Home / Global Warming / Climate Change Hoax

Global Warming / Climate Change Hoax

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a theory that suggests that human activity is causing the Earth to warm. The theory posits that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor, trap solar warmth on the planet. Globalists use this theory as a basis to propose cuts in energy production and consumption, a global UN tax on every person, and to promote de-industrialization.

The Beginning of the Hoax

The Club of Rome is a global think tank that develops strategies meant to influence the world’s most powerful elites. They represent the intellectual avant-garde of globalist thinking and have developed much of the geopolitical doctrine shaping our world today. The end of the first half of a report written in 1991, by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, for the Club of Rome, titled: “The First Global Revolution” concludes:

In searching for the new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for cause. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changing attitudes and behaviors that they can be overcome.  The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Before the Club of Rome think tank was another think tank that was likely commissioned by the Department of Defense under Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara and was produced by the Hudson Institute located at the base of Iron Mountain in Croton-on-Hudson, New York. G. Edward Griffin devoted a section of his popular book, The Creature From Jekkyl Island, regarding the report named ‘The Report from Iron Mountain‘. “It is clear from the start that the nature of the study was to analyze the different ways a government can perpetuate itself in power.

The major conclusion of the report was that, in the past, war has been the only reliable means to achieve that goal. It contends that only during times of war or the threat of war are the masses compliant enough to carry the yoke of government without complaint. Fear of conquest and pillage by an enemy can make almost any burden seem acceptable by comparison. War can be used to arouse human passion and patriotic feelings of loyalty to the nation’s leaders. No amount of sacrifice in the name of victory will be rejected. Resistance is viewed as treason. But, in times of peace, people become resentful of high taxes, shortages, and bureaucratic intervention. When they become disrespectful of their leaders, they become dangerous. No government has long survived without enemies and armed conflict. War, therefore, has been an indispensable condition for “stabilizing society.” These are the report’s exact words: Read More...

The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations as independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence in its “legitimacy,” or right to rule its society. The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power. The historical record reveals one instance after another where the failure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution, by the forces of private interest, of reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative elements. The organization of society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer…. It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has insured the subordination of the citizens to the state by virtue of the residual war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood. (2)

The report then explains that we are approaching a point in history where the old formulas may no longer work. Why? Because it may now be possible to create a world government in which all nations will be disarmed and disciplined by a world army, a condition which will be called peace. The report says: “The word peace, as we have used it in the following pages, … implies total and general disarmament.” (3)

Under that scenario, independent nations will no longer exist and governments will not have the capability to wage war. There could be military action by the world army against renegade political subdivisions, but these would be called peace-keeping operations, and soldiers would be called peace keepers. No matter how much property is destroyed or how much blood is spilled, the bullets will be “peaceful” bullets and the bombs – even atomic bombs, if necessary – will be “peaceful” bombs.

The report then raises the question of whether there can ever be a suitable substitute for war. What else could the regional governments use – and what could the world government itself use – to legitimize and perpetuate itself? To provide an answer to that question was the stated purpose of the study.

The Report from Iron Mountain concludes that there can be no substitute for war unless it possesses three properties. It must (1) be economically wasteful, (2) represent a credible threat of great magnitude, and (3) provide a logical excuse for compulsory service to the government.

On the subject of compulsory service, the Report explains that one of the advantages of standing armies is that they provide a place for the government to put antisocial and dissident elements of society. In the absence of war, these forced-labor battalions would be told they are fighting poverty or cleaning up the planet or bolstering the economy or serving the common good in some other fashion. Every teenager would be required to serve – especially during those years in which young people are most rebellious against authority. Older people, too, would be drafted as a means of working off tax payments and fines. Dissidents would face heavy fines for “hate crimes” and politically incorrect attitudes so, eventually, they would all be in the forced-labor battalions.

The first consideration in finding a suitable threat to serve as a global enemy was that it did not have to be real. A real one would be better, of course, but an invented one would work just as well, provided the masses could be convinced it was real. The public will more readily believe some fictions than others. Credibility would be more important than truth.

Poverty was examined as a potential global enemy but rejected as not fearful enough. Most of the world was already in poverty. Only those who had never experienced poverty would see it as a global threat. For the rest, it was simply a fact of everyday life. An invasion by aliens from outer space was given serious consideration. The report said that experiments along those lines already may have been tried. Public reaction, however, was not sufficiently predictable, because the threat was not “credible.” Obviously, they have decided to prepare and build it up as a backup plan or to test it as can be ascertained from the warnings of Dr. Steven Greer.

The final candidate for a useful global threat was pollution of the environment. This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution– in other words, it would be based partly on fact and, therefore, be credible. Predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare. Accuracy in these predictions would not be important. Their purpose would be to frighten, not to inform. It might even be necessary to deliberately poison the environment to make the predictions more convincing and to focus the public mind on fighting a new enemy, more fearful than any invader from another nation – or even from outer space. The masses would more willingly accept a falling standard of living, tax increases, and bureaucratic intervention in their lives as simply “the price we must pay to save Mother Earth.” A massive battle against death and destruction from global pollution possibly could replace war as justification for social control.

End-of-world scenarios based on phony scientific studies – or no studies at all – are uncritically publicized by the CFR controlled media; radical environmental groups advocating collectivist doctrine and anti-business programs are lavishly funded by CFR dominated foundations, banks, and corporations, the very groups that would appear to have the most to lose. The Report from Iron Mountain answers those questions. Obviously, global warming has taken the forefront as the biggest global environmental threat to mankind, although no proof can be made of the hoax. Pollution has also been heavily propagandized and is also being used, although a real concern, as a means of advancing their agenda. The War on Terror, born on 9/11 has been the biggest cause of fear throughout the world although it can be shown to also be a creation of the deep state.

As the Report pointed out, truth is not important in these matters. It’s what people can be made to believe that counts. “Credibility” is the key, not reality. All that is required is media cooperation and repetition. The plan has apparently worked. People of the industrialized nations have been subjected to a barrage of documentaries, dramas, feature films, ballads, poems, bumper stickers, posters, marches, speeches, seminars, conferences, and concerts. The result has been phenomenal. Politicians are now elected to office on platforms consisting of nothing more than an expressed concern for the environment and a promise to combat the threat of global warming. Not one in a thousand will question that underlying premise. How could it be false? Look at all the movie celebrities and rock stars who have joined the movement.

The Club of Rome’s propaganda man and main proponent Of global warming, Maurice Strong said the following on global warming:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”

“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“

Like Dorothy, Lion, Tin Man and Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, we’ve all been dancing down the Yellow Brick Road of “settled science” in search of answers from the Emerald City, only to find that what we suspected all along — the Wizard has been telling us fibs. But who exactly is the Wizard? And where did this seeming-madness all begin? Undoubtedly there are many “wizards”, but the man behind the green curtain, the man who managed to get the climate industry to where it is today is a mild mannered character by the name of Maurice Strong. The whole climate change business, and it is a business, started with Mr Strong.

maurice-strong

Maurice Strong

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

Strong made his fortune in the oil and energy business running companies such as Petro Canada, Power Corporation, CalTex Africa, Hydro Canada, the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, Ajax Petroleum, Canadian Industrial Oil and Gas— to name just a few.His private interests always seemed to be in conflict with his public persona and his work on the world stage. Strong’s extensive range of contacts within the power brokers of the world was exceptional. One admirer christened him “the Michelangelo of networking”.

In 1972 he organized for U Thant the first Earth Summit, The Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. This led to the formation of UN Environment Program with Maurice Strong at its head. Later, as the UNEP boss he organized the first international expert group meeting on climate change.

This led to exotic UN sponsored organizations such at Earth Council and Earth Charter, The World Resources Institute, the World Wildlife Fund and later The Commission for World Governance and the UN’s University for Peace. Strong was the driving force behind the idea of world governance by the United Nations when he dreamt up a world tax on monetary transactions of 0.5% which would have given the UN an annual income of $1.5 trillion. About equal then to the income of the USA. The stumbling block was the Security Council, and their power of veto. He devised a plan to get rid of the Security Council but failed to get it implemented. Then came along the idea that global warming might just be the device to get his World Governance proposal up and running.

In 1989 Maurice Strong was appointed Secretary General of the Earth Summit and in 1992, addressing Earth Summit II in Rio, he told the thousands of climate change delegates:

It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class— involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.

There goes the Sunday roast, a house to live in, the car, the occasional hamburger and generally, life on earth as we know it. But what Strong didn’t tell the delegates was that he was involved in the purchase of the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, which he bought from Adnan Khashoggi, an arms dealer who had strong connections with the Bin Laden family.

This 200,000 acre cattle property, called the Baca had two hidden secrets. One was that it sat above vast underground water systems, which Strong wanted to remove. He formed the American Water Development Corporation to exploit the water by pumping it out for commercial intent but was stopped by the locals as they feared it would destroy the delicate environment.

The second secret was that Maurice Strong had been told by a mystic that:

The Baca would become the centre for a new planetary order which would evolve from the economic collapse and environmental catastrophes that would sweep the globe in the years to come.

As a result of these revelations Strong created the Manitou Foundation, a New Age institution located at the Baca ranch — above the sacred waters that Strong had been denied permission to pump out. This hocus-pocus continued with the foundation of The Conservation Fund (with financial help of Laurance Rockefeller) to study the mystical properties of the Manitou Mountain. At the Baca ranch there is a circular temple devoted to the world’s mystical and religious movements.

The valley in which the Baca establishment is located is also traditional home for various Navajo tribes. They believe that their ancestors were led underground here by “Ant People” and according to Navajo tradition they were warned of a coming cataclysm by “sky katchinas” (sky spirits). No wonder Strong wanted to buy the Baca.

Meanwhile Maurice was also busy founding the Earth Council Institute in 1992 and recruiting world luminaries such as Mikhail Gorbachev, Shimon Peres, Al Gore and David Rockefeller. In 2000 Earth Charter was formed as a further push by Strong to create a world governing body.

Unfortunately, in 2005, the most powerful man in the push to save of humanity — by steady promotion of the theory of human induced greenhouse gases — was caught with his hand in the till.

Investigations into the UN’s Oil-for-Food-Program found that Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885 made out to M. Strong — issued by a Jordanian bank. The man who gave the cheque, South Korean business man Tongsun Park was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal court of conspiring to bribe UN officials. Strong resigned and fled to Canada and thence to China where he has been living ever since.

Strong is believed to have sanctuary in China because of his cousin, Anne Louise Strong, a Marxist who lived with Mao Tse Tung for two years, and when she died in 1970, her funeral was arranged by Premier Chou En-Lai. Anne Louise Strong was a Comintern member — an organization formed in 1919 as the Third International, with one of its aims to use “by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie…”

Maurice Strong, as an 18-year-old Canadian from Manitoba, started work at the United Nations in 1947 as a junior officer in the UN Security Section, living with the UN Treasurer, Noah Monod. Following his exposure for bribery and corruption in the UN’s Oil-for-Food scandal Maurice Strong was stripped of many of his 53 international awards and honors he had collected during his lifetime working in dual role of arch conservationist and ruthless businessman. The exposure and downfall of climate change’s most powerful wizard? Dorothy and Toto would have loved it! (Source)

Climategate

global-warmingOn November 19, 2009, a scandal labeled ‘Climategate‘ erupted when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory. The scandal that the suffix –gate implies is the state of climate science over the past decade, revealed by more than a thousand emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists. The released information is evidence of deceit by climate scientists, which was kept a secret or hidden from the public until the data was leaked from the CRU. The CRU’s apparent obstruction of freedom-of-information requests, as revealed by the leaks, was only the tip of the iceberg. Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientific hoax in world history as the worst scandal of this generation.

The Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, showed how all the data centers worldwide, including NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did. NASA’s two primary climate centers, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, N.C., and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University in New York City, “systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations.”

robinsonwhatwarmstheearthThe CRU scientists, from the Climategate emails, on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. As scientific data began showing a downtrend after 2001, the Climategate emails show a criminal intent to create fraudulent data, and defraud the public of massive amounts of money with a cap and trade scheme as part of a Global Warming movement. Climate scientists at the CRU worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act process in the UK. The Freedom of Information Act explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a FOIA request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable university.

Iain Murray at Pajamas Media pointed out three takeaways that people must know about Climategate.[2]

  1. First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are paleoclimatologists, who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in temperatures well above historical variation in recent decades.
  2. Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. In 2003, Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, complained that paleoclimatologist Hans von Storch was responsible for “the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’” and that they “must get rid of von Storch” (1051190249) as an editor of the journal Climate Research (he indeed subsequently resigned).
  3. Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.

Read more on Climategate…

Sustainable Development & Agenda 21

Sustainable development has been the catchphrase of the environmental movement for over 20 years and rarely are underlying motives questioned. After all, a majority of people want a healthy future, free of pollutants and global warming where the earth is protected for ourselves and subsequent generations. There is a catch, however. The underpinnings of sustainable development are rooted in Agenda 21, a body of regulations inspired by the United Nations “Earth Summit” conference in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. At first glance, the agenda looks beneficial and harmless — except for the fact that it sets forth a policy which strips individuals of freedom and controls private land unconstitutionally.

The number one issue identified at the meeting of globalists was that of global warming, or climate change as it is now referred to as colder temperature trends have squashed the warming hoax.

The scientific establishment use great energy to attack any scientist who does dare ask questions or finds data contrary to the “official” line. The U.S. Justice Department even considered legal action against climate “deniers.” Why is it so vitally important that they continue to promote something that clearly is, to say the least, questionable? It’s because all of Agenda 21 policy is built on the premise that man is destroying the Earth. Climate change is their “proof.” To eliminate that premise is to remove all credibility and purpose for their entire agenda. They are willing to go to any length, even lies, to keep the climate-change foot on our throats.

On the local level, this translates into planning policy that controls energy use and the efforts to cut down on the use of cars, enforcement of the building of expensive light rail train systems, and bike paths and installation of smart meters, etc.

But don’t take my word for it. I’ll let them speak for themselves:

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” — Christine Stewart, former Canadian minister of the environment

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” — Timothy Wirth, president, UN Foundation

“It doesn’t matter what is true. It only matters what people believe is true.” — Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.

Follow the money

Most truth seekers are familiar with the fact that an unfathomably wealthy banking and oil dynasty has been hijacking governments, media organs, universities, non-profits, and other power centers. Would anyone be surprised to find that the same culprits seek to expand its control over the economy and the energy sector in particular, according to a recently released investigation by a watchdog group? That dynasty, of course, is the Rockefeller family. In essence, they have largely created, bankrolled, and weaponized what is known as the “green” movement “as a means to expand their empire over the past three decades,” the report found.

Under the guise of fighting alleged “man-made global-warming,” the Rockefeller family and its billions have been bankrolling everything from “climate” journalism propaganda efforts, politicians, and “academia” to politically motivated “investigations” of energy companies and non-profit organizations by government officials. Billionaire extremist George Soros also helped fund the efforts, according to the report by the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) entitled The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert “Climate Change” Plan.

One of the key players involved in the latest phase of scam, whether wittingly or not, was New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Seizing on Rockefeller-funded propaganda masquerading as “journalism” alleging that Exxon knew man-made “global warming” was supposedly real, the state attorney general joined with other states’ chief prosecutors to launch the “AGs United for Clean Power.” As reported by The New American and other sources, the radical coalition of rogue prosecutors immediately began going after non-profit groups in what critics said was an outlandish attack on free speech, scientific inquiry, American jurisprudence, and basic common sense. Critics and legal experts blasted Schneiderman’s group as a “criminal conspiracy” to deprive Americans of their rights.

“This oppressive infringement on constitutionally protected free speech is unprecedented, and demonstrates the lengths the climate change movement will go to force their narrative down the throats of the American people,” E&E Legal concluded. “When one follows the money, the major initiatives of the green movement always lead back to the usual suspects: activist billionaires such as the Rockefellers seeking control of the energy industry.”

According to the report, the Rockefellers’ ambitions go far beyond energy, though. The family members “are intent on controlling nearly every major institution in America, using philanthropy as a means of increasing their influence on the world stage under the guise of advancing various social causes,” the report found. “Their avid opposition to the very fossil fuel industry that made John D. Rockefeller America’s first billionaire shows that the Rockefellers are not political ideologues. Instead, they are mere opportunists who support political agendas convenient to enhancing their leverage in the global arena.”

Another key financier of the green scam has been Soros, a protege of the unimaginably wealthy Rothschild dynasty who admitted on TV to having no guilt about helping the National Socialists (Nazis) steal Jewish property. Through his “Open Societies Foundations,” Soros has dumped billions into “green” outfits such as the Aspen Institute, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Green for All, the New America Foundation, Presidential Climate Action Project, the Tides Foundation, ClimateWorks Foundation, the Global Green Grants Fund, the NDRC, and more. Soros also bankrolled Schneiderman’s political career, with the disgraced New York AG receiving more Soros loot than any other politician in the state.

Global Cooling Hoax? (as Reported by The New American)

 

The 1975 Newsweek article entitled “The Cooling World,” which claimed Earth’s temperature had been plunging for decades due to humanity’s activities, opens as follows:

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteor­ologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

The article quotes dire statistics from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, Columbia University, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison to indicate how dire the global cooling was, and would be.

Experts suggested grandiose schemes to alleviate the problems, including “melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers,” Newsweek reported. It added, “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.” Sound familiar — except that the “climate change” alarmists were warning against global cooling?

For decades, climate alarmists have been warning that, without a United Nations-run global “climate” regime to control human activity, alleged man-made “climate change” will bring the wrath of “Mother Earth” down upon humanity.

They did it again from November 30 to December 11, 2015 at the Paris Summit on Climate Change, and warned, yet again, that it is the “last chance” to save humanity from itself. But climate alarmists have a long history of forecasting disaster — and of being wrong about everything.

In fact, stretching back decades, virtually every alarmist prediction that was testable has been proven embarrassingly wrong. What follows is just a tiny sampling of those discredited claims.

A new ice age and worldwide starvation: In the 1960s and ’70s, top mainstream media outlets, such as Newsweek above, hyped the imminent global-cooling apocalypse. Even as late as the early 1980s, prominent voices still warned of potential doomsday scenarios owing to man-made cooling, ranging from mass starvation caused by cooling-induced crop failures to another “Ice Age” that would kill most of mankind.

Among the top global-cooling theorists were Obama’s current “science czar” John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, the author of Population Bomb, which predicted mass starvation worldwide. In the 1971 textbook Global Ecology, the duo warned that overpopulation and pollution would produce a new ice age, claiming that human activities are “said to be responsible for the present world cooling trend.” The pair fingered “jet exhausts” and “man-made changes in the reflectivity of the earth’s surface through urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts” as potential triggers for his new ice age. They worried that the man-made cooling might produce an “outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap” and “generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”

Holdren predicted that a billion people would die in “carbon-dioxide induced famines” as part of a new “Ice Age” by the year 2020.

Ehrlich, a professor at Stanford University, similarly claimed in a 1971 speech at the British Institute for Biology, “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.” He added, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.”

To stave off the allegedly impending ecological disasters, the two alarmists demanded the implementation of “solutions.” In the book Ecoscience, the duo pushed a “planetary regime” to control resources, as well as forced abortions and sterilization to stop overpopulation, including drugging water and food supplies with sterilizing agents.

Countless other scientists have offered similar cooling warnings. Fortunately, the alarmists were dead wrong, and none of their “solutions” was implemented. Not only did “billions” of people not die from cooling-linked crop failures, but the globe appears to have warmed slightly since then, probably naturally, and agricultural productivity is higher than it ever has been. Now, though, the boogeyman is anthropogenic global warming, or AGW.

Global warming — temperature predictions: Perhaps nowhere has the stunning failure of climate predictions been better illustrated than in the “climate models” used by the UN. The UN climate bureaucracy, known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), produces periodic reports on “climate science” — often dubbed the “Bible” of climatology. In its latest iteration, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the UN featured 73 computer models and their predictions. All of them “predicted” varying degrees of increased warming as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased.

The problem is that every single model was wrong — by a lot. Not only did temperatures not rise by as much as the models predicted, they have failed to rise at all since around 1996, according to data collected by five official temperature data­sets. Based just on the laws of probability, a monkey rolling the dice would have done far better at predicting future temperatures than the UN’s models. That suggests deliberate fraud is likely at work.

Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), analyzed all 73 UN computer models. “I compared the models with observations in the key area — the tropics — where the climate models showed a real impact of greenhouse gases,” Christy told CNSNews. “I wanted to compare the real world temperatures with the models in a place where the impact would be very clear.”

Using datasets of temperatures from NASA, the U.K. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia, NOAA, satellites measuring atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures, and a remote sensor system in California, he found, “All show a lack of warming over the past 17 years.” In other words, global warming has been on “pause” for almost two decades — a fact that has been acknowledged even by many of the most zealous UN climate alarmists. “All 73 models’ predictions were on average three to four times what occurred in the real world.”

No explanation for what happened to the warming — such as “the oceans ate my global warming” — has withstood scrutiny.

Almost laughably, in its latest report, the UN IPCC increased its alleged “confidence” in its theory, an action experts such as Christy could not rationalize. “I am baffled that the confidence increases when the performance of your models is conclusively failing,” he said. “I cannot understand that methodology…. It’s a very embarrassing result for the climate models used in the IPCC report.” “When 73 out of 73 [climate models] miss the point and predict temperatures that are significantly above the real world, they cannot be used as scientific tools, and definitely not for public policy decision-making,” he added.

Other warming predictions have also fallen flat. For instance, for almost two decades now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past.

The end of snow: The IPCC has also hyped snowless winters. In its 2001 report, it claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Again, though, the climate refused to cooperate. The latest data from Rutgers’ Global Snow Lab showed an all-time new record high in autumn snow cover across the northern hemisphere in 2014, when more than 22 million square kilometers were covered.

And according to data from the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center cited by meteorologist Mike Mogil, “U.S. snow cover on the morning of Dec. 1, 2015 is the highest on record for this day of the year.” In all, 38.7 percent of the United States was covered in snow, surpassing the previous record — 36.5 percent — set in 2006. Worldwide, similar trends have been observed. Global Snow Lab data also shows Eurasian autumn snow cover has grown by 50 percent since records began in 1979.

After their predictions were proven wrong, alarmists claimed global warming was actually to blame for the record cold and snow across America and beyond. Seriously. Among the “experts” making that argument was former cooling zealot Holdren, Obama’s science czar: “A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues.”

When asked for the “growing body of evidence” behind his assertions, Holdren’s office refused to provide it, claiming the ramblings were just his “opinion” and therefore not subject to transparency and accuracy laws. Still, Holdren’s claim directly contradicts the IPCC, which in 2001 predicted “warmer winters and fewer cold spells.”

The melting ice caps: Another area where the warmists’ predictions have proven incorrect concerns the amount of ice at the Earth’s poles. They predicted a complete melting of the Arctic ice cap in summers that should have already happened, and even claimed that Antarctic ice was melting rapidly.

As far as the Antarctic is concerned, in 2007, the UN IPCC claimed the ice sheets of Antarctica “are very likely shrinking,” with Antarctica “contributing 0.2 ± 0.35 mm yr – 1 to sea level rise over the period 1993 to 2003.” The UN also claimed there was “evidence” of “accelerated loss through 2005.” In 2013, the UN doubled down on its false claim, claiming even greater sea-level rises attributed to the melting in Antarctica: “The contribution of … Antarctic ice sheets has increased since the early 1990s, partly from increased outflow induced by warming of the immediately adjacent ocean.” It also claimed Antarctica’s “contribution to sea level rise likely increased from 0.08 [ – 0.10 to 0.27] mm yr – 1 for 1992 – 2001 to .40 [0.20 to 0.61] mm yr – 1 for 2002 – 2011.” The reality was exactly the opposite.

In a statement released in October 2016, NASA dropped the equivalent of a nuclear bomb on the UN’s climate-alarmism machine, noting that ice across Antarctica has been growing rapidly for decades.

NASA said only that its new study on Antarctic ice “challenges” the conclusions of the IPCC. In fact, the UN could not have been more wrong. Rather than melting ice in the southern hemisphere contributing to sea-level rise, as claimed by the UN, ice in Antarctica is expanding, and the growing ice is responsible for reducing sea levels by about 0.23 millimeters annually. According to the NASA study, published in the Journal of Glaciology, satellite data shows the Antarctic ice sheet featured a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001 — more than a trillion tons of ice in less than a decade. Between 2003 and 2008, Antarctica gained some 82 billion tons of ice annually.

The UN’s inaccurate Antarctic claims were illustrated most comically, perhaps, when a ship full of alarmists seeking to study “global warming” was trapped in record Antarctic sea ice in the summer of 2013 and had to be rescued by ships burning massive amounts of fossil fuels.

In the northern hemisphere, alarmists have fared no better. In 2007, 2008, and 2009, Al Gore, a man who has made a fortune pushing warmist ideology, publicly warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” in the summer by around 2013 due to AGW. “The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,” Gore said in 2007. “It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.” Speaking to an audience in Germany six years ago, Gore alleged that “the entire North Polarized [sic] cap will disappear in five years.” “Five years,” Gore emphasized, is “the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear.”

Contrary to Gore’s predictions, satellite data showed that Arctic ice volume in summer of 2013 had actually expanded more than 50 percent over 2012 levels. In fact, during October 2013, sea-ice levels grew at the fastest pace since records began in 1979. In 2014, the Arctic ice cap, apparently oblivious to Gore’s hot air, continued its phenomenal rebound, leaving alarmists struggling for explanations.

Data from the taxpayer-funded National Snow and Ice Data Center’s “Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent” (MASIE) also show Arctic ice steadily growing over the last decade, with a few minor fluctuations in the trend. Despite alarmist claims, polar bear populations are thriving there, too.

Gore, though, was hardly alone. Citing “climate experts,” the tax-funded BBC also ran an article on December 12, 2007, under the headline “Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013.’” That piece, which was still online as of December 2015, highlighted alleged “modeling studies” that supposedly “indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.” Some of the “experts” even claimed it could happen before then, citing calculations performed by “super computers” that the BBC noted have “become a standard part of climate science in recent years.”

Increased storms, drought, and sea-level rise: The ice sheets have not cooperated with warmists, and neither have other weather-related phenomena, such as mass migrations owing to sea-level rise.

On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press ran an article headlined: “UN Official Predicts Disaster, Says Greenhouse Effect Could Wipe Some Nations Off Map.” In the piece, the director of the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) New York office was quoted as claiming that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” He also predicted “coastal flooding and crop failures” that “would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” Of course, 2000 came and went, and none of those things actually happened. But that didn’t stop the warnings.

In 2005, the UNEP warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by AGW would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be producing the most “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas. The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be fleeing those areas. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth.

Even the low-lying Pacific islands scare appears to have flopped. Supposedly on the “front lines” of AGW-caused sea-level rise, the Pacific atoll island nations don’t face imminent submersion and have experienced the opposite of what was predicted. Consider a paper published in March of 2015 in the journal Geology. According to the study, the Funafuti Atoll has experienced among “the highest rates of sea-level rise” in the world over the past six decades. Yet, rather than sinking under the waves, the islands are growing. “No islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century,” the paper says.

Then there are the claims about drought. Some UN alarmists have even predicted that Americans would become “climate refugees,” using imagery that may be familiar to those who suffered through the infamous (and natural) “Dust Bowl” drought of the 1930s. Prominent Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, for instance, made some dramatic predictions in 1990. By 1995, he said, the “greenhouse effect” would be “desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.” By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska “would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” The situation would get so bad that “Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

When confronted on his predictions, Oppenheimer, who also served as Gore’s advisor, refused to apologize. “On the whole I would stand by these predictions — not predictions, sorry, scenarios — as having at least in a general way actually come true,” he claimed. “There’s been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that’s in drought has increased over that period.”

Unfortunately for Oppenheimer, even his fellow alarmists debunked that claim in a 2012 study for Nature, pointing out that there has been “little change in global drought over the past 60 years.”

Countless other claims of AGW doom affecting humans have also been debunked. Wildfires produced by AGW, for instance, were supposed to be raging around the world. Yet, as Forbes magazine pointed out recently, the number of wildfires has plummeted 15 percent since 1950, and according the National Academy of Sciences, that trend is likely to continue for decades. On hurricanes and tornadoes, which alarmists assured were going to get more extreme and more frequent, it probably would have been hard for “experts” to be more wrong. “When the 2014 hurricane season starts it will have been 3,142 days since the last Category 3+ storm made landfall in the U.S., shattering the record for the longest stretch between U.S. intense hurricanes since 1900,” noted professor of environmental studies Roger Pielke, Jr. at the University of Colorado. On January 8, 2015, meanwhile, the Weather Channel reported: “In the last three years, there have never been fewer tornadoes in the United States since record-keeping began in 1950.”

Climate Expert, Lord Monckton, Scientifically Proves that Global Warming is False

Lord Monckton

Lord Christopher Monckton (shown) — who was chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute and former special advisor to former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher from 1982 to 1986 — stated in an exclusive report for Climate Depot on 3 June 2015, that there has been no global warming at all for 18 years and six months, since December 1996 (now over 20 years).

In his report, Monckton wrote that “the predictions on which the entire climate scare was based were extreme exaggerations.”

The British climate expert referred to data collected by a private research company called Remote Sensing Systems, founded in 1974 by Frank Wentz, who was a member of NASA’s SeaSat Experiment Team. Under a heading reading “Key facts about global temperature,” Monckton writes, in part:

The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 222 months from December 1996 to May 2015 — more than half the 437-month satellite record.

The entire RSS dataset from January 1979 to date shows global warming at an unalarming rate equivalent to just 1.2 Cº per century.

Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.

The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us….

The oceans, according to the 3600+ ARGO bathythermograph buoys, are warming at a rate of just 0.02 Cº per decade, equivalent to 0.23 Cº per century.

Recent extreme-weather events cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming to speak of. It is as simple as that.

In his report, Monckton discussed the effects of the naturally occurring warming of Pacific Ocean temperatures known as El Niño, a phenomenon that (along with its cooling counterpart, La Niña) is familiar to most people because it is mentioned frequently for its influence on global weather patterns.

“This month’s [satellite] temperature — still unaffected by a slowly strengthening el Niño, which will eventually cause temporary warming — passes another six-month milestone, and establishes a new record length for the Pause: 18 years 6 months.”

It is important to note that Monckton does not deny that warming will occur, since the Earth’s temperatures have always warmed and cooled periodically, naturally. However, he notes that the warming that will be caused by el Niño will be temporary, as it always is. Furthermore, the warming caused by El Niño is a natural phenomenon and not anthropogenic (caused by human activity).

Monckton’s assertion that global warming has been insignificant in recent years has been supported by major studies, including a 2013 report produced by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which noted that “the rate of warming over the past 15 years [from 1998 to 2012], which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951.”

Another conclusion, from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, completed in 2014, stated that the global surface temperature “has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years [1998-2012] than over the past 30 to 60 years.” The more recent trend, noted the report, was “estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951-2012.”

Given the UN’s historic record of advocating greater governmental controls over human activity in the name of “environmentalism,” one would hardly expect these UN agencies to dispute the prevailing position among most government bureaucrats that global warming presents a severe and imminent threat that requires immediate intervention. However, that is exactly what these findings suggest.

However, a newly released report from a group of authors affiliated with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) purports to refute the previous studies indicating that there has been a hiatus in global warming. The authors presented what they claim is “an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century.”

Furthermore, assert the authors: “These results do not support the notion of a ‘slowdown’ in the increase of global surface temperature.”

The NOAA report bases the supposed superiority of its own study over those previously cited by the IPCC and others on different methodology used to collect the data. For example, they refer to “an increasing amount of ocean data from buoys, which are slightly different than data from ships” and  “an increasing amount of ship data from engine intake thermometers, which are slightly different than data from bucket sea-water temperatures.” Not only does the NOAA report admit that the difference among methods is slight, but it apparently gives greater credence to those methods indicating that global warmer is increasing than it does to other methods indicating it is not. For example, it notes that “ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data.” Where is the proof, however, that ship data are more reliable than the buoy data?

But the NOAA report not only gave greater credence to methods showing more warming during the period of the global warming hiatus, it also adjusted the pre-hiatus temperature record downward. An article in the Daily Caller on June 4 cited climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts, who noted that to “manufacture warming during the hiatus, NOAA adjusted the pre-hiatus data downward.” “If we subtract the [old] data from the [new] data… we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did,” Tisdale and Watts wrote on the science blog Watts Up With That. “It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”

It is also important to consider that the NOAA is a federal agency, part of the Department of Commerce, which is headed by Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, who answers to the president. All it takes is a quick study of the White House website, which has an entire section dedicated to “Climate Change,” to determine that it is the official position of the Obama administration that global warming is not only worsening, but that human activity is responsible for it. A statement on the White House website reads:

The global annual average temperature has increased by more than 1.5 degrees F between 1880 and 2012. This interactive graph from the National Climate Assessment shows the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the same time period. Climate scientists say we need to avert an additional 2-degree temperature increase to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.

Naturally, the White House blames human activity for global warming, stating:

We’re still contributing to the problem.

Carbon Pollution is the Biggest Drive of Climate Change.

Of course, if “we” are responsible for the problem, the solution is to restrict “us” from activities that create carbon pollution, such as imposing strict environmental regulations on power plants and “cutting energy waste, in homes, businesses, and factories.”

Supposed “global warrming,” therefore, could provide an overzealous government with all the authority it needs to regulate every aspect of human activity.

No responsible individual advocates doing things that deliberately harm the environment. No one likes to breathe polluted air or to swim and fish in polluted rivers. But a common-sense approach to eliminating such proven and observable hazards, preferably by the private sector, should not include building a massive federal bureaucracy to counter “global warming” — an unproven threat that the scientific community has not reached a consensus on.

Source: The New American

The Real Agenda Behind Global Warming

The world leaders and activists who attended the 2015 UN Climate Summit in Paris are all about saving the world, saving the environment, right? That’s the standard narrative, isn’t it?

Well, critics, ourselves included, have insisted that the UN climate agenda is really about power and wealth. More precisely, it is about getting the power to redistribute global wealth — through carbon taxes, carbon pricing, carbon trading, and carbon regulation, etc. But don’t take our word for it; the top climateers have said so themselves.

Take, for instance, Dr. Ottmar Edenhoefer — not exactly a household name in America, however, Dr. Edenhofer is a big name in climate policy circles. He says, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

From 2008 to 2015 Dr. Edenhofer was co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on “Mitigation of Climate Change.” He is also deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, one of the climate centers helping write climate policy for the EU, the UN, and the World Bank, and one of the most-cited sources on climate in the mainstream media. During an interview in 2010, Dr. Edenhofer candidly declared, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”

And, he added this shocking admission: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

What is the takeaway of this confession? It is nothing less than a shocking admission that man-made global warming is all about politics — Marxist, socialist, collectivist politics — masquerading under the false labels of science and environmental concern.

But Dr. Edenhofer is far from being alone in the confessional. The UN’s climate czarina, Christiana Figueres, has also been quite vocal in explaining that the UN’s imposing climate change agenda extends far beyond mere environmental concerns, such as stopping alleged global warming. She made an especially telling statement at the UN’s 2012 Climate Summit in Doha, Qatar, where she said:

It must be understood that what is occurring here, not just in Doha, but in the whole climate change process is a complete transformation of the economic structure of the world. [Emphasis added.]

Now that’s fairly arrogant, isn’t it?

Figueres went on to say:

We are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science. So it’s a very, very different transformation and one that is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.

The “centralized transformation” Figueres so earnestly advocates would indeed “make the life of everyone on the planet very different” — and in ways that a sizable portion of the folks on this planet would vigorously object to, it is probably safe to say. Her transformative vision would also take central planning far beyond the realms already practiced during the most totalitarian epochs of Communist dictators and mass-murderers Mao Tse-tung and Joseph Stalin. Mao and Stalin, in their wildest dreams, could not have imagined a global regime for measuring CO2 and regulating every breath, every cooking fire, every watt of electricity, virtually every activity of every person on Earth. We risk belaboring those obvious points because not a single reporter or commentator in the so-called mainstream media, as far as we’ve seen, has seen fit to remark on, let alone express alarm over, this stupendous grab for global, tyrannical power.

The complete, centralized, guided “transformation” envisioned for the whole world by Figueres and her fellow globalists is a chilling one to contemplate, and one that every freedom-minded person must oppose. (Source: TheNewAmerican)

Additional Info:

Chronological History of the Global Warming Hoax

 

The Energy and Environment Legal Institute Releases a Report that Exposes Rockefeller Dynasty’s Role in “Climate” Scam

An unfathomably wealthy banking and oil dynasty has been hijacking governments, media organs, universities, non-profits, and other power centers to expand its control over the economy and the energy sector in particular, according to a recently released investigation by a watchdog group. That dynasty, of course, is the Rockefeller family. In essence, they have largely created, bankrolled, and weaponized what is known as the “green” movement “as a means to expand their empire over the past three decades,” the report found. Under the guise of fighting alleged “man-made global-warming,” the Rockefeller family and its billions have been bankrolling everything ...
Read More

Climategate: Leaked Emails Reveal Scientific Fraud & Data Manipulation for Global Warming

The Climategate scandal erupted on November 19, 2009, when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory.[1] The scandal that the suffix –gate implies is the state of climate science over the past decade, revealed by more than a thousand emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists.[2] The released information is evidence of deceit by climate scientists, which was kept a secret or hidden from ...
Read More

Lord Christopher Monckton gave a Presentation in St. Paul, MN on Global Warming Issuing Dire Warning Against the UN Climate Change Treaty in Copenhagen

On 14 October 2009, Lord Christopher Monckton gave a presentation in St. Paul, MN on the subject of global warming. In this 4-minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty that was scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40 The conference was ultimately unsuccessful in reaching an agreement on a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol. The Copenhagen Accord, a minimalist framework agreement brokered by Barack Obama and the U.S. delegation, also failed to win consensus support. In the aftermath of the failure of the ...
Read More

The First Edition of Agenda-21 is Published in a 350-page Document that is a Trojan Horse Plan for Fascist Global Governance

According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.  Social Equity (Social Justice) Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone ...
Read More

A UN Summit is held in Rio de Janeiro where 5 Documents are Introduced that Would Help Pave the Way to Global Governance

"Behind the green mask UN Agenda 21" Rosa Koire is the executive director of the Post Sustainability Institute. Impacting every aspect of our lives, UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is a corporate manipulation using the Green Mask of environmental concern to forward a globalist plan. Rosa speaks across the world and is a regular blogger on her website Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 dot com. Her book, BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: UN Agenda 21 is available on Amazon.com, Kindle, and Nook, and at her website. Websites: www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com; http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ykELwj1Ta8 From June 3-14 of 1992, A UN Summit is held in Rio ...
Read More

Club of Rome’s Report ‘The First Global Revolution’: “In searching for the new enemy to unite us, we came up with…the threat of global warming…”

"In searching for the new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for cause. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changing attitudes and behaviors that they can be overcome.  The ...
Read More

U.S. Patent Issued to Hughes Aircraft Co. Proposing Injecting into the Upper Atmosphere, a “very fine, white talcum-like” Powder for the Stated purpose of Reducing Global Warming”

In 1991 a U.S. patent was issued to Hughes Aircraft Company; the Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding For Reduction of Global Warming Patent (#5,003,186). It proposed injecting into the upper atmosphere, a “very fine, white talcum-like” powder of aluminum oxide, barium oxide and other oxides for the stated purpose of reducing Global Warming”. Publication number US5003186 A Publication type Grant Application number US 07/513,145 Publication date Mar 26, 1991 Filing date Apr 23, 1990 Priority date Apr 23, 1990 Fee status Paid Inventors David B. Chang, I-Fu Shih Original Assignee Hughes Aircraft Company Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming ...
Read More

The EPA Issued a Press Release Banning the Use of DDT: A Safe and Effective Pesticide that had “Brought Malaria to Near Extinction”

[EPA press release - December 31, 1972] The general use of the pesticide DDT will no longer be legal in the United States after today, ending nearly three decades of application during which time the once-popular chemical was used to control insect pests on crop and forest lands, around homes and gardens, and for industrial and commercial purposes. An end to the continued domestic usage of the pesticide was decreed on June 14, 1972, when William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, issued an order finally cancelling nearly all remaining Federal registrations of DDT products. Public health, ...
Read More

United Nations Environment Program is Founded by Maurice Strong Setting in Motion the Global Warming Hoax

The Creator, Fabricator And Proponent Of Global Warming – Maurice Strong “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Program (UNEP) “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit “It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and ...
Read More

The ‘Report from Iron Mountain’ is Published

This is taken from Chapter 24 of The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin (When added to The Freedom Manifesto, this material should be expanded to include the concept of deliberate waste. With that included, it will make an excellent chapter.) The substance of these stratagems [for the weakening of the United States so it can be more easily merged into a global government based on the model of collectivism] can be traced to a think-tank study released in 1966 called the Report from Iron Mountain. Although the origin of the report is highly debated, the document ...
Read More