“[T]he majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.”
– Harold Pinter, Nobel Lecture (Literature), 2005

So Anthropogenic Climate Change as a result of excess CO2 is the issue? It’s going to wreck the earth and all we hold dear unless we submissively accept excruciatingly painful eco taxes and restrictions on our daily lives even to the extent of prescribing where we are permitted to live? We are the culprits and must pay for our misdemeanours? No. This is the latest in a long string of scare stories over the past few decades:

The Ozone Hole

Acid Rain – they milked that one for all it was worth

UV protection essential. Result: Rickets and lack of vitamin D

Global Warming Climate Change

“I also advance that there are strong societal, institutional, and psychological motivations for having constructed and for continuing to maintain the myth of a global warming dominant threat (global warming myth, for short). I describe these motivations in terms of the workings of the scientific profession and of the global corporate and finance network and its government shadows.”

“I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized.”


“Environmental scientists and government agencies get funding to study and monitor problems that do not threaten corporate and financial interests. It is therefore no surprise that they would attack continental-scale devastation from resource extraction via the CO2 back door. The main drawback with this strategy is that you cannot control a hungry monster by asking it not to shit as much.” Denis G Rancourt goes on to say that:

 Climategate only confirms what should be obvious to any practicing scientist: That science is a mafia when it’s not simply a sleeping pill.



  1. Please explain to me exactly what are the ‘excruciatingly painful eco taxes’ we ‘submissively accept’ here as residents of Isle of Man.

    • I understand your need for clarification of the statement WRT. Put simply:

      1) As it seems that the articles here resonate with people from all corners of the earth (at least one third of readers, sometimes fifty per cent, are from various far-flung nations) my references to “we” or “us” do not necessarily mean Isle of Man residents. Frequently, the term is intended to cover global citizens who oppose any form of global government or controls.

      2) Although Australia has recently declared the introduction of a CO2 tax this does not yet apply to all nations. However, our friends the “environmentalists” – who apparently have little interest in the health and well-being of humans – plan to control CO2 levels with worldwide taxation. It’s no secret that the IOM simply follows the UK which in turn follows the EU, which usually harmonises with the US or UN etc. so we just need to wait for this one to come along.

      3) It was a rhetorical question referring to the globalist rationale.

      My own thoughts on this are that it makes sense to save energy and resources. Protection of nature and our environment is also desirable and of great importance. I place enormous value on wildlife, plants, seas etc. and applaud all sensible means of protecting them.

      However, unlike many so-called earth protectors I also value human life and while we spend squillions (I don’t have the exact figure) on combatting CO2 levels, the hypothetical cause of climate change, we have little to spare for children in some parts of Africa and other places who are dying from lack of simple sanitation and clean water. Save the polar bears (they are in fact thriving) but turn a blind eye to the plight of innocent children?

      Why do the environmentalists not protest about the use of certain phosphate products and GM seeds which appear to be responsible for killing bees?

      Apologies for the long-winded answer, however, I hope it might clarify where I’m coming from.

  2. No need to apologise.
    My interest is especially in IOM topics. In future before replying to any blog I will see in which category you classify it. I will restrict myself to those which fall under ‘IOM Government’
    and ‘International Issues IOM Related’
    This blog falls under the second and so my original remarks remain relevant. You haven’t addressed them in your response.
    It appears that as an agent of change your philosophy is somewhat a scattergun approach.
    Referring to CO2 and the IOM.
    Tynwald in 2010 promised to produce 15% of the Isle of Man’s electricity from renewable sources by 2015.
    That’s an IOM specific target within a global context.
    Here we are 2 years later and I see little evidence of any real progress towards that target.

    • The Isle of Man is a part of the global community. It is essential to keep an eye open for globalist developments and proposals as they will filter through to us in a scattergun manner. It seems there is no way of avoiding this.

      We are told, proudly, that we are not a member of the EU. Yet we seem to adopt all EU legislation. In what way does our legislation differ from that of the UK or the EU? It appears to be a cloning process.

      The aim of collectivist ideology is to impose controlling measures on all countries. The Co2 hypothesis is a wonderfully effective vehicle – if we don’t stay alert and question what is presented as fact.

      As for Tynwald and promises – why did we spend extortionate amounts of money on the power station when providing individuals with state of the art solar energy panels (proven technology) would have gone a long way to solving energy demands. Well, it wouldn’t have made a Profit! But as with financial issues what happens in government stays in government (so it seems) and querying matters in retrospect is viewed as a useless exercise. It’s happened. Get over it. This seems to be the attitude. What really went on in the VAT matter? Don’t ask. Accept the situation and deal with it.

      An analogy:

      Someone breaks into your house and robs you of enormous sums of cash, leaving a note explaining that they hadn’t meant to pay you as much as they had done for services rendered. The note goes on to say that they will be back for more next year. Instead of querying the action of the culprits or contacting the police you send a note asking when they will be back so that you can make them a cup of tea. When members of the family question the new budgetary constraints and why the money was taken you tell them, “It’s happened. Get over it. Deal with it. We are now officially on our uppers.”

      Transparency is essential if anything is to change.

  3. There you go again, off in all directions!
    I agree that global context is important but I’ll try and respond to your IOM comments.
    Our Parliament has made a commitment about electricity generation from renewable sources.
    From a purely political viewpoint does it not concern you that there appears to be no action to achieve this?
    The decision to build Pulrose Power Station was taken in the late 90’s long before solar panels were readily available for households.
    The main reason, as I understand it, for building the power station was security and stability of electricity supply.

    • The global context is paramount.

      Did the government specify at the time how they intended to achieve this? Promises are easily made. We can’t take things at face value.

      I believe your apparent difficulties with my articles, WRT, stem from the fact that we view things from completely different perspectives. Although we have a lot in common when it comes down to FoI etc. I simply have no faith in MHKs who are forced to depend on advice from anonymous sources. This is not democracy in the way most of us understand the term.

      Your comments are always welcome.

  4. That is the point, government didn’t say how they would achieve the target.
    A counter point of view is valuable because it helps clarify thoughts.
    Agreeing with each other is far less productive.
    In future I’ll only comment on what I perceive as Manx matters in your blog.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s