Monthly Archives: October 2010

Final Phase of Global Warming War and Another Legal Defeat for Doomsayers

Climate science is complex and to many people hard to fathom, but you don’t need to be a scientist to sense fraud when key global temperature data is destroyed or withheld from public examination.


Forceful speeches dismantling the falsities of global warming junk science were delivered within the mother of all parliaments at a spectacularly successful 2010 Climate Fools Day Event in London (October 27).  In the fore was the world’s leading long-range weather forecaster, Piers Corbyn, who was presented with a new science award and cash prize of $10,000. Corbyn had predicted the Moscow heat wave and Pakistan floods weeks in advance and he says human emissions of greenhouse gases play no part whatsoever in controlling weather or climate.

First Government Abandons Pretense of a Global Warming Record


But it wasn’t Corbyn’s outstanding science that won the day but rather a story of how astute application of the law had dealt Antipodean warmists a fatal blow. I recounted to an amazed audience how climate realists in New Zealand had hauled their errant government to court where the burden of proof is of the demanding legal standard. Therein a pro-green New Zealand Government had been humiliated into abandoning all pretenses to possessing a bona fide official climate record in the scandal now referred to as ‘Kiwigate.’


Along with other legal analysts I explained that the Kiwi government, in such circumstances, had no choice but to capitulate or face complete courtroom defeat and political suicide. In my speech I urged parliamentarians to heed the implications of this astonishing news.  


In a last minute capitulation the Kiwi custodians of a cornerstone of a quarter of the world’s official temperature records admitted it was not so ‘official’ after all. By so doing the New Zealand government (via NIWA) bailed out of the international conspiracy and signaled a full-scale retreat for the ‘science’ of man-made warming.


UK Politicians See End for Doomsaying Warmists


As I had long predicted, ultimate victory would come not from the darkened corner of some obscure science lab but under a stark legal light. Canny climate realist MP’s such as Sammy Wilson will certainly exploit the significance of this new legal phase in the climate war and speak directly to the moral standards of us all.


Kiwis had served a timely warning to eco-zealots all the way from Australia (BOM) to Britain and the United States (where 90 similar legal challenges are progressing) that climate realists in the English-speaking nations possess a most potent legal weapon – a transparent common law system handed down by their British founding fathers. Enshrined within legal principles is the right of citizens to petition government agencies so that they must come to court and openly account for their acts. Thus when compelled to show evidence for global warming the climate criminals flee the battle.


General Public Has Wised Up to the Sham


But this courtroom conflagration ought to have been more widely anticipated. Indeed, in the run up to the legal phase of our campaign the public has witnessed one very telling trend among government-funded researchers – they never debate with so called skeptics and never show the proof of their so-called “settled science.” For years these doomsayers have consistently and unlawfully denied freedom of information (FOIA) requests in Britain, at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and at NASA/GISS.


Realizing we now have a hard hitting legal message to resonate loudly among ordinary citizens Russia Today asked me to repeat the story to worldwide audiences via a live Moscow broadcast. The conclusion that must be drawn here is that when brought to court, the eco-advocates are tellingly exposed and cannot possibly justify their destructive trillion dollar cap-and-trade policies.



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Satellitegate Cover Up Fears Grow after Latest Official Response

The Satellitegate scandal festers on. US government passes the buck to Michigan State University but they won’t give straight answers either.

University Relations officer, Mark Fellows of Michigan State University (MSU) gives an official response to questions I put originally to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) months ago about their "degraded" NOAA-16 satellite. I had sought answers as to how deep and extensive was the data contamination from a broken sensor that led NOAA to remove a "degraded"  global temperature satellite from service. I wished to know whether NOAA were going to actively root out all corrupted data and re-publish their numbers.

However, NOAA tossed that hot potato over to MSU who now advises they “cannot make any representations on behalf of NOAA.” Thus neither NOAA nor MSU will come clean on the true extent of satellite temperature data corruption and a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request is now becoming ever more necessary to move this issue forward.


Government Lawyers Quickly on the Case


After the Satellitegate story broke in the summer NOAA had their lawyers on the case. A formal attorney’s letter advised me NOAA would not comment and referred the matter to their Coast Watch partner’s site that is run by Michigan State University (MSU). Their legal advisers declined to accept that their NOAA-16 satellite failure was as an issue they ought to address.


But MSU now points the finger back at NOAA leaving taxpayers no closer to the truth about the extent of satellite data corruption. But conversely what is mounting is further evidence to suggest that the US government may be engaging in a cover up.


Years of Satellite Data Undermined


My original articles reported that the US Government  has been forced to admit its satellite readings were ‘degraded’  and as Dr. John Christy indicates, the real Satellitegate is not about one satellite.


NOAA has reported a succession of record warm temperatures in recent years based on such satellite readings but these may all be fatally undermined if government stonewalling persists.


With top climate scientists and even prior governmental reports citing under funding and misallocation as the trigger for spiraling satellite data calamities researchers have shown flaws with five satellites that undermine global climate data records.


With public confidence in the official numbers falling why won’t the US government come clean and frankly answer the questions posed? If they did then we could once and for all clear up the suspicion over whether thousands of bogus super hot false temperatures have been fed into climate models for years.


University Admits only Images not Data was Fixed


As the weeks and months pass with no official answers on such questions I published my last article explaining that a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request would soon become the last viable option to get at the truth in this matter.


Interestingly, since publication of that article MSU contacted me via spokesman, Mark Fellows. While Fellows conceded that, “seriously degraded data from one satellite was the root cause of the problem” he would only go as far as admitting that “images” – not data had been removed from the MSU archives.


Therefore we are still no closer to a definitive statement as to whether “degraded” satellite data has been infecting global climate models.


Five Years of Public Records Deleted 


Typical of U.S. satellites, and admitted to by Fellows and other authorities, the offending NOAA-16 data handling is automated and human operators do not routinely check the numbers. Respected climate scientist, Dr Roy Spencer advised me he knew of the fault in the satellite’s sensor in 2005 and he and other experts abandoned using its corrupted temperatures for climate modeling.


Following Spencer’s advice and before publishing my first Satellitegate article, I checked the NOAA-16 satellite’s AVHRR Subsystem Summary. What I found were numerous entries up to 2010 but nowhere any mention of sensor problems likely to cause data degradation. However, after publication of my articles, all entries from the NOAA-16 AVHRR Subsystem Summary from 2005 onwards were removed. Why?


NOAA Sells Degraded Data to Unwitting Researchers


Continuation of such obstructive conduct makes it increasingly reasonable to infer that NOAA may be implicated in malfeasance and possible fraud. We still do not see evidence that NOAA acted with due diligence on these bogus temperatures. By its omissions to publish caveats, upon the evidence of Spencer and others, NOAA appears to have knowingly failed to notify customers of the contamination of its temperature products for at least five years, maybe more.


Thus with no evidence in its favor the public may conclude the US government wrongfully sold degraded temperature data to unwitting climate research institutes around the world.


With a huge can of worms now opened MSU has joined NOAA in declining to explain this bizarre, indeed, potentially criminal conduct. Is it any wonder that skeptics see such disingenuous responses as little more than stalling tactics in what is becoming increasingly seen as a government cover up?


Below is a full copy of the MSU email. Note that the university cites removal of “images” not of data:


Re: CoastWatch thermal data

From: Mark Fellows

To:John O’Sullivan


Dear Mr. O’Sullivan:


Your queries to CoastWatch were forwarded to me. You should understand that we can only provide information regarding the CoastWatch program, which is a partnership including MSU. We cannot make any representations on behalf of NOAA.

The main focus of the Great Lakes CoastWatch website is to provide commercial, charter and recreational anglers with information on lake surface temperatures. It is not intended, nor advertised, to be a primary source for any scientific or climate studies. The CoastWatch team is not aware of any such studies that have used imagery or data obtained from the website.

The CoastWatch computer system is highly automated to reduce cost. It ingests pre-processed thermal imagery generated by instruments on NOAA satellites. On the evening of August 9, 2010, it came the attention of the CoastWatch team that some thermal images on the website contained obviously erroneous temperatures. It was soon determined that seriously degraded data from one satellite was the root cause of the problem.

The team took immediate action to remove the image from the website and reprogrammed the system to no longer ingest data from that satellite. In addition, the team searched the image archive for other obviously erroneous temperature images and removed them. [emphasis added]

The following notice was posted on the web site and all internal pages:

NOTICE (8/11/2010): Due to degradation of a satellite sensor used by this mapping product, some images have exhibited extreme high and low surface temperatures. Please disregard these images as anomalies. Future images will not include data from the degraded satellite and images caused by the faulty satellite sensor will be/have been removed from the image archive. [emphasis added]

In the 16 years that this service has been available, this is the first known instance of seriously degraded thermal data being delivered on the website. The CoastWatch team is currently evaluating whether other reprogramming changes are necessary to avoid such problems in the future.


On behalf of Great Lakes CoastWatch,


Mark Fellows

University Relations

Michigan State University





Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

CO2 Deficit Medically Proven to be Bad for your Health

"The BRAIN-BREATH CONNECTION: Breathing Chemistry and its Effects on Neurophysiology, Emotion, Cognition, Personality, performance and Health By Peter Litchfield


Poor breathing chemistry, brought about by improper ventilation of carbon dioxide (CO2), is undoubtedly one of the most insidious and dangerous physiological responses to stress, emotional distress, difficult and/or complex tasks, and relationship challenges. "Overbreathing" means bringing about CO2 deficit in the blood, and other extracellular fluids, through excessive ventilation (increased "minute volume"), a condition that may result in debilitating short-term and long-term complaints and symptoms.


Overbreathing is a dangerous behavior immediately triggering or exacerbating a wide variety of serious emotional, perceptual, cognitive, attention, behavioral, and physical deficits in human performance and health. The slight shifts in CO2 chemistry associated with overbreathing may cause physiological changes such as hypoxia (oxygen deficit), cerebral vasoconstriction (brain), coronary constriction (heart), blood and extracellular alkalosis (increased pH), cerebral glucose deficit, ischemia (localized anemia), buffer depletion (bicarbonates and phosphates), bronchial constriction, gut constriction, calcium imbalance, magnesium deficiency, and muscle fatigue, spasm (tetany), and pain.


Good breathing chemistry establishes a system-wide context conducive to optimizing health and maximizing performance. Basic principles, concepts, and applications of monitoring and evaluating the chemistry and mechanics of breathing will be presented in the context of live demonstrations of the effects of deregulated chemistry (i.e., overbreathing) on health and performance. Profile assessments and techniques for restoring adaptive breathing based on breathing chemistry will be demonstrated, and resulting data interpreted and discussed with the audience. Evaluating, establishing, maintaining, and promoting good respiratory chemistry are fundamental to virtually any professional practice involving biofeedback, neurofeedback, or self-regulation training."


Hat tip:  James Delingpole reader, sherlockcaptain.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

How the Law Exposes Climate Fraudsters

Ninety legal challenges in the US against the global warming fraud are bolstered by an increase in the number of top scientists now prepared to speak out.

Reported on the Hockey Schtick today is the article, EPA sued by over 90 entities for ‘Greenhouse’ Gas Regulations"According to The Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration’s move to curb ‘greenhouse gases’ using the Environmental Protection Agency has drawn legal challenges from more than 90 companies and trade associations."  Those challenges are credibly backed up by expert testimony to support their claims.

Key Witnesses to the Collapse of the Warming Fraud


Last week Professor Hal Lewis, an American scientist of great distinction quit the American Physical Society over what he saw as their perceived role in giving oxygen to the great global warming swindle. His voice is added to a growing list of eminent international scientist now going public. No less significant on that list is Dr David Evans, consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005 and a key government scientist working towards the Kyoto Protocol.


Evans first spoke out in The Australian to say, “There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.” (‘No smoking hot spot,’ July 18, 2008).

More and more of the public are now persuaded that global warming is the greatest criminal fraud ever perpetrated. It is shockingly covered up by the US and UK governments who knowingly and cynically persist in unlawfully denying Freedom of Information requests (FOIA) time after time.


Freedom of Information Laws Abused


I am personally involved with one such FOIA soon to be filed against NOAA for obstinately refusing to disclose information about its degraded satellite network and in particular, the NOAA-16 junk box. On this see, Leading US Physicist Labels Satellitegate Scandal a ‘Catastrophe’.


NOAA now admits the satellite’s sensors were ‘degraded’ but declines to answer my questions posed after my recent articles in regards to whether thousands of false readings in excess of 400 degrees Fahrenheit slipped through and may have contaminated global climate models for years.


Worryingly, NOAA sinisterly removed from its website all the data from the NOAA-16 subsystem log for the past 5 years when my articles exposed the fact that eminent US scientists reported such data flaws in 2005. No action was ever taken. NOAA cannot pretend to have not known of these faults yet the satellite’s official log never recorded such failings. Until publication of my Satelligate articles, the NOAA-16 log entries on the US govt’s official website showed a record going right up to 2010. After publication of my first article all entries from 2005-10 were removed. That decade-long subsystem log clearly showed nowhere any sensor failure. I suspect that NOAA removed the last five years of entries in a cynical attempt to obfuscate their culpability.


Let the Public Have Access to the Truth


The public has a right to know why NOAA is seeking to conceal these failings when leading US climatologists made such facts known in 2005. Indeed, as per the statements of Dr Roy Spencer and others NOAA may knowingly have been feeding super-boiling temps automatically into weather/climate proprietary products sold to climate scientists for years. They then unwittingly believed such junk data and thus (falsely) argued Earth was warming dangerously.


My FOIA request asks simple questions such as: Why did NOAA not immediately and officially notify its customers of the degraded data in 2005 and why were those entries from 2005-10 removed from the NOAA-16 subsystem log?


Bring the Fraudsters into Court Now


These kinds of legal challenges bring to open court those most suspected of global warming fraud. Not just organizations like NOAA, but ringleaders such as James Hansen and Michael Mann, forcing them to provide documents and prove their flimsy AGW theory under cross-examination in a court of law.


As the Hockey Schtick article observes, “Here’s what happened when James Hansen was ‘boxed in’ on the witness stand once before, dumbfounded when cross-examined and asked to name just one other scientist who agreed with his assertion that sea levels would rise more than 1 meter this century, stating "I could not, instantly." 

If these crooks can’t prove their case then it clearly feeds the argument of skeptics that the entire global warming narrative is a political confidence trick. While failure to answer my questions points to a cover up that constitutes conspiracy to commit fraud and substantiates the charge of willful mis-selling of junk science.



1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Churchillian Epitaph to the Age of Climate Stupidity

Aghast at the ‘achievements’ of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)  in persuading world governments to squander over US $13 trillion dollars of taxpayer monies on ‘global warming’ one anonymous wag lamented, "Never in the course of human history has so much been stolen from so many by so few."

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Satellitegate – US Agency Facing Climate Court Room Showdown

The controversy over ‘Satellitegate’ hots up as NOAA faces a court appearance for refusing to release evidence that would show whether one or more US satellites exagerrated global warming temperatures.


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a federal agency focused on reporting the condition of the oceans and the atmosphere. When the story first broke NOAA bizarrely announced it would withdraw satellite ‘images’ from its archives but failed to state whether reams of cooked data had also been withdrawn.


An official US Government statement last July confirmed that the NOAA-16 earth orbiting satellite used to measure surface temperatures suffered failure due to a “degraded” sensor system. But skeptics now fear that because government climate scientists won’t answer any more questions or reveal the discredited data archives they may be guilty of fraudulently cooking the books to show super boiling temperatures.


 The story broke after an anonymous member of the public contacted a skeptic blog when he stumbled across thousands of alarming readings on a government website. The website showed thousands of surface temperatures of over 400 degrees fahrenheit. Dubbed Satellitegate the shocking revelations proved that all such bogus data had been fed automatically into data banks that the US Government then sold all over the world.


As proprietary temperature data products the junk numbers were used by domestic and international weather and climate researchers. Fears are growing that the junk data may have contaminated scores of climate models worldwide and artificially increased average global warming records by several degrees.


In the three months since the story hit the news NOAA still hasn’t come clean as to the  true extent of the data contamination. Now it may be necessary for lawyers to file an official Freedom of Information request (FOIA) to compel the government, under federal legislation, to stop the cover up and reveal the truth.


US Government Has History of Breaking Law over Satellite Failures


This won’t the first time NOAA has cynically broken the law to hide embarrasing satellite problems. In 2008 became embroiled in a similar FOIA confrontation- see NOAA Stonewalls on DCSOVR Documents.’ It is believed that the DCSOVR satellite costing over $100 million may be cannabalised to destroy incriminating evidence that NOAA and NASA were conspiring to prevent the launch of that satellite because it would prove the numbers from other such sources were fake.


As reports, “DSCOVR is designed to view the planet from the unique vantage point of one million miles distant, and according to leading researchers would immediately settle any remaining debate on the origins or seriousness of global warming.”


Degraded Climate Data Knowingly Sold for Over Five Years


Among the questions NOAA still hasn’t answered are: (1.) how long did NOAA knowingly sell to its network of international customers (mostly government weather and climate researchers) ‘degraded’ data and, (2.) why was no action taken until the story caused a public outcry five years after prominent climate researchers first made the faults known?


Sadly, some commentators on this issue omit to consider that it is common practice in corruption cases for conspirators to shroud their malevolence in the cloak of incompetence. To be fair to the commentator in question he has since publicly conceded, “But, I don’t know the full story.”


How the Law Addresses Corruption


Too often, those with little or no legal experience fail to address whether the alleged perpetrators have the means, motive and opportunity to engage in such conspiratorial acts. Willful ignorance of the facts and/or the law are recurrent themes in government corruption cases on which I’ve worked in both the UK and New York.


Courts must look for the mens rea (guilty mind) component of the wrongful act in conjunction with the actus reus (the rotten deed itself) otherwise, quite rightly, they will never convict.


Lawyers defending the indefensible will often resort to that hoary old chestnut of applying the “merely negligent” gambit to get government workers off serious charges. I have heard endlessly over the years from defense attorneys that we should “never presume malice where simple incompetence will do.” To the raw, untrained eye it often works.


Indeed, there is no prerequisite to doubt such an affirmative defense when there is the absence of any pattern of “error” because it is that pattern of repeated errors that leads to the guilty. What becomes apparent in good fraud cases is that the evidence always displays a pattern- a predictable sequence- of “errors” that go way beyond mere chance. 


The Question that NOAA Still Won’t Answer


What makes the Satellitegate controversy so intriguing are three simple questions:


1.      Why do the thousands of high temperature “errors”  favor the alarmist (thus government) case?

2. Why were such “errors” only acknowledged by the US government when the story became big news?


3. Why won’t NOAA answer my follow on questions and release all the facts?


Invariably, apologists for science fraud often refer to systemic “errors” as nothing more serious than simple laboratory “selection bias” – and it sure is! Those involved only see what suits them. However, as we have seen in correspondingly substantial frauds (e.g. multi-billion dollar Madoff scandal and sub-prime mortgages) such “error” bias profits the individual or the organisation that crunched the numbers.


When that link between conscious act and subsequent gain becomes clear then it constitutes criminal fraud. Often when such cases are proved you’ll hear those same sanctimonious words uttered by apologists, “lessons will be learned” and they sure are – particularly lessons as to how best to mitigate being caught in the future!


How Self-preservation instinct leads to Conspiracy to Commit Fraud


As I have seen in courtrooms, many middle ranking officers, those loyal lieutenants, often rally behind the misdeeds of their superiors because they are clearly motivated by misplaced self-preservation in a process of ‘CYA.’  You “cover your ass” and concomitantly, by such a survival strategy you also cover the behinds of colleagues by wagon circling as a group. You know full well that your undoubted strength in numbers increases your own personal chances of avoiding censure/prosecution.


So how do anti-corruption specialists prove malfeasance/fraud under the civil burden of “the preponderance of the evidence?” Well, ultimately we need to demonstrate a good probability that X , Y or Z are unlikely to be merely incompetent time after time when their repeated errors favor only one outcome as opposed to a random one. When it becomes statistically improbable that such “errors” could be down to chance alone, that’s when a jury convicts.


What those without legal training also often fail to grasp are two key concepts that courts must address that may be fatal for those implicated parties:


(i)                  Omission-conscious failure to positively remedy a known error is malfeasance and may thus constitute conspiracy to commit fraud;


(ii)                Loss or destruction of evidence by any party subject to an FOIA constitutes evidence abuse which is dealt with by the spoliation doctrine (i.e. the offending party is sanctioned under law because the law states that a party shall be punished when it ought to anticipate legal proceedings-thus securing conviction by default judgment).[1.]


The worst evidence of hyper-inflated global warming data that I found was on a web page entitled, ‘Michigan State University Remote Sensing & GIS Research and Outreach Services.’ When I contacted NOAA for further information I was denied by their lawyers. Is this necessary if we are talking about a non-problem over trivial errors of data no one uses? Does that smell of negligence or more of fraud? Taxpayers have a right to know what evidence has now become conveniently “lost” or destroyed.


NOAA and MSU have effectively blocked further access to all associated data preventing my associates and me from analyzing it to identify if there is any case to answer.  We merely want NOAA to address the following:


  1. Since removing ‘images’ from their archives has NOAA or its Sea Watch partners taken steps to also remove infected ‘data’ from their archives?
  2. When did NOAA/Sea Watch Partners first know of this problem?
  3. Has NOAA and/or Sea Watch partners ascertained the scope and extent of this data error and what action (i) has been (ii) will be taken to avoid any further recurrence?
  4. Has NOAA/Sea Watch partners identified whether satellite data temperature anomalies impact other data sets and findings including global climate models?
  5.  Why has NOAA sinisterly removed all entries for the NOAA-16 subsystem log about the satellite’s health and performance from 2005 onwards when such entries were cleared displayed online up to the date of my first ‘Satellitegate’ article?
  6. Were there errors also made in the NOAA-16 subsystem log that is a totally unconnected process to that of the degraded sensor.
  7. Will NOAA preserve/provide my investigators and me with the details of all the aforementioned data no longer displayed online, plus all associated data that may be relevant to investigations into the ‘Satellitegate’ controversy?
  8. Does NOAA continue to feed automated ‘degraded’ satellite data into its proprietary products that are bought by weather and climate researchers around the world?
  9. Why has NOAA not given any official notifications to (i) it’s paying customers and (ii) the public via its website/publications of the NOAA-16 faults despite Drs. Roy Spencer and John Curry making it known since 2005 that data was no longer reliable?


What Are the Public Left to Think Now?


As any competent government corruption attorney will tell you, repeated errors constitute malfeasance when a continuous and unrelenting omission to address a known sequence of data ‘degradations’ can be judged to be nothing short of a conscious and willful act.


Moreover, when there is also the intentional failure to divulge the evidence that would prove conscious intent not to correct a fault in your favor then that is also proof of fraud. Thus, a group of those who knew of the errors and collectively and consciously failed to act are as guilty of conspiracy to defraud as those who perpretrated the original wrong. Bankers have been jailed for less, why aren’t climate scientists?


[1.] Koesel, MM; Turnbull, TL; Gourash, DF; ’Spoliation of evidence: sanctions and remedies for destruction of evidence,’(2006), American Bar Association.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

New Low: Desperate Warmist Video Detonates Deniers into Dead Meat


UK cinemas see national release of ‘fun’ new climate activists campaign video showing killing of global warming deniers. Film marked with a parental advisory warning.


Touted in The Guardian newspaper the film labeled, “Not suitable for children” marks a new low in environmentalist cinematic propaganda. Announcing the film’s release the national newspaper boasts, “Our friends at the 10:10 climate change campaign have given us the scoop on this highly explosive short film, written by Britain’s top comedy screenwriter Richard Curtis, ahead of its general release.” (hat tip: Barry Woods).


Last Ditch Attempt in Failing Campaign


The offering is being dismissed as a lamentable a last ditch attempt to salvage something of the British government’s futile and soon redundant‘10:10 climate change campaign’ (an initiative to persuade Brits to cut 10% from their carbon emissions in 2010). Official figures show that UK household emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased bymore than 3% this year as domestic fuel use rose due to colder temperatures.

readers are invited to guffaw as role models and authority figures depicted in the film press a red button and detonate global warming ‘deniers’ into gory lumps of offal.  Packaged in the guise of humor this naked hard sell seems a pitiful attempt at convincing the ‘one or two’ of us who are still left that the sky really is falling despite no rising temperatures globally since 1998.


Gillian Anderson (X-Files) and Radiohead join the motley collection of B listers and has-been former soccer stars. Along with indifferent school kids and non-compliant office workers the naysayers all have their innards exploded. No doubt an enhanced 3-D high-definition sequel will be in the pipeline if the premier of this ‘offaling’ goeswell.  For your edification you can watch a nay-saying soccer player and movie star vaporize into gory pulp- all for ignoring their carbon footprint!


Bad Year for Hollywood’s Warmist Cinema


Sadly, 2010 is fast turning into a bad year for tree-hugging film makers. It started with so much promise with the general release of James ‘Chicken’ Cameron’s animated full length feature, ‘Avatar.’ But, Cameron, the new Hollywood darling of the warmist crazies, turned tail and ran after canceling at the very last minute after demanding a climate debate with prominent skeptic, Marc Morano of Climate Depot.


On this evidence, Curtis and Hamilton have so much in common: both appearing to be intellectually bankrupt yet filled by self-loathing as they mournfully concede that public interest in climate-related issues just walked off a cliff.


Setting the bar so low with its most simple (or should that be simplistic?) message, this mercifully short film, also showing on Youtube, is literally tripe and speaks more to the converted than non-believers. But as they say, all publicity is good, right?





Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized