Leftarded Fallout | They cannot make up their mind

9 01 2011

With the media circus that has flared up around the issue of certain sections of society preying on defenceless children, the Left do not know where to look.  As Rod Liddle points out…

A bizarre report on the Asian child abuse court case on the BBC last night, which spent most of its time attempting to exonerate the Pakistani community as a whole, including clips of Pakistanis saying “actually, we probably shouldn’t abuse kiddies” and a white child abuse campaigner saying hey, look, it’s not Pakistanis who are the problem, etc etc.

This was broadcasting as a form of crowd control; undiluted propaganda. The fact is that some Pakistani men think it perfectly ok to abuse white girls and there are still gangs out there right now doing so. When Nick Griffin mentioned this fact, many years ago, they tried to prosecute him. When Radio Five covered the story five years ago they were eviscerated for it.

The praise the Left give towards Wikileaks verges on Sainthood, yet God damn those who expose any non-approved fact.  The indignation they display to the public to counter distasteful information stresses the concept of Controlled Media.  All this fallout amongst them shows just how vain and contradictory their ideals are.  And so, they are lashing out at anyone who might try to make political capital out of it, be racist, even the beloved Stooge of Labour, Straw Jack!

Most telling though is the one man you’d think the Controlled Media would be trying to hose down would be Nick Griffin, currently lending a hand to Derek Adams campaign in Oldham.  Instead, we have his views regurgitated, twisted and manipulated by those apologists and appeasers.

A recap of what has so upset the meeja darlings from the spectrum I’ve found are running with; Former home secretary says gangs of Pakistani men see young white girls as ‘easy meat’ (Independent);  Jack Straw, the former home secretary, has sparked a fierce row over his claim that some British Pakistani men regard white girls as “easy meat” for sexual abuse (Telegraph);  Labour MP Vaz says it is wrong for former home secretary to stereotype entire community over sexual assault case (GulfNews)

This is where I despair at all the criminologists.  The majority of crime victims, no matter what the crime, be it robbery or rape, are usually chosen for their perceived weakness and wrongs.  And the ones doing the choosing are by a large, opportunistic degenerates whose only resemblance to bravery happens when in a gang (or getting the Police or Armed Services to do it).

However, with rape and other sexual offences, it doesn’t help if the Koran advocates treating non-believers as fair-game.  Nor does if help with the constant promoted degradation of women by the Satanic Gods in the Meeja Industry (From Hollywood to Fleet Street).

It would be wrong to isolate this as an immigrant problem, yet the biggest immigration problem is that whenever they have a problem, it’ll be oppressive to point it out.

See where I’m going.  The problem is POLITICAL CORRECTNESS in a MULTICULTURAL environment.

They keep going around and around in circles asking is this the result of one thing when it is a combination of many aided by Cultural Marxism disguised as Political Correctness.

(((Click image to enlarge)))

Never forget what Harriet supports!

Never forget what Hodge was head of!

The enemy is not outside the gates no more.  They were imported here by the Enemy to divide us, making it easier to destroy Our Heritage and replace it with a New World Perversion.

Just say NO!

Advertisements




Blighty | Lawful Protest

26 05 2010

Instead of Parliament Square, flash mobs should shadow certain influential figures.  Nothing sinister, just every chance the group gets, they nominate a different person to ask a simple question of “why you for/against” blah blah blah and the reasons for your presence ‘for/against’.

You can’t compete against the Fortress that protects our officials.  The Palace of Westminster is a daunting place, inside and out, and it has hobbled many a King and peasant so what chance have the deluded got in persuading the lawmakers is next to nil.

But if the protests took place from 8pm to 10pm every night at the homes of the Officials, a simple knocking scheme would suffice for every member of the mob to justify the persistent doorstep Q&A sessions.

Emails don’t work, blogs have minimal effect so perhaps the protest should be taken to the doorsteps of our tinpot oppressors.

Just a quick thought before work.  Personally, I can’t protest, being a Millwall fan, whenever the Lions are herded, I just get this uncontrollable urge to run riot.  Can’t help it.  Must be in the blood.





BNP | More nails for Mr Wayne Brown

16 05 2010

The Mail are busying themselves in demonizing Wayne Brown for ‘racially motivated’ comments regarding immigration – well d’uh, people from other countries are different racially but leaving that glaringly obvious point aside – rather than actually voting for the BNP.  Probably due to the fact that it is not ILLEGAL to vote BNP, in fact, it is protected and enshrined in the Cherie’s ‘orrible money-spinning Human Rights Act.

So it wasn’t enough to imply that Mr Brown had simply expressed his voting choice, it needed to be highlighted that he did so, according to the sensationalist Mail, in a racist manner:

“Having returned to the dressing room after training, where a discussion was taking place between a group of players about the election results, Brown first told a stunned, racially mixed group of players that he had voted for the BNP.

He was met with a volley of protest. But rather than defusing the situation, the player, born in Barking where BNP leader Nick Griffin was wiped out in the election by Labour’s Margaret Hodge, and the party lost all its council seats, launched into an abuse attack on against ethnic minorities whom he claimed were ‘killing this country’.”

Wow!  It was not what he said but the way he said it.

This Public Execution of Wayne demonstrating his Human Rights is to serve as a warning to others who dare oppose the Globalists’ Multicultural Big Society that there are worst things in life than death.  More

See this as evidence that we do not live in a free and democratic nation but one where the morals and duties have been cultivated by those with the most political and economical might to produce certain conditions for certain solutions.  And if the NuBritons believe they will inherit the spoils, they are more deluded than our own foolish kin who voted Establishment.

There are only two classes, the Ruling Class and the underclass.  You pay taxes, you’re part of the underclass.  Even footballers.





BNP | Fulltime Anti-BNPers

16 05 2010

A campaign of hate directed at the British National Party in Barking, sanctioned by the Establishment, coordinated by Searchlight, promoted by the Mirror and performed by the deluded is the main reason why there was no political earthquake.

Since last June, when 1,000,000 Britons decided to use their democratic right and voted for Mr Griffin and Mr Brons in the EU elections, Searchlight’s chief Nick Lowles has organised the undemocratic use of subversion, indoctrination and incitement to hatred to oppose them.

So how did they do it?  From the dreaded Hope Not Hate blog hosted by the leftarded news-polluter, the Daily Mirror:

We have had brilliant support from pensioners, black and Asian voters, white voters, young voters, women and men. On Monday 385 people delivered 55,000 leaflets and even on polling day we had 175 people out knocking up the vote.

So saturating the area with anti-BNP literature for the run-up to the election and, with 175 people manning the polling booths, it’s no wonder the BNP polled so little.

Nick Griffin was belittled, vilified, treated like dog dirt and told he was a third-class citizen who wasn’t wanted in Britain.

Argumentum ad hominem it’s called, attacking the person instead of the argument and has worked throughout the centuries as people are too stupid or lazy to see the motive behind the comments.

The world is upside down.  That or there is definitely something in the water.





UK Plc | Business as usual

11 05 2010

After all the political ping-pong and backroom wrangling, we finally have a new Government headed by a new Prime Minister to head up a new agenda.  Must be similar to the previous financial initiatives for the markets are breathing a sign of relief but it’s too early to tell.  Just glad to have finally seen the back of McDoom.

Replacing the Kirkcaldy Kid in No.10 is the chinless PR King of Vagueness, David Cameron with his rather adorable wife Samantha, finally securing the British Premiership Title of Politics.  Not without the help from the Liberal Democrats of course, who have had more important meetings in the last week than the previous two decades combined.

Isn’t democracy grand?

Conservative Cameron takes over as PM

Reuters.  Tue May 11, 2010 10:16pm BST

Conservative leader David Cameron took over as prime minister on Tuesday and said he wanted to form a full coalition with the smaller Liberal Democrat Party.

Gordon Brown had resigned as prime minister earlier, ending 13 years of rule by his centre-left Labour Party.

The Conservatives won most seats in a parliamentary election last week but fell short of a majority. Labour came second and the Liberal Democrats a distant third.

Giving his first speech as prime minister, Cameron, 43, said he aimed to form what would be Britain’s first coalition government since 1945. The exact shape of the new government was not yet clear and the Liberal Democrats had yet to give their final approval to the deal on offer from the Conservatives.

“This is going to be hard and difficult work. A coalition will throw up all sorts of challenges. But I believe together we can provide that strong and stable government that our country needs,” Cameron said, his pregnant wife Samantha by his side.

The sterling rose against the dollar and the euro as Cameron spoke. Markets had been impatient to see an end to the uncertainty thrown up by last Thursday’s inconclusive election.

The BBC reported that George Osborne, a close friend and ally of Cameron, would become the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, or finance minister.

U.S. President Barack Obama called Cameron to congratulate him, the White House said.

Both the Conservatives and Labour had tried to win Lib Dem support to form the next government during five days of intense negotiations, but it became clear on Tuesday afternoon that Labour had lost and Brown would have to resign.

“I wish the next prime minister well as he makes the important choices for the future,” an emotional Brown, 59, said earlier in front of the prime minister’s residence at 10 Downing Street, flanked by his wife Sarah.

DEFICIT

First among Cameron’s challenges will be how to reduce Britain’s record budget deficit, which has raised fears that the country could lose its triple-A credit rating.

Financial markets favour a Conservative-led government because they believe it would move faster and harder to cut the deficit.

Brown, his wife and their two children briefly posed for photographers after his farewell remarks, before leaving Downing Street. Brown then went to Buckingham Palace where Queen Elizabeth accepted his resignation.

Shortly afterwards, it was Cameron’s turn to visit the queen, who formally asked him to form a government in her name. He went straight from the palace to Downing Street to deliver his speech.

Details of what the Conservatives and Lib Dems had agreed have not yet been made public. Both negotiating teams were due to report back to their legislators and party colleagues later in the evening.

The two parties will have to endorse any deal agreed by the negotiating teams.

(Additional reporting by Michael Holden, Peter Griffiths, Mohammed Abbas, Adrian Croft, Keith Weir and Tim Castle; writing by Estelle Shirbon; editing by Andrew Roche)

So for the next six months, looks like we’re going to have to suffer more EU dictates, more increases in tax and the introduction of the Big Society.  Hopefully, such actions will shake the sheep out of our fellow Lions and the next opportunity, maybe vote out the degenerates once and for all.

Vote the same, get the same.





World | Leftarded Armies of Doom

11 05 2010

“Progressive Politics” will be a term we’ll be hearing a lot more if Labour and the Liberals team up.  But what is it exactly?  Simply put, the Progressives seek to social engineer everything we hold dear at the political level.  Of course, we get the government we deserve and the more people produced that can’t tie their shoelaces together, the more we will suffer at the hands of fools.

As my grasp of the English language is failing me due to the heavy workload along with the headache of worrying about Labour-Liberal degenerates coming out holding hands, an article sent to me from a compatriot worthy of reading from the fine Brussels Journal.

Can We Coexist With The Left?

Brussels Journal.  From the desk of Fjordman on Sun, 2010-05-09 08:59

The American writer Lawrence Auster had a debate with his readers regarding the possibility of splitting the USA along ideological lines. According to reader Tim W, modern Left liberalism is a universal totalitarian ideology, not a “live and let live” concept. The goal of its adherents is a world government from which no one can escape. Leftists “need conservatives but conservatives don’t need leftists. To be blunt, they can’t let us go. We’d be happy to be rid of them, because to us they’re nothing but parasites and/or oppressors. But they can’t get rid of us because we do most of the work, pay most of the taxes, provide the stability and morality that allow their depravity to thrive with less damaging results. Furthermore, the white conservative population is the buffer protecting white liberals from the minorities.”

A number of commentators questioned the viability of such a political division. Muslims believe not only that Islam is the best religion, but that it is the only true religion and that all people must be brought into its fold. Likewise, Leftists sincerely believe that Leftism is the only valid ideology, and that the whole world must be brought under its heel. Just like the very existence of self-governed communities outside of Islamic rule is considered an intolerable act of aggression by devout Muslims, so the existence of self-governed non-Leftist communities anywhere, at least if they happen to be white, is unacceptable to Leftist True Believers. They don’t just want to rule themselves; they want to rule everybody else as well.

Good arguments were presented in favor of secession, but opponents point out that attempted partition would likely trigger coercion and force when the ruling oligarchs fear losing control. If the Left sees everything it has promoted for generations about to be overturned it might resort to violence. Above all, opponents questioned whether the whole idea of “just wanting to be left alone” is defeatist and leaves the opponents with the initiative. Perhaps the battle cannot be won until we go on the offensive and take the ideological war to the enemy.

As reality is now, whites are considered potential extremists merely for existing, whereas the most revolting non-white organizations imaginable go free. For example, groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which has the stated goal of destroying Western civilization, are labeled “moderates,” whereas whites who want an immigration policy that prevents such people from settling in their countries are demonized as “racist extremists” by the media.

As Lawrence Auster says, white Leftists show “absolute moral disgust and horror against white non-liberals for their (almost always falsely imagined) discriminatory attitudes toward nonwhites. The only two moral actors in this script are the white liberals, who are good, and the white non-liberals, who are evil. The nonwhites are not moral actors in the script. They are the passive, sacred objects around whom the moral drama between good whites and evil whites is played out.”

In April 2010, the former left-wing US President Bill Clinton warned commentators to tone down their anti-government rhetoric for fear of inflaming hate groups, as polls suggested that public trust in the US government was at its lowest point for half a century. Clinton tried to conflate the anti-tax Tea Party movement with the 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist bombing, and implicitly voiced support for limiting certain forms of speech that might challenge the left-wing ruling regime. In an interview with The New York Times newspaper, Mr. Clinton was worried about the fact that “Because of the Internet, there is this vast echo chamber and our advocacy reaches into corners that never would have been possible before.” He warned against those who were too negative regarding the policies of Leftist politicians.

In 2009, the same Bill Clinton said that Americans should be mindful of their nation’s changing demographics, which led to the 2008 election of Obama as president. He told an Arab-American audience that by 2050 the U.S. will no longer have a majority of people with a European heritage and stated that “this is a very positive thing.” This was merely eight years after Arab Muslim terrorists staged the deadliest attack against the US mainland in peacetime, killing thousands of US citizens. Yet a dramatic increase in the number of Arab Muslims in his country does not worry Mr. Clinton at all. The only “terrorism” he is concerned about might be protests from people of European origins who oppose their own dispossession.

Bertha Lewis, the chief executive officer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now or ACORN, spoke in March 2010 before the Young Democratic Socialists conference. There she predicted a USA headed toward violence that will “dwarf the internments during World War II.” Curiously, this statement was hardly reported in the mass media. She said that immigration is a big battle. “And the reason this is so important is, you know, here’s the secret: (whispering) We’re getting ready to be a majority, minority country. Shhhh. We’ll be like South Africa. More black people than white people. Don’t tell anybody.”

Lewis encouraged people, based solely on the color of their skin, to “get yourselves together, get strong, get big, and get into this battle,” the battle here just defined as the dispossession of whites. She’s the head of an organization that’s been a good friend of the current President Barack Hussein Obama. ACORN was a political issue in the 2008 United States Presidential Election over allegations of voter registration fraud. As President, Obama has repeatedly insulted staunch friends and allies of his country while openly siding with its Islamic enemies.

In April 2010 US President Obama, with unusual frankness regarding his anti-white coalition, appealed to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again” for continued “change,” essentially the manifestation of an intifada on European Americans. Notice that his message was essentially the same as that of the radical Bertha Lewis of ACORN, only slightly less openly militant. A few days later, the same Mr. Obama with astounding hypocrisy in an address urged both sides in the political debate to tone down their rhetoric. This because using phrases like “Socialists” in his view “closes the door to the possibility of compromise” and “can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.”

The problem is that extremist left-wing elements have received tacit approval for carrying out violence and intimidation for years. This trend is escalating because of thugs such as the Antifa groups in Western Europe. These Leftist vandals get away with what they do because they know they have the quiet backing of the media and the political elites. Also in 2010, the University of Ottawa in Canada cancelled a speech by the U.S. conservative writer Ann Coulter because organizers feared left-wing protesters would turn violent. The American Renaissance conference that same year met with extreme harassment, including death threats. Yet as AR leader Jared Taylor lamented, the story received virtually no coverage from the mainstream Western media, nor from Democratic Presidents Obama or Clinton. The question here is not whether you agree with the people at American Renaissance, the question is why a legal, white political organization cannot meet peacefully when Communists or organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood can do so.

In her book A God Who Hates, the Syrian-born ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan comments on the Islamic “culture of shouting and raiding.” She states that “My experience has been that two Muslims cannot talk together without their conversation turning into shouts within minutes, especially when they disagree with each other, and no good can come of that. When you talk to a Muslim, rationally, in a low calm voice, he has trouble understanding your point of view. He thinks you have lost the argument. A Muslim conversing with anyone else – Muslim or non-Muslim – cannot remember a single word the other person has said, any more than my mother could remember a single word of what the preacher in our local mosque said.”

Former Muslim Ali Sina notes that “there is very little difference between the Left and Islam. What is lacking in both these creeds is the adherence to the Golden Rule. Just as for Muslims, everything Islamic is a priori right and good and everything un-Islamic is a priori wrong and evil, for the Left, everything leftist is a priori oppressed and good.” Facts don’t matter. Lying about opponents and their intentions is so widespread “that it is considered to be normal.”

After it was revealed that much of the data regarding alleged man-made global warming was deliberately fabricated, which constitutes one of the largest and most expensive anti-scientific frauds in history, most of its Leftist backers continued as if nothing had happened. The fact that they had promoted outright lies and slimed their opponents based on these lies mattered little. They believe they had the right to do so, as long as their intentions were right. Muslims, too, are allowed to lie to further the spread of their ideology. This strategy is called taqiyya.

Just like Muslims, both national Socialists and international Socialists totally lack respect for Socratic Dialogue, the reasoned search for truth which has been a hallmark of Western culture at its best. This is why such a large percentage of Western converts to Islam are either neo-Nazis or Marxists: These groups already think a great deal like Muslims. Their creed is the Absolute Truth, which should rule the world and must be imposed on others by brute force if necessary. They consequently have no need for reasoned debate. Others should submit to their rule or be violently squashed. End of story. People of European origins who stick to their cultural heritage constitute the embodiment of evil for Leftists, just like the infidels do for Muslims. Since white Westerners invented capitalism, some radical Socialists apparently believe that a “Final Solution” to the Capitalist Problem involves the annihilation of whites.

Terms such as “ethnic cleansing” should not be used lightly, but the writer Paul Weston is unfortunately correct here: What is happening with the native population throughout Western Europe is a state-sponsored campaign of ethnic cleansing. The only thing that’s unique about Britain is that Andrew Neather from the ruling Labour Party admitted this openly, in writing.

NATO, led by the USA, bombed the Serbs for “ethnic cleansing” back in 1999, thereby facilitating the Islamic ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Balkans. So, if the Western Multicultural oligarchs are against ethnic cleansing, I guess they must now bomb Britain, where the authorities have publicly admitted that they are deliberately displacing the native white population of their country. So why isn’t that happening? Could it be because very similar anti-white policies are currently followed in all Western nations without exception?

Let me add that I don’t think all Leftists have a well-thought-out plan to destroy the West. I have some in my immediate family, and they don’t think like this at all. They sincerely believe that what they are doing is the right thing. The hardcore ones who deliberately want to kill the West might be a minority, but at the end of the day this distinction matters little.

In many cases you can compromise, but in others you cannot. If somebody tries to poison you then you have to resist. It doesn’t matter in the long run whether those who do this do so because they deliberately want to kill you or because they are fools who accidentally kill you while intending to do something noble. The bottom line is: You die. You cannot be slightly dead, just like you cannot be slightly pregnant. If the Leftists and the Globalists have their way then our civilization will die, plain and simple. That’s why this ongoing struggle is likely to get ugly, because no compromise is possible. Since similar ideological struggles are taking place throughout the Western world, this situation could trigger a pan-Western Civil War.

the Left’s obsession with mass immigration and multiculturalism is complex, some who have the best intentions for those concerned but with an equal measure of those with ulterior motives.  The more division is society, the more need for leftarded social engineering plans to ‘cultivate and celebrate’ the transformation for NuBritons rather than highlighting the ‘displacement and disfranchisement’ suffered by TruBritons.  That is the end (desired?) result, the call for more governmental interventionalistic policies.  And to suppress dissenting voices, both subjects are dangled in front of their opponents in the vain hope that the argument can be closed down with accusations of bigotry.

For a lucky few, the benefits of immigration was the extra competition in the job market caused wages to deflate and rents to increase.  The burden of accepting those lower wages and higher rents was placed on the many but we live in a globalised world, where survival of the cheapest has replaced survival of the fittest.

Oh how I despise the Leftarded Armies of Doom.

“When there is no enemy within, the enemies outside cannot hurt you.”  Thanks to the Leftarded Deluded of Great Britain, the enemy are not only within, they are at this very moment, deciding who will rule us.





Climate Change | Changing tactics

11 05 2010

Not content with the progress of the Climate Change indoctrination, the Powers that Be are once again pondering how to market the ‘tax everything that farts’ solution.  The science may have been faulty but the money-merry-go-round crew have invested too much time and effort into this wealth redistribution program to call quits now.

And who better to keep the flames than Auntie Beeb.  Couldn’t be the fact that the Beeb’s pension fund thought it’d be a worthy investment.

Academics urge radical new approach to climate change

By Richard Black, BBC News.  Tuesday, 11 May 2010 4:23 UK

A major change of approach is needed if society is to restrain climate change, according to a report from a self-styled “eclectic” group of academics.

The UN process has failed, they argue, and a global approach concentrating on CO2 cuts will never work.

They urge instead the use of carbon tax revenue to develop technologies that can supply clean energy to everyone.

Their so-called Hartwell Paper is criticised by others who say the UN process has curbed carbon emissions.

The paper is named after Hartwell House, the Buckinghamshire mansion, hotel and spa where the group of 14 academics from Europe, North America and Japan gathered in February to develop their ideas.

Its central message is that climate change can be ameliorated best by pursuing “politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic” options that also curb emissions.

These options include bringing a reliable electricity supply to the estimated 1.5 billion people in the world without it using efficient, low-carbon technologies.

“The raising up of human dignity is the central driver of the Hartwell Paper, replacing the preoccupation with human sinfulness that has failed and will continue to fail to deliver progress,” said lead author Prof Gwyn Prins.

Prof Prins is director of the Mackinder Programme for the Study of Long Wave Events at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and an adviser to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the UK charity chaired by Lord Lawson that aims “to help restore balance and trust in the climate debate”.
Short-term fixes

The paper says that the outcome of December’s UN climate summit, plus the “ClimateGate” affair and inaccuracies within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report, means “the legitimacy of the institutions of climate policy and science are no longer assured”.

So, successfully tackling climate change initially means re-framing the issue.

In an article for the BBC’s Green Room series, another of the authors, Mike Hulme, writes: “Climate change has been represented as a conventional environmental ‘problem’ that is capable of being ‘solved’.

“It is neither of these. Yet this framing has locked the world into the rigid agenda that brought us to the dead end of Kyoto, with no evidence of any discernable acceleration of decarbonisation whatsoever.”

The academics advocate concentrating first on short-term fixes for greenhouse gases or other warming agents, such as black carbon – particles emitted from the incomplete burning of fossil fuels, principally in diesel engines and wood stoves.

These particles warm the planet by several mechanisms, including darkening snow so it absorbs more solar energy.

Black carbon may be the second most important man-made warming agent after carbon dioxide.

Continue reading the main storyAs it remains in the atmosphere for a matter of weeks, some researchers have suggested that cleaning up its production could be the quickest way of curbing warming, as well as bringing health benefits to poor countries by reducing air pollution.

“To date, climate policy has focused on carbon dioxide primarily, and even to the exclusion of other human influences on the climate system,” the report says.

“We believe this path to have been unwise… early action on a wider range of human influences on climate could be more swiftly productive.”

However, they acknowledge that carbon emissions do in the end have to be constrained. To that end, they recommend implementing a hypothecated carbon tax in developed economies to fund development of low-carbon energy technologies.

The damaging effects of climate change in developing countries, meanwhile, would be tackled by having Western countries meet the internationally agreed target of contributing 0.7% of their GDP to overseas aid, rather than through specific and complex new climate adaptation funds.

“Just this one action alone would swamp the miserly amounts of money being offered under the Copenhagen Accord,” said Prof Hulme.
Lobby group

The outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit – widely seen as a failure among academics and activists – has caused considerable soul-searching about alternative approaches.

But any move away from the negotiated process that puts CO2 at centre stage is regarded as anathema by many.

“The paper’s focus away from CO2 is misguided, short-sighted and probably wrong,” said Bill Hare from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

“If you take action on black carbon and do not reduce CO2 emissions then you may end up with more warming in the long term,” he told BBC News.

“And in fact, the Kyoto Protocol is one of the few things that have worked, in that it’s given momentum to low-carbon energy development – we wouldn’t have had the explosion in wind power without it.”

He also questioned the fact that the Hartwell Paper initiative was co-funded by Keidenran Nippon, the Japanese industry lobby group that has regularly opposed the establishment of binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, instead promoting voluntary initiatives.

But Prof Hulme denied any link between the group’s funding and its conclusions.

“The names of the co-authors suggest to me – and I am one of them so I can certainly speak for myself – individuals who resist all attempts to be cowed into adopting anyone else’s viewpoint, whether from a paymaster, priest, president, princess or prophet,” he said.

The hard emotive sell with drowning polar bears may not have worked so a group ‘that does not hold rigidly to a single paradigm or set of assumptions, but instead draws upon multiple theories, styles, or ideas to gain complementary insights into a subject, or applies different theories in particular cases‘ wishes to use the it may be junk-science but look at all those wonderful new wind turbines.

This really is getting old.