The world as we know it

The culture of lying environmentalism

It seems anything is fair game with environmentalism and the end justifies the means. In the article Lies damned lies and Enviro Fraud anything, and I mean anything is manipulated for the global warming liars – it get’s to the point where you wonder if there is ANY truth in what they do. It has become such an insidious culture . But then there’s a history, culture and belief system there.

From Climategate 2;

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.’ Overpeck

Then there’s the BOM, repeatedly caught out adjusting the data, falsifying the message and this week;

The hottest months by mean max have all been changed. Every single one“.

But then in the Global Warming theology departments this is common practice. Eg the CSIRO;

Can the CSIRO explain how is it that an applied science research institution that is supposed to be serving Australians through independence and integrity in science suddenly be politically active in the Rudd Cabinet’s Socialist fraud and participate in making Australians obey it, and use Lysenkoism to break down opposition and to convince Australians it is good for them?

Noteworthy that most of CSIRO directors tend to be … BANKERS!

And what does one of the leading scientists in the world say about global warming?

“I think it is such ablatant falsification”.

Sums it up really, doesnt it.

But when you look at the history of the IPCC could you really expect any different!

it is long overdue that the IPCC was called for what it is, an activist eco-political body driven not by the dangerous manmade warming evidence that it pretends exists, but by the beliefs and philosophies of its sponsor, the UNEP, and by key individuals at the time the IPCC was established“.

And even more damaging exposure of the IPCC;

Climategate 2.0 is helping filling some knowledge gaps, for example in the way the IPCC has been slowing killing itself, and several thousands humans to“.

As is now being rumored the IPCC is going to get the boot;

Could it be that the UNFCCC has decided that its dependency on the “science” produced by this, well, Delinquent Teenager who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert is no longer appropriate – or required?!

Perhaps the UNFCCC is in the process of throwing the IPCC under the proverbial bus – in the hopes of saving its own skin? And don’t forget that the IPCC’s younger sibling, the IPBES, is still waiting in the wings.

Who is the IPBES?

IPBES stands for “intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services”. IPBES will be an interface between the scientific community and policymakers that aims at building capacity for and strengthen the use of science in policymaking“.

The IPBES to replace the IPCC. Same game of musical chairs by the UN – just different players. No backing down on the fraud, scares, or thieving of billions under false pretense. And the UN thinks it is safe because it has deemed itself to be above the law. The Earth Government that is going to replace the UN probably elevate itself in the same manner.

Who will be stuck with the global warming time bomb when the people make the police come?

Filed under: Governance, , , , , , , , , , ,

The subterfuge of controlling the global warming narrative

This is not science the way we were told it works. This is not independent scientists working without conflicts of interest focusing on the data, submitting their results for independent assessment, being at arms length to the assessors and publishers. No this is real life story of the control of the press (Nature, Science and others), control of the editors and attacks on the non compliant ones, control of peer review, vilification of opponents work, manipulating political processes and controlling the narrative. This is a process where more of the ‘scientists’ energy is put into controlling their positions than seems is ever put into the science. And keep in mind these guys are on the government payroll and should be open and transparent in all their dealings.

This is also a story of a select group of individuals in positions of power paid for by the taxpayers, believing they are above reproach and cannot be wrong. This is about the religious fervor with which these global warming scientists banded together on group think to meet, plot and enact compliant acts of vilification against scientists whose studies threatened their work. There are few degrees of separation, if any between these so called scientists and the highest powers in many of the worlds nations. Additionally there is the menace of those in global governance aiding and abetting them. The following emails are almost a script for a movie on global warming eco elite’s subterfuge.

Bold mine, comments in red mine

Formatting removed to make it easier to read. You can read the original file here

Phil Jones, Mike Hulme, Keith Briffa, James Hansen, Danny Harvey, Ben Santer, Kevin Trenberth, Robert wilby, Tom Karl , Steve Schneider, Tom Crowley, jto , “simon.shackley” , “tim.carter”, “p.martens”, “peter.whetton”, “c.goodess” , “a.minns” , Wolfgang Cramer , “j.salinger” , “simon.torok” , Scott Rutherford, Neville Nicholls, Ray Bradley, Mike MacCracken , Barrie Pittock, Ellen Mosley-Thompson, “Greg.Ayers”

date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:39:14 -0400
from: “Michael E. Mann”
subject: Re: My turn

HI Mark,

Thanks for your comments, and sorry to any of you who don’t wish to receive these correspondances…

Indeed, I have provided David Halpern with a written set of comments on the offending paper(s) for internal use, so that he was armed w/ specifics as he confronts the issue within OSTP. He may have gotten additional comments from other individuals as well–I’m not sure. I believe that the matter is in good hands with Dave, but we have to wait and see what happens. In any case, I’d be happy to provide my comments to anyone who is interested.

I think that a response to “Climate Research” is not a good idea. Phil and I discussed this, and agreed that it would be largely unread, and would tend to legitimize a paper which many of us don’t view as having passed peer review in a legitimate manner. On the other hand, the in prep. review articles by Jones and Mann (Rev. Geophys.), and Bradley/Hughes/Diaz (Science) should go along way towards clarification of the issues (and, at least tangentially, refutation of the worst of the claims of Baliunas and co). Both should be good resources for the FAR as well…



p.s. note the corrections to some of the emails in the original distribution list.

At 09:27 AM 4/24/Mark Eakin wrote: At this point the question is what to do about the Soon and Baliunas
paper. Would Bradley, Mann, Hughes et al. be willing to develop and appropriate rebuttal? If so, the question at hand is where it would be best to direct such a response. Some options are:

1) A rebuttal in Climate Research
2) A rebuttal article in a journal of higher reputation
3) A letter to OSTP

The first is a good approach, as it keeps the argument to the level of the current publication. The second would be appropriate if the Soon and Baliunas paper were gaining attention at a more general level, but it is not. Therefore, a rebuttal someplace like Science or Nature would probably do the opposite of what is desired here by raising the attention to the paper. The best way to take care of getting better science out in a widely read journal is the piece that Bradley et al. are preparing for Nature. This leaves the idea of a rebuttal in Climate Research as the best published approach.

A letter to OSTP is probably in order here. Since the White House has shown interest in this paper, OSTP really does need to receive a measured, critical discussion of flaws in Soon and Baliunas’ methods. I agree with Tom that a noted group from the detection and attribution effort such as Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones and Hughes should spearhead such a letter. Many others of us could sign on in support. This would provide Dave Halpern with the ammunition he needs to provide the White House with the needed documentation that hopefully will dismiss this paper for the slipshod work that it is. Such a letter could be developed in parallel with a rebuttal article.

I have not received all of the earlier e-mails, so my apologies if I am rehashing parts of the discussion that might have taken place elsewhere.


Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear Tom et al,

Thanks for comments–I see we’ve built up an impressive distribution list here!

This seemed like an appropriate point for me to chime in here. By in large, I agree w/ Tom’s comments (and those of Barrie’s as well). A number of us have written reviews and overviews of this topic during the past couple years. There has been a lot of significant scientific process in this area (both with regard to empirical “climate reconstruction” and in the area of model/data comparison), including, in fact, detection studies along the lines of what Barrie Pittock asked about in a previous email (see. e.g. Tom Crowley’s Science article from 2000). Phil Jones and I are in the process of writing a review article for /Reviews of Geophysics/ which will, among other things, dispel the most severe of the myths that some of these folks are perpetuating regarding past climate change in past centuries. My understanding is that Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, and Henry Diaz are working, independently, on a solicited piece for /Science/ on the “Medieval Warm Period”. Many have simply dismissed the Baliunas et al pieces because, from a scientific point of view, they are awful–that is certainly true. For example, Neville has pointed out in a previous email, that the standard they applied for finding “a Medieval Warm Period” was that a particular proxy record exhibit a 50 year interval during the period that was anomalously *warm*, *wet*, or *dry* relative to the “20th century” (many of the proxy records don’t really even resolve the late 20th century!) could be used to define an “MWP” anywhere one might like to find one. This was the basis for their press release arguing for a “MWP” that was “warmer than the 20th century” (a non-sequitur even from their awful paper!) (it is worth noting that …) and for their bashing of IPCC and scientists who contributed to IPCC (which, I understand, has been particularly viscious and ad hominem inside closed rooms in Washington DC where their words don’t make it into the public record). This might all seem laughable, it weren’t the case that they’ve gotten the (Bush) White House Office of Science & Technology taking it as a serious matter (fortunately, Dave Halpern is in charge of this project, and he is likely to handle this appropriately, but without some external pressure).

So while our careful efforts to debunk the myths perpetuated by these folks may be useful in the FAR, they will be of limited use in fighting the disinformation campaign that is already underway in Washington DC. Here, I tend to concur at least in sprit w/ Jim Salinger, that other approaches may be necessary. I would emphasize that there are indeed, as Tom notes, some unique aspects of this latest assault by the skeptics which are cause for special concern. This latest assault uses a compromised peer-review process as a vehicle for launching a scientific disinformation campaign (often viscious and ad hominem) under the guise of apparently legitimately reviewed science, allowing them to make use of the “Harvard” moniker in the process. Fortunately, the mainstream media never touched the story (mostly it has appeared in papers owned by Murdoch and his crowd (the demonising of Murdoch begins, which is still being pursued by Gillard) , and dubious fringe on-line outlets). Much like a server which has been compromised as a launching point for computer viruses, I fear that “Climate Research” has become a hopelessly compromised vehicle in the skeptics’ (can we find a better word?) (yes denier was what they chose). disinformation campaign, and some of the discussion that I’ve seen (e.g. a potential threat of mass resignation among the legitimate members of the CR editorial board) seems, in my opinion, to have some potential merit.

This should be justified not on the basis of the publication of science we may not like of course, but based on the evidence (e.g. as provided by Tom and Danny Harvey and I’m sure there is much more) that a legitimate peer-review process has not been followed by at least one particular editor. Incidentally, the problems alluded to at GRL are of a different nature–there are simply too many papers, and too few editors w/ appropriate disciplinary expertise, to get many of the papers submitted there properly reviewed. Its simply hit or miss with respect to whom the chosen editor is. While it was easy to make sure that the worst papers, perhaps including certain ones Tom refers to, didn’t see the light of the day at /J. Climate/, it was inevitable that such papers might slip through the cracks at e.g. GRL–there is probably little that can be done here, other than making sure that some qualified and responsible climate scientists step up to the plate and take on editorial positions at GRL.

best regards,


At 11:53 PM 4/23/Tom Wigley wrote:

Dear friends,

[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email exchange — although they may be glad to have been missed]

I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea — although there are some unique things about this situation. Barrie says ….

(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
(2) The best response is probably to write a ‘rebuttal’

to which I add ….

(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.


Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, ppREDACTED 1997) that was nothing more than a direct and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me — yet neither of us was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later) we wrote a response (GRLREDACTEDREDACTEDHowever, our response was more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).

Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added — as we did in the above example — then this is an advantage.


There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut. Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on this?


There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be involved in writing a response.

The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16, 10.1029/2002GLREDACTED). I refereed a virtually identical paper for J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended rejection too. The paper is truly appalling — but somehow it must have been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no
reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless, my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.

The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research (vol. 23, ppREDACTED Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he responded saying …

The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. … The other three referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.

On the surface this looks to be above board — although, as referees who advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to.

It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper — deFreitas has offered us this possibility.


This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas,
Soon, and so on).

The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be difficult.

The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that does get through.


Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.

If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.

In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’ PhD is at the same level).

Best wishes to all,
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail:  Phone:770 FAX:137

C. Mark Eakin, Ph.D.
Chief of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and
Director of the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology

NOAA/National Climatic Data Center
325 Broadway E/CC23
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903

It is worth noting on the science that far from being bad science

Who is who in the above emails – a cast of ….

Michael Mann – inventor or should one say the fabricator of the discredited hockey stick. Previously employed by Penn State. Currently under investigation for use of grants.

Mark Eakin – Chief of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and Director of the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology

Phil Jones – UAE chief concedes “all our models are wrong“, refuses FOI requests, and has acknowledged there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.

Mike Hulme – Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA)

Keith Briffa, Professor at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia asks colleagues to delete emails, discusses manipulating the data,

James Hansen, NASA astronomer turned climate ‘guru’ who is current financial scandal is how he is making over $1.5 million dollars of undeclared income on top of his government paid position,

Danny Harvey,

Ben Santer, Research scientist on climate models angry that climate skeptics arnt silenced, keeps moving the climate goalposts to suit his failed theories,

Kevin Trenberth, Senior Scientist NCAR. who said in October 2009 ” The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

Robert Wilby, Professor of Hydroclimatic Modelling

Tom Karl ,

Steve Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University

Tom Crowley, Simon Shackley,  Tim Carter,  P Marten,  Peter Whetton,  C Goodes,  A Minn,  Wolfgang Crame,  Jim Salinger CRSNZ NIWA,  Simon Toro,  Scott Rutherfor,  Neville Nicholl,  Ray Bradle,  Mike MacCracke,  Barrie Pittoc,  Ellen Mosley-Thompso,  Greg Ayers

Climategate ; Biased BBC ;

CSIRO clanger – “which representation of the results is appropriate to giving the best advice on what changes to expect”

Filed under: Governance, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ALP – Australia Losers Party

It seems the ALP despots and dictators in power have refused to govern Australia and instead have chosen to unconstitutionally rule the country for the UN.

UN socialist puppet Gillard couldn’t give a rat’s a** about the Australia, between her and comrade KRudd they are sending our wealth overseas as fast as they can. Andrew Bolt reports;

Already the Gillard Government is committed to:

doubling our foreign aid over the next five years to more than $8 billion.

introducing an emissions trading system that will send $57 billion a year overseas by 2050 to buy permits.

AUSTRALIA should contribute between $1.9 billion and $2.7 billion a year by 2020 to meet international commitments to help poor countries cope with climate change

And don’t forget that foreign power the UN gets 10% of all this – they must be rubbing their hands in glee. Oh and the other thing to remember is the world isn’t warming, the carbon tax with not reduce global temperatures or emissions, and the carbon tax will increase poverty and fuel poverty for many Australians.

In the meantime Bob Hawke has been doing the rounds selling the country to the middle east. Farmlandgrab reports;

FORMER Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, is leading a push to get Arabs to invest in Australian farmland as part of a long term food security strategy for oil-rich Gulf States

Don’t worry Bob about the long term food security strategy for Australia – as an ex PM of this country it’s really not your concern!

But then Labor does have a record of building infrastructure for our neighbours whilst ignoring Australia’s needs;

Paul Keating’s Mekong Bridge,

Gillard funds $500m for Islamic schools in Indonesia,

Meanwhile Australia infrastructure is crumbling. But don’t worry JuLIAR Gillard and KRudd are overseas pledging to save Europe. With the ALP charlatans of power Australia comes last.

Oh and don’t forget KRudd’s expensive bid for a UN seat.

Then there is also the issue of how boat people get privileges that most Australian’s now could only dream of. Freestatevoice reports the inequality in how the ALP treats Australian’s as trash and those overseas as princes;

BENEFITS               AGED PENSIONER                            ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS/REFUGEES

Weekly allowance   $253.00                                                       $472.50
Weekly Spouse allowance   $56.00                                          $472.50
Additional weekly hardship allowance   $0.00                   $145.00

TOTAL YEARLY BENEFIT $16,068.00                      $56,680.00

I might add and don’t forget the other benefits – free smokes, mobile phones, airfares, chefs, medicare. They can even now get reward points for other luxuries, simply by attending free lifestyle courses. I have one friend who came here under asylum and was also given a full household full of brand new furniture and appliances as well. Then there is the issue of asylum seeker violence that gets rewarded, but if you are an Australian step out of line and it’s jail for you.

Oh and then there’s Gillard constant bungling Malaysian deal! Whats another $5 million down the drain when billions have been squandered already.

Meanwhile the “OECD recently warned that Australia’s unemployment benefit was so low as to ”raise issues about its effectiveness” in enabling people to find work or study

Then there are the middle class Australians who do work hard but whose disposable income is lower than the unemployed because they get little benefits and often cannot afford holidays or new clothes. It seems fabian Gillard’s socialist dreams for this country are coming true. Penalise the hard workers and pay those who are neither workers nor Australian.

If there is anything about the Australian Labor Party it is the most un-Australian Party we have ever seen in this country’s history. Though come to think of it the ALP is probably not as un-Australian as the Greens but since these two are now joined at the hip now there’s probably no difference anyway.

Under the ALP we are seeing our wealth being transferred overseas at an ever increasing rate whilst our own get increasing neglect and fraudulent taxes. We see those in other countries enriched whilst our own are impoverished. And if you think this is bad – it is just the beginning under the ALP.

What’s next? Gillard’s gulag – as she and her comrades set up the green police to ensure you pay your green penances on time and in full to the government – otherwise excpect fines and jail. And to think many of us once voted for this failure of democracy called the ALP! Don’t worry JuLIAR and her gang of thieves will promise you anything and everything at the next election only to take it away again once they regain power. History shows the ALP rule not for Australia but for a foreign power – the UN. And if you thought there was a decent politician in the ALP – think again – not a single one of them has either the credibility or guts to cross the floor, stand up for Australian’s, get rid of this betrayer of the Australian people and give the Australian people a voice once again. Not a single Labor politician deserves to be ever re-elected again!

Filed under: Governance, , , , , , , , ,

The ALP about to be frozen in hell!

Well, depending where you live what currently needs to be taken into consideration is a massive La Nina looks like it is building. With the SOI back up into La Nina territory of  above +8, and oceans cooling in the eastern pacific there are predictions that this La Nina could be the strongest in almost a century, (don’t worry the government funded Bureau of Meteorology wont predict this).

This strong La Nina is not unexpected. As we are now in a cold PDO (pacific decadel oscillation) then stronger, longer lasting and more frequent La Ninas are the norm and to be expected. Governments should be expecting these cyclical changes in the weather and climate as they are known, recorded and discussed. Yet like with the Brisbane the green madness of global warming overrode sensible government policy and massive destruction resulted. With a cold PDO the cold and wet is to be the norm for at least the next few decades if not longer. In Australia we are out of the drought cycle and into the flood cycle – as our poets, artists, farmers and scientists repeatedly attest to, but as our climate commissioner Flannery deliberately ignored when he predicted permanent droughts. Our full dams and expensive, useless desalination plants attest to his stupidity.

As this cold PDO also coincides with low sunspot activity with solar cycle 24 going into solar minimum and solar cycle 25 looking at being lower then we could be in for very cold times indeed. As the sun has reduced sunspots and radiation we get less heat storage in our oceans (the driver of our climate) and more cosmic rays hitting our atmosphere which causes more clouds (svensmarks theory). The increase in cloudiness further blocks the suns heat hitting the oceans and further increases the ocean cooling. Again our Governments have all the data available on the sun and what it is doing, and there are also many clear historical records that show a correlation between low sunspot count and a cooling world. Think little ice age, middle ages, frozen rivers in London and New York, massive famines from crops being wiped out, pandemics and countries collapsing. Unlike the global warming fraud which was fabricated fear on a baseless green religious view of a temporarily warming climate (reality – the warm periods in earths history are the golden eras when life flourishes) – history tells us the cold does and will kill – there is no doubt about that and kills in massively increased numbers over what the warmth ever could do. And how are our global warming governments protecting people from the cold? Making heating so expensive that many can no longer afford to keep warm!

With volcanic eruptions also on the rise globally, Katla is also getting more threatening by the day, then the predictions of an ice age winter in the northern hemisphere this year could prove to be devastatingly true. This is because the dust and soot volcanoes eject into the atmosphere further block the suns rays on hitting the earth and ocean adding another cooling signal.

With the bitter cold forecasts are for a drop in temperatures of around 0.15d c globally by mid march 2012 which sort of makes the whole global warming frauds scaremongering of 0.6d f rise a century look pretty lame. Many are predicting the return of ice age conditions to much of the northern hemisphere this christmas.

When it is the cold that kills our global warming governments should be hauled before the courts as they waste billions on the AGW fraud whilst putting people at maximum risk of dying from the cold. Nowhere is this stupidity and absolute disdain for the peoples welfare more evident than with the Australian Labor Party who deceptively, fraudulently and corruptly has been implementing a global warming tax on the Australian people whilst the globe begins to freeze. And the ALP have done that against the peoples wishes and well being, promising not to bring in the carbin tax fraud and then persistently implementing it. By March 2012 the record cold and devastation that this period of natural climate and sun cycles could bring will leave the likes of the ALP hated and despised so incredibly more than they are now.

As we reported recently the ALP’s delight at bringing in their global warming fraud against the peoples will, whilst the world is cooling is akin to the ALP dancing on their own graves. The ALP are on the wrong side of truth and history and every day the climate cools will make that blatantly obvious. As people die in their homes from the cold unable to afford to keep warm then a draconian and punitive warming tax will highlight the absolute corruption and deception of the left’s political class. When Gillard and KRudd’s ALP  start their global warming carbon tax fraud in Australia in mid 2012 the northern hemisphere could be reeling from one of the worst winters in living history and the southern hemisphere entering their own freezing hell. A perfect recipe for constituent contempt.

Like everything the ALP does it seems disconnected from reality, the result of their fortress mentality and group think and their inability to consider anyone but their own party’s selfish welfare. When many have warned the ALP of their climate stupidity and only got vilification in return, the ALP are about to be frozen in hell and they have no one to blame but themselves. As is becoming common attitude the criminals who run this party should be in jail – with any luck by this time next year they will be!

Long range weather forecast for Europe 2011/2012,

The appalling history of the Australian Labor Parties deception

Filed under: Governance, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Work from home

Join 3,411 other followers

TWAWKI Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.


  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Story archives


%d bloggers like this: