in turn will help scientists to counter claims from global warming sceptics that the rise in global temperatures has “paused” and therefore that climate change is not a threat.”

    Well yes, they REALLY need that El Nino data for their “long-term trend”. The El Nino being a natural phenomenon that has been and gone but still resident in the historical data. Also complicating the picture are the transient Arctic and Antarctic spikes, the latter being the most recent uptick.

    But the data records both El Nino AND La Nina events, which cannot be compared to models on an apples-to-apples basis. Even GISS makes that clear:

    September 2016 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Update – Bob Tisdale / October 18, 2016


    As noted above, the models in this post are represented by the CMIP5 multi-model mean (historic through 2005 and RCP8.5 forcings afterwards), which are the climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report.

    Considering the uptick in surface temperatures in 2014, 2015 and now 2016 (see the posts here and here), government agencies that supply global surface temperature products have been touting “record high” combined global land and ocean surface temperatures. Alarmists happily ignore the fact that it is easy to have record high global temperatures in the midst of a hiatus or slowdown in global warming, and they have been using the recent record highs to draw attention away from the difference between observed global surface temperatures and the IPCC climate model-based projections of them.

    There are a number of ways to present how poorly climate models simulate global surface temperatures. Normally they are compared in a time-series graph. See the example in Figure 10. In that example, the UKMO HadCRUT4 land+ocean surface temperature reconstruction is compared to the multi-model mean of the climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive, which was used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report. The reconstruction and model outputs have been smoothed with 61-month running-mean filters to reduce the monthly variations. The climate science community commonly uses a 5-year running-mean filter (basically the same as a 61-month filter) to minimize the impacts of El Niño and La Niña events, as shown on the GISS webpage here [hotlink – see below]. Using a 5-year running mean filter has been commonplace in global temperature-related studies for decades.

    Figure 10

    It’s very hard to overlook the fact that, over the past decade, climate models are simulating way too much warming…even with the small recent El Niño-related uptick in the data.

    GISS Surface Temperature Analysis [see red and blue 5-yr running means in L-OTI]

    Another 2 and half years and the 62-month running-mean graph (Figure 10) will be back to where it was prior to 2010 i.e. claims there is no “pause” are somewhat premature.

    And as Tiisdale remarks, way too much model warming “…even with the small recent El Niño-related uptick in the data”.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 10:13 pm said:

    [Guardian] >”If a new temperature record is set for 2016, it will confirm the longer term trends of climate change.”

    Warmies preferring a LINEAR “long-term trend” these days of course, but unrepresentative of the data. The UAH trend in RT’s graph being a NON-linear 37 month average and Tisdale’s trend a NON-linear 62-month running-mean.

    And yes, moving averages and running means are trend techniques. All you see in Salinger’s early papers.

  33. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2016 at 11:21 pm said:

    By sheer coincidence, my regular read Automatic Earth’s photo of the day:

    KKK parade on Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC 1925

    From the Washington Post’s report: “Phantom-like hosts of the Ku Klux Klan spread their white robe over the nation’s most historic thoroughfare yesterday in one of the greatest demonstrations this city has ever known. . . . Police estimated that there were 30,000-35,000 in the weird procession — men, women and children of the Klan.”

  34. Dennis N Horne on 21/10/2016 at 7:43 am said:

    So. UAH shows it was hot and the trend is upwards. Satellites count photons from excited oxygen molecules up in the atmosphere, thermometers measure temperatures near the ground. The satellite data need a lot of manipulation and UAH don’t publish it. Can’t hide the relentless warming.

    More CO2 more energy retained. Predicted. Observed. Measured.

    Too bad for de Freitas, de Lange, de niers.

  35. Richard C (NZ) on 21/10/2016 at 9:11 am said:

    >”So. UAH shows it was hot and the trend is upwards.”

    Warmy trends are always “upwards” Dennis. But how do you explain 2013 on the UAH trend line being LOWER than 2002 ?

    Besides, “MODEL-DATA COMPARISON & DIFFERENCE”. That’s what’s critical in respect to rampant theoretical CO2 forcing. Did you miss that ?

    Apparently the CO2 forcing theory is BUSTED.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on 21/10/2016 at 9:29 am said:

    UN Paris climate deal ‘is likely to be history’s most expensive treaty’ – ‘Cost of between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually’


    Even more insidiously, doom-mongering makes us panic and seize upon the wrong responses to global warming. At a cost of between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually, the Paris climate agreement, recently ratified by China, is likely to be history’s most expensive treaty. It will slow the world’s economic growth to force a shift to inefficient green energy sources.

    This will achieve almost nothing. My peer-reviewed research, published last November in the journal Global Policy, shows that even if every nation were to fulfill all their carbon-cutting promises by 2030 and stick to them all the way through the century—at a cost of more than $100 trillion in lost GDP—global temperature rise would be reduced by a tiny 0.3°F (0.17°C).

    Tackling issues like poverty, health care, corruption and domestic violence would do even more. Those who seek to help should keep the bigger picture in mind.

  37. Richard C (NZ) on 21/10/2016 at 10:04 am said:

    As Media Credibility Dies, Obama Announces War on Free Press

    Expressing nostalgia for the days when just three establishment-controlled propaganda organs dominated the public narrative, President Obama lashed out at what he called the “wild, wild west” media landscape that allows non-establishment voices and viewpoints to be heard. Claiming that “censorship” would not be the answer, Obama called for Americans to submit to a vaguely defined (presumably government-run) “curating function” that would help “discard” unapproved information. Critics, though, warned that an increasingly desperate establishment was plotting all-out war on freedom of the press and the free Internet.

    # # #

    Why stop there?

    Also upthread,

    To Battle “Trolls,” Establishment Wages War on Internet Freedom

  38. Richard Treadgold on 21/10/2016 at 10:46 am said:


    UAH shows it was hot and the trend is upwards.

    I must say your cherry-picking is starting to irritate me. Also your penchant for changing the subject when we answer something you say. Remember, I cited the UAH graph following nonsensical comments you passed on from the Guardian of how very hot it is. It’s not been hot, it has been well within natural variability. The graph shows the temperature has been fluctuating, though both the Guardian and you try to give the impression of constant rise. It also shows that every point of high temperature is followed instantly by a falling temperature, meaning that it doesn’t stay warm, it’s just fluctuating. It’s wrong to claim this UAH record’s “trend” is upwards. What period are you talking about?

    Satellites count photons from excited oxygen molecules up in the atmosphere,

    The science behind this process is well accepted, including the process for obtaining temperatures at different altitudes. For example, this is a brief discussion of it at Real Climate when they were trying to iron out some of the early problems.

    The satellite data need a lot of manipulation and UAH don’t publish it.

    Don’t make stuff up, Dennis, it does you no favours. There’s some mathematics to be done before we get temperatures from microwave measurements, but there’s a lot of scrutiny of the process, too. Christy and Spencer don’t work in a vacuum, just as dentists and doctors don’t. Here’s a discussion on Wikipedia.

    Here’s a paper on the process (a kind of quality assurance examination) from an engineer with the IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. This is the abstract:

    The microwave sounding unit (MSU) on the NOAA series of polar-orbiting environmental satellites is a four-channel Dicke radiometer making passive measurements with the channels centered at 50.30, 53.74, 54.96, and 57.95 GHz, respectively. Onboard blackbody and cold space calibrations are performed once every 25.6 seconds for each scan line. The MSU data are extensively used for atmospheric temperature retrieval and climatological studies. After the launch of the NOAA-12 satellite on May 14, 1991, it was observed that the system gain in channel 2 decreased by approximately a factor of 2 from its pre-launch value and that it required a special correction to the pre-launch calibration coefficients for channel 2. Recently, it was discovered that the pre-launch calibration coefficients may be inaccurate because of an error found in the MSU manufacturer’s computer software that has used to process the thermal-vacuum chamber test data for the pre-launch calibration. In this study, the author reprocessed the pre-launch calibration data and obtained a new set of nonlinearity coefficients, which can be used to generate more accurately the atmospheric brightness temperatures. The author also examined some in-orbit MSU data, particularly, the blackbody and cold space counts used for onboard calibrations. In addition, the in-orbit variation of the temperatures of the Dicke loads and the blackbody targets monitored by the platinum resistance thermometers (PRT’s) was also investigated. This provides us a better understanding of the MSU in-orbit data. Test cases show that antenna temperatures generated from the new nonlinearity coefficients can be 0.5 K lower than the current operationally retrieved atmospheric temperatures. Alternative calibration algorithms for modeling the MSU nonlinear contributions are also explored. Calculated results show that the antenna temperatures will be further reduced if the alternative calibration algorithms are employed. The results from this study may be used to improve the accuracy of temperature retrievals from the NOAA-12 MSU data.

    As you can see, the problems are laid out in all their naked majesty, nothing hidden. This paper isn’t written by Christy or Spencer (though plenty are!), and it’s obvious that the process is being independently examined.

    Here’s a paper by Christy and Spencer, a little old now, but it shows they publish! Don’t make stuff up! You can find the more recent papers if you’re really interested in knowing about them. This is the end of the abstract:

    Recent suggestions that spurious jumps were present in the lower-tropospheric time series of earlier versions of the MSU data based on SST comparisons are addressed. Using independent comparisons of different satellites, radiosondes, and night marine air temperatures, no indication is found of the presence of these “spurious” jumps.

    Note that not only do they acknowledge criticism of the then-new satellite temperature record, they step up to the plate by addressing and resolving the problems. You must stop saying they didn’t do that.


    That’s just the problem, isn’t it? Because most of the models are over-cooking the temperatures. Models are running about 1.7 times warmer than observations. That’s a very large over-estimate which casts grave doubt on the likelihood of future catastrophe. The IPCC itself acknowledges in AR5 that about 111 of about 120 models overstate future temperatures. You can’t deny that.

    Too bad for de Freitas, de Lange, de niers.

    Oh, Dennis. You’re clever, but use your skill to denigrate and you will be banned from here. It’s becoming tiresome. Put it to work discovering the truth. Put the rancour aside.

  39. Dennis N Horne on 21/10/2016 at 2:49 pm said:

    You want the truth? That’s easy. The truth comes from the global community of scientists. We’re looking at 2C and several metres of sea level rise.

    Lindzen, Curry, Christy, Spencer, Carter, de Freitas and de Lange are of no consequence whatsoever.

  40. Magoo on 21/10/2016 at 4:55 pm said:

    Lindzen, Curry, Christy, Spencer, Carter, de Freitas and de Lange aren’t the only ones though, are they dear boy:

    What is of ‘no consequence whatsoever’ is pro AGW alarmist viewpoints that are not supported by empirical evidence.

    Oh sorry, I forgot to mention these 31,487 scientists as well (just from the USA, I wonder how many worldwide there are, let alone those too afraid to comment due to repercussions such as loss of funding):

    I suggest you answer RT’s questions and stick to the subject for once dear boy, you’re probably about to get banished from CCG for trolling.

    ‘We’re looking at 2C and several metres of sea level rise.’ – ROFLMAO!! You really are hilarious dear boy, always good for a chuckle.

  41. Andy on 21/10/2016 at 5:11 pm said:

    RCP 8.5 projects temperatures higher than 2 degrees and sea level rises less than “several metres” over a century timescale

    So the numbers presented by Dennis are a little inconsistent with worst case IPCC projections

  42. Dennis N Horne on 21/10/2016 at 5:21 pm said:

    31,487 scientists…

    Keep clutching at straws you’ll soon have enough for a straw man.

    Only the desperate believe a heap of nobodies, representing a fraction of 1% of total graduates, counters the consensus of climate scientists and the balance of informed opinion.

    Where is the alternative explanation for the warming? Where are the published papers? The Nobel Prize?

    Pathetic drivel backed with conspiracy nonsense.

    To all intents and purposes it’s business as usual; doing nothing to stop more than 2C and several metres of sea level up.

    Denialism explained:

  43. Magoo on 21/10/2016 at 5:34 pm said:

    ‘Where is the alternative explanation for the warming? Where are the published papers? The Nobel Prize?’

    How about the empirical evidence in the IPCC AR5 showing all the climate models failing against the empirical temperature datasets, and no positive feedback from water vapour. That’s published papers AND a Nobel Prize dear boy – don’t you believe them, why not?

    No need for an alternative explanation, especially as the warming doesn’t depart from previously observed natural warming.

  44. Richard Treadgold on 21/10/2016 at 5:36 pm said:

    Hear, hear, Magoo!

  45. Andy on 21/10/2016 at 5:36 pm said:

    Pathetic drivel backed with conspiracy nonsense.

    More projection.
    Apparently, there is a huge global conspiracy by the fossil fuel industry to “confuse” the public about climate change

    That is news to me.

  46. Dennis N Horne on 22/10/2016 at 8:30 am said:
    Exxon boss: climate change is ‘real’ and ‘serious’
    The company is accused of ignoring its own climate change science for years.

    Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson said Wednesday the company backs a price on carbon and believes climate change brings “real” risks that require “serious” action.

    Tillerson’s comments come amidst accusations that Exxon Mobil, the world’s largest listed oil and gas company, for years ignored company scientists who warned about climate change as early as 1977. The company has also been accused of funding climate science denial groups.

    Since the story broke in 2015, multiple state attorneys general, led by New York AG Eric Schneiderman, and organizations have subpoenaed the company to give investigators 40 years of documents on research findings and communications about climate change.

    Organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) … claims that as recently as 2015, Tillerson said the world should improve its understanding of climate science before acting, and that he’s asserted climate models are inaccurate. The advocacy organization also notes Exxon is still associated with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a free-market lobbying group that has worked to kill renewable energy programs, and teach climate denial in schools.

    On Wednesday, Tillerson avoided the most recent controversy, but said that since 2006, Exxon has been committed to doing the “right thing the right way.”

    You’re allowed to change your minds too, guys. No need to admit you’re wrong or apologise…

  47. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 10:23 am said:

    >”You’re allowed to change your minds too, guys.” [re Exxon]

    That’s the thing Dennis: Exxon Mobil hasn’t changed its corporate mind. Schneiderman and Healey’s conspiracy theory has no substance:

    NY Attorney General Says Exxon Using ‘Dark Money’ To Fight Climate Change Crusade


    Judge Says Massachusetts AG’s Exxon Probe Done In ‘Bad Faith’ [Judge Ed Kinkeade – see below]
    Read more:

    Anti-Exxon NY AG Raked In $264,000 From Some Of The Company’s Biggest Rivals
    Read more:

    Dem AG Desperately Tries To Reboot Exxon Investigation
    Read more:

    More follows

  48. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 10:24 am said:

    Exxon asks court to toss out New York State’s climate change case – Oct 17, 2016

    Exxon Mobil Corp asked a federal court on Monday to throw out a subpoena from New York State that would force the oil company to hand over decades of documents as part of a wide-ranging inquiry into whether it misled investors about climate change risks.

    The filing means Exxon has now requested the U.S. District Court in Fort Worth, Texas for injunctions against two major climate subpoenas: one issued by New York and another from Massachusetts that the company challenged in June.

    Exxon, which for more than a decade has acknowledged the risks of climate change, has criticized the prosecutors’ inquiries as politically motivated.

    A group of state attorneys general, led by New York, said in March they would go after the world’s largest publicly traded oil company for allegedly violating securities laws by soft-pedaling the dangers of climate change and efforts to fight it.

    Judge Ed Kinkeade has yet to rule on Exxon’s requests in the high-profile case.

    But in a statement to the court last week, Kinkeade said he would be concerned if there was “bias or prejudgement about what the investigation of Exxon would discover” when Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey issued her subpoena.

    Her office was not immediately available for comment on Monday.

    Eric Soufer, spokesman for New York State’s attorney general, accused Exxon of forum-shopping.

    “Exxon will do everything in its power to distract, delay, and avoid any investigation into its actions, which may have violated state securities and consumer fraud laws. Exxon’s latest claims in its stunt litigation in Texas are meritless,” he said.

    On Friday, New York filed in a New York court to derail Exxon’s latest request.

    In its filing, Exxon said New York’s inquiry has periodically shifted focus, first by looking for misleading comments about climate change, then moving onto the value of its reserves and how they might be “stranded” in the ground by carbon regulation in the future.

    Exxon said in September the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission is the right agency to vet how it books reserves and that it complies with accounting and securities laws.

    Some legal experts have said that, regardless of Exxon’s past comments on climate change, it could not have violated securities laws because investors gather their information from a variety of entities with disparate views.

    The case is 4:16-cv-00469 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth division.

  49. Andy on 22/10/2016 at 10:30 am said:

    You’re allowed to change your minds too, guys. No need to admit you’re wrong or apologise…

    OK, let’s for a minute assume that I agree with ExxonMobil that catastrophic climate change is certain and that corporations, banks and oil companies need to penalise people by slapping a massive carbon tax on them.

    What are you doing Dennis? Oh, nothing, what a surprise

    Nothing at all, apart from hanging out on blogs and droning about “deniers”

    If the Creed actually did something that caused themselves to experience personal hardship, I might start to take them a bit more seriously

  50. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 10:36 am said:

    ExxonMobil Asks US Court To Throw Out Climate Change Subpoena

    “The great irony here is that we’ve acknowledged the risks of climate change for more than a decade, have supported a carbon tax as the better policy option and spent more than $7 billion on research and technologies to reduce emissions,” said Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers. “It should make people question what this is really all about.”

  51. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 10:47 am said:

    Exxon tries to quash NY subpoena of climate-change documents – October 2016

    Exxon said in a court filing Monday that it has already given New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman more than 1 million pages of documents. It said that it is increasingly clear that the attorney general’s investigation is politically motivated.

    # # #

    Schneiderman and Healey are at a dead end. They have been led on a wild goose chase by activists but there’s nothing the market didn’t know about Exxon’s stance. Sophisticated investors are not stupid.

  52. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 10:58 am said:

    >”Dem AG Desperately Tries To Reboot Exxon Investigation”

    >”Exxon said in September the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission is the right agency to vet how it books reserves and that it complies with accounting and securities laws.”

    Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM) Accounting Probe Is Much Ado About Nothing – September 19, 2016,

    The headlines in and of themselves are alarming – Exxon Mobil Corporation (NYSE: XOM ) is being investigated by New York State’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who has concerns about the company’s accounting statements. It’s how far too many deceptive-accounting scandals began to unravel.

    Current and would-be owners of XOM stock don’t have nearly as much to worry about in this particular instance, however. For better or worse, in the oil business much of the balance sheet is as much of an opinion as it is fact, and as long as Exxon Mobil can reasonably justify its opinion, the probe isn’t going to get very far.

    Exxon Mobil Under the Microscope

    Of particular interest to New York Attorney General Schneiderman is XOM’s valuation of its reserves.

    For oil drillers and explorers, reserves represent a known oil or natural gas asset that could be feasibly tapped into to produce crude or gas. Since it’s an asset – purchased with cash or another asset – it must be accounted for on a balance sheet. The value of that reserve, however, would theoretically rise and fall with the rise and fall in the value of crude oil’s market price, or the market price of natural gas.

    To that end (as much as one can determine the value of a reserve anyway), Schneiderman wants to know why Exxon Mobil hasn’t taken a write-down on the value of reserves , even though the price of crude is still less than half of its peak price seen in 2014, and peers like BP plc (ADR) (NYSE: BP ) and Chevron Corporation (NYSE: CVX ) have. Indeed, XOM hasn’t booked an impairment charge or asset write-down in over a decade.

    There’s a perfectly good explanation, according to the company. That is, Exxon Mobil has historically been conservative in its valuation of its reserves, so it can be similarly conservative with devaluing them.

    The arbitrary nature of reserve accounting is difficult to digest. Most other industries are more cut-and-dry in terms of fiscal data, making oil an uncomfortable outlier to those – like attorney generals and the SEC – who oversee such matters. But, it’s nothing new. And, there’s a reason such investigations of oil companies are ever made, and there’s a reason most of those investigations never get far.

    That reason? Arbitrary valuations are a two-way street. An investigator is no better equipped to determine the book value of an asset than the asset’s owner is, and that investigator is even worse equipped to prove it to a judge, jury or regulator.

    Read more:

  53. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 11:33 am said:

    [Exxon Mobil corporate spokesman Alan Jeffers] >“The great irony here is that we’ve acknowledged the risks of climate change for more than a decade, have supported a carbon tax as the better policy option and spent more than $7 billion on research and technologies to reduce emissions,”

    [Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson 2015] >”Tillerson said the world should improve its understanding of climate science before acting, and that he’s asserted climate models are inaccurate.”

    [Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson 2016[ >Tillerson said Wednesday the company backs a price on carbon and believes climate change brings “real” risks that require “serious” action

    [Dennis] >”You’re allowed to change your minds too, guys”

    You’re not making sense Dennis. Tillerson is expressing both his personal opinion and a corporate position but his 2015 personal opinion is obviously not the 2016 Exxon Mobil corporate position as above. The company is frantically greenwashing just like every other corporate – and done more research at more cost (US$7 billion) than any “green” activist organisation like Greenpeace.

    A tax on “carbon” is not going to stop Exxon Mobil in its tracks so Tillerson is gung-ho on that because it absolves Exxon Mobil from uncertainty (and maybe great expense) and it fits perfectly in their greenwash effort. The world still needs oil and will pay for it carbon tax or not. We pay a carbon tax on fuel here in NZ – anyone change their fuel consumption because of it?

    There’s obviously no need to change my mind in regard to Tillerson’s personal opinion – I agree with him.

    And I certainly wont be changing my mind in regard to corporate greenwashing – Exxon Mobil or anyone else. I’ve seen the corporate motives behind that first hand in corporate SWOT exercises.

    Exxon’s early climate science work was always in the public domain (published). But Exxon cannot be held to any early findings, whatever they were, given subsequent events in every respect – Exxon Mobil’s current corporate greenwash postion and climate model failure in particular.

  54. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 12:41 pm said:

    Dennis quotes Think Progress

    Dennis N Horne on October 22, 2016 at 8:30 am said:

    OK, what exactly is Think Progress?

    Schneiderman received nearly $265,000 in campaign contributions from lawyers and politicians who stand to gain from a legal victor against Exxon. Liberal billionaire George Soros gave Schneiderman $64,500, while members of the uber-wealthy Rockefeller family have shoveled over more than $10,000 to the New York attorney general since 2004.

    Soros again. What has Soros got to do with Think Progress? – A Guide To The Political Left

    THINK PROGRESS (TP) American Progress Action Fund

    Think Progress is a “project” of the American Progress Action Fund (APAF), a “sister advocacy organization” of the John Podesta-led Center for American Progress (CAP) and CAP’s entities such as Campus Progress. It also draws freely on the resources of the George Soros-funded Media Matters website edited by David Brock.

    Think Progress is an Internet blog that “pushes back, daily,” by its own account, against its conservative targets, and supports the APAF agenda: to transform “progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world.” Think Progress promotes an agenda identical to that of the left wing of the Democratic Party.

    Think Progress “draws freely on the resources of the George Soros-funded Media Matters website”


    Established in May 2004, Media Matters for America describes itself as a “web-based, not-for-profit … progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation” in print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets across the United States. Such “misinformation” includes “news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda.” Moreover, Media Matters is a constituent member of the Shadow Party, which is a network of non-profit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize resources — money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising, and policy initatives — to advance Democratic Party agendas.

    Think Progress is a “project” of the American Progress Action Fund (APAF), a “sister advocacy organization” of the John Podesta-led Center for American Progress (CAP).

    Center for American Progress

    The Center for American Progress (CAP) and its parallel advocacy arm the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAP Action) are two key cogs in the left-wing policy and message machine. Using the institutional imprimatur of CAP’s “think tank” and CAP Action’s blog ThinkProgress, CAP’s directors and funders — who include left-wing hedge fund titan George Soros — attempt to move national policy debates ever leftward.


    Founded by the well-connected John Podesta, who was the former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, and Obama’s Presidential Transition director— the CAP empire was intended to serve as a counterweight to the conservative Heritage Foundation. However, credible allegations of anti-Semitism, reporting errors by ThinkProgress bloggers, and the alignment between both groups’ views and those of their donors, have hindered its rise to prominence.

    However, credible allegations of anti-Semitism, reporting errors by ThinkProgress bloggers.

    Soros-Funded Propaganda Machine Think Progress Falsely Claims Global Warming Melted Street Lights in Oklahoma

    So eager are the shills at the George Soros-funded far-left website Think Progress to find evidence of global warming that on Thursday they falsely blamed melting street lights in Stillwater, Oklahoma, on the heat.

    # # #

    George Soros – He’s 86 and still meddling in national affairs all over the world.

    It gets worse – see next comment

  55. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 12:51 pm said:

    George Soros-Backed Company to Supply Voting Machines in 16 States • October 19, 2016

    Liberal activist billionaire George Soros has deep ties to a company responsible for supplying the United States with voting machines for the 2016 presidential election…

    Smartmatic Group, a UK-based electronic voting corporation, will be providing its voting machine technology to the Electoral Commissions of 307 counties in 16 states on Nov. 8 — including five swing states.

    George Soros sits on Smartmatic’s Board of Trustees. And the chairman of Smartmatic’s board, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, was once the vice chairman of Soros’ Investment Funds.

    There is an obvious conflict of interest with Soros’ affiliation. The hedge fund billionaire has donated upwards of $9.2 million to Democratic super PACs and to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during this election cycle. [Editor’s Note: We’ve long covered Soros’ attempts to influence the U.S. election — like the time he sprinkled Dem think tanks nationwide with a whopping $27 million…]

    Here’s a list of states that will be using Smartmatic’s machines…

    George Soros Voting Machine Will Be in These 16 States. According to Smartmatic’s website, they supply voting machines in the following states, five of which are swing states:

    Colorado (swing state)
    District of Columbia
    Florida (swing state)
    Michigan (swing state)
    New Jersey
    Nevada (swing state)
    Wisconsin (swing state)

  56. Andy on 22/10/2016 at 1:27 pm said:

    Soros also funds various leftist groups like “Black Lives matter’ which beat up innocent citizens and torch towns

    But then even mentioning Soros makes us “conspiracy theorists”

  57. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 1:39 pm said:

    Why Did Vote-Rigging Robert Creamer Visit The White House Over 200 Times During The Obama Admin

    by Tyler Durden Oct 19, 2016

    Earlier today we wrote about a new Project Veritas undercover video that uncovered several democratic operatives openly discussing, in explicit detail, how to commit massive voter fraud. One of the operatives was a person by the name of Robert Creamer who is a co-founder of a democratic consulting firm called Democracy Partners. Within the video, an undercover journalist details a plan to register Hispanic voters illegally by having them work as contractors, to which Creamer can be heard offering support saying that “there are a couple of organizations that that’s their big trick” (see: “Rigging Elections For 50 Years” – Massive Voter Fraud Exposed By Project Veritas Part 2″).

    Unfortunately, the embarrassing video caused Creamer to subsequently resign from consulting the Hillary campaign as he issued a statement saying that he was “stepping back from my responsibilities working the [Hillary] campaign” over fears that his continued assistance would be a distraction for the campaign.

    But voter fraud isn’t Creamer’s only criminal specialty. A quick look at Wikipedia reveals that Creamer spent 5 months in federal prison back in 2006 for a “$2.3 million bank fraud in relation to his operation of public interest groups in the 1990s.”

    So, with that kind of history, you can imagine our surprise when we discovered that a Mr. Robert Creamer showed up on the White House visitor logs 340 times beginning in 2009 when Obama took office and culminating with his latest visit in June 2016. Moreover, in 45 of those instances, Creamer was scheduled to meet with POTUS himself. Perhaps this is just two old Chicago “community organizers” hanging out?

    More incl. Creamer bio >>>>>

    Soros connection? You betcha…….

    Robert Creamer – Felon (Bank Fraud) – Incited violence at Trump rallies – Organized voter fraud – 340 visits to WH – Fired

    Full Profile:

    Born in 1947, Robert Creamer is the husband of Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky(1). He formerly served as executive director(2) of the Illinois Public Action Fund where his wife was the program director, and subsequently as a leader of Citizen Action(3) Illinois.

    He was also a lobbyist for George Soros’(4) Open Society Institute(5). [see below]

    Today Creamer heads the Strategic Consulting Group, and is involved in the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the AFL-CIO, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and other Left leaning organizations.

    Creamer was implicated in collusion with the DNC during the 2016 Podesta WikiLeaks releases. The emails indicate that Creamer met specifically with HRC staff while remaining a decision maker within Democracy Partners. Democracy Partners was also implicated in the instigation of numerous disruptions and riots in the 2016 elections at rally’s for Senator Bernie Sanders and Mr. Donald J. Trump. The most notable of these events occurred in Chicago, where two police officers were severely injured. Additional evidence present in the WikiLeaks dump that implicates Creamer in numerous illegal or unethical activity includes: ………….[see list]

    With the release of the second Project Veritas video, Creamer was directly implicated to facilitating, enabling, and allowing voter fraud to occur. Scott Foval, who was implicated in enabling voter fraud during the first Project Veritas video, indicated that Creamer saw Foval as an individual capable of orchestrating activities that others within the organization refused to do based on ethical stances or legal implications.

    He is further implicated when a Veritas investigator asks Creamer for advice on how he could “find my way around the Voter ID, the voter registration laws for Hispanics.” Creamer proceeds to write down a number of names and organizations for the investigator to contact that could help him get past the laws to allow Hispanics to vote without an official government ID. An example of one individual capable of this task is Cesar Vargas, a New York lawyer and illegal immigrant (who was shown in the video discussing ways to enable illegal immigrants to vote, and that such an activity is must be done despite admitting himself that it is voter fraud).

    Given the evidence, it seems that Creamer was given the go ahead by HRC to coordinate with others like Foval and Black to instigate violent events in order to strengthen HRC’s position. Furthermore, he is directly connected to enabling voter fraud through his organization. DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse and Cesar Vargaz are also persons of interest. Task Force 58 will investigate these individuals and provide further information as possible.



    # # #

    Hence Trump saying the election is rigged. People who scoff haven’t looked into it (or they have but only superficially and got the “correct” answer).

    The common denominator being George Soros.

  58. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 2:27 pm said:

    >”But then even mentioning Soros makes us “conspiracy theorists”


    The upper portion of this page is devoted to organizations that are funded directly by George Soros and his Open Society Foundations (OSF). The lower portion of the page focuses on organizations which do not receive direct funding from Soros and OSF, but which receive money from one or more groups that do get direct OSF funding.


    Brookings Institution: This organization has been involved with a variety of internationalist and state-sponsored programs, including one that aspires to facilitate the establishment of a U.N.-dominated world government.

    Project Vote: This is the voter-mobilization arm of the Soros-funded ACORN. A persistent pattern of lawlessness and corruption has followed ACORN/Project Vote activities over the years.

    Working Families Party: Created in 1998 to help push the Democratic Party toward the left, this front group for the Soros-funded ACORN functions as a political party that promotes ACORN-friendly candidates.

    What is the ACORN controversy about? [Obama connection]

    # # #

    Of course mentioning Soros-funded programs that aspire to “facilitate the establishment of a U.N.-dominated world government” is just “conspiracy theory”.

  59. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 3:20 pm said:

    >”members of the uber-wealthy Rockefeller family have shoveled over more than $10,000 to the New York attorney general [Schneiderman] since 2004″

    Rockefellers Dump Exxon Holdings That Made Family’s Fortune

    Rockefeller Fund Admits To Bankrolling Anti-Exxon Media Coverage

    Rockefeller oil family now anti-ExxonMobil – what hippocrates in the mold of Al Gore (from tobacco family advocating anti-tobacco tactics against oil companies).

    Standard Oil Co. Inc. was an American oil producing, transporting, refining, and marketing company. Established in 1870 by John D. Rockefeller as a corporation in Ohio,

    The Breakup of Standard Oil

    Standard Oil Successor Companies
    After Breakup Bought by/Merged with Then Became Now Called
    Standard Oil of New Jersey, or Esso (S.O.) Humble Oil Exxon ExxonMobil
    Standard Oil of New York Vacuum Oil Mobil ExxonMobil
    Standard Oil of California Chevron
    Standard Oil of Indiana Amoco BP
    Standard Atlantic Richfield Oil Atlantic Richfield (ARCO) Sunoco
    Standard Oil of Kentucky (Kyso) Standard Oil of California Chevron
    Continental Oil Company (Conoco) Marland Oil Company Part of DuPont ConocoPhillips
    Standard Oil of Ohio BP BP
    The Ohio Oil Company United States Steel Marathon Oil Marathon Oil
    Buckeye Pipe Line Buckeye Partners Buckeye Partners
    Chesebrough Manufacturing Company Unilever Unilever
    South Penn Oil Pennzoil Pennzoil-Quaker State Royal Dutch Shell
    Anglo-American Standard Oil of New Jersey Esso UK ExxonMobil

  60. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 4:56 pm said:

    Missing from the list upthread of organizations funded either directly or indirectly by George Soros is the Apollo Alliance now called the BlueGreen Alliance:

    This is how Soros’ “Open Society” works. Soros puts out some cash to activists and politicians (“philanthropy” ) and gets 10 – 100 times back ($110 billion just from Obama’s stimulus below)

    BlueGreen Alliance
    The BlueGreen Alliance is a non-profit group that advocates for green jobs and “social justice.” The BlueGreen Alliance has ties to many far-left groups and ideologues, including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN), the Center for American Progress, the Center on Wisconsin Strategy, the New Party, the Sierra Club, Green for All and billionaire George Soros.[1] Formerly known as the Apollo Alliance, in 2011, that project joined with the BlueGreen Alliance Foundation to form the BlueGreen Alliance.[2]

    10 Reasons George Soros Is Dangerous

    Reason # 2: […] Soros also helped jumpstart the political career of Barack Obama by hosting a fundraiser for him in 2004, which was when Obama was running for the Illinois Senate. He also gave the most he was allowed to contribute after Obama announced he was running for president.

    Reason # 7: Soros has funded environmentally friendly groups that help create green jobs and preserve the environment. He’s funded Green for All, the Ella Baker Center, and the Apollo Alliance. The Apollo Alliance has gotten $110 billion worth of green initiatives from President Obama’s stimulus package.

    Obama Stimulus Dollars Funded Soros Empire

    In the alchemy of Open Society, a dollar spent on an activist can translate into ten dollars in federal subsidies. Hence, Soros and his rich allies give to the poor (and their representatives) in order to take from everyone in the middle.

    See “philanthropy” at bottom

    George Soros: The dangers of power and greed revealed

    Not only Hillary Clinton has secrets being revealed. So too are George Soros’, who some characterize as the evil puppet master behind Clinton.

    WASHINGTON, August 26, 2016 – With the hacking of his organization’s activities, George Soros has made the news again, this time proving that greed and power can bring about a dangerous outcome.

    Years of documents have come to surface, shining light on the usually hidden arena where Soros lives. While his organization “Open Society Foundations,” or OSF, boasts a lengthy list of supposed philanthropic purposes, the recently released emails and documents shows the ugly underbelly of the organization.


    Soros funded the Arab Spring and the Ukraine overthrow. He was also a contributor to the, the organization that promotes the Black Lives Matter movement and also paid protesters to riot and attack Donald Trump supporters at his rallies.


    This man has proven to be the opposite of his public persona of a warm and generous philanthropist. With leaked reports proving the agenda behind his activities, George Soros’ true colors have been exposed. He thinks nothing of inciting riots, and paying those involved, to achieve his goals. He strives endlessly to interfere in global issues, while defending those who create devastation and death.

    Should Americans be concerned where the outcome of this man’s plans will take them? Yes. Should the media and law be following this man with more scrutiny? Absolutely. He has proven time and again that his intentions are not to be trusted. Sadly, many progressives share the same thoughts and follow his lead into mayhem.

    Yet not enough attention is being given to Soros’ endeavors. Why?

    According to the Media Research Center:

    “Since 2003, Soros has spent more than $52 million funding media properties, including the infrastructure of news – journalism schools, investigative journalism and even industry organizations.

    “It turns out that Soros’ influence doesn’t just include connections to top mainstream news organizations such as NBC, ABC, The New York Times and Washington Post. It’s bought him connections to the underpinnings of the news business.

    This revelation should be a wake-up call for Americans to discover what is actually going on behind the scenes in a world they no longer really know. The average American citizen must stop assuming that everything the media is feeding them is a credible product.

    All food is susceptible to toxic ingredients that can cause harm. The smart thing is to avoid ingesting it until the proper information can be obtained.!

    # # #

    Note the last report date above – August 26, 2016 i.e. although much is already known, the latest document leaks are shedding a whole new light on Soros, Clinton, and their despotic activities.

    There’s plenty more dissecting of all of this to come given the immense size of the document leaks. We are just seeing the first cut.

  61. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 6:39 pm said:


    What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part 1)

    What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part Deux, “Same as it ever was.”)

    What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part 3, Exxon: The Fork Not Taken

    “Smoke & Fumes”… The dumbest attack on ExxonMobil evah’

    “Smoke & Fumes,” Part Deux: Exxon Knew “The entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is questionable.”

    What did ExxonMobil Know and When Did They Know it? (Part Quatre: “Is ExxonMobil Actually Only Worth A Fraction Of What It Says?”)

  62. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 6:53 pm said:

    What did ExxonMobil Know and When Did They Know it? (Part Quatre: “Is ExxonMobil Actually Only Worth A Fraction Of What It Says?”)

    David Middleton / August 23, 2016

    In my previous posts regarding the lawless inquisition of ExxonMobil and its supposed climate cover-up, I’ve pretty well demonstrated that ExxonMobil (then Humble Oil, later Exxon) knew exactly what we know today: The AGW models always forecast about 4 times as much warming as actually would occur. In any science other than government/academic climate “science,” this is known as a failed hypothesis. ExxonMobil was fully aware of this failed hypothesis long before it failed.

    Well, the latest spin coming from the commissariat of State attorneys general is that ExxonMobil has misled investors about what the government might do in the future. Yes, I know, George Orwell couldn’t even have imagined this. The most successful energy company in the history of “life, the Universe and everything” is being accused of misleading investors about things that our Federal government (AKA Mordor-on-the-Potomac) might do in the future:

    […“Is ExxonMobil Actually Only Worth A Fraction Of What It Says?”…..]]

    Since when has it become the fiduciary responsibility to accurately predict the future actions of government? While every responsible corporation has a fiduciary duty to analyze the effects of proposed and implemented government policies on their business and to communicate this to shareholders and corporations even have an obligation to try to influence how these policies are crafted and implemented through the employment of lobbyists… No corporation has a legal obligation to forecast government malfeasance. And any “leave it in the ground” climate policy would be government malfeasance on a scale not seen since Nero was fiddling. Furthermore, there are no impending regulations or legislation which would force ExxonMobil to abandon proved oil and gas reserves. While some regulations, like the new offshore well control rules, will make it much more difficult and expensive to produce proved reserves and exploit resource potential, none of these would force ExxonMobil to “leave it in the ground.”

    I have a hunch that this cabal of left-wing attorneys general and Warmunist activist groups might just find themselves on the receiving end of a RICO lawsuit. Chevron has already paved the legal path for this [hotlink – fraudulent Equador judgement].

  63. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 7:33 pm said:

    >”I [David Middleton] have a hunch that this cabal of left-wing attorneys general and Warmunist activist groups might just find themselves on the receiving end of a RICO lawsuit”

    EXCLUSIVE: Climate skeptic files sweeping RICO lawsuit against most all climate related NGO’s, and some individuals – September 12, 2016

    Jury trial demanded in filing made in United States District Court, Lubbock, Texas today

    The cover page reads:



    # # #


    Organizations Funded Directly by George Soros and his Open Society Foundations

    Earthjustice: This group seeks to place severe restrictions on how U.S. land and waterways may be used. It opposes most mining and logging initiatives, commercial fishing businesses, and the use of motorized vehicles in undeveloped areas.

    Natural Resources Defense Council: One of the most influential environmentalist lobbying groups in the United States, the Council claims a membership of one million people.

    Tides Foundation and Tides Center: Tides is a major funder of the radical Left.


    Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype

  64. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 7:48 pm said:

    [Middleton] >”And any “leave it in the ground” climate policy would be government malfeasance on a scale not seen since Nero was fiddling”

    The New King Coal: George Soros

    by Steve Milloy 17 Aug 2015 (Junk Science)

    I predicted [hotlink – see below] in this column last week that the left wasn’t going to kill off the coal industry so much as it was going to steal it. That prediction is already becoming true courtesy of billionaire George Soros.

    U.S. Securities and Exchange Act filings indicate that Soros has purchased an initial 1 million shares of Peabody Energy and 553,200 shares of Arch Coal, the two largest publicly traded U.S. coal companies. As pointed out last week, both companies have been driven perilously close to bankruptcy by the combination of President Obama’s “war on coal” and inexpensive natural gas brought on by the hydrofracturing revolution.

    Under the hypothesis that not even socialists would leave trillions of dollars worth of a perfectly safe and clean energy source in the ground for the sake of the imaginary “climate crisis,” I posited that once the existing coal industry ownership was wiped out by President Obama’s regulatory onslaught, a new politically correct ownership would rehabilitate the fuel by contributing to Democrats.

    Enter George Soros, a hardball investor and philanthropist to myriad left-wing causes, including the activist and “clean energy” rent-seeking movements that have helped take down the coal industry. In 2009, for example, Soros announced he would spend $1 billion in “clean energy” technology and create a San Francisco-based advocacy organization called the Climate Policy Initiative.

    Less than a year ago the Soros’ Climate Policy Initiative issued a major report concluding that the world could save $1.8 trillion over the next two decades by transitioning away from coal. The report referred to coal reserves as “stranded assets” that were losing value as they were no longer needed.

    What a difference a few months makes, especially when those months have seen coal company stocks fall to fire sale prices. So far the size of Soros’ coal investment seems so far relatively small (Peabody has 248 million shares of stock outstanding), but the reports available only cover up to the quarter ending on June 30.

    It’s possible that Soros is only looking for a “dead cat bounce” from his Peabody and Arch Coal investments, but the companies together have provable coal reserves of about 11 billion tons, worth hundreds of billions of dollars. I doubt the shrewd Soros is looking to make just a few million dollars on these investments.

    Soros isn’t the only leftist shark in the water.

    There’s billionaire hedge fund operator Tom Steyer who committed to spend $100 million in 2014 to elect anti-coal, climate alarmist-friendly politicians. Though he failed miserably, he has re-upped for the same program in 2016. Yet Steyer’s dirty secret is that, despite his protestations of concern about the climate, he’s made a fortune from coal production in Indonesia over the past 15 years. It’s easy to imagine some Steyer-steered investment vehicle rescuing sinking coal companies under the guise of turning coal into “clean energy” business. Though the current coal industry trial and failed miserably to do re-brand itself as “clean,” with the right politics and the right payoffs, Steyer no doubt could pull off that trick.

    Another shrewd investor is Obama supporter Warren Buffet. Despite his long-standing leftist political inclinations, Buffet owns the trains that haul politically incorrect fracked oil and utilities that burn coal. He is famous for his counter-intuitive investing. Billions of tons of coal are becoming available almost for free. Anyone think he hasn’t noticed?

    Finally, there are the likes of the left-leaning Goldman Sachs and the rest of the wolves of Wall Street. Goldman, in particular, has a long history of not only financing the coal industry but also of trading coal as a commodity on an international basis. Little known is the fact that while the U.S. coal industry seems to be circling the bowl in the U.S., coal is actually the fastest growing fuel on a global basis. And coal will continue to grow regardless of whatever climate treaty is signed in Paris later this year. Goldman’s favorite green has nothing to do with the environment.

    Although Obama’s great coal train robbery will likely be completed in the next couple years or so, none of this should be taken as a recommendation to buy coal stocks. Existing shareholders are likely to be wiped out by bankruptcy or paid off with a pittance. But watching the crime play out will be an unforgettable exercise in the corruption of power and power of corruption.

    Steve Milloy publishes (@JunkScience) and is a former coal industry executive.

    Obama’s Great Coal Train Robbery

  65. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 8:56 pm said:

    “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” – Joe Stalin

    The hack of the Diebold voting system in Leon County, Florida, was verified by computer scientists at UC Berkeley.

    Florida Op-Scan Systems Hacked Three Ways
    “Are we having fun yet?”
    This is the message that appeared in the window of a county optical scan machine, startling Leon County Information Systems Officer Thomas James.
    Read more:

    Leon County, FL Dumps Diebold Voting Machines
    Finnish security expert Harri Hursti demonstrated how easy it is to hack the vote: [hack details, link]
    This is my [Bruce Schneier’s] 2004 essay on the problems with electronic voting machines. The solution is straightforward: machines need voter-verifiable paper audit trails, and all software must be open to public scrutiny. This is not a partisan issue: election irregularities have affected people in both parties.

    Diebold in Florida – by Susan Pynchon, January 23, 2006

    I was one of ten people present at the “hack” of the Leon County, Florida voting system, which took place on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 around 4:30 in the afternoon at the county elections warehouse. Leon County’s voting system is the Diebold Accu-Vote OS 1.94w (optical scan).

    The Leon County Supervisor of Elections, Ion Sancho, authorized a “test” of his Diebold voting system to see if election results could be altered using only a memory card. Harri Hursti, a computer programmer from Finland facilitated the test and it has come to be known as the “Harri Hursti Hack.”

    What follows is my description of that hack and its significance for our nation, which I hope will correct much of the misinformation circulating regarding this event.

    [….hack details….]

    It was a powerful moment and, I will admit, it had the unexpected result for me personally of causing me to break down and cry. Why did I cry? It was the last thing I thought I would do, but it happened for so many reasons. I cried because it was so clear that Diebold had been lying. I cried because there was proof, before my very eyes, that these machines were every bit as bad as we all had feared. I cried because we have been so unjustly attacked as “conspiracy theorists” and “technophobes” when Diebold knew full well that its voting system could alter election results. More than that, that Diebold planned to have a voting system that could alter results. And I cried because it suddenly hit me, like a Mack truck, that this was proof positive that our democracy is and has been, as we have all feared, truly at the mercy of unscrupulous vendors who are producing electronic voting machines that can change election results without detection.

    Beyond this, however, what is the real significance of the “Harri Hursti hack?” There are several answers to that question.

    First of all, the Hursti hack reveals only one vulnerability in an almost unlimited number of potential flaws or vulnerabilities in electronic voting systems (both op-scans and DREs). However, the Hursti hack is individually significant because the flaw it exposed is a planned vulnerability in the system, not something that is accidentally there. It had to be PUT there (programmed) on purpose. For Diebold to claim innocence about this would be absurd. It would be like saying you didn’t know your garage had a door while you were standing there holding the garage door opener. Or, because this security vulnerability is so huge, it would more accurately be like saying you didn’t know your house had a garage at all!!

    Since something like 95% of computer scientists agree that electronic voting machines (op-scans and DREs) have an almost infinite number of potential flaws or vulnerabilities, the Hursti hack shows, above all, THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING PAPER BALLOTS for an independent confirmation of machine results. The beauty of paper ballots is that they are completely independent of any machine, unlike the printer paper trail. Therefore, they provide a true independent, manual audit of machine results. Paper ballots are also the only electronic voting method that eliminates, almost completely, any question about voter intent because the ballots are voter-generated, filled in by the voter’s own hand, thus eliminating the need for a voter to confirm his/her choices on any printer-issued receipt. Paper ballots are the only way to have a fail-safe election with any electronic voting machine. You must have paper ballots and you must manually audit (count) a portion or all of those ballots in every election.

    The ONLY evidence in the Hursti hack that could discredit his alteration of results were the paper ballots themselves. But these ballots can only be useful if they are actually counted after an election to check against the machine count. The Hursti hack shows clearly that there must be an independent paper trail that can be manually audited to confirm (or discredit) machine results. The hack exposes a serious electronic voting flaw, but then, ironically, re-instates optical scan as the only electronic voting method that provides truly independent, manual audit capabilities.

    # # #

    Gee, scary. George Soros to the rescue:

    George Soros-Backed Company to Supply Voting Machines in 16 States • October 19, 2016
    #4 Florida (swing state)

  66. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 10:00 pm said:

    >”George Soros-Backed Company [Smartmatic] to Supply Voting Machines in 16 States • October 19, 2016″ [57,000 voting machines in the U.S]

    Philippine Commission on Elections (COMELEC) hack

    Smartmatic assures: PCOS machines impenetrable to hacking [Philippines]

    Hold PCOS [Smartmatic] hacking demo, watchdog asks Congress January 28, 2015 [Philppines]

    “External hacking is not the main problem,” AES Watch said [Automated Election System Watch]. “What is most worrisome is the PCOS machines are vulnerable to tampering by an insider.”

    # # #

    >“What is most worrisome is the [Smartmatic] PCOS machines are vulnerable to tampering by an insider.”

    George Soros sits on Smartmatic’s Board of Trustees. And the chairman of Smartmatic’s board, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, was once the vice chairman of Soros’ Investment Funds and is Vice Chairman of Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

    What are the chances of “an insider” at Smartmatic ?

  67. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 10:19 pm said:

    ‘Its not just Smartmatic…Soros has ties to DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS, responsible for 50 percent of voting machines in USA ‘

    (self.The_Donald) [Unofficial Trump website – NOT Donald Trump] 1 day ago

    Centipedes, we have to ramp up the fight.

    George Soros has ties to Smartmatic electronic voting machines, which are used in 16 states. The mods have pinned the #StopSoros campaign at the top of the subreddit [see below], with the goal being to contact as many Board of Election offices in counties that use these machines and demand they switch to paper ballots, due to conflict of interest.

    But its not just Smartmatic. It turns out that Soros also has ties to Dominion Voting Systems, which are estimated to make up half of the electronic voting machines used in the US.

    I found this out because Smartmatic has recently come out to say that they do not have any electronic voting machines being used in the US general election. This seemed odd to me, because it said on their site that their technology is used in 16 states.

    I did a little digging and I found this. Its a long read, but the key points are:

    # Smartmatic, which is tied to Soros’ Open Road Foundation, used to have a subsidiary called Sequoia

    # Sequoia electronic voting machines are used in the US general election

    # Sequoia was eventually sold to Dominion Voting Systems

    # However, Dominion Voting Systems did not acquire the rights to Smartmatic’s IP, which is used by Sequoia voting machines.

    # This means Smartmatic still retains all legal ownership of the IP used in these machines

    # Dominion Voting Systems accounts for 50 percent of all electronic voting systems used in the US

    If your county is using Dominion Voting Systems or Sequoia machines, you need to call your Board of Elections and demand they switch to paper ballots due to conflict of interest. If they tell you they don’t use Smartmatic, it doesn’t matter – Dominion Voting Systems may be just as bad.

    You can find out what your county uses at this link:

    You can read more about the connections between Smartmatic, Sequoia, and Dominion here:

    Operation Stop Soros – Crowd sourced weaponized autism! – #StopSoros
    1 day ago

    # # #

    This is going ballistic among Trump supporters.

  68. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2016 at 10:44 pm said:

    #StopSoros #stopsoros

    Voting systems [Smartmatic] deemed too vulnerable to corruption for VENEZUELA …….used in 16 US states.

    Dominion Voting (controls 50% of electronic voting) donated $25k to Hillary

    # # #

    “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” – Joe Stalin

  69. Magoo on 23/10/2016 at 12:09 am said:

    Nice little article:

    ‘The problem is there is no evidence this amplification is actually occurring – models which assume amplification perform woefully when compared to real world observations, far worse than models which assume no amplification, or very little amplification.’

  70. Richard C (NZ) on 23/10/2016 at 12:16 am said:

    Electronic Election Fraud Apparent in Brazil; Done in America Today? – November 5, 2014

    It would be a sure bet to think that a presidential candidate who bankrupted a country, brought growth to a standstill and inflation back to 6,5% would be summarily defeated in the coming elections. That was the situation of the Marxist President of Brazil, the former terrorist Dilma Rousseff of the Workers’ Party, the woman booed by 60,000 fans in the last World Cup games.

    Add to that sad situation a scandal that broke just a week ahead of the voting. The financial associate of her party, Alberto Youseff, a frontman responsible for sending money to offshore secret accounts and for paying bribes in the name of the party, revealed to the police that Dilma’s Party was ransacking Petrobras, the largest Brazilian company (half owned and totally controlled by the government) in the amount of 3% of every purchase made. Part of the money would go to funding campaigns, some to the pockets of Party members and the rest to bribe Congressmen from other parties in order to vote for whatever Dilma wanted, at the price of US$ 60K a month each. The whole scheme amounted to US$ 10 Billion, and almost broke the company.

    A pathetic performance on television debates and a good looking and popular opponent didn’t help either. Some voting polls showed her losing the mandate by 9,2% of votes. 1

    However, she won. How can that be? The leader of the Party, former president Lula, said they would do “the devil’s work” in order to win. The answer is worrisome and may be the greatest example of a perfect crime.

    This carefully orchestrated coup to the Brazilian democracy was probably done in steps:
    2) The Smartmatic company is chosen in order to take care of all electronic systems and voting machines in the country.3 Smartmatic started as a small software company in Venezuela, and received funds from the dictator Chavez. It is, as we shall see, accused of participation in fraud.

    The Smartmatic company did not even work with voting systems when it was chosen by Dictator Chavez of Venezuela in 2004 to take care of the referendum that kept him in power forever (or until his death by cancer). Chavez then paid the company US$ 120 MM, and subsequently, they were able to acquire in 2005 the American firm Sequoia Voting Systems, which had contracts in 17 US states. 4

    Venezuelan General Julio Peñaloza has accused Cuba and Smartmatic of participating in fraud in all subsequent elections in his country.5 According to him, Cuba’s G2 secret service carries since 1999 a plan named PROCER (Revolutionary Voting Control Plan), in order to control the elections in the countries dominated by the Marxist organization Forum of Sao Paulo, which aims to impose a South American Marxist Union in the region.

    The idea is to intercept voting subtotals transmissions from districts before they reach the central, so they can change results. An engineer who worked in the elections called Christopher Bello Ruiz fled to America and confirmed the story, he says. That’s why Henrique Capriles, a wildly popular candidate, was beaten by a mediocre agent of Fidel Castro trained in Cuba, Nicolas Maduro, by a narrow margin of 1,4% votes in April 2013.

    In 2006, American politicians started to investigate the whole deal but the threat to American democracy, albeit extremely important, has fallen into obscurity.6 In 2007, Smartmatic sold its interest in Sequoia [Ed.: which is now owned by Dominion Voting Systems, “What is in a name?”] but the whole ensuing story, full of offshore companies and complicated transactions, is so convoluted (perhaps on purpose) that only full time specialized researchers can dig into the mess.7 It is understandable that, if there is any intention of voting manipulation, the scheme would use now a different and complex system of companies in order to make ownership and control.

    The lesson that Brazil and Venezuela leave to America, on the verge of its Congressional elections, is that no electronic voting is secure. As Julio Cesar used to say, Cesar’s wife must not only be above suspicion, she must look above suspicion. What to say of a voting system? Unfortunately, in this perspective, the elections in Brazil, rigged or not, look like an adulterous prostitute.

    # # #

    “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” – Joe Stalin

  71. Richard C (NZ) on 23/10/2016 at 12:28 am said:

    Voter system fraud a Soros agenda – GOP Vote Rigging – Smartmatic Running the Show – March 23, 2016

    Why hasn’t Hillary run scared? Despite an opponent she didn’t anticipate, she has something more important, a guarantee from Soros that the counted votes will override actual votes.

    Smartmatic is running the show. They boast using their machines in elections from The Philippines to Venezuela, to Belgium, Brazil, Argentina and the USA. The problem? Every time, there arises the cry of fraud. And it dates back to 2004, just four years after Smartmatic stepped up to the plate.

    How is the fraud perpetrated?

    In 2012, the Mexican government contracted with Smartmatic. But the results were abysmal as they transmitted only 30% and 45% of the actual ballots in two elections. Making the results weighted in favor of particular candidates, officials were more than livid!

    In the 2013 election in The Philippines, they transmitted only 76% of the actual ballots.

    In 2014, Smartmatic has been charged with fraud in the Brazilian election.

    In 2003, Sequoia election Systems, a subsidiary of Smartmatic, was implicated in a bribery scam with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. In 2005, Smartmatic bought Sequoia Voting in an attempt to gain access to the US market. But Sequoia had its own reputation of fraud and corruption. In 2010, after being bought by a small Canadian voting system, Dominion, the machines were hacked and the system replaced with a Pac-Man game. The hackers claim the machine was opened with a screwdriver without effecting the ‘tamper resistant seals’.

    Having bungled votes in Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, California, and Virginia Sequoia is now authorized under it’s new and improved ownership – Dominion. Dominion then bought another noteworthy voting system, Diebold which was at the time involved in a SEC investigation for fraud and corruption and anti-trust suit, thus putting Dominion in charge of 70% of the US voting systems.

    The US is now completely relegated to voter system fraud. So why would the Republicans even allow Smartmatic? Or Dominion?

    An adage comes to mind, “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.” While we all accept that Hillary is deeply embedded in the Soros debacle of voting ‘mishaps’, there may be others… Kasich? Cruz?

    According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Soros Fund Management is behind Kasich. But WAIT! The Center for Responsive Politics is FUNDED by Soros Open Society Institute… So the spin continues and the media is lapping it up without doing due diligence!


    However, it is verifiable that Smartmatic happens to have a rather definable link with Soros through it’s Chairman of the Board Malloch-Brown, who previously served as Vice Chairman of Soros Investment Funds and The Open Society Institute. Malloch-Brown also happened to write a book, The Unfinished Global Revolution, in which he advocated for greater UN control, greater NGO (Soros) involvement, and the failure of individual governments. He thus advocates for a Global Society. Sound familiar?

    Listed co-owners of Smartmatic, a private company, include Antonio Mugica and Roger Pinate. It’s origins are Venezuelan and muddled within a maze of holding companies and unknown ‘true owners’.

    Their history wreaks of elections that are decried as ‘landslide victories’. Obama may have been one such victorious winner in his landslide win over Repulican Keyes in the Chicago Senate election of 2004. It was noteworthy that Keyes referred to Obama’s win as “a culture of evil enough to destroy the very soul and heart of my country”. The number of counted votes was reported to be 70%, including millions of ‘absentee votes’. But voter fraud in Chicago has been a mainstay for decades, with indictments that barely slap the wrist (probation) and bribes commonplace.

    The company that was utilized in counting the Chicago 2004 Senate election – Sequoia.

    In 2004 county elections 25 counties reported failures by Sequoia including; security failure, failure to count votes, source code failures, track counting of vote failures, data read failures, failure to record votes, failure to index votes, machines simply not working and left in ‘test mode’, software ‘glitches and bugs’, crashed machines – votes wiped out, jammed smart cards – votes wiped out, undervoting reported – as low as 9% of total registered…, crashed machines with frozen screens, failure to print absentee votes, etc…. ad nauseum!

    YET. It is these intertwined companies with offshore holdings and unnamed owners and private opaque investors that control our US Election system!

    Wakeup. Hillary isn’t scared of losing when she has THIS behind her – so why did the GOP approve them as well because obviously someone is rigging the GOP vote as well?

    # # #

    >Malloch-Brown also happened to write a book, The Unfinished Global Revolution, in which he advocated for greater UN control, greater NGO (Soros) involvement, and the failure of individual governments. He thus advocates for a Global Society. Sound familiar?”

    Well yes, but that’s just “conspiracy theory”.

  72. Richard C (NZ) on 23/10/2016 at 12:42 am said:

    Magoo >”Nice little article:…”

    Important to note this is a challenge. One Nation Federal Senator and climate skeptic Malcolm Roberts has demanded the Australian Chief Scientist provide evidence that humans cause climate change.

    Senator Roberts told a Senate committee on Thursday his requested summary of the logic and the empirical evidence behind climate change did not need to be long.

    “Like me – short and simple,” he said.

    Worrall – “Malcolm Roberts, a qualified and highly experienced mining engineer, is one of the few elected Australian politicians with the skill and meticulous attention to detail required to dissect anything the bureaucrats who run government science organisations can throw at him.”

  73. Richard C (NZ) on 23/10/2016 at 9:50 am said:

    What Dupont knew about ozone science.

    ‘Salvaging the Unsalvageable: HFCs and the UN Climate Change Fiasco’ – October 22, 2016 Dr. Tim Ball

    A few years ago I [Tim Ball] was summoned to appear before the Canadian Parliamentary Committee on Ozone in Ottawa. I did not want to go because I know these are orchestrated charades. The truth is not the objective for government or opposition but simply for politicians to promote either a party or a political agenda. It turned out that it was quasi-judicial and I had to appear. A few things happened at the hearing that relate to the current HFC claims.

    A delegation from Dupont attended but remained, to my surprise, quiet. I spoke with some of them after. They knew the science was wrong. The silence was because they had a replacement ready and stood to make more money and also gain a PR coup. As Dupont note

    Today, DuPont manufactures hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) as alternatives to CFCs for the air conditioning and refrigeration industries.

    A York University (Toronto) professor made a presentation on ozone levels over Toronto. He failed to tell the politicians that there were no ozone readings for Toronto at the time. His data was computer model generated. The politicians did not know it because I asked them.

    I pointed out at the hearing that ozone reduction due to CFCs claim was an untested, unproven hypothesis. It was doomed to fail because it assumed that insolation, including ultraviolet radiation that creates ozone, was constant. In an interview afterwards I also warned that the replacement (HCFC) was potentially more damaging.

    Since then we learned among other things that UV varies considerably, Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC) affect ozone destruction, there is no empirical evidence that CFCs were destroying ozone. The evidence put forward came primarily from Susan Solomon, a bureaucratic scientist at NOAA who was contributing author to the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) and co-chair of Working Group I (the Physical Science Report of the Fourth Assessment Report (2007). Because of Solomon’s connection, I explained in an earlier article [hotlink] how the ozone issue was a dry run for the global warming deception.

    # # #

    I was involved in a corporate greenwash panic over CFCs in the late 1980s. The actual science was irrelevant even though 2 of my mgt colleages had chemical engineering degrees and could see it was flawed (to say the least), there was a “consensus” and that was that. They had both sold their scientific souls on the way up the corporate ladder. The important thing was the corporate image, CFCs were out no matter what.

    At that time nobody gave a toss about CO2, the ozone hole and CFCs were the scare.

  74. Richard C (NZ) on 23/10/2016 at 10:05 am said:

    Another ice age within 15 years, say Russian scientists [Zharkova’s latest] – October 22, 2016

    “The Earth is heading towards another ice age as solar magnetic activity is set to drop by up to 60 per cent in the next 15 years,” warns new study.

    Experts say that solar activity has not been this low since the Maunder Minimum, a period of low sunspot activity between 1645 and 1715 when the entire Thames froze over. That period is also considered the deepest part of the last “Little Ice Age.” A new model forecasts solar cycles based upon dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, which, in theory, dictate how the Earth’s outer core conducts materials across the magnetic field to create an electric current.

    Valentina Zharkova from Northumbria University, who applied this theory to the Sun, says she can predict the affects of solar cycles with 97 per cent accuracy. Based on her findings, Ms Zharkova says the next solar cycle is set to peak in 2022, and the cycle after that, Cycle 26, will herald a new ice age.

    “We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum’,” Zharkova insists.

    “During the Maunder minimum, temperatures dropped globally by 1.3 degrees celsius,” warns The Express. Although such an apparently minor drop in temperature seems insignificant, “it led to shorter seasons and ultimately food shortages.” (And to millions of deaths, I [Robert] might add.)

    See entire article:

    # # #

    Problem for the Paris pact.

  75. Richard C (NZ) on 23/10/2016 at 10:50 am said:

    WikiLeaks ‏@wikileaks

    Clinton’s “17 US intelligence agencies” [verification] may be the biggest, most immediately disprovable wopper ever intentionally made during a debate. [Claim: Russians hacked Podesta’s Gmail]

  76. Dennis N Horne on 24/10/2016 at 7:54 am said:

    Global warming continues; 2016 will be the hottest year ever recorded
    Posted on 21 October 2016 by John Abraham

    We know the world is warming – no factor can explain it aside from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Despite this, people who deny the basic facts of climate change have tried to argue that the Earth is either not warming or is only slowly heating. Well that just isn’t true anymore. The last three years are the nail in the coffin of the deniers of climate change. We have enough data this year to call 2016 as the hottest year ever record – and we have three more months left to go.

    So, just how hot is 2016? Well my early predictions are shown in the graph below. I have taken temperature data from NASA and superimposed my predictions for 2016 – it isn’t even close. And by the way, it doesn’t matter whose data you use (NASA, NOAA, JMA, Hadley Centre) the results are the same. 2016 is going to blow 2015 out of the water.

    A few things to note. First, these temperatures are surface temperatures that are taken across the globe. But, you can measure temperatures elsewhere and see the same result. Most importantly, measurements in the oceans, where 93% of the extra heat is stored are the best proof of global warming. I recently coauthored an open-access paper on this very topic which interested readers can get here.

    You can measure sea level rise as the heated water expands, you can measure ice loss across the globe, you can measure temperatures in the lower part of the atmosphere. It doesn’t matter where; the story is the same.

    What is the big deal? Well first of all, 2016 blows away 2015 which was previously the hottest year ever and that had beaten 2014 as the hottest year ever – call this a three-peat. Three records in a row and the last two are by large margins. Does this mean global warming all of a sudden has gotten worse?

    No, surface temperatures fluctuate a lot – you can see that in the figure. Temperatures will go up or down from year to year without apparent reason. This is why we are interested in the long term trends. This is also why we are interested in looking at other measures of warming (especially in the oceans). All of our measurements agree with each other – we know the Earth was warming long before this set of records began falling in 2014.

    One thing these temperatures can do is enable us to compare computer models with measurements. We’ve seen that models have done an excellent job of correctly predicting the rate of heating of the Earth. My own research shows that in the oceans, the models are slightly under-predicting the rate of heating.

    To compare models and measurements at the Earth’s surface, I’ve borrowed a figure from Dr. Gavin Schmidt of Nasa and I’ve overlaid the 2016 surface temperatures. A star shows where 2016 will be. The star should be compared to the three heavy dashed lines in the figure. The upper and lower dashed lines show the uncertainty in the models and the middle dashed line shows the average.


    Is the 2016 data within the upper and lower lines? Yes it is.

    Is the 2016 data close to the middle dashed line? Yes again. In fact, the 2016 temperatures are above the average which means the models under-predicted the temperature of 2016.

    Before we get too anxious, it is almost certain that 2017 will be cooler than 2016. In fact, we may not set another record for a few years. But just as a few hot years doesn’t prove global warming, a few cooler years wont disprove it. The long-term trend is clearer upwards through and the models are spot on.

    All this aside, there are still things we can do to bend the arc of this curve. There are actions we can take as individuals and as collectives to reduce our emissions and our dependence on polluting fuels. That message is, and continues to be, the most important one.

    But one thing we cannot do is deny facts.

  77. Andy on 24/10/2016 at 9:30 am said:

    Dear Dennis

    Thanks for cutting and pasting an entire article by Highly Eminent and Respected Scientist John Abraham from the highly respected and accurate Guardian

    Yours sincerely,

  78. Andy on 24/10/2016 at 9:34 am said:

    O/T does anyone remember “Solar Freakin’ Roadways” from a while back?

    How did that work out?

  79. Dennis N Horne on 24/10/2016 at 10:12 am said:

    … it doesn’t matter whose data you use (NASA, NOAA, JMA, Hadley Centre) the results are the same.

    But one thing we cannot do is deny facts.


    Of course one can deny facts. There’s even a name for it!

  80. Andy on 24/10/2016 at 10:36 am said:

    Of course one can deny facts.

    of course we can deny facts

    Facts, for example, that show zero acceleration in sea level rise

    We can deny these facts and impose severe building restrictions on people. We even have a name for this:

    Big Government

  81. Andy on 24/10/2016 at 12:50 pm said:

    it isn’t an argument to tack on satellite data to tide gauge and then insult anyone who can’t see the fraud

  82. Dennis N Horne on 24/10/2016 at 1:20 pm said:


    Of course!

    The filthy rich and cranks have cracked it…

  83. Andy on 24/10/2016 at 2:16 pm said:

    It hardly takes much “cracking” when neither the tide gauges nor the satellite records individually shows an acceleration

    Anyway, why I am surprised? For the bottom feeding Leftist trash that peddle this kind of nonsense, lying and fraud is a way of life

  84. Dennis N Horne on 24/10/2016 at 5:34 pm said:

    Yes, those squeaky-clean and altruistic, educated and well-versed-in-science, far-sighted and humble politicians saving us from the global community of scientists all blind and lying through their teeth.

  85. Andy on 24/10/2016 at 5:41 pm said:

    I am not referring to scientists Dennis
    I am referring to trash like you

  86. Richard Treadgold on 24/10/2016 at 5:47 pm said:

    Dunce Denier
    (accompanied by link to graph of rising seas)

    The comment is brutal, but the graph is fair (almost). The issue is this: is the rise caused by human activity or, as at different rates for the last 15,000 years, by natural variability, otherwise known as the end of the Ice Age? Plus, remove the satellite altimetry data illegitimately appended (apparently 3.1 mm/yr) and continue the tide gauge data at about 1.8 mm/yr. You can’t be that thick, Dennis, you know you can’t do that.

  87. Dennis N Horne on 24/10/2016 at 6:11 pm said:

    Ah, shoot the messenger…

    HA HA HA

  88. Magoo on 24/10/2016 at 6:40 pm said:

    Dennis dear boy, you’re desperate attempts to justify your untenable position are getting more hilarious by the day. Let’s see what the IPCC have to say about sea level rises:

    ‘Between 1993 and 2010, the rate was very likely higher at 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1; SIMILARLY HIGH RATES LIKELY OCCURRED BETWEEN 1920 AND 1950.’
    Source: TS.2.6 Changes in Sea Level, page 46, Technical Summary, Working Group I, IPCC AR5)

    Now dear boy, since the effects of AGW weren’t supposed to be seen until after 1950, then the higher rate of sea level rise from 1993-2010 is not any different to the natural rises observed between 1920-1950. In other words recent sea level rises aren’t anything unusual – nothing to get your panties in a twist over.

    According to the GISS graph from your Guardian (snigger) link above there was a natural rise in temperature from 1910-1950 similar to the rise occurring between approximately 1980-2000. Funny how both the recent sea level and temperature rises have not deviated from similar natural rises from less than a century ago – hilarious even dear boy.

  89. Richard C (NZ) on 28/10/2016 at 8:33 pm said:


    Buildings use about 40% of global energy, 25% of global water, 40% of global resources, and they emit approximately 1/3 of GHG emissions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation