Power Politics reveals that pretty much everything we have been told about energy just isn’t true...

Available now. Click to go to Amazon Kindle Store UK (just £3.23!) or Kindle Store US - just $4.99!)and other E-publishers soon. 


"An excellent, readable book for anyone who wants to know the real implications of climate madness for energy policy." Steve Goreham, author Climatism: Science, Common Sense and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic.  ..a watershed book... Donald G. Nelson

Direct (click through to page) from Continuum, Amazon US, Amazon UK and from Borders, Waterstone and all usual booksellers.

Hosted by
Powered by Squarespace




AN OPEN LETTER...from the site editor.


I thought long and hard before embarking upon assembling the material on this site - given the sheer vitriol of those engaged in activist environmentalism and the movement's assault on free speech these days. 

But I am a writer and journalist who takes a strong interest in truth and truth and a level 'playing field' in the public square of free speech and genuine debate too. That is why I find the mainstream media's attempt to close down the global warming debate so concerns me. When it comes to the climate change (i.e. an oxymoron, climate is always changing) debate I am no expert - but then that really is the point. There are NO 'experts' when it comes to the complex and relatively new science of climatology. 

It is only when you read more of the various scientific opinions and study the evidence for yourself that it emerges the science "consensus"  is actually a myth, as these pages reveal. And, in any event, quotes onthis site show, "consensus" is the last thing science ought to be about on its road to discovery.

What we know for certain is that the earth, on average, has undergone a one-degree warming (most of it before 1940) over recent decades.  All else, is pure speculation and theory, much of it based upon extremely fallible computer modelling rather than actual evidence. It should not fill anyone with confidence. Enter  the science research labs who perceive a way to receive new mega-grants to enable them to  'save the earth' , and a colluding mainstream media (MSM) with a penchant for scaremongering and the "faith in theories" brigade who see environmentalism as fulfilling their moral purpose in life.  

In the UK we have recently Green Madness spreading like a fog.  Sky TV News recently had a meaningless counter logging up allegedly harmful carbon emissions at the foot of screen during its Green Britain Week. Apocalyptic visions now regularly form the opening segment of ITN News broadcasts (ITN is desperate for viewers). And the BBC, being so leftwinged it often 'flies' in circles  has long pushed the apocalyptic agenda as the latest in its stream of coming catastrophes (none of which come to anything of course).  I don't doubt the the American media and those in Europe do much the same thing. And lately, most are pointing to the UN's - a political organization, not a scientific one remember - to underpin their latest bout of alarmism.

Heres' an axiom: If the UN says it, its likely to be wrong.
In February 2007 the latest UN report on Climate Change reported that over 2,000 scientists agree that they are  "90% certain man is to blame for global warming".  As far as the MSM is concerned it seems, that is 'debate over'. Personally, given the UN's abysmal track record in world affairs, I would struggle to believe the UN if it was a 100% certain on just about any issue. But hey, don't mind me, I just lack confidence in any failing and corrupt organizations.  2,000 scientists sounds a lot, doesn't it? Until you realize that after a previous UN report made similar climate claims over 17,000 scientists signed the Oregon Paper opposing the UN's view and declaring that man-made global warming had  "no scientific basis whatever" (and here is the actual paper).  The real science debate is far from over, as the evidence on this site shows plainly.

And remember also that an earlier UN report in 1996 was wholly discredited when UN administrators tampered with the concluding affirmations of the report AFTER the scientists had gone home, implying man's responsibility in the global warming debate was more certain than it was. Ask yourselfwhy would they choose to do that?  Unless the science wasn't quite saying what they wanted it to say.

The main issue, however,  is that science-fact mixed with far too much science-faith (speculation)  may, for some, equal finding a "consensus" view, but, for others, it simply equals science-fiction 

But for those whose minds have not yet been melted by the single-degree of global warming the real facts and evidence reveal that we may well be tilting at windmils  (i.e. wasting vastly important resources) fighting a phenomemon that is an mostly natural and cyclical - and entirely unstoppable.   Do you really want to stump up your money to pour it into a Black Hole of Green Taxes  governments based upon computer-generated apocalyptic visions? 

No? Then you owe it to yourself to do some reading - and the material here is designed to help. After all, what use is a 'consensus' if Truth is its major casualty?

Peter C Glover

British writer & journalist and site editor - personal site at


PS. This site is not a forum for debateLife is just too short to  spend every waking hour debating with every cyber-stalking enviro-nut 'Al Gore' - especially as I am not being paid to do so. 

Anyone wanting the card-carrying Green case can go anywhere they want in the mainstream media and get it. What they can't get easily, is what this site is all about.