Skip to content or view mobile version

Home | Mobile | Editorial | Mission | Privacy | About | Contact | Help | Security | Support

A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

Powerful Documentary Trounces Man-Made Warming Hoax

Paul Joseph Watson | 14.03.2007 18:50 | Climate Camp 2006 | Climate Chaos

Climate change is natural and has been happening since the Earth began

An astounding documentary that was broadcast in the UK last night completely trounced the man-made explanation for global warming, not with emotionally-laden propaganda or by attacking the messenger as its adherants resort to, but by presenting carefully considered and rational science.

The Great Global Warming Swindle brought together a plethora of scientists, professors, climatologists and weather experts to expose the myths about climate change that have been promulgated in order to hoodwink the world into accepting the man-made theory of global warming.

Watch the video in full below.

- Earth's 4.5 billion year history is one long story of climate change. There were several periods in history, notably the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene Maximum, which were much warmer than today. In the 17th century, Europe experienced the Little Ice Age, where temperatures were so consistently chilly that ice skaters revelled on the completely frozen London Thames.

- From the 1940's until the 1980's, the Earth experienced a significant cooling period, despite the fact that industrial production and release of CO2 vastly accelerated during this time. This led to political and media scaremongering about global cooling, the threat that the earth was in the midst of a new ice age. The documentary featured telling clips from alarmist documentaries at the time that implored us to try and reverse the trend of worldwide temparature decrease or face meterological apocalypse.

- Antarctic ice core samples show that the rise in carbon dioxide levels lags behind temperature rise by 800 years, therefore cannot be the cause of it. The documentary exposes how Al Gore, in his film Inconvenient Truth, deliberately reverses these figures to claim CO2 causes temperature change, when in fact the opposite is the case.

- If the Earth was laboring under an accelerated greenhouse effect caused by human produced CO2, the troposphere (the layer of the earth's atmosphere roughly 10-15km above us) should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons doesn't support this fundamental presumption.

- The human contribution to carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is minimal in comparison to other natural means, including volcanic emmission and CO2 produced by animals, bacteria, decaying vegetation and the ocean. The human "carbon footprint" is vastly outweighed by all of these factors.

- Sun spot and solar radiation activity almost exactly parralel temperature change on the Earth. "Solar activity very precisely matches the plot of temperature change over the last 100 years. It correlates well with the anomalous post-war temperature dip, when global carbon dioxide levels were rising." The increase of cosmic rays produced by the Sun prevents the formation of clouds, which have a cooling effect on the planet, therefore the temperature rises.

- The UN's much vaunted IPCC report was heralded as closing the case on the argument of man-made global warming. But as the show explains, the IPCC's conclusion was politically driven and they deliberately censored any dissenting scientists while still listing them as participants, leading many to threaten legal action against the IPCC to have their names removed from the report. Scientists who were invited to participate in the IPCC report expose the fundamental flaws contained throughout the document.

The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe!

- In the 1980's a strange alliance between Margaret Thatcher's right wing government and the environmental left was formed to promote the idea of man-made global warming. Thatcher's agenda was to force the country to adopt nuclear power because she trusted neither the oil-rich Middle Eastern powers nor her own country's rebellious coal mining unions, therefore a propaganda war against fossil fuels was initiated.

- The documentary also highlights how elements of the scientific community exploit global warming hysteria in order to receive fast-track funding by simply tagging on a global warming aspect to their area of study. Scientists who attempt to obtain grants for research that could contradict the man-made explanation are shunned by the political establishment and further villified as akin to Holocaust deniers by the radical environmental left and elements of the media.

The hypocrisy of the environmental left in framing the global warming issue as big business against the people and their romanticisation of poverty was supremely exposed in making the case that the man-made global warming bandwagon has devastated Africa's development and is directly contributing to third world famine, illness and disease.

"There is somebody keen to kill the African dream, and the African dream is to develop. We are being told don't touch your resources, don't touch your oil, don't touch your coal; that is suicide," says a Kenyan development expert who is featured in the program.

Another segment shows an African hospital struggling to cope with such stringent restrictions, being forced to choose between running one refrigerator or turning the lights on because their only power source comes from solar panels that are unable to provide anywhere near the required energy.

The establishment left has already attempted to savage the documentary, but the Guardian's Zoe Williams cannot address the evidence, instead attacking the messenger by discrediting one participant from Winnipeg University, and selectively ignroing the roster of other experts which included MIT and Princeton professors.

We expect the full documentary to be posted to Google Video in the next day or so and will make it widely available to our readers so that they can enjoy the opportunity to view this powerful presentation which provides a breath of fresh air in a world driven mad by belliose and flawed global warming hysteria.

RELATED: The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria

RELATED: As Predicted: Global Warming Skeptics Linked With Holocaust Denial

RELATED: SUV's On Jupiter?

Paul Joseph Watson
- Homepage:


Watch the denial machine

15.03.2007 09:54

The rampART is showing a two evening series of films which includes 'the denial machine', a documentary about the climate denial industry funded by big oil.

Films are thursday 15th and friday 16th from 8pm

see for details

how they did it


Hide the following 15 comments

And the science they used...

14.03.2007 20:41

to try and prove this was utter bollocks..........

"The suns rays are 'reflected' back into space by earth, the greenhouse gases trap them"

(so why were they not trapped on the way in then?)

Piss poor journo bollocks that used 2nd rate scientists.

"Put the words 'global warming' into your proposal and you get loads of funding"................

..............Yeah, and how much funding have exxon mobil put into climate change denial?


Silent Bob


14.03.2007 21:35

There are islands in the Indian Ocean that are being submerged because of rising water levels right now, with thousands of refugees.



channel 4's problem with science

14.03.2007 22:05

Read this for more info on the 'science' behind the documentary.

Channel 4’s Problem with Science - It doesn’t give a damn about whether the facts stack up – as long as it creates a controversy.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 13th March 2007.

Were it not for dissent, science, like politics, would have stayed in the Dark Ages. All the great heroes of the discipline – Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein – took tremendous risks in confronting mainstream opinion. Today’s crank has often proved to be tomorrow’s visionary.

But the syllogism does not apply. Being a crank does not automatically make you a visionary. There is little prospect, for example, that Dr Mantombazana Tshabalala-Msimang, the South African health minister who has claimed that AIDS can be treated with garlic, lemon and beetroot, will one day be hailed as a genius. But the point is often confused. Professor David Bellamy, for example, while making the incorrect claim that wind farms do not have “any measurable effect” on total emissions of carbon dioxide, has compared himself to Galileo(1).

The problem with “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong. The implications could not be graver. Just as the British government launches its climate change bill and Gordon Brown and David Cameron start jostling to establish their green credentials, thousands of people have been misled into believing that there is no problem to address.

The film’s main contention is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the Sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991 by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen that recent temperature variations on earth are in “strikingly good agreement” with the length of the cycle of sunspots(2).

Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the “agreement” was the result of “incorrect handling of the physical data”(3). The real data for recent years show the opposite: that the length of the sunspot cycle has in fact declined, while temperatures have risen. When this error was exposed, Friis-Christensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results(4). But this too turned out to be an artefact of mistakes they had made – in this case in their arithmetic(5).

So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of demonstrating that the Sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the Sun and global cloud cover(6). This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that when the right data are used, a correlation is not found(7).

So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen’s co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared that there was in fact a correlation – not with total cloud cover but with “low cloud cover”(8). This too turned out to be incorrect(9). Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show that cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere(10). Accompanying it was a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays(11).

As Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA has shown on, five missing steps would have to be taken to justify the wild claims in the press release. “We’ve often criticised press releases that we felt gave misleading impressions of the underlying work”, Schmidt says, “but this example is by far the most blatant extrapolation-beyond-reasonableness that we’ve seen.”(12) None of this seems to have troubled the programme makers, who report the cosmic ray theory as if it trounces all competing explanations.

The film also maintains that manmade global warming is disproved by conflicting temperature data. Professor John Christy speaks about the discrepancy he discovered between temperatures at the earth’s surface and temperatures in the troposphere (or lower atmosphere). But the programme fails to mention that in 2005 his data were proved wrong, by three papers in Science magazine(13,14,15).

Christy himself admitted last year that he was mistaken. He was one of the lead authors of a paper which states the opposite of what he says in the film. “Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.”(16)

Until recently, when found to be wrong, scientists went quietly back to their labs to start again. Now, emboldened by the global denial industry, some of them, like the film makers, shriek “censorship!” This is the best example of manufactured victimhood I have ever come across. If you demonstrate that someone is wrong, you are now deemed to be silencing him.

But there is one scientist in the film whose work has not been debunked: the oceanographer Carl Wunsch. He appears to support the idea that increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for rising global temperatures. Professor Wunsch says that he was “completely misrepresented” by the programme, and “totally misled” by the people who made it(17).

This is a familiar story to those who have followed the career of the director, Martin Durkin. In 1998 the Independent Television Commission found that, when making a similar series, he had “misled” his interviewees about “the content and purpose of the programmes”. Their views had been “distorted through selective editing”(18). Channel 4 had to make a prime-time apology.

Cherry-pick your results, choose work which is already outdated and discredited, and anything and everything becomes true. The Twin Towers were brought down by controlled explosions; MMR injections cause autism; homeopathy works; black people are less intelligent than white people; species came about through intelligent design. You can find lines of evidence which appear to support all these contentions, and, in most cases, professors who will speak up in their favour. But this does not mean that any of them are correct. You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question.

But for the people who commissioned this film, all that counts is the sensation. Channel 4 has always had a problem with science. No one in its science unit appears to understand the difference between a peer-reviewed scientific paper and a clipping from the Daily Mail. It keeps commissioning people whose claims have been discredited – like Martin Durkin and a certain nutritionist of our acquaintance. But its failure to understand the scientific process just makes the job of whipping up a storm that much easier. The less true a programme is, the greater the controversy.


1. David Bellamy, 14th August 2004. An ill wind blows for turbines. Letter to the Guardian.

2. Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, 1991. Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate. Science, Vol 254, 698-700.

3. Paul Damon and Peter Laut, 2004. Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data. Eos, Vol. 85, No. 39.

4. Knud Lassen and Eigil Friis-Christensen, 2000. Reply to “Solar cycle lengths and climate: A reference revisited” by P. Laut and J.Gundermann. Journal of Geophysical Research Vol 105, No 27, 493-495.

5. Paul Damon and Peter Laut, ibid.

6. Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, 1997. Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage: A missing link in solar-climate relationships. The Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol 59, 1225-1232.

7. Peter Laut, 2003. Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Vol 65, 801-812.

8. Nigel Marsh and Henrik Svensmark, 2000. Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays. Physical Review Letters Vol 85, no 23. 5004-5007.

9. Paul Damon and Peter Laut, ibid.

10. Henrik Svensmark et al, 2007. Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions. Proceedings of the Royal Society Volume 463, Number 2078, 1364-5021.

11. Danish National Space centre, October 2006. Getting closer to the cosmic connection to climate.

12. Gavin Schmidt, 16th October 2006. Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin.

13. Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz, 2nd September 2005. The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature. Science. Vol 309, pp1548-1551.

14. B.D. Santer et al, 2nd September 2005. Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere. Science. Vol 309, pp1548-1551.

15. Steven J. Sherwood, John R. Lanzante and Cathryn L. Meyer, 2nd September 2005. Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming. Science. Vol 309, pp1556-1559.

16. Tom Wigley et al, April 2006. Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere – Understanding and Reconciling Differences: Executive Summary. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

17. Geoffrey Lean, 11th March 2007. An inconvenient truth… for C4. Independent on Sunday.

18. Independent Television Commission, 1st April 1998. Channel 4 to apologise to four interviewees in “Against Nature” series. Press release.

Sceptical of the sceptics

if you don't understand the science don't pretend to

14.03.2007 22:38

"The suns rays are 'reflected' back into space by earth, the greenhouse gases trap them"

(so why were they not trapped on the way in then?)

because, in simple terms, on the "way in" energy is coming into the earth's atmosphere by radiation (the "rays"). when energy is lost from the upper atmosphere, it is through conduction, or linear heat flow, at the limit of the stratosphere and the mesosphere. so while they will not be stopped on the "way in", on the "way out" is a different method of energy transfer.

this documentary, as so many other pop science programs, necessarily simplifies the science to the point where its content is really of no value whatsoever. there have been umpteen arguments put forth in documentary, publication form both for and against the "man-made global warming" theory. there are so many variables that it is very difficult to be certain of anything. what IS certain is that the severity of something which scientists really have no certain idea about has been ridiculously aggrandized and modified for the better headline in the popular media.



15.03.2007 08:09

I'm glad the admins left this utter tripe up as testimony to PJW's dimwittedness.

Original poster

9/11 truthers, climate change deniers

15.03.2007 10:14

Lets make a few connections explicit here. The right wing nazi scumbag that posted this original post is from the homophobic rightwing website prisonplanet. One of the leading proponents of 9/11 truth movement. it's exactly the same world view that promotes these reactionary lies.

These people are our absolute enemies. Some people in the UK sought to make common cause with these types, attracted by their anti-government rhetoric to take their conspiracy theories seriously. Arrestd radicalism as it's been called.

Those people have to seriously take stock now they can see where that wrold view leads them.

are out enemies.


15.03.2007 10:30

@are out enemies.

Well said! It was exactly why I reposted this shit. I nearly gagged on my coffee when I stumbled over it.

@ how they did it

Any chance you can link to a web-viewable version for us that live far away?


Except the documentary was bullshit

15.03.2007 10:31

But I guess I know by now that prison planet doesn't let anything like facts get in the way of an outrageous story.

Don't we have Editorial Guidlines that allow the hiding of untrue posts? This would fall under that, the only true statement is that a documentary was broadcast on channel 4....


cool your jets

15.03.2007 18:09

Global warming is undoubtedly caused by both natural, probably unavoidable, processes, and also by man-made processes that are perfectly avoidable. We still need to cut back on our contribution to our own extinction whatever side of the arguement you are on, it's not an either/or question. The fact that the natural processes that create global warming are unavoidable, at least at the present, and the fact that it is easy to cut our contribution to global warming at the present makes it all the more important that idiots like Channel4 corporate "meeja whores" pay attention to what they are good at, which is basically sex programmes and US sitcoms and cartoons. The business world - the real villains - need to click on to the fact that they haven't colonised another earth yet, and while the poor will undoubtedly suffer worst and first as ever, they are hanging themselves and their children too.


Man-made global warming still a hoax

15.03.2007 21:20

What is it with this is bizarre, ridiculous abusive hysteria over the documentary? We’re all supposed to hate Durkin because he’s ‘in the pay of capitalists’. But, who’s behind the climate change hysteria?

There is an inherent silliness about the man-made global warming theory. The Earth has been in existence for millions of years. It has experience massive changes in its climate. It has been an ice ball on five occasions, according to some scientists. Greenland supported crops and humans. Britain was in the tropics.

Yet we are supposed to believe that pollution pumped out over two centuries in relatively small part of the Earth will irrevocably alter the climate of the planet!!???

Could those people who believe this oddity point out the scientific research to tell us:
- the proportion of greenhouse gasses that is man-made?
- what proportion of man-made gasses are there in the atmosphere?
- what proportion of man-made gasses in the atmosphere would lead to noticeable changes in the global climate?
- what proportion of man-made gassess in the atmosphere would lead to permanent change in the climate?
- of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, how important are man-made gasses?

These are basic questions that those people who regard themselves as informed and support the man-made climate warming theory ought to be able to answer. The reality of course, is that the vast majority of people who support man-made global warming are totally clueless concerning these questions.

A CENTURY OF WAR: Anglo-American oil politics and the New World Order
William Engdahl

Chapter 9, Running the world economy in reverse: Who made the 1970s oil shocks?

Developing the Anglo-American green agenda
'It was no accident that, following the oil shock recession of 1974-75, a growing part of the population of western Europe, especially in Germany, began talking for the first time in the postwar period about 'limits to growth', or threats to the environment, and began to question their faith in the principle of industrial growth and technological progress. Very few people realised the extent to which their new 'opinions' were being carefully manipulated from the top by a network established by the same Anglo-American finance and industry circles that lay behind the Saltsjobaden oil strategy.'

'Beginning in the 1970s, an awesome propaganda offensive was launched from select Anglo-American think tanks and journals, intended to shape a new 'limits to growth' agenda, which would ensure the 'success' of the dramatic oil shock strategy. The American oilman present at the May 1973 Saltsjobaden meeting of the Bilderberg group, Robert O. Anderson, was a central figure in the implementation of the ensuing Anglo-American ecological agenda. It was to become one of the most successful frauds in history.

'Anderson and his Atlantic Richfield Oil Co. funneled millions of dollars through their Atlantic Richfield Foundation into select organisations to target nuclear energy. One of the prime beneficiaries of Anderson's largesse was a group called Friends of the Earth, which was organised in this time with a $200,000 grant from Anderson.'

'The director of Friends of the Earth in France, Brice Lalonde, was the Paris partner of the Rockefeller (oil and banks) family law firm Coudert Brothers, and became Mitterand's environment minister in 1989.'

'From the outset, the June 1972 Stockholm UN Conference on the Environment was run by operatives of Anderson's Aspen Institute. Aspen board member Maurice Strong, a Canadian oilman from Petro-Canada, chaired the Stockholm conference. Aspen also provided financing to create an international zero-growth network under UN auspices, the International Institute for Environment and Development, whose board included Robert O. Anderson, Robert McNamara, Strong and British Labour Party's Roy Jenkins. The new organisation immediately produced a book, 'Only one Earth', by Rockefeller University associate Rene Dubos and British Malthusian Barbara Ward (Lady Jackson).'

'Among the groups which were funded by these people at the time were organisations including the ultra-elitist World Wildlife Fund, then chaired by the Bilderberg's Prince Bernhard and later by Royal Dutch Shell's John Loudon.'

'With Anderson as chairman and Atlantic Richfield head Thomson Bradshaw as vice-chairman, the Aspen Institute in the early 1970s was a major financial conduit for the creation of the establishment's new antinuclear agenda.


Save the Human !!

15.03.2007 21:51

"The Earth has been in existence for millions of years. It has experience massive changes in its climate. It has been an ice ball on five occasions, according to some scientists"

Yes. and previous ( distant history ) climate change has caused mass-extinctions. Especially of the dominant species who got stuck in evolutionary niches, like our adiction to oil is a niche. The Earth is just a ball or rock, it will survive climate change. It won't even miss us, we are no more than a virus upon its surface. We can still stop our own contribution to our own extinction - acting sensibly, preventatively, intelligently, isn't guaranteed to save us but it can't hurt. Arguing against needless consumption, production, emissions could help. There has to be at least one child in the world you like more than mass-produced crap.


You just made a connection

16.03.2007 13:53

..."Lets make a few connections explicit here. The right wing nazi scumbag that posted this original post is from the homophobic rightwing website prisonplanet" ...

... only you forgot to add holocaust denial into your heady mix.

Perhaps you could frame a law against it ... along the lines of the ones used to protect other poorly understood phenomena!

You kids ...

dumb down the masses

Environmentalist menace

16.03.2007 14:13

Save the Human !!
15.03.2007 21:51

"The Earth has been in existence for millions of years. It has experience massive changes in its climate. It has been an ice ball on five occasions, according to some scientists"

Yes. and previous ( distant history ) climate change has caused mass-extinctions. Especially of the dominant species who got stuck in evolutionary niches, like our adiction to oil is a niche. The Earth is just a ball or rock, it will survive climate change. It won't even miss us, we are no more than a virus upon its surface. We can still stop our own contribution to our own extinction - acting sensibly, preventatively, intelligently, isn't guaranteed to save us but it can't hurt. Arguing against needless consumption, production, emissions could help. There has to be at least one child in the world you like more than mass-produced crap.

I thought we were talking about the human's contribution to global warming not what Earth naturally does. Estimates of the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere that I've come across is 0.05%. Let me put that again - 0.05%!!!! Not all of this is made by humans. Unless CO2 has some magical properties I don't know about, the idea that cutting this is going to make any difference is bizarre.

None of this means, we shouldn't stop polluting the Earth. We should take action to cut our emissions and we should face down capitalists who don’t mind polluting the planet and us to make a fast million or so buck. But we certainly shouldn't use this man-made global warming hoax as the reason.

And now we have someone who supports environmentalism going on about saving the children. Breathtaking!!! It is these people who insist that there are too many people on the planet and we'd all be better off with fewer of them. Apparently, you don't have to be a Nazi scumbag to want to slash the number of humans on this planet - you can be an "environmentalist".

And this is the real agenda behind the powerful people who push this man-made global warming hoax. The same elite people who fund environmentalism behind the scenes fund programmes to cut countries' population. They also want to stop development in the Third World. Note how hysterical white people are getting about the environment as China and India's development is increasing. Environmentalists in the West will successfully manage to get us to use energy saving light bulbs rather then the dubious traditional ones. But what'll these menacing people do in the Third World? Them and their elite friends will tell government what to do, what not to develop, what resources to keep in the ground - to stop development and stay poor and powerless.

Many environmentalist are well meaning and caring. But they've been duped!!! It is ironic that they jump up and down about capitalists craving profit and denying global warming, when their whole movement was sponsored by Anglo-American finance and oil cliques - that is people richer and more powerful than the capitalists they attack.

In the Third World, this man-made global warming hoax is gearing up to become a dangerous, menacing white supremacist credo.


Re: if you don't understand the science don't pretend to

23.03.2007 01:59

That goes for you, too, outnal. CO2 is transparent to visible light (you can see through your own breath, right?), and the bulk of solar radiation is centered around then green part of the spectrum. The earth reradiates light in the infrared, and this is what the CO2 absorbs. If our vision was in the infrared part of the spectrum, your breath would probably look very foggy.


Upcoming Coverage
View and post events
Upcoming Events UK
24th October, London: 2015 London Anarchist Bookfair
2nd - 8th November: Wrexham, Wales, UK & Everywhere: Week of Action Against the North Wales Prison & the Prison Industrial Complex. Cymraeg: Wythnos o Weithredu yn Erbyn Carchar Gogledd Cymru

Ongoing UK
Every Tuesday 6pm-8pm, Yorkshire: Demo/vigil at NSA/NRO Menwith Hill US Spy Base More info: CAAB.

Every Tuesday, UK & worldwide: Counter Terror Tuesdays. Call the US Embassy nearest to you to protest Obama's Terror Tuesdays. More info here

Every day, London: Vigil for Julian Assange outside Ecuadorian Embassy

Parliament Sq Protest: see topic page
Ongoing Global
Rossport, Ireland: see topic page
Israel-Palestine: Israel Indymedia | Palestine Indymedia
Oaxaca: Chiapas Indymedia
All Regions
South Coast
Other Local IMCs
Bristol/South West
Social Media
You can follow @ukindymedia on and Twitter. We are working on a Twitter policy. We do not use Facebook, and advise you not to either.
Support Us
We need help paying the bills for hosting this site, please consider supporting us financially.
Other Media Projects
Dissident Island Radio
Corporate Watch
Media Lens
Earth First! Action Update
Earth First! Action Reports
All Topics
Animal Liberation
Climate Chaos
Energy Crisis
Free Spaces
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Public sector cuts
Social Struggles
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Major Reports
NATO 2014
G8 2013
2011 Census Resistance
Occupy Everywhere
August Riots
Dale Farm
J30 Strike
Flotilla to Gaza
Mayday 2010
Tar Sands
G20 London Summit
University Occupations for Gaza
Indymedia Server Seizure
COP15 Climate Summit 2009
Carmel Agrexco
G8 Japan 2008
Stop Sequani
Stop RWB
Climate Camp 2008
Oaxaca Uprising
Rossport Solidarity
Smash EDO
Past Major Reports
Encrypted Page
You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.
If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

Global IMC Network

satellite tv


estrecho / madiaq
la plana
northern england
nottingham imc
united kingdom

Latin America
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
puerto rico


South Asia

United States
hudson mohawk
kansas city
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
tampa bay
united states
western mass

West Asia


fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs