In Australia there has been a poll to assess the public's impression of Climate Alarm which has been written about on this linked blog.

The categories are as follows:

• Dismissive
• Alarmed
• Doubtful
• Concerned
• Cautious
• Disengaged

I started out 10 years ago as being in the "Concerned" category,  which is why I wanted to know more about "global warming" as it was then called. For the first couple of years, the more I asked, the less I was sure.  I was asking anyone and everyone that I could find back then for papers and studies and hard data of what is actually happening, so I could confirm for myself what is happening, against what is projected to happen.  No I did not trust the media, and in 2003 I trusted the media even less when they were complicit in spreading, rather than tackling, the lies which lead to to the supreme war crime of the Iraq Invasion. I discovered for myself that the media have an agenda, just as much as politicians do, so to have any chance whatsoever of ascertaining truth, I had to investigate things for myself, as best I could.  I started as WHOLLY neutral and open minded and with only the strict adherence to "the scientific method" as a reliable guide, I started to investigate global warming, and climate change.



I found myself very quickly finding the sceptical side of the debate more honest, open and scientifically valid,  but I was still open to the data providing evidence which would convince me of the merits of either side of the debate.

I found that I was getting two different sides of a debate which one side denied was even happening.  The more I investigated, the more alarmed I became... Not at the risk of a catastrophic global climatic hazard, which raw data could not confirm beyond reasonable doubt, but at the tactics of the one side which constantly projected its faults and failings upon the other side, and still claimed the other side did not exist, or was irrelevant and tiny, when pushed into admitting that it did exist.

I was assured that the whole world of science supported one side, with all the scientific bodies and institutions and global governments and world industry supporting the global warming claim against a tiny band of irrelevant kooks, nutters and denialists.  Yet they also tried to convince me that this other "non-existent" side, which was tiny and unrepresentative, was also non-the-less the richest and most powerful enemy which was supported by global corporations and governments and the media and the alarmist side was small and a victim of this global conspiracy which meant that the scientific method could be dispensed with to provide evidence which supports "the cause",  of saving the planet, and all counter evidence could be hidden, denied or dismissed as irrelevant or as invalid and cherry picked by denialists.  Climate Science ceased to be science and instead became a cause.

The more I approached the alarmist's side with honest and friendly, yet sceptical, questions, the more I was convinced that I was not dealing with scientists who were engaged in the honest pursuit of truth.

The only side that presented me with honest answers, AND the possible counter evidence to their own arguments was the sceptical side.  They would say something like, [scientist and scientist et al 2006] state that  blah blah blah which is suggestive of the possible effect of.... however, there is dispute because [scientist 2008] discovered something else whilst looking for something else.  Whilst this may mean (A) it could also mean (B), my preference would be (A) because.... 

As more and more data came in, this side was showing all sides of it, sharing it, debating it and treating it the way scientists do and doing so in the face of a very hostile scientific establishment and media. The alarmist side upheld, or dismissed data, or scientists, or any public announcement solely on whether it furthered "the cause" or not.  The validity of the data and method hardly warranted a mention, and was only looked at from the filter of if it supported the cause. Papers which undermined or countered "catastrophic man-made climate change" would not get published at all, unless they contained some sort of disclaimer stating that "this paper does not reject man made climate change" somewhere in the summary to appease reviewers and give them something to counter "denialists with" when the evidence was debated.  Alarmists would write with religious certainty and only provide "accepted" papers even if those papers had been debunked or were blatantly flawed.

We were told that there would be no more snow as the world heated up and the snows of Kilimanjaro would melt completely and sea level rise would accelerate quickly and polar bears were threatened with extinction as the Arctic ice headed for a tipping point which was almost certainly what happened in 2007...

Then Climategate happened.... then 10:10 and exploding children. Then Plane stupid and polar bears falling from the sky. Then global warming was the reason there was so much more snow Then Climategate 2... then Fakegate and  global average temperatures levelled off and so did sea-level rise and the global ice increased again and many more polar bears have been found and the snows on Kilimanjaro were sublimating, not melting and some of the Himalayan glaciers increased and so on and so on...

As all this non-scientific rhetoric and blatant political propaganda was peddled by the alarmists side in lieu of empirical scientifically valid evidence, and as the actual empirical evidence countered all the previous claims of the alarmists, I could not maintain an impartial neutrality anymore.  How come decreasing ice is evidence of their claim, but increasing ice is not classed by them as counter evidence, but bizarrely as yet more evidence of their claim? How come they have created a hypothesis which is not scientifically falsifiable by empirical observational evidence?

As this has increasingly happened over the last three years I have found myself moving through the Dismissive and Doubtful categories and now I am in a category which is not even listed in the above poll.   I now categorise myself as Downright Hostile.

Why? Because I do not like being lied to, manipulated and being charged for it all in the name of a political cause.

How UKIP can make a breakthrough into Westminster in 2015

The real challenge for each and everyone of us who are now supporting UKIP is to build momentum, spread the truth about UKIP's policies in every area, give out the manifesto and show how all the current top three parliamentary parties are all the same, so if you disagree with what the last or current government did or does, the only option to change it is to vote UKIP.

By so doing we need to keep building support, keep encouraging people to vote FOR the policies they want, instead of reluctantly voting for one set of failed divisive, politically correct, left-liberal, corrupt corporate, big taxing, big spending, climate-changey, high immigration, EU dominated policies, to stop an identical bunch of failed divisive, politically correct, left-liberal, corrupt corporate,
big taxing, big spending, climate-changey, high immigration, EU
dominated policies being implemented, or just as bad, not voting at all, because the labour and coalition parties make voting seem irrelevant.

By so doing we must build massive support leading into the European parliamentary elections so that UKIP can WIN those elections outright in the UK.  That should create enough of a buzz and momentum to start us winning in Westminster too.  Whereas in 2009, few people used twitter, facebook etc... for political campaigning or getting news. The mainstream media managed to downplay the significance of UKIP thrashing liberal democrats and labour and coming second overall in that national election. In that election, UKIP beat the party of government in a national election. 
However conservative voters who lent UKIP their vote, wanted to defeat labour almost as much as they wanted to breathe. SO the vote went back to the tories, and the 3-4% core UKIP support was ignored at the following general election by people like me who held our nose and went back to voting conservative in my local marginal constituency to try to defeat labour.

The challenge for UKIP will be to increase our support nationally in these upcoming local elections to prove we are a growing force.  There is a risk that the 8 - 11% polling numbers we now attract, either will not vote after all, or change back to their tribal habits, once in the voting booth, if they do vote.

The challenge NOW is that we MUST get the UKIP vote out in these May elections.

Then the next challenge is to WIN the European elections in the UK.

Then the next challenge after that is to RETAIN the support of those voters.

This did not work in 2010. However I believe the that there are very powerful reasons that next time will be different. Why? Three main reasons:

1. Next time, former conservative voters would not be too keen to revert back to the conservatives, because we have seen for ourselves how we still do not get conservative policies, by voting conservative.
2. If we are destined for labour policies under tory or labour or coalition, then labour may as well win and rightly get the blame for those policies failing, rather than the tories.
3. There will be a hell of a lot more UKIPPERS  making a hell of a lot more noise about WINNING A NATIONAL ELECTION OUTRIGHT! via all sorts of social and alternative media, so that the BBC and SKY ignoring us will become irrelevant, or even another unique selling point.  "They are ignoring us, because we are the ONLY party that can challenge the establishment's corrupt and incompetent status quo, instead of embracing and endorsing and encouraging it."

IF we can win the European elections outright, then that fact alone should grant UKIP a hell of a big credibility boost and challenge the notion that UKIP are a tiny fringe and protest party, that many busy "mainstream" voters still falsely believe.

If you love this country and want to save it from the damage of foreign and left wing policies, then we all have a LOT of work to do spreading a GREAT message of hope and optimism and opportunity.

Let us all rise to that task.  It is now time to step up, put up and get to work!

After careful consideration I have decided to vote UKIP!

The following is an old post which I have decided to re-post as it is a very frightening scenario which is still quietly happening below the liberal-left mainstream media radar (for a reason)...

 ------------------------------------------------
What is planned in the EU for the next two decades:

Multi-regional, single competency administrative bureaucracies. For any given area of policy, there will be regional councils that comprise of pan-national regions. In other words, a region will consist of small parts of several countries. For example, Transmanche would be Southern England (excluding London) , Northern France and part of the Nederlands.

Each region will be small, trans-national and only responsible for one area of political competency. But there will be a myriad of these regions covering everything from crime and punishment, to town twinning.

So for the Environment there will be another European level of competency that is comprised of regions that cross former national boundaries.

BUT, HERE IS THE BEST PART (if you love EU bureaucracy that is) Each area of political competency will have DIFFERENT geographical regions to any other area.

SO for fishing you will live in one region, but for energy it will be a different one, and for environmental concerns, another different one again, for taxes, yet another and so on and so forth.

This is the eventual plan. REMOVE NATION STATES FROM THE MAP ENTIRELY and make it impossible for people to live in ONE single political region.

Geographically they will live in one house in one town, but that town will be represented politically in many different over-lapping regions.

There will be an over arching EU that is responsible for EVERYTHING, but then each area of competency will be devolved into regional centres, SO THAT ALL the things that we USED to have a central Government, with separate departments for, now we have many different regions! The borders of these regions will all be different for each area of competency.

You will effectively live in one country for fishing rights, and another for agriculture and another for education etc etc.

That is how they are destroying the nation state, from the policy areas upwards. Everyone is looking for the EU to create political regions, like county councils, that control everything IN that region. THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

They are setting up thousands of policy areas that are devolved to small-regional centres of operations. For example the European mechanisms for managing town twinning. That is all those regions are responsible for.

This is how the liberal media are accurately and correctly rubbishing the idea that national borders will be immediately replaced with smaller-transnational regions.

We will not notice that our borders have slowly been erased until they are already GONE. All the power that used to reside in Westminster and Whitehall is NOW being devolved to separate quangos that will form the future multi layered administrative regions of the EU. It has been happening for years

How else can I explain this …

Think of a blank map of the EU showing the outline. Then randomly draw borders inside that split it up into 36 regions. These could be the regions for education.

Then get another blank map and split it into 42 different random regions and these would be the regions for energy.

Then do the same again, but with only 12 regions, and that could be the judicial system. And so on and so on.

You will only have ONE physical address in a geographical region, but your life will be controlled and monitored from hundreds of different political regions.

All to make sure that you cannot recover ANY national sovereignty or independence AT ALL. People will not be able to be loyal to their old nation states, because essentially ALL the old nation states will not exist anymore.

The only way to prevent this is to STOP the Lisbon Treaty from allowing the changes that will permit it.

We will NEVER get a referendum on each part,

The only way to stop this now, is to vote UKIP and get the hell out of the EU entirely!

We can't win a general election by moving to the right?

The UK has always had a centre right majority.

Margaret Thatcher won 3 successive elections being unashamedly right wing.  John Major won in 1992 with over 14 million votes, more votes than any prime minister before or since.

Then Blair shifted the veneer and image of labour far over to the right, because the UK has a right wing majority.  Labour won in those years, from having an image of being of the right pushed by the entire media which was consistently pushing the lies of Blair as being gospel truth. Blair was projected as a "compassionate conservative"  by the left wing media, but this was only true in image alone.

Even then, the conservative party won a bigger share of the vote in EVERY National election in the UK from after the 2001 general election onwards except for one national election in 2005 when the result was so close (only 2.8% points) that it should have been a hung Parliament.  (tories had a winning margin of more than 7% points  in 2010 and still failed to get a majority) Labour were rescued by a massive pro-labour bias in the constituency boundaries, which gifted labour over 60 seats for an equal number of votes as the tories. Put it this way, in 1997 when the tories were wiped out, and ever since considered a hated and unelectable party on the verge of extinction,  John Major won 9,600,943 votes.  In 2005 when Blair won a 66 seat Majority, he won only 9,552,436, 48507 fewer votes than the destroyed Major government of 1997 and well over a million votes fewer than Cameron won in 2010.

Who would you say was the more popular leader? Blair in 2005 or Major in 1997?  In truth, John Major was.  That is how massive the pro-labour bias in the seating boundaries is. Because of that constituency boundary bias, (where a tiny inner city area can hold two labour seats and a large suburban area is one conservative seat), the left wing media could ignore the real numbers of right wing voters in this country, and ignore the conservative party winning every national election from after the 2001 general election  (council and European elections) to 2010 (bar the 2005 general election)  and falsely claim that there was a progressive majority who feel that the conservative party was the nasty party.

Once the British public finally and clearly saw through the Blair lies, they were desperate for another clearly and unashamedly right wing government as shown by Cameron having a consistent lead across opinion polls of in excess of more than 20% during 2009, back when Cameron was pretending to be unashamedly right wing and Eurosceptic.

Then something terrible happened.  He unexpectedly lurched over to the left, he created the socialist sounding "big society" manifesto and abandoned conservatism and Euroscepticism and showed his liberal true colours. (Liberal, NOT libertarian). 

After this lurch to the left, his support collapsed into a single figure lead and he ended up relying on Clegg to become PM. 

Many conservatives gave him the benefit of the doubt and hoped his lefty liberalism was faked so he could steal votes from disillusioned labour and Liberal democrat voters, who hoped the opposite, that his liberalism was real.  Even when he did win over some of the left, he failed to win that large majority the polls had been predicting in 2009, (in spite of a monstrous pro-labour bias in seat boundaries)  because he had lost even more votes from the masses of hard working people on the right who have been shafted by labour for over a decade.

In the AV referendum, there was a clear split between the self described "progressive" left and the right wing in this country and the left were absolutely slaughtered.  Out of 450 regions, only 10 returned a majority for the "progressive" policy. This was not a sign of a progressive majority, but of a tiny, almost insignificant minority which has been massively inflated importance by an out-of-touch mainstream media conditioning the public 24/7 to believe a wholly untrue lie. A lie supported by a massive bias in the seat-boundaries and that massive media manipulation and misrepresentation which kept labour in power far longer than it should.

Now the right wing are abandoning our fear of a labour victory, because we see with ever more clarity, that with the conservative leadership courting the same liberal left votes as the labour party, and the hated tiny fringe liberal democrat party, that it makes absolutely no difference which of those three wins. the outcome is something that the majority of people in this country hate.

And if it takes UKIP killing any hope of the tories winning a general election to wake people up to that blatant fact, then so be it.

We will never get the government that MOST people want, until they are woken from the 24/7 conditioning by the metropolitan elite's liberal left wing propaganda and turn out to vote for it, instead of the liberal-left wing agenda that the entire liberal left establishment (comprising three parliamentary political parties, Most all of the mainstream print and TV media, academia, think-tanks, political charities and activist protest groups) are implementing.

Never before have so much of the establishment been so-out of touch with the people of this country.

The left wing media has been selling a lie for almost 20 years now, that you cannot win an election from the right.  The above figures show that to be a lie.  Many on the right have been put off from voting because of that lie.

This is changing.  We need a fully fledged right wing government again to save us from the economic and social insanity of the current establishment.

I believe that UKIP is that government in waiting.

My plea to Lord Tebbit.

I am so sorry that this is long, but it has to be said, Norman.

What the effete metropolitan elite media and political types now call the "centre ground of politics" is what I call far left wing corporatism. This shows how far the great social experiment of Blair and the BBC/Guardian/Times alliance took this nation to the left.

Decent rational and common sense conservative policies are now considered "swivel eyed lunacy", not only by the left wing media, but also, shamefully, by the mainstream politicians of the conservative party leadership.

Norman, I have faithfully and loyally supported the conservative party for 32 years. Since Mrs Thatcher's historic 1979 win. Her devotion to this country and to those who want to be self reliant, decent, responsible, hard working was never in doubt. My solid working class upbringing in this, normally solid labour constituency had me out campaigning for the Conservatives when we were winning this seat under Thatcher. We lost the seat to Blair's new labour but I still campaigned against Blairism for all I was worth.

I was thrown out of pubs for saying Blair was a dangerous control freak and our liberties would be threatened by him. I was ridiculed, abused and assaulted for still supporting "those evil tories" during the late 1990s and early 2000s. I was proven right by Blair's own paranoid totalitarian tendencies.

I do not regret a second that I have devoted over the years of my time and loyalty to the conservative party, because I agreed with conservative values and principles and I agreed with most of their policies.

Now, however, my loyalty counts for nothing. My party has totally abandoned my principles and values and now embraces, promotes and implements the very same Blairism that I fought hard and long against.

I did not give my support, loyalty and service to the conservative party for decades, and spend most of the last 20 years fighting Blairism, only for Cameron to embrace and implement the core values and policies of Blairism. Even worse, it is an undiluted Blairism. Blair has stated that he regretted not being bolder and going further in implementing his Blairite vision. Regretably, Cameron HAS been so bold as to implement an unfettered, unrestrained Blairism. We have a Cameron party which is more "progressive" than new labour and more "New labour" than new labour and the wets running the party call devoted, loyal, hard-working members "swivel eyed lunatics" and wonder why these members are leaving in droves to either not vote at all, or vote UKIP?

Norman, How can you stand to see the hard working loyal and decent members of your party, my former party, so betrayed?

I would love to campaign for the conservative party again. However, how can I possibly campaign for the very same Blairite policies I despise?

Can I campaign and vote for the following?

How can I vote for lower taxes?
How can I vote for smaller, less intrusive government?
How can I vote for real Euroscepticism?
How can I vote for a referendum on EU membership?
How can I vote for real scientifically driven climate change and energy policy and not a communist derived, politically motivated, flawed-model driven policy?
How can I vote for cutting uncontrolled immigration?
How can I vote for an end to divisive contradictory "politically correct" policies of segregation, discrimination and oppression and outlawing the freedom of thought and opinion? Rather than a policy that genuinely treats all people as being of equal value and worth with the same God given rights with freedom of thought, opinion and expression, regardless of colour, race, gender, sexual orientation, or background?
How can I vote for cutting spending in real terms?
How can I vote for ending the ECHR?
How can I vote for stopping the UK being a haven for criminals and terrorists with their rights protected by law, rather than their potential and actual victims?
How can I vote for a party that is economically conservative and one which will not fall back on QE to solve their problems?
How can I vote for an end to merging our military with that of France?
How can I vote for a party that is tough on law and order?
How can I vote for for a party that is tough on welfare and the workshy?
How can I vote for a party whose deficit reduction plan reduces the deficit by significantly more than the <1% difference from labour's Alistair Darling plan?
How can I vote for a party which opposed totalitarian snooping into all our electronic communications?
How can I vote for a party which will re-introduce jury trials for all crown court cases.
How can I vote for a flat level of tax which will close all the tax loop-holes?
How can I vote for a party which supports open, free competition of free market economics, and not corrupt corporatism and the part privatisation of state functions, which stiffs the tax-payer, kills competition and makes some crony rich?
How can I vote for increased democratic accountability through swiss-style local referenda?
How can I vote for a party which rewards hard-work and self-reliance, instead of penalising it with bundles of EU generated and UK-gold plated red tape?

By voting conservative, labour or Liberal democrat, I will be voting against all these issues. The conservative party is on the same side as labour and the liberals, on the wrong side of all the above issues.

I can vote for all those things, IF I vote UKIP.

I see no sign whatsoever that any of the current Parliamentary conservative party is going to change course on ANY of the above list. There is no sign that the conservative party is ever going to even acknowledge the concerns of the grass roots, let alone listen to them, or even (heaven forbid) do anything about them, at all.

Norman, please do the decent thing and join UKIP.

The state of debate

There are two sides in the climate change debate. A debate which one side denied even existed for several recent years.

"The debate is over" - Al Gore.

The debate is clearly not over and it grows bitter and more entrenched by the month.

The two sides of the debate utilise different tactics and both have different agendas.

One side utilises emotive and upsetting and offensive propaganda. From videos showing Polar bears falling from the skies and landing in bloody impacts onto buildings and cars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxis7Y1ikIQ ); to videos showing emotionless, graphic acts of bloody exploding children who may "doubt" the theory, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co ); and the constant bombardment of adverts and other climate propaganda on television and in classrooms showing cataclysmic end of world scenarios aimed at children which have caused deep emotional trauma and induced nightmares and now they call for houses of people who are sceptical of extreme claims, to have their houses burned to the ground

The advocates and scientists try to close down debate, keep data secret, and prevent open investigation and shut the public out from understanding what is happening. They hate for us to dare to question them, but just want us all to uncritically believe them, which is the opposite of science.

Beyond the sick and offensive dramatics of the advocates, the actual antics of Alarmist scientists themselves go beyond the merely exaggerated, to the unethical and anti-scientific. There have been documented cases of scientists, using very misleading statistics to "prove" their case. Rejecting historical data if it inconveniently contradicts their theories (explorer's finding islands in the Arctic which were not covered by ice in the 1920s, which are only now just being uncovered again by melting ice, suggesting that the current level of moderate ice melt is quite normal), Hiding inconvenient data, switching and applying unrelated data-sets and fraudulently passing them off as the same continuous bit of data (hockey-stick). There are cases of these scientists acting in cohort to incestuously peer-review each other's work, instead of allowing the wider scientific community to do so and hiding and withholding data to prevent independent peer review. Even to the extent of illegally withholding data from lawful Freedom Of Information Act Requests. There are documented cases of Alarmist climate scientists conspiring to bully journal editors and working to threaten journals and have them closed down, if they have the temerity to dare publish properly peer reviewed papers which happen to conclude something which undermines the climate alarmist's own work. We have cases of eminent climate scientists encouraging others to take illegal, criminal activities involving causing criminal damage to property and businesses.

Now we have alarmist climate scientists engaging in criminal activities themselves. ID fraud, Wire fraud, electronic impersonation, forgery and publishing false and malicious falsehoods with the intent to cause harm and loss. Wilfully undermining science and misleading the public is the least of their crimes. All these tactics, from the exaggerated outcomes, through the deceptions and falsehoods, to the actual harmful crimes, are accepted and defended by the Alarmist side of the debate as acceptable and understandable tactics. This side of the debate is funded to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars by vested interests and political pressure groups and activists. Everyone from Big-Oil, Big Pharma, Political action committees, through to radical environmental groups to far left political campaign groups and not forgetting governments all over the world, all fund this side of the debate.

On the other side are some brave scientists who put the integrity of the scientific method above that of grant seeking and political expediency. Who believe in seeking truth, no matter where it lays, is more important than being part of the crowd. Who believe that the observation and measurement of reality, and experimentation to reproduce reality and falsify theories where possible, are more important than pushing a theory backed up solely by computer models. Who accept valid data, regardless of what it shows and who doggedly stick to experimentation and valid scientific methods of discovery in the face of constant threats to funding, political intimidation and overt attacks on their reputations. Svensmark springs to mind and I look forward to the publication of his latest work which finally shows the chain of events in cloud formation which demonstrates a far greater effect on climate changes from solar activity, than that of CO2, as is OBSERVED in reality.

This side scrapes by on a relative pittance. Funded by people who still believe in scientific integrity, truth and reality. This side is, remarkably, seeing their results still get through to the public, in spite of having less than 0.01% of the financial resources of the climate alarmist side. This is because of a fundamental truth. T > PPPP. TRUTH wins over piss poor political propaganda every time!

Now which of those two sides should I trust? The side which engages in criminal deception, fraud, forgery, slander and political propaganda using visuals of exploding children and splattered polar bears? Or the real empirical scientists?