The Osama bin Laden Myth

Daily Bell

Paul Craig Roberts

The interview below with Osama bin Laden was conducted by the Karachi, Pakistan, daily newspaper, Ummat, and published on September 28, 2001, 17 days after the alleged, but unsubstantiated, al Qaeda attack of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center twin towers and Pentagon. The interview was sensational. The alleged "mastermind" of 9/11 said that he and al Qaeda had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. The British Broadcasting Corporation's World Monitoring Service had the interview translated into English and made public on September 29, 2001.

Osama bin Laden's sensational denial was not reported by the US print and TV media. It was not investigated by the executive branch. No one in the US Congress called attention to bin Laden's refusal of responsibility for the greatest humiliation ever inflicted on a superpower.

To check my memory of the lack of coverage, I googled "Osama bin Laden's interview denying responsibility for 9/11." Some Internet sites reproduced the interview, but the only mainstream news source that I found was a 1 minute YouTube video from CNN in which the anchor, after quoting an al Jazeera report of bin Laden's denial, concludes that "we can all weigh that in the scale of credibility and come to our own conclusions." In other words, bin Laden had already been demonized, and his denial was not credible.
The sensational news was unfit for US citizens and was withheld from them by the american "free press," a press free to lie for the government but not to tell the truth.

Obviously, if bin Laden had outwitted not only the National Security Agency, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the FBI but also all 16 US intelligence agencies, all intelligence agencies of Washington's NATO puppet states, Israel's Mossad and in addition the National Security Council, NORAD, US air traffic control and airport security four times on the same morning, it would be the greatest feat in world history, a movement-building feat that would have made al Qaeda the most successful anti-imperialist organization in human history, an extraordinary victory over "the great satan" that would have brought millions of new recruits into al Qaeda's ranks. Yet the alleged "mastermind" denied all responsibility.

I remember decades ago when a terrorist attack occurred in Europe, whether real or an Operation Gladio false-flag attack, innumerable organizations would claim credit. Perhaps this was the CIA's way of diverting attention from itself but it illustrates that every intelligence service understands the value to an organization of claiming credit for a successful attack. Although bin Laden denied responsibility, in 2011 some al Qaeda leaders, realizing the prestige value of the 9/11 attack, claimed credit for the attack and criticized Iranian President Ahmadinejad for questioning the official US story.

Although only a few Americans are aware of the September 28, 2001 interview in which bin Laden states his non-involvement with the 9/11 attacks, many Americans have seen post-2001 videos in which a person alleged to be bin Laden takes credit for the attacks. There are two problems with these videos. Experts have examined them and found them to be fakes, and all of the videos appeared after bin Laden was reported by the Pakistan Observer, the Egyptian press and Fox News to have died in mid-December, 2001, from lung disease.

Bin Laden also suffered from kidney disease. According to a CBS news report on January 28, 2002, Osama bin Laden was hospitalized for dialysis treatment in the Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi on September 10, 2001, the day before 9/11


Obviously, a man suffering from terminal lung and kidney disease did not survive for another decade to be murdered by a US Navy SEAL team in Abbottabad. A Pakistani TV interview with the neighbor of the alleged "bin Laden compound" exposed the assassination hoax. This sensational interview also went unreported by america's "free press." I had the interview translated, and it is available here. See also this video from the BBC.

Shortly after the alleged assassination 30 members of the SEAL unit died in a mysterious helicopter crash in Afghanistan, and now we learn that not a single one of the thousands of sailors on the aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinson, witnessed bin Laden's alleged burial at sea from that ship. The press reports with a straight face that for unexplained reasons it was kept secret from the ship's sailors. This is supposed to be the explanation of the sailors' emails reporting to family and friends that they witnessed no burial at sea. Some speculate that the SEALs were bumped off before their questions to one another, "Were you on that raid?", reached outside the unit. Apparently, it doesn't strike the media or the public as strange that the US government captured and killed the terror mastermind without interrogating him and without keeping any evidence or presenting any witnesses to support the assassination claim.

Adolf Hitler claimed that communists burned down the Reichstag and that Polish troops had crossed the frontier and attacked Germany. With 9/11, Americans experienced Washington's version of these grand lies. An omniscient bin Laden dying from terminal illnesses in distant Afghanistan defeated the American National Security State and drove his attack through the walls of the Pentagon itself, requiring for our defense a "war on terror" that destroyed US civil liberties and financially ruined the country in order to prevent the triumph of a man who died of natural causes in December 2001.

On May 9, 2011, Professor Michel Chossudovsky republished the September 28, 2001, Osama bin Laden interview in Global Research.


Interview with Osama bin Laden. Osama Denies his Involvement in 9/11

Palestine Defended on the BBC (a rare moment)

BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE

Express
HELEN DOWD

Two strikes against David Bellamy for the BBC
1.  Not a believer in Anthropogenic Global Warming
2.  Not a child molester

FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm.

Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.

His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming.

Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.

CLANGER: Bellamy says Al Gore has 'no proof'
 that millions will die due to global warming

"When I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn’t believe what we were being told about global warming I had no idea what the consequences would be.

I am a scientist and I have to ­follow the directions of science but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my ­opinions.

According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that?

The sad fact is that since I said I didn’t believe human beings caused global warming I’ve not been allowed to make a TV programme.

My absence has been noticed, because wherever I go I meet people who say: “I grew up with you on the television, where are you now?”

It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on Blue Peter and I also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock.

The truth is, I didn’t think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy so I said so. Back then, at the BBC you had to toe the line and I wasn’t doing that.

At that point I was still making loads of television programmes and I was enjoying it greatly. Then I suddenly found I was sending in ideas for TV shows and they weren’t getting taken up. I’ve asked around about why I’ve been ignored but I found that people didn’t get back to me.

CAMPAIGNER: Bellamy says we must stop
destroying tropical rainforests

At the beginning of this year there was a BBC show with four experts saying: “This is going to be the end of all the ice in the Arctic,” and hypothesising that it was going to be the hottest summer ever. Was it hell! It was very cold and very wet and now we’ve seen evidence that the glaciers in Alaska have started growing rapidly – and they’ve not grown for a long time.

I’ve seen evidence, which I believe, that says there has not been a rise in global temperature since 1998, despite the increase in carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere. This makes me think the global warmers are telling lies – carbon dioxide is not the driver.

The idiot fringe have accused me of being like a Holocaust denier, which is ludicrous. Climate change is all about cycles, it’s a natural thing and has always happened. When the Romans lived in Britain they were growing very good red grapes and making wine on the borders of Scotland. It was evidently a lot warmer.

If you were sitting next to me 10,000 years ago we’d be under ice. So thank God for global warming for ending that ice age; we wouldn’t be here otherwise.

People such as former American Vice-President Al Gore say that millions of us will die because of global warming – which I think is a pretty stupid thing to say if you’ve got no proof.

And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The ­science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science.

There’s no proof, it’s just projections and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs.

To date, the way the so-called Greens and the BBC, the Royal Society and even our political parties have handled this smacks of McCarthyism at its worst.

Global warming is part of a natural cycle and there’s nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. The world is now facing spending a vast amount of money in tax to try to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist.

And how were we convinced that this problem exists, even though all the evidence from measurements goes against the fact? God knows. Yes, the lakes in Africa are drying up. But that’s not global warming. They’re drying up for the very ­simple reason that most of them have dams around them.

So the water that used to be used by local people is now used in the production of cut flowers and veget­ables for the supermarkets of Europe.

One of Al Gore’s biggest clangers was saying that the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan was drying up because of global warming. Well, everyone knows, because it was all over the news 20 years ago, that the Russians were growing cotton there at the time and that for every ton of cotton you produce you use a vast amount of water.

The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I’m still an environmentalist, I’m still a Green and I’m still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming “problem” that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world.

Being ignored by the likes of the BBC does not really bother me, not when there are much bigger problems at stake.

I might not be on TV any more but I still go around the world campaigning about these important issues. For example, we must stop the dest­ruc­tion of trop­ical rainforests, something I’ve been saying for 35 years.

Mother nature will balance things out but not if we interfere by destroying rainforests and overfishing the seas.

That is where the real environmental catastrophe could occur.

Editor's note: Here are some interesting follow-up videos concerning David Bellamy. First is an appearance on the Late, Late show in 2009. Second, is one of the rare debates between David Bellamy and AGW advocate George Monbiot. If you visit the YouTube link, the debate is proudly entitled, "David Bellamy being humiliated by George Monbiot over climate change." Bellamy does not clarify his source for refuting the irreversibly shrinking glacier theory, but growing glaciers, ironically, have been confirmed since by the BBC itself (there might have been some children involved). The rest of the debate is a classic example of one side (Bellamy) requesting to "show the evidence" and the other side (Monbiot) appealing to scientific authority and scientific consensus. It's an important exchange primarily to see Monbiot's campaign. You will also notice that this YouTuber either refused comments or deleted the comments thread for the clip. Probably because Monbiot's style and the Arctic ice issue has long since been eviscerated (among those actually looking at the issue, of course).

British Democracy: Living in Fear, Kept in the Dark

Global Research
Colin Todhunter

Earlier this year, I watched the BBC’s main political debate programme that allows an audience of members of the public to put questions to a panel of politicians and so-called experts. Syria was on the agenda. A member of the panel referred to the Syrian rebels as ‘freedom fighters’. Within a few minutes, all panel members and the audience were using this term to refer to the rebels. It led me to ponder why so many people were willing to accept at face value an agenda that portrayed the insurgents in such a wholly positive light.

It also led me to conclude just how easy it is to manipulate ordinary people into backing imperialist ventures abroad, which are fought on behalf of rich interests. At a time of biting austerity and attacks on workers and the welfare state, well over a billion pounds of ordinary people’s money was used to fund the illegal bombing of Libya.

The justification sold to people for such militarism is that dictators are bad. The justification sold to people for attacking or destabilising countries resulting in mass death is that democracy must therefore be forced through by the barrel of a gun. Isn’t it terrible, the politicians and media say, that Assad is a brutal dictator who is preventing democracy by putting down the rebels.

The Assad regime undoubtedly has its faults, but nothing is ever said by the corporate media about the authoritarian ruling clique in Saudi Arabia, which has even given its name to that country (House of Saud). Nothing is ever said about a western backed dictator in Bahrain who has been in power for 52 years. Nothing is ever revealed about the brutal ongoing crackdowns on protestors and dissenters in those countries. When Bahrain used Saudi troops to put down uprisings in 2011, the resultant death toll was proportionally much larger than was the loss of life in Egypt during the uprising there. In fact, if the death toll in Bahrain were taken as a proportion of the population, the equivalent death toll for Egypt would have been 12,000.

Where was the outrage from the US and its client states? That’s right, there was none. The King of Bahrain was even invited to attend Queen Elizabeth’s Jubilee celebrations at BuckinghamPalace.

As it did inLibya, repressive Saudi Arabia is playing a big role in facilitating the rag-tag rebels in Syria to destabilise a sovereign state that stands in the way of NATO and Israeli interests.

And far away, back inBritain, the public is being fed a pack of lies by politicians and the mainstream media about the situation in Syria, just as it has been over other military adventures over the past decade. The majority of Brits don’t have much of a clue about what is happening. They are unaware that Syria forms part of the greater game in the region. They fail to see the links between Syria, Pakistan, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, which are all part of a Washington-led wider geo-political strategy hell-bent on global domination, controlling the world’s mineral resources, pipeline routes and lining the pockets of western financiers and oil, armaments and logistics companies. Too many remain confused or ignorant thanks to duplicitous politicians and the corporate media.

The public cannot know the reality. They will not be allowed to know. They must be kept in fear and in the dark and deceived by politicians and the media that churn out increasingly tired-sounding clichés about a war on terror or humanitarian militarism to justify murderous brutality.

And the result is that too many people accept the lie that rag-tag forces made up of vicious, faction-ridden fighters, illegally armed by NATO terror governments and unelected regimes in Saudi and Qatar, are fighting for freedom and democracy. Those forces and nations wouldn’t know about freedom and democracy if they fell over it.

Sorry, my mistake, they would and they do. That’s why they seek to crush it when it appears. And that applies whether it appears within the borders of the US, Britain or Saudi, or elsewhere in places that are of strategic importance to them. The US track record of crushing democratic governments is well documented by the likes of Noam Chomsky and historian William Blum. And look no further to see the attacks on WikiLeaks or the Occupy Movement to see how democratic movements are treated at home. Look no further to see how democratic workers’ movements that took hundreds of years to build in Britain and elsewhere in Europe are under sustained attack.

Giving the people the opportunity to vote every four or five years, while in the meantime deceiving, misinforming and lying to them, has no more to do with democracy or freedom than what is happening in Syria right now.

If more ordinary folk were turn their attention away from glossy sports events, premiership football, cheap knockabout BBC political debate shows or all other forms of comatosing infortainment for one minute, they might well realise that the billionaire criminal elites that take their taxes and dictate national and foreign policy are in many cases a good deal worse than any number of the regimes they seek to demonise.

BBC Censors Video Showing Syrian Rebels Forcing Prisoner to Become Suicide Bomber

Prison Planet
Paul Joseph Watson

The BBC has sensationally censored a news story and a video showing Syrian rebels forcing a prisoner to become a suicide bomber, a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, presumably because it reflected badly on establishment media efforts to portray the FSA as glorious freedom fighters.



The video, a copy of which can be viewed above (the original BBC version was deleted), shows Free Syrian Army rebels preparing a bomb that is loaded onto the back of a truck to be detonated at a government checkpoint in the city of Aleppo.

The clip explains how the rebels have commandeered an apartment belonging to a Syrian police captain. The rebels are seen sneering at photos of the police captain’s family while they proclaim, “Look at their freedom, look how good it is,” while hypocritically enjoying the luxury of the man’s swimming pool.

The video then shows a prisoner who the rebels claim belonged to a pro-government militia. Bruises from torture on the prisoner’s body are explained away as having been metered out by the man’s previous captors. The BBC commentary emphasizes how well the rebels are treating the man, showing them handing him a cigarette.

However, the man has been tricked into thinking he is part of a prisoner exchange program when in reality he is being set up as an unwitting suicide bomber. The prisoner is blindfolded and told to drive the truck towards a government checkpoint.

“What he doesn’t know is that the truck is the one that’s been rigged with a 300 kilo bomb,” states the narrator.

The clip then shows rebels returning disappointed after it’s revealed that the remote detonator failed and the bomb did not explode.

The BBC narrator admits that forcing prisoners to become suicide bombers “would certainly be considered a war crime.”

New York Times reporters who shot the video claim they had no knowledge of the plot. A longer version of the clip is posted on the New York Times You Tube channel. The title of the clip glorifies the rebel fighters as “The Lions of Tawhid”.

Within hours of the story being published, it was subsequently sent down the memory by the BBC. Attempts to reach the original article URL are greeted with a 404 Not Found page.

In addition, a You Tube version of the same video originally posted on the official BBC News 2012 channel was also removed. Although the You Tube page for the video states that it was removed after a “copyright claim by British Broadcasting Corporation” this is a bogus reason, because the video was not uploaded by a third party, it was posted on the official BBC channel, as the screenshot below proves.

Governments ADMIT That They Carry Out False Flag Terror

Washington's Blog

MOSSAD Agents Posing as "Al Qaeda"

Forget the claims and allegations that false flag terror - governments attacking people and then blaming others in order to create animosity towards those blamed - has been used throughout history.

This essay will solely discuss government admissions to the use of false flag terror.
For example:

• A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that - under orders from the chief of the Gestapo - he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson

• The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950's to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister

• Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)

• The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security" (and see this)(Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred)

• As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the followingABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Official State Department documents show that - only nine months before - the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high-level officials discussedblowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. (While the Joint Chiefs of Staff pushed as a serious proposal for Operation Northwoods to be carried out, cooler heads fortunately prevailed; President Kennedy or his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara apparently vetoed the plan)

• The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him "to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident", thus framing the ANC for the bombing

• An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author)

• Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton says that a Clinton cabinet member proposed letting Saddam kill an American pilot as a pretext for war in Iraq (and see this)
• According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

• The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings

• As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the "war on terror".

• Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

• United Press International reported in June 2005:

  U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

• Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers

• At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence

• A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat

• U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then "drop" automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants

There are many other instances of false flag attacks used throughout history proven by the historical evidence. See this, this and this. The above are only some examples of governments admitting to using false flag terror.
You can't call it a conspiracy theory when the government itself admits it.
And this is not just ancient history:

• Jimmy Carter's former National Security Adviser - Zbigniew Brzezinski - told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation 
  

• A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents, would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag

Syria Spin Machine: UK mainstream lies exposed

NATO Terrorists Execute Civilians While Waiting for Syrian Army

Land Destroyer
Tony Cartalucci

For many months, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has depicted the militants creating havoc across his nation as "armed gangs," "foreign terrorists," and simply just, "terrorists." During a 2011 interview in Damascus with Barbra Walters, Walters feigned indignation when hearing these labels, insisting that these were people simply seeking "democracy" and "freedom."

It turns out months later, it was President Assad who has been vindicated, and Walters' disrespectful, curt condemnation exposed as the same brand of war propaganda that has mired the West in over a decade of ceaseless, bloody, bankrupting wars and interventions.

The FSA are Terrorists 

AFP now reports that the so-called "Free Syrian Army" (FSA) militants who had attempted to overrun the city of Aleppo in Syria's north on July 17, in coordination with an assassination bombing and a similar militant attack on Damascus, are now trapped in the city center, awaiting Syrian Army reinforcements expected to close in and neutralize them. An AFP correspondent embedded with the terrorists reported that, "two men, accused of belonging to pro-government "shabiha" militia, were summarily dispatched in the street, each with a bullet to the head."

By this of course AFP means, two civilians were rounded up and shot in the head - killed in cold blood in the streets.

BBC's Ian Pannell also rode in with FSA terrorists during the initial attack on Aleppo, which is by all accounts a pro-Army, pro-Syrian city. Pannell described scenes of FSA militants "seeking revenge" as they too rounded up men "suspected" of being "shabiha." The men were unarmed, terrified, and had weapons discharged at their feet as they knelt on the ground. Pannell doesn't tell us if this group of men were "dispatched" as well, preferring to paper over what appeared to be an atrocity in the making by stating, "there is little justice on either side."

It appears the term suspected "shabiha" has become analogous of the Western media's use of the term "African mercenaries" in Libya during NATO destabilization and regime change operations there last year. These "African mercenaries" were lynched, beheaded, shot, burned, and hacked to pieces, just as the FSA is now doing to suspected "shabiha."



Photo: Images and reports eventually trickled out as NATO-backed genocide unfolded throughout Tripoli's streets, indicating the destruction of infrastructure and the specific targeting of black Libyans written off by the corporate media as "suspected mercenaries." Benghazi rebels have been long reported to harbor extremist ideologies and an intense ethnic & racial hatred. ....

It would later turn out these black Africans were not mercenaries, but citizens who had lived in Libya for generations fighting desperately for their lives against sectarian extremists intolerant of their complexion and creed. Likewise, suspected "shabiha" are Syrians unwilling or unable, because of their ethnicity or creed, to capitulate to roving bands of foreign-armed sectarian extremists.

The FSA Include Foreign-Fighters 

CNN, whose Ivan Watson also accompanied FSA terrorists over the Turkish-Syrian border and into Aleppo revealed that indeed foreign fighters were amongst the militants. It was admitted that:

Meanwhile, residents of the village where the Syrian Falcons were headquartered said there were fighters of several North African nationalities also serving with the brigade's ranks.

A volunteer Libyan fighter has also told CNN he intends to travel from Turkey to Syria within days to add a "platoon" of Libyan fighters to armed movement.

 CNN also added:

On Wednesday, CNN’s crew met a Libyan fighter who had crossed into Syria from Turkey with four other Libyans. The fighter wore full camouflage and was carrying a Kalashnikov rifle. He said more Libyan fighters were on the way.

The foreign fighters, some of them are clearly drawn because they see this as … a jihad. So this is a magnet for jihadists who see this as a fight for Sunni Muslims.

CNN's reports provide bookends to earlier admissions that large numbers of Libyan terroristsflush with NATO cash and weapons had headed to Syria with known terrorist commandersmaking the arrangements.

Western Media is Complicit in Covering Up War Crimes  

Not only are these FSA militants committing atrocities, they are doing so in front of representatives of Western media, who are demonstratively excusing, covering up, or downplaying their war crimes. Additionally, these media personalities are attempting to downplay the significant implications of foreign-fighters crossing Syria's borders and conducting armed attacks on a heavily populated city - implications that run contra to the West's narrative regarding their support of the FSA against the Syrian state.

By doing so they've become accomplices, providing impunity for the actions of terrorists, and allowing the governments of the United States, Britain, France, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, an ignoble alliance, to continue fueling this violent, foreign-contrived band of militants. And by doing so, these media representatives have undermined their journalistic immunity, putting the lives of real journalists the world over at risk.

Image: An approximation of areas where fighting has been taking place in Aleppo, Syria. Clearly during the initial offensive by the FSA, they came in from 2 of the city's main highways, both leading to the Turkish-Syrian border. It appears that a large number of fighters have been trapped inside the center of the city, surrounded by Syrian military forces. This was not an "uprising" but rather an invasion by armed militants from across the Turkish-Syrian border. It is unclear whether a significant number of additional militants are on their way. 

And it will be this corps of professional deceivers who continue their efforts to pave way for wider NATO intervention to fulfill US ambitions to carve out "safe havens" in northern Syria form which to prolong the current bloodbath.


Perhaps this is why Russia - condemned by these very nations for its "inaction" in supporting the subversion of Syria - stated quite clearly that the West, specifically the US, was "justifying terrorism against the Syrian government." 


The West is hemorrhaging legitimacy and finds itself in an untenable position where it can neither go forward nor back without incurring tremendous, catastrophic consequences - consequences millions of people across the Middle East as well as across the West will pay for in blood and treasure. It should be remembered who exactly brought us to this precipice and why - corporate-financier interests, their stables of policy makers, and the corporate-media - all for the sake of pursuing narrow-minded, self-serving geopolitical hegemony.   

'Big five' bank customers vent anger by taking their money elsewhere

Guardian
Heather Stewart

ry bank customers have been voting with their wallets and bombarding co-ops, building societies and credit unions with applications for current accounts over the past week, after the NatWest computer meltdown and the Barclays rate-rigging scandal.

Data compiled by the campaign group Move Your Money UK shows an explosion in requests to switch from large high street banks to smaller alternatives that consumers hope will take a more ethical approach. Charity Bank, which lends its savers' money to charities, has seen a 200% increase in depositors; the Ecology Bank has had a 266% jump in applications; and Triodos, a Bristol-based "sustainable bank", a 51% increase.

Credit unions, which are often small institutions investing people's savings in their local economy, have seen week-on-week increases of at least 20%, some of them up to 300%. Evidence of the growing number of switchovers comes as Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, on Sunday calls on the government to make it easier for consumers to switch to another bank or building society. Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, Balls will say that while people are increasingly dissatisfied with their banks, it is still too difficult for customers to switch accounts. He told the Observer: "Ministers are dragging their feet on reforms to improve competition and consumer choice in the banking sector. Consumers must come first. It's time for action."

Consumers have been looking for alternatives to the mainstream banks to protest about the revelation that Barclays traders conspired to fix a key interest rate over a number of years; and the IT chaos that left millions of RBS customers unable to access their accounts.

Since the start of this year, Move Your Money UK estimates that an average of 80,000 savers a month have been leaving the crisis-prone banking giants – a total of almost half a million since the start of 2012. The Co-operative Bank, which has seen a 25% rise in applications over the past week, hopes to capitalise on the public's frustration by trebling its number of branches to 1,000, if it can clinch a deal to buy 632 from Lloyds Banking Group.

Lloyds, which was bailed out by the taxpayer during the financial crisis, was ordered by Brussels to sell the branches when it took over the troubled HBOS.

Co-op's unusual management structure, with a board that included a Methodist minister and a plasterer, had initially caused some concerns at City regulator the Financial Services Authority, but the takeover now looks close to being completed, and Co-op hopes it will enable it to become a major player on the high street. The coalition, which has said it would like to see more competition in the banking sector, is also keen for the Co-op to succeed.

Move Your Money has organised community events and protests to publicise alternatives to the so-called big five — Barclays, Lloyds, HSBC, RBS and Santander. "There's a decline in trust," said spokesman Louis Brooke. "You can lose your trust in a bank because you don't believe they've got enough money, a la Northern Rock, but that's not what's going on here; it's that people no longer see the banks as legitimate institutions."

Houla Massacre Victims 'Were Supporters of Syrian Government'

Salem-News
Ian Henshall


A UN spokesman refused to confirm that the Houla victims were killed by Syrian government forces.

Houla Victims

(LONDON) - BBC's Newsnight last night interviewed a London based Syrian businessman who stated that the families murdered by terrorists in Houla were supporters of the Syrian government, not the opposition.

If correct this would make it highly unlikely that the narrative pushed by the mainstream media is true, and suggests the opposite is the case: the atrocity was committed not by the Assad regime but by the insurgents, supported by NATO, Al Qaeda and the gulf arab dictators, and reported to be covertly armed by Turkey's Muslim Brotherhood linked government.

The official story of the Houla massacre has changed substantially since it first broke, with unconfirmed reports from insurgents (routinely described on the BBC as activists). Version one, corroborated by at least one BBC corespondent, had it that the victims were killed by heavy weapons of the Syrian army. Version two was that villagers had been randomly killed by militias sponsored by the Assad government. Version three, the current version, concedes that most of the victims came from a few extended families.

It should not be difficult to establish who the families were loyal to: the insurgents or the Syrian government. The Syrian businessman on Newsnight stated they were related to an MP elected in recent elections which the insurgents have boycotted.

It was not clear whether the information from the Syrian businessman was expected in this live TV show. The potential bombshell was ignored by hawkish presenter Gavin Essler and high profile warmonger Paul Wolfovitz, who demanded a military attack on Syria. A UN spokesman refused Essler's invitation to confirm that the Houla victims were killed by Syrian government forces.

If we now hear less and less about the massacre with no further details, many will conclude that the prima facie suspects for the atrocity are the insurgents, backed by NATO and the Gulf arab dictators, aided and abetted by the mainstream media, including the BBC. This would be a classic false flag terrorist atrocity. Ironically the Egyptian branch of the Muslim Bortherhood has denounced the 9/11 attacks as a false flag atrocity organised by Israel or the CIA.

In one way this would be good news: there are no logistical reasons why these people cannot be arrested, prosecuted and tried. It is established in international law that propaganda on behalf of war criminals is in itself a war crime. The fact that no-one would expect this to happen is testimony to the tacit acceptance that NATO governments and media have no real interest in human rights.

Ian Henshall

BBC News uses 'Iraq photo to illustrate Syrian massacre'

The Telegraph

The BBC is facing criticism after it accidentally used a picture taken in Iraq in 2003 to illustrate the senseless massacre of children in Syria.

Photographer Marco di Lauro said he nearly “fell off his chair” when he saw the image being used, and said he was “astonished” at the failure of the corporation to check their sources.

The picture, which was actually taken on March 27, 2003, shows a young Iraqi child jumping over dozens of white body bags containing skeletons found in a desert south of Baghdad.

It was posted on the BBC news website today under the heading “Syria massacre in Houla condemned as outrage grows”.

The caption states the photograph was provided by an activist and cannot be independently verified, but says it is “believed to show the bodies of children in Houla awaiting burial”.

A BBC spokesman said the image has now been taken down.

Turkish Reporters Struggle Against Repression

Der Spiegel
Daniel Steinvorth

Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Turkey has sparked international criticism over its treatment of journalists who dare to criticize the government, with many jailed on terrorism charges. The recent release of prominent reporters may signal change, but more than 100 journalists are still imprisoned in the country, more than in China or Iran. 

He has done things in the last 375 days that he would never have imagined doing before. He made dumbbells out of pipe sections, watched too much television, and at some point he discovered the sunflower seeds. That was when he realized that he was losing too much weight in prison. "I chewed those damned sunflower seeds like someone possessed," says Ahmet Sik.

The journalist is sitting in his living room in Istanbul, surrounded by his wife Yonca, daughters and closest friends. There is red wine and chocolate cake, and Sik, a youthful 42-year-old with a thin beard, still can't believe he's a free man. It is the evening of Tuesday, March 13, the day after his release from the Silivri high-security prison for presumed terrorists .

He was in pretrial detention for a year and 10 days on charges of being a "member of a terrorist organization." Sik is one of the most famous investigative journalists and authors in Turkey. His colleague Nedim Sener, another investigative reporter who has won several awards, had researched the reasons behind the murder of journalist Hrant Dink in 2007. A little over a year ago, on the morning of March 3, 2011, a special unit of the Turkish police arrested both men.

The journalists were charged with belonging to an ultra-nationalist secret organization called "Ergenekon," though there was no evidence to support the allegations. The notorious network, Turkish prosecutors claim, contrived a plan to overthrow the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan several years ago. Since 2007, special police units have been trying to put a stop to the activities of the Ergenekon group, although its existence has never been proven.

Non-governmental organizations like Reporters Without Borders and Human Rights Watch had long criticized Turkey for its repression of journalists, but a line was crossed with Sik and Sener's arrests. With their work, the two men had helped expose connections among politicians, the judiciary and organized crime in Turkey, the so-called "Deep State" that went back decades.

International Concerns 

Was the administration of Prime Minister Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) trying to silence two men after finding them useful at first but then changing its mind when their revelations became too embarrassing? After all, the two reporters had not just poked around among members of the old government elite, but had also dared to investigate the Islamists, the new people in power and their networks.

Syria: Clinton Admits US On Same Side As Al Qaeda To Destabilise Assad Government

Global Research
By Michel Chossudovsky and Finian Cunningham

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has acknowledged that Al Qaeda and other organizations on the US “terror list” are supporting the Syrian opposition.

Clinton said: “We have a very dangerous set of actors in the region, al-Qaida [sic], Hamas, and those who are on our terrorist list, to be sure, supporting – claiming to support the opposition [in Syria].” [1] (Click here to watch video)

Yet at the same time, in the above BBC interview the US Secretary of State repeats the threadbare Western claim that the situation in Syria is one of a defenceless population coming under “relentless attack” from Syrian government forces.

There is ample evidence that teams of snipers who have been killing civilians over the past year in Syria belong to the terrorist formations to which Clinton is referring to.

As Michel Chossudovsky points out in a recent article: “Since the middle of March 2011, Islamist armed groups – covertly supported by Western and Israeli intelligence – have conducted terrorist attacks directed against government buildings, including acts of arson. Amply documented, trained gunmen and snipers, including mercenaries, have targeted the police, armed forces as well as innocent civilians. There is ample evidence, as outlined in the Arab League Observer Mission report, that these armed groups of mercenaries are responsible for killing civilians. ??While the Syrian government and military bear a heavy burden of responsibility, it is important to underscore the fact that these terrorist acts – including the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children – are part of a US-NATO-Israeli initiative, which consists is supporting, training and financing  ‘an armed entity’ operating inside Syria.” [2]

The admission at the weekend by Hillary Clinton corroborates the finding that armed groups are attacking civilians and these groups are terroristic, according to US own definitions, and that the situation in Syria is not one of unilateral state violence against its population but rather is one of a shadowy armed insurrection.

Clinton’s admission retrospectively justifies the stance taken by Russia and China, both of which vetoed the proposed UN Security Council Resolution on 4 February, precisely because that proposal was predicated on a spurious notion that the violence in Syria was solely the responsibility of the Al Assad government.

Clinton also acknowledges in the BBC interview that there is “a very strong opposition to foreign intervention from inside Syria, from outside Syria” – which tacitly concedes the fact that the Syrian population is aware that the so-called oppositionists within their country are Al Qaeda-affiliated mercenaries.

Flashback: 9/11 Truth Versus The BBC

State Sponsored Propaganda – BBC: Caught in the Act

Intel Hub
Stephen Lendman

BBC Correspondent Jane Standley announcing the
collapse of WTC7 in a live broadcast while that
same building stands behind her.

On February 11, the London Independent headlined, “BBC to issue global apology for documentaries that broke rules,” saying:

“….(P)rograms were made by third-party in pay of governments and firms.”

In other words, they were propaganda, not legitimate news and information. More on the scandal below.

Throughout its history, BBC’s been an imperial tool. It replicates the worst of America’s major media, its NPR/PBS managed news operations, and Qatar controlled Al Jazeera on major world and national issues.

Reliability’s not its mandate. Owned, operated and controlled by Britain, government officials appoint its management. Nothing fundamentally changed from 1922 inception to today. Only technology’s different, not BBC’s state controlled message.

It’s pro-government, pro-imperial, pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-corporate, and anti-populist. Deception triumphs over truth. Step over the line and get fired.

In 2003, correspondent Andrew Gilligan, Chairman Gavyn Davies, and Director-General Greg Dyke got the boot because Gilligan reported government officials “sexed up” WMD documents, knowing they were false.

In other words, fake information, in league with Washington, promoted war on Iraq. Exposing it got Gilligan and top management axed. New bosses replaced former ones. Seamlessly it was back to business as usual, producing propaganda instead of truth and full disclosure.

In March 2011, the London Guardian headlined, “BBC World Service to sign funding deal with US State Department,” saying:

BBC will “receive a ‘significant’ sum of money from the US government to help (circumvent) the blocking of TV and internet services in countries including Iran and China,” as well as develop early warning software to more easily detect jamming.

At the time, BBC’s Jim Egan said software would help “monitor dips in traffic which act as an early warning of jamming, and can be more effective than relying on people contacting us and telling us they cannot access the services.”

Proxy servers are also used to misdirect web site blockers to countries other than where broadcasts emanate.

UN trapped in climate turmoil

CFACT
Dennis Avery

Durban Skyline

The man-made warming activists at the UN are trapped in turmoil over how to deal with the earth’s lack of warming since 1998. A couple of weeks ago, the UN climate panel circulated a draft statement that would have admitted we’re unlikely to have any further earth-warming for the next 30 years “because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability.”

The BBC’s environmental reporter Richard Black reported that he’d received a copy of that draft. Black said he expected member governments to reject the statement, however, because it would embarrass the first-world governments’ green energy subsidies and taxes agenda. It would also have finally killed the world’s climate-terror campaign.

In fact, NASA and the U.S. Solar Observatory had already told us months ago to expect moderate global cooling for the next three decades due to a quiet period on the sun, and a consequent cooling of the Pacific Ocean’s huge heat mass.

Searching for a way out of the non-warming trap, one of the Intergovernmental Panel’s lead science authors announced that the climate computers had always correctly predicted non-warming lulls like ours. (We just missed that clause in the UN’s earlier press releases about the soon-to-be parboiled planet.)

“Looking at a single, noisy 10-year period is cherry picking, and does not provide reliable information about the presence or absence of human effects on climate,” wrote Ben Santer, in the November 17 Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres) online. Santer said that “tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human caused changes.”

What’s magic about 17 years instead of 15? From their point of view, it would give the alarmists at least two more years of “grace” before they had to admit the giant computer models are a total failure. That might be enough time to re-elect Obama.

But wait. Horses were about to be changed once more. The next day, November 18th, the IPCC decided not to admit we will have no global warming for the next 30 years. Instead, they announced that the real danger to humanity was not warming at all, but “extreme weather.”

The UN IPCC and its compliant followers will apparently rely on the mainstream media to keep headlining every small weather “disaster” in the world—and there are always lots of those. They’ll somehow all be blamed on too much CO2. Thus green taxes and subsidies can go forward as planned. It seems not to matter that there’s even less evidence for an “extreme weather” scare than for the “long-term global warming disaster” that lasted just 22 years and caused no harm.

When I think of “extreme weather,” I think of the century-long drought that desiccated the entire western two-thirds of America for virtually the whole period between 1200 and 1300 AD. That extreme drought starved the Anasazi Indian culture out of the San Juan Basin of the Colorado River. Simultaneously, it collapsed the only city Native Americans ever built—at Cahokia, just east of today’s St. Louis, Missouri. Cahokia had perhaps 40,000 people, about double the population of London at that time—until the drought destroyed their corn crops.

Folks, that was extreme weather.

Dennis T. Avery, a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., is an environmental economist. He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years. Readers may write to him at PO Box 202 Churchville, VA 2442; email to cgfi@hughes.net or visit us at www.cgfi.org

BBC News: Demos report on thought crime in schools, calls for re-education!

Libya: BBC concocts mass grave story in brazen propaganda piece

empirestrikesblack
Martin Iqbal

In a truly stunning display of dishonesty, the BBC has reported, citing no evidence to back its claim, that a mass grave containing over 1,200 bodies has been found in Tripoli’s Abu Salim prison complex. The BBC attempts to tie this ‘finding’ to the equally concocted ‘Abu Salim prison massacre’, as it claims that the bodies are those of the inmates supposedly killed in 1996.

In a piece posted today, the BBC uses the headline: “More than 1,200 bodies found in Tripoli mass grave“. Categorically, absolutely, unequivocally, this is an out-and-out lie; 1,200 bodies have not been found.

This is revealed to the reader within the BBC’s own concocted report in the paragraphs that follow (emphasis mine):

A mass grave believed to contain up to 1,270 bodies has been found in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, says the National Transitional Council (NTC).
The remains are thought to be those of inmates who were killed by security forces in 1996 in the Abu Salim prison.
…
Excavation at the site is expected to start soon.
…
Several bone fragments and pieces of clothing have already been found in the top soil.

While the unelected, illegitimate terror council known as the NTC claims to have found merely ‘several bone fragments‘, the BBC claims that 1,200 bodies have been found in its deliberately misleading headline.

Even this weak slew of lies from the BBC exposes the fragile nature of the ‘Abu Salim massacre’ propaganda, as it refers to the evidential basis of the event (emphasis mine):

A few eyewitnesses have talked about the fact they were killed in their jail cells by grenades and sustained gunfire after a protest.
Officials in the new government say they will need foreign forensic help to determine exactly what happened there.

The BBC’s report contains testimony from a ‘Sami Assadi’, who claims to have lost two brothers in the incident.

“Mixed feelings really. We are all happy because this revolution has succeeded, but when I stand here, I remember my brothers and many, many friends have been killed, just because they did not like Muammar Gaddafi.”

The inclusion of this testimony is a blatant attempt to twist and distort the reality on the ground. The BBC suggests that the ‘revolution’ has succeeded. In reality the ‘rebels’ and the foreign soldiers & special forces leading them, don’t even hold Tripoli, in addition to countless other locations still held by the Libyan resistance. These include Bani Walid and Sirte – locations now subject to NATO-prescribed blockades in an attempt to starve the resistance into submission, coupled with lethal bombing campaigns.

In its crude attempt to deceive the public, the BBC even manages to contradict itself in this one-page report. The testimony it provides above suggests that the alleged victims of the ‘Abu Salim massacre’ were killed because they “did not like Gaddafi“, while the BBC itself claims earlier in the piece, that they were killed for protesting against conditions in the prison.

Most certainly, this ‘mass grave’ propaganda will drop out of the news without a retraction from the BBC, as it turns out to be an utter falsehood. The ‘Abu Salim massacre’ is an event toted by globalist-Zionist funded Human Rights Watch as the trump card in the propaganda war against Libya. ‘Abu Salim’ is an event for which there is no physical evidence, and HRW’s report on the event hinges on the testimony of one person who is now residing in the United States. Laughably, HRW even admits that they cannot independently verify a single detail of the man’s claims.

'BBC's biased climate science reporting isn't biased enough' claims report

Telegraph
James Delingpole

Before commenting on the BBC Trust’s report into the BBC’s science coverage, I thought I’d take the trouble of reading the actual document rather than the press previews. I’m very glad I waited because the finished product is an absolute corker. Let me take you through some of my favourite moments.

The report, as you may be aware, was written by my fellow Telegraph columnist Steve Jones. Besides being a fine and engaging writer, Dr Jones is a geneticist of  distinction and I would certainly never dream of questioning his judgement in his fields of expertise (notably Drosophila and snails). Fortunately, as becomes quite clear reading the report, climate science isn’t one of them.

Dr Jones sets out his ideological position fairly early on when he strives to bracket global warming “denialism” with a range of other syndromes: believing that “AIDS has nothing to do with viruses, the MMR vaccine is unsafe, complex organs could never evolve, or even that the 9/11 disaster was a US government plot.” I’d love to see his evidence for this casual slur-by-association.

The distinction he tries to make between “scepticism” (good, up to a point, he thinks) and “denialism” (bad, obviously) is in any case a straw man argument. Of all the sceptics I’ve ever met or read, not a single one has ever striven to deny that climate changes nor that modest global warming has been taking place since 1850 (when we began emerging from the Little Ice Age).

What many of these sceptics – or deniers, if you must – do question is

a) whether – and if so by how much – this warming is anthropogenic (ie human-caused)

b) whether the warming constitutes a threat – or whether its benefits might in fact far outweigh its drawbacks

c) whether this warming likely to continue or whether – as happened without human influence at the end of the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period – it will be followed by a period of natural cooling

d) whether the drastic policy measures (tax, regulation, “decarbonisation”, the drive for renewables) being enacted to ‘combat climate change’ will not end up doing far more harm than good.

Jones concedes at one point that “A debate remains, and it deserves to be reported with as much objectivity as would any other unresolved issue.” But the apparent reasonableness here is certainly not borne out by the rest of his screed against sceptics, whom he caricatures as “proponents of the idea that global warming is a myth” – while neglecting to engage with the subtleties of the arguments mentioned above.

Sometimes, in his enthusiasm to put all these evil “deniers” in their place, Dr Jones appears to forget the basic rules of science altogether. For example, he describes how measured levels of atmospheric C02 have increased since 1959, and how “basic physics show that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas” and how “three independent sets of records of global temperature agree that 2010 was one of the three hottest years since figures were first collected.” Dr Jones might be surprised to learn the “deniers” agree with him on this. Where they differ is over a fundamental scientific concept: “Correlation is not causation.” We are, remember, emerging from the Little Ice Age. So the rise in global temperatures is perfectly explicable in terms of natural climatic cycles. Furthermore, you could reasonably argue that the theory of anthropogenic CO2 as a driver of catastrophic global warming has already been “falsified” (or, as I prefer to think of it, torpedoed below the waterline, hit in the magazine and blown out of the sea). That’s because, as even the great Dr Phil Jones of the CRU has acknowledged, “global warming” stopped in 1998 (even as anthropogenic CO2 levels, notably in China) continued to rise.

Another category error Dr Jones falls into is in his use of the Argumentum ad Verecundiam, the appeal to authority. He tells us:

The IPCC concluded that it is beyond doubt that the climate is warming and more than 90% likely that this has been driven by human activity.

And he cites an open letter to the journal Science by two hundred and fifty members of the US National Academy of Sciences:

“(T)here is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.”

But as both Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn could have explained to Dr Jones, science does not advance through “consensus”; and as Einstein could have told him, science is not a numbers game. When Hitler commissioned the book 100 Authors Against Einstein, Einstein coolly replied that if he were wrong, one author would have been enough.