By James Delingpole

Whether you believe it’s part of a sinister conspiracy which will lead inexorably to one world government or whether you think it’s just an innocent high-level talking shop, there’s one thing that can’t be denied: it knows which way the wind is blowing.

At its June meeting in Sitges, Spain (unreported and held in camera, as is Bilderberg’s way), some of the world’s most powerful CEOs rubbed shoulders with notable academics and leading politicians. They included: the chairman of Fiat, the Irish Attorney General Paul Gallagher, the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, Henry Kissinger, Bill Gates, Dick Perle, the Queen of the Netherlands, the editor of the Economist. Definitely not Z-list, in other words.

Which is what makes one particular item on the group’s discussion agenda so tremendously significant. See if you can spot the one I mean: “The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 - 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations”.

Yep, that’s right. Global Cooling. Which means one of two things.

Either it was a printing error.

Or the global elite is perfectly well aware that global cooling represents a far more serious and imminent threat to the world than global warming, but is so far unwilling to admit it except behind closed doors.

Let me explain briefly why this is a bombshell waiting to explode.

Almost every government in the Western world from the USA to Britain to all the other EU states to Australia and New Zealand is currently committed to a policy of “decarbonisation.” This in turn is justified to (increasingly sceptical) electorates on the grounds that man-made CO2 is a prime driver of dangerous global warming and must therefore be reduced drastically, at no matter what social, economic and environmental cost. In the Eighties and Nineties, the global elite had a nice run of hot weather to support their (scientifically dubious) claims. But now they don’t. Winters are getting colder. Fuel bills are rising (in the name of combating climate change, natch). The wheels are starting to come off the AGW bandwagon. Ordinary people, resisting two decades of concerted brainwashing, are starting to notice.

All this, of course, spells big trouble for the global power elite. As well as leading to food shortages (as, for example, it becomes harder to grow wheat in northerly latitudes; adding, of course, to such already-present disasters as biofuels and the rejection of GM), global cooling is going to find electorates increasingly angry that they have been sold a pup.

Our fuel bills have risen inexorably; our countryside, our views and our property values have been ravaged by hideous wind farms; our holidays have been made more expensive; our cost of living has been driven up by green taxes; our freedoms have been curtailed in any number of pettily irritating ways from what kind of light bulbs we are permitted to use to how we dispose of our rubbish. And to what end?

If man-made global warming was really happening and really a problem we might possibly have carried on putting up with all these constraints on our liberty and assaults on our income. But if it turns out to have been a myth...Well then, all bets are off.

The next few years are going to be very interesting. Watch the global power elite squirming to reposition itself as it slowly distances itself from Anthropogenic Global Warming ("Who? Us? No. We never thought of it as more than a quaint theory..."), and tries to find new ways of justifying green taxation and control. (Ocean acidification; biodiversity; et al). You’ll notice sly shifts in policy spin. In Britain, for example, Chris “Chicken Little” Huhne’s suicidal “dash for wind” will be re-invented as a vital step towards “energy security.” There will be less talk of “combating climate change” and more talk of “mitigation”. You’ll hear enviro-Nazis like Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren avoid reference to “global warming like the plague, preferring the more reliably vague phrase “global climate disruption.”

And you know what the worst thing is? If we allow them to, they’re going to get away with it.

Our duty as free citizens over the next few years is to make sure that they don’t.

Al Gore, George Soros, Bill Gates, Carol Browner, John Holdren, Barack Obama, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Tim Yeo, Michael Mann, Ted Turner, Robert Redford, Phil Jones, Chris Huhne, John Howard (yes really, he was supposed to be a conservative, but he was the man who kicked off Australia’s ETS), Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Yvo de Boer, Rajendra Pachauri...The list of the guilty goes on and on. Each in his own way - and whether through ignorance, naivety idealism or cynicism, it really doesn’t matter for the result has been the same - has done his bit to push the greatest con-trick in the history of science, forcing on global consumers the biggest bill in the history taxation, using “global warming” as an excuse to extend the reach of government further than it has ever gone before.

It is time we put a stop to this. In the US, the Tea Party movement is showing us the way. We need to punish these dodgy politicians at the ballot box. We need to ensure that those scientists guilty of malfeasance are, at the very least thrown out of the jobs which we taxpayers have been funding these last decades. We need to ensure that corporatist profiteers are no longer able to benefit from the distortion and corruption of the markets which result from green regulation.

We need a “Global Warming” Nuremberg.

James Delingpole is an English journalist, author and blogger who helped break the Climategate scandal. He is the author of numerous books including a series of adventure stories set in World War II (the first is called Coward On The Beach), an anti-Obama polemic called Welcome To Obamaland: I’ve Seen Your Future And It Doesn’t Work, and a new one called Watermelons which describes in gory detail how Man-Made Global Warming represents the biggest outbreak of mass hysteria in global history. He blogs regularly at the Daily Telegraph. His personal blog, in which all his writing is collated by his wondrous Kiwi helper Josie Jackson, here.

By Christine Hall

Washington, D.C., November 10, 2010 - The Politico late Tuesday broke a story that the White House “rewrote crucial sections of an Interior Department report to suggest an independent group of scientists and engineers supported a six-month ban on offshore oil drilling,” according to a report by the Interior inspector general.

In response, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market, government watchdog group, called for the firing of White House Climate Czar Carol Browner.

“President Obama should fire Carol Browner for this manipulation of science,” said Myron Ebell, Director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment.

“President Obama has talked about the importance of ‘ensuring scientific data is not distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda,’ and claimed that his administration would ‘make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,’” said Ebell. “Unless that’s dishonest rhetoric, President Obama must fire Browner for distorting and concealing scientific data to serve a political agenda.”

Browner reportedly sent two edited versions of the Interior Department report on offshore drilling back to the department on May 27. “The language had been changed to insinuate the seven-member panel of outside experts - who reviewed a draft of various safety recommendations - endorsed the moratorium,” Politico reported, citing the Interior Inspector General report.

KEY QUOTES & FACTS ON OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SCIENCE POLICY

President Obama at inauguration: “We will restore science to its rightful place.”

President Obama on March 9 rollout of pro-stem cell exec order: “It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

Background to Office of Inspector General report:

• May 27: In wake of Deepwater Horizon disaster, Department of Interior extends offshore drilling moratorium 6 months; DOE issues an attendant report, “Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf.”

• According to the Executive Summary of the report ("Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf"), “The recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.” The clear implication was that the peer review panel approved of the moratorium. Yet, as noted by the OIG, “the proposed moratorium had not been discussed with the peer reviewers prior to the issuance of the Report.” So where did the implication come from?

• “At 2:13 a.m. on May 27, 2010, [Carol] Browner’s staff member sent an email...that contained two edited versions of the Executive Summary...Both version, however, revised and re-ordered the Executive Summary, placing the peer-review language immediately following the moratorium recommendation causing the distinction between the Secretary’s [Interior Secretary Ken Salazaar’s] moratorium recommendation - which had not been peer-reviewed - and the recommendations contained in the 30-day Report - which had been peer-reviewed - to become effectively lost.”

• That’s why, “The OIG determined that the White House edit of the original DOE draft Executive Summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts.” The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty.

See story here.

By Dr. Bob Carter, the Australian

In 2006, former US vice-president Al Gore made a movie and companion book about global warming called An Inconvenient Truth. Gore undertook many speaking tours to publicise his film, and his PowerPoint slide show has been shown by thousands of his acolytes spreading a relentless message of warming alarmism across the globe.

But while audiences reacted positively and emotionally to the film’s message - which was that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming - some independent scientists pointed out that An Inconvenient Truth represented well-made propaganda for the warming cause and presented an unreliable, biased account of climate science.

For nowhere in his film does Gore say that the phenomena he describes falls within the natural range of environmental change on our planet. Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.

In early February 2007, the Department for Education and Skills in Britain, apparently ignorant that the film was scientifically defective, announced that all secondary schools were to be provided with a climate change information pack that contained a copy of Gore’s by then notorious film. Many parents were scandalised at this attempt to propagandise their children on such an important environmental issue.

One parent, school governor Stuart Dimmock who had two sons at a state school in southern England, took legal action against the secretary for education in the High Court, and sought the film’s withdrawal from schools.

In a famous judgment in October 2007, Justice Burton, discerning that Gore was on a “crusade”, commented that “the claimant substantially won this case”, and ruled that the science in the film had been used “to make a political statement and to support a political program” and that the film contained nine fundamental errors of fact out of the 35 listed by Dimmock’s scientific advisers. Justice Burton required that these errors be summarised in new guidance notes for screenings.

In effect, the High Court judgment typed Gore and his supporters as evangelistic proselytisers for an environmental cause.

Fast forward to this month and many Australian parents have been surprised to learn Gore’s film “will be incorporated in the [new] national [English] curriculum ), as part of a bid to teach students on environmental sustainability across all subjects”.

It is, I suppose, some relief the film has not been recommended for inclusion in the science syllabus. Instead, Banquo’s ghost has risen to haunt English teachers, doubtless in class time that might otherwise have been devoted to learning grammar.

Some Australian English teachers may feel competent to advise pupils on the science content of An Inconvenient Truth, but I wouldn’t bank on it. Of course, the same teachers have to feel competent also to shepherd their flock on to the green pastures of sustainability, that other pseudo-scientific concept so beloved by the keepers of our society’s virtue.

Australian schools are being transformed from institutions that impart a rigorous education into social reform factories that manufacture right-thinking (which is to say, left-thinking) young clones ready to be admitted into the chattering classes. This process is manifest in other aspects of the new syllabuses.

Two other biases in the public debate about global warming have occurred recently. The first was the launching of the website Power Shift 2009, which describes itself as “Australia’s first national youth climate summit. It’s the moment where [sic] our fast-growing youth movement for a safe climate future [whatever that might be] comes together”.

In reality, this is simply another website aimed at indoctrinating children regarding global warming, and while it’s not surprising to see Greenpeace and GetUp are involved, it is disappointing to see the involvement of persons with the mana of Ian Thorpe.

The second recent bias has been the broadcast on ABC Radio National of the George Munster Award Forum from the Sydney University of Technology. Here, a panel of “Australia’s top journalists” examined the proposition: “Telling both sides of the story is a basic rule of journalism, but should it apply to reporting climate change?”

Stellar contributions made by the journalists involved included the notions that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, that 97 per cent of all climate scientists agree that dangerous human-caused global warming is happening, and that there is no real debate about climate change. Independent scientists who question these specious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change orthodoxies - for the good reason that they are untrue - were referred to as denialists, fruitcakes, clowns and fools who had “invaded the ABC”. Giving them airtime was said to “attack the essence of journalism”.

The reporting of email leaks from the University of East Anglia last year was “a terrible and wrong disturbance” in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate conference, and the astonishing claim was even made that Fairfax and the ABC “have delivered the objective, factual scientific stories on climate change”.

This farrago of nonsense was described by one US scientist who listened as “probably the most horrifying and disturbing Big Ideas-Small Minds discussion by journalists I have ever heard”. Book-burning parties for Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth or my own Climate: the Counter Consensus can’t be far away, and if the persons involved in the forum were Australia’s top environmental journalists, then God help us all.

Australia is rightly vigilant about preventing child abuse and guarding the freedom of the press. Why, then, are we so willing to tolerate the abuse of educational indoctrination of our children and the deliberate limitation on the scope of the media discussions they will be exposed to as adults?

Gore’s movie and book are an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but are often unable to state publicly) his crusade is mostly based on junk science.

If allowed in Australian schools at all, An Inconvenient Truth belongs not alongside Jane Austen and Tim Winton, nor with Charles Darwin and Richard Feynman, but with the works of authors such as Jules Verne and H. G. Wells in the science-fiction section of the library.

Geologist Bob Carter is a fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs

See post here.