UK Independence Party




      Internal links: Home    Articles    Why UKIP?    Quit the EU    People    Elections    Young UKIP    Sitemap/Links    UKIP Shop    Contact Us      Feedback    Humour     UKIP HQ 

External links:   UKIP Daily  UKIP News   Kipper Central   UKIP on YouTube    UKIP on Facebook    UKIP Ashford Twitter   UKIP Ashford Facebook    Brexit Central   


THOUGHTS on CLIMATE CHANGE - Click below for the articles


Global Warming is destroying the Planet. Mankind is to blame by emitting Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. It's never been hotter than today. We have only a year to Save the Planet. The Green Movement must be our Saviour.


The BBC, the Press and Government promote messages like these every day.


The only, small problem is that IT'S ALL RUBBISH!

The four articles below will show why and how lies became an accepted truth.



1 Divide The Great Divide

2 Cold From Too Cold to Too Hot

3 Truth and Lies

4 What do they know?




Today, there are two main groups concerned with weather and climate: Alarmist and Deniers. Both recognise that the climate is changing:

Alarmists see catastrophe ahead while Deniers aren't worried.


See if you can guess who said this and what they were worried about:

"Changing weather is perhaps the the greatest single challenge that America will face in coming years." The authors concluded that: "the world is entering a difficult period during which major climatic change is apt to occur ... the coming weather may signify massive migration and equally massive starvation."


Do you know who said this? The answer is the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the early 1970s after they conducted several studies of the world's climate, the likely changes to come and their probable effect on America and the rest of the world 1.


Did you work out what they were worried about? No, it wasn't global warming, instead it was the imminent arrival of a New Ice Age. They based this conclusion on 'overwhelming evidence' from the past two decades based on measurements from satellites, computers, ice cores, carbon dating and other advanced techniques. This conclusion was shared by a consensus of leading climatologists including the world-renowned Professor Reid A, Bryson of the the University of Wisconsin and Hubert H. Lamb director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.


In particular, the scientific results showing the growth of ice cover were disturbing. Ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere increased by 12 percent in 1971 - an increase equal to the combined area of England, Italy and France. The great ice mass of Antarctica grew by 10% in one year 1966-67. Satellite pictures captured another equally disturbing picture. From 1967-1973, winters in the Northern Hemisphere grew longer by almost one month. averaging 84 days in 1967 and 104 days in 1973.


Based on what seemed to be solid evidence, Professor Bryson and most other scientists felt that the climate was about to change to that which was dominant from the 17th century to the mid 19th. During that time, northern Europe lived in the twilight of permanent winter. Malnutrition caused great plagues in Europe, Russia, India and Africa while dancing and feasting on the winter Thames ice became a regular routine for Londoners.


The coming Ice Age was predicted to be far worse with much of the world under some degree of permanent glaciation - as shown in this BBC image:

Many scenarios to tackle the coming disaster were proposed. Many were predicated on international cooperation to solve the imminent collapse of food supplies and the need for developing countries to become self-sufficient in agriculture. Science began to give way to Politics.


The next article will examine how climate predictions changed as the weather changed and how this led to the rise of Global Warming theory.






During the 1970s, scientists were convinced that the world was about to enter a New Ice Age. But it didn't happen - or hasn't happened yet. How could so many scientists be led astray? They had, after all, used the latest satellite data, computers, ice cores, carbon dating and other advanced techniques to determine global temperature trends. They were convinced that they were right.


But they had made a basic mistake; they were misled by the definitions: Weather describes the condition of the atmosphere. It might be sunny, hot, windy or cloudy, raining or snowing. Climate means the average weather conditions in a particular location based on the average weather experienced there over 30 years or more 2.


They took this to mean that 30 years of weather measurements could be used to determine the climate and any changes to it. In fact, the weather changes very gradually and at least 150 years or more are needed for any long-term changes to become established. Look at this graph to see if we can repeat their mistakes:

Look carefully at the black line (temperature averages) between 1945 and 1975.3 The downward trend is clearly visible and, with no other evidence, is a clear indication that the climate is cooling.


Now consider the upward trend from around 1980 to about 1998. What fooled honest scientists in the 1970s, taking only a 30-year average, fooled scientists in the 1980s and 90s. From then on, data has been largely in the hands of politicians and it is now difficult to find raw data which has not been 'adjusted' to match the theory.


But the sudden change to warming  after 1980 was a disaster  for the environmental lobby which had grown rich touting the end of the world  as earth was plunged into a new Ice Age. Unless something was done, they were likely to lose their profitable businesses and government funding for combating global cooling.


That 'something' was soon provided by Maurice Strong (1929 – November 2015)4, a Canadian business man who had made his fortune with companies in the utilities and environmental sectors. In 1947 he secured a job as a junior security officer at the UN headquarters in New York. After some years, he returned to Canada, and founded the Canadian International Development Agency in 1968.


Strong was a self-confessed Marxist 5, and the man who put the United Nations into the environmental business, being the shadowy-figure behind the UN Secretaries General from U Thant to Kofi Annan. His reign of influence in world affairs lasted from 1962 to 2005. Strong has been variously called “the international man of mystery”, the “new guy in your future” and “a very dangerous ideologue”. Maurice Strong described himself as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology".

In 1971, Strong commissioned a report on the state of the planet, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet, co-authored by Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos. The report summarized the findings of 152 leading experts from 58 countries in preparation for the first UN meeting on the environment, held in Stockholm in 1972. This was the world's first "state of the environment" report.

The Stockholm Conference established the environment as part of an international development agenda. It led to the establishment by the UN General Assembly in December 1972 of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), with headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, and the election of Strong to head it. As head of UNEP, Strong convened the first international expert group meeting on climate change.

Strong was the driving force behind the idea of One World Governance where the world would be governed by the 'elite' without the inconvenience of democracy requiring leaders to be elected.  He dreamt up a plan for a world tax of 0.5% to finance the United Nations, giving this unelected body an annual income of $1.5 trillion which was about equal to the income of the USA. The stumbling block was the Security Council, and their power of veto. He devised a plan to get rid of the Security Council but failed to get it implemented. Then came along the idea that global warming might just be the device to get his One World Governance6 agenda up and running.


Government by the 'elite' appealed equally to Marxists and Capitalist alike, That Strong was so successful in promoting his “global governance” agenda for so many decades is a testament not to his own visionary leadership, as so many globalists profess, but to the incredible resources of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds and others who are funding this agenda into existence and pushing it along at every step.6

Strong's most significant success was as a prime mover in setting up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and was later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly. It was charged with terms of reference such as:

assessing the available evidence on climate change and its impacts

assessing the options for adapting to or mitigating climate change

providing advice, both scientific and socio-economic, to the UN

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). defines "climate change" as that due to human activity. It thus requires the IPCC to focus on anthropogenic change (human-driven) rather than to comment on or prepare for natural variations in the climate system.


The long-term goal of these 'environmental' organisations is to unite the world under a single, socialistic government in which there is no capitalism, no democracy, no individual enterprise and no freedom. In this spirit, the IPCC is a political organisation charged with 'proving' that global warming is happening and is man-driven. As it is global, they claim, it can only be solved by global action under global government. This has led to some of the greatest distortions of science we have ever seen. How this is done will be discussed in the next article.



In 2005, Strong, the most powerful man in the push to 'save humanity' — by steady promotion of the theory of human-induced greenhouse gases — was caught with his hand in the till. Investigations into the UN’s Oil-for-Food-Program found that Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885 made out to M. Strong — issued by a Jordanian bank. The man who gave the cheque, South Korean business man Tongsun Park was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal court of conspiring to bribe UN officials. Strong resigned and fled to China. He died in 2015.


His epitaph included6: "Disgraced kleptocrat Maurice Strong died late last year at the age of 86. He was shunned from polite society and forced into a life of exile in Beijing after his decades of business intrigues, crimes against humanity, and environmental destruction unravelled. His savagery culminated with an attempt to profit off of the death of starving Iraqi children."





It is said that history repeats itself. I was reminded of this recently when watching a documentary on the Mocha civilisation. The Mocha dominated Peru from about 100 to 700AD. They practised human sacrifices in the belief that these would appease the gods and secure stable weather.

But then, climate change brought 30 years of flooding followed by 30 years of drought.  Faith in the practice collapsed, along with their civilisation.

Will our civilisation equally collapse when it becomes clear that we do not, and cannot, affect the weather?  And, if we can't affect the weather, how on earth can we affect the climate? Will future generations regard changing our ‘carbon footprint’ in the hope of changing the climate as a primitive practice comparable to that of the Mocha sacrifices?

It’s always interesting to discover how these deceptive practices started. We don't know how the Mocha beliefs originated but suspect it was started by leaders aiming to exercise power and control their population.  In the modern global warming scam, as we saw in Article 2 (above), the main culprit was Maurice Strong, a Marxist Canadian businessman and politician. Strong manipulated the U.N. into accepting a global environment crisis based on false science.

At the 1992 Rio Summit, he said: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilisations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This remains the goal of the environmental movement and the far-left in general.

Under Strong's influence, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)  was established in 1988 jointly by the World Meteorological Organization (WPO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), with terms of reference such as:

assessing the available evidence on climate change and its impacts
assessing the options for adapting to or mitigating climate change
providing advice, both scientific and socio-economic, to the UN


The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). defines "climate change" as that due to human activity. It thus requires the IPCC to focus on anthropogenic change (human-driven) rather than to comment on or prepare for natural variations in the climate system.


NB The IPCC does no research itself. It simply comments on research done by others – most of which is funded by state grants.

In Science, you produce a theory for other scientist to observe, measure, challenge and disagree with. When observations and measurements disagree with a theory, it is modified or rejected and alternative theories proposed, From the start, the IPCC existed to prove the theory rather than test or challenge it with alternatives. This is the opposite of the scientific method.

In its first Report, the IPCC showed this correct graph illustrating how temperatures had changed in the past.


As you can see, the Medieval Optimum, or Warm Period, was much hotter than today and enabled the Vikings to settle in Greenland and establish successful farms. Strong support for this warm period worldwide can be found on the CO2 Science7 site.  Conditions for life in this period were very favourable. As Professor Brian Fagan8 has remarked: "For five centuries, Europe basked in warm, settled weather, with only the occasional bitter winters, cool summers and memorable storms. Summer after summer passed with long, dreamy days, golden sunlight and bountiful harvests. Compared with what was to follow, these centuries were a climatic golden age."


Then came the Little Ice Age during which the Vikings had to abandon Greenland. Global temperatures plunged, plant growth plummeted and millions of people died from starvation. The Little Ice Age is best known for its effects in Europe and the North Atlantic region. Alpine glaciers advanced far below their previous (and present) limits, obliterating farms, churches, and villages in Switzerland, France, and elsewhere. Frequent cold winters and cool, wet summers led to crop failures and famines over much of northern and central Europe. In addition, the North Atlantic cod fisheries declined as ocean temperatures fell in the 17th century.

IPCC stalwarts were unhappy with this graph as it contradicted their claims that temperatures in the present were higher than they had ever been and there was no clear indication that they were rising. But relief was soon to come.  The famous ‘hockey stick’ (below) by Dr Michael Mann (Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts), used by the IPCC in its third Report (2000), contradicted their former (correct) graph and eliminated the Medieval Warm Period. Mann relied heavily on proxy data from tree rings in ancient bristlecone pine trees in California’s Sierra Nevada mountains to which he added false temperature data from computer models to indicate runaway global warming. As a piece of science and statistics it was seriously flawed as two data series representing such different variables as temperature and tree ring growth cannot be credibly grafted together into a single series.

Many scientists were outraged by this manipulation of the truth and did their own investigations.  A tree ring study (below)  by F. Biondi et al, used an 858-year proxy record of summer temperature for east-central Idaho. Although, as stated before, tree rings are not a reliable measure of annual temperature, this particular set was not included in Mann's study. Biondi found periods of `extreme cooling' around AD 1300, 1340, 1460 and after AD 1600. This confirms the findings of other studies in previous exhibits where there appears to have been two little ice ages, one minor one during the Sporer Minimum on the sun, and the second, the main Little Ice Age, during the sun's Maunder Minimum during the 1600s AD.

The authors also state - "Neither instrumental nor proxy data in Idaho northeast valleys show unusual warming during the twentieth century." This also challenges the `toe' of the `Hockey Stick' that presents the 20th century as being both unprecedented and warming rapidly. But the statement is confirmed from this long-term rural temperature record from Ashton in eastern Idaho. This graph is accepted as true by scientists who have studied the data on which it is based. They cannot, however, study Mann's hockey stick data as he refuses to disclose it.

Again, this is a most unscientific approach for which Mann is rightly criticised.





The National Trust says on its web site 10 that: "We’re adapting to unpredictable weather patterns, working hard to restore the damage caused by wild fires, heavy rain, increased humidity, high winds, droughts, and shifting shores."  As usual, they claim that these natural occurrences are the fault of 'man-made climate change' driven by human emissions of carbon dioxide. They do not bother to refer to the science behind their claims, calculating instead that it's all so well-known and 'settled' that they will not be challenged. They are wrong; they need to be challenged for spreading false information.


I often discuss this issue with climate change enthusiasts and usually find they know little or nothing about the subject.  They seem to work on the principle: Don't confuse me with facts: my mind is made up. Next time you meet one of these characters, try asking them some simple questions e.g.:


Q1 How much carbon dioxide CO2 is in the atmosphere 20%,10%, 1% or Less?.

Most think the answer lies between 10 and 20%. The correct answer is 0.039% (usually expressed as 400 parts per million (ppm) as that sounds bigger). Then ask:


Q2 How much of CO in the atmosphere is generated by humans  50%, 10%, 1% or Less?

As with the first question, most answers are way out. The actual figure is 0.0016% which is almost too small to measure.


If they respond that computer weather models can do this and make accurate predictions, ask them which computer models have a prediction accuracy of 99.9984%. The answer is none!


For the killer blow, ask them:

Q3 Does history bear out the claim that the atmospheric level of  COis  higher than ever and so is the earth's temperature?

They may respond that measurements going back to 1851(the accepted date for the start of the industrial revolution) confirm this.

Then show them this graph by an independent expert:

You will notice that there is little or no link between CO2 levels and the average global temperature. If anything, there is less CO2 than in the past and global temperatures are generally lower than they have been in the past 250 million years! 


However, there have been Warm Periods and Ice Ages which are too small to appear on the graph above but can be seen here:

As you can see, the past was much warmer than today. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool or a liar (you choose).





1 The Weather Conspiracy; The coming of the New Ice Age by The Impact Team copyright © 1977 Heron House Publishing International Ltd.

2 BBC Bitesize website.

3 The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science © 2014 Tim Ball PhD, Stairway Press

4 Wikipedia:

5 Quadrant:

6 The Corbett Report:

7 CO2 Science site at

8  The Little Ice Age” by Brian Fagan,  Professor of Archaeology/





Published & Promoted by the UK Independence Party Ashford Branch at Festival Bungalow, Colt Estate, Pluckley Road, Bethersden, Kent TN26 3DD
Contact: Tel 01233 822 132   Mobile: 07523 889 028  E-Mail: