"Mankind has a moral obligation to be a responsible steward of Earth for the good of future generations. Protecting and preserving our earth's ecosystems must remain a high priority for citizens of every nation.
However, we oppose the alarmist agenda employed by most global warming “evangelists.” In many cases, their agendas are based upon questionable scientific data and erroneous claims about global climate change. They claim the “science is settled” when, in fact, it is not. Scientists do not agree on the cause of climate change, the role of carbon dioxide (CO2), the degree to which man contributes to atmospheric CO2, and whether global warming is anything other than a naturally occurring phenomenon.
Global climate changes have been occurring for centuries. Global warming is most likely occurring today. But there is much evidence to suggest that temperature fluctuations are part of a natural cycle of climate change, not man-made causes. To conclude that man bears the brunt of the blame for rising temperatures is morally irresponsible and politically reckless. Nature itself produces the greatest contributions to climate change." - GlobalClimateScam.com
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition - Commonsense About Climate Change
A coalition formed by Scientists, Professors, Doctors and specialists
"To represent accurately, and without prejudice, facts regarding climate change; to provide considered opinion on matters related to both natural and human-caused climate effects; and to comment on the economic and socio-political consequences of climate change."
Carbon Dioxide “Pollutant” Myth Totally Debunked In Must-See Science Video May 1 2017 | From: NatrualNews / Various
As part of the new Health Ranger Science effort at public education on crucial science issues of our time, I’ve just released this truly must-see video that totally debunks the false narrative of carbon dioxide as a “pollutant.”
As you’ll see explained in the video below, climate change alarmists use visual trickery and deceit to make gullible people falsely believe that CO2 is rising to unprecedented, alarming levels across our planet. In truth, CO2 is at nearly the lowest point ever recorded in the history of the planet.
In fact, using data from the NOAA and even the IPCC, it turns out that CO2 levels were as much as 15 times higher than 400 ppm in the past, and plants across the planet today are starving for CO2, the “molecule of life” for plant life across the planet (including forests, food crops and jungles).
While climate change alarmists absurdly claim CO2 is a pollutant, they neglect to tell you that without CO2, we would all die of starvation because every ecosystem on the planet would almost instantly collapse. If CO2 were dropped to zero, Earth would become a barren global desert of death entirely incapable of supporting human life at all.
Even more shockingly, most climate change cultists still have no idea that their own bodies are made of carbon, and even the THC found in all the weed they’re smoking contains 21 carbon elements per molecule (C21H30O2).
Vegetarians and vegans apparently don’t realize that all the fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds they eat are also made of carbon, as is their own blood, skin, hormones and tissues. At the same time these people are denouncing carbon as an “evil pollutant,” they are eating carbon, drinking carbon, smoking carbon and even making babies made of carbon.
Watch (and share) my full carbon dioxide science presentation below, and help educate the ignorant masses about the truth on carbon dioxide. Also read Climate Depot to learn more on this topic.
Carbon Dioxide "Pollutant" Debunked
This rational, science-based explanation completely debunks the false "climate change" narrative on carbon dioxide.
Inconvenient Reality: Al Gore’s Global Climate Apocalypse Never Took Place - He Now Says It Did But You Just Couldn’t Tell + Hero EPA Administrator Speaks Out Against Junk Science - Denies CO2 Is Primary Contributor To ‘Global Warming’! March 15 2017 | From: NaturalNews / TheGatewayPundit
Environmentalist Al Gore, a.k.a. the climate con man, has a new movie to promote, so he gets to fly on private jets and ride around in gas-guzzling limousines. Maybe he’ll even add a new wing on to his mansion with the profits.
The new movie is called An Inconvenient Sequel, a follow-up to An Inconvenient Truth, which was chock full of doom and gloom about made-made climate change and global warming.
The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival last month and will go into wide distribution this summer.
Gore’s activism made him a multimillionaire celebrity. The carbon footprint of his wallet expanded further when, in late 2012, he sold his failed TV channel, Current TV, to Big Oil, i.e., to the Al Jazeera network, which is backed by the royal family of the oil-rich country of Qatar. Gore reportedly pocketed $100 million from that transaction.
The “planet has a fever” pundit also won a Nobel Peace Prize, but then again, so did Obama.
As Natural News previously reported, none of the dire climate change predictions from the first film- which won an Academy Award for best documentary - have come to pass. Among other things, the Arctic never melted, and polar bears are still thriving. Mt. Kilimanjaro is still covered with plenty of show.
Extreme weather also has failed to materialized. [RELATED: Read more about the climate change movement at ClimateScienceNews.com]
In the new opus, the former vice president under Bill Clinton tries to justify another weather whopper - that cities all over the world, including Manhattan, are at risk for flooding because of the rise in the sea level combined with storm surges.
It was the “single most criticized scene in that movie,” Gore declares in the trailer below.
“In that clip, Gore then shows ‘Superstorm Sandy’ footage of water flooding lower Manhattan, including the memorial site and a quote from Gov. Andrew Cuomo blaming climate change, to prove true Gore’s claim from 11 years ago.
But his original prediction was not about extenuating circumstances of a storm like Sandy slamming into New York or any ‘storm surge’ at all.
It was about the sea level rise that would be generated as (he predicted) ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica escalated dramatically.
The latest maps show that Greenland still has ice 11 years after Gore’s prediction of catastrophic melt due to global warming.”
Weather Channel founder John Coleman was fundamentally unimpressed with the original Al Gore movie, which he deemed a “scientific monstrosity,” and has raised concerns about the follow up for similar reasons. Coleman has argued in the past that man-made climate change is a scam, a myth, and unsupported by science.
Health Ranger Mike Adams recently pointed out the oft-repeated claim that 97% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is settled science - as if science is ever settled - is a bunch of hot air.
In the new movie, Gore apparently also claims credit for ushering in the superficial Paris climate change agreement that was approved with much hoopla on December 12, 2015.
President Trump said in November that he has an open mind about the Paris deal that Obama signed without input from Congress, although he campaigned on rescinding the U.S. commitment just like he pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership upon taking office.
The president may be constrained at the moment, given the media hysteria about every decision from the White House, however. An ex-aide said in late January that he expects the president to withdraw from the Paris agreement, although the timetable is uncertain.
Hero EPA Administrator Speaks Out Against Junk Science - Denies CO2 Is Primary Contributor To ‘Global Warming’!
Hero of the Day - EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt
The new Trump EPA administrator Scott Pruitt denied that carbon dioxide was a primary contributor to global warming junk science.
Liberal heads exploded over this comment.
Scott Pruitt has been head of the EPA for less than a month.
Tucker Carlson vs. Bill Nye on the Issue of Climate Change
New Elite Whistleblower Smashes Global Warming Science + UN Official Says Global Warming Is About Destroying Capitalism February 8 2017 | From: JonRappoport / DailyMail / ArmstrongEconomics / Various
A highly respected, medal-winning climate scientist just wound up and threw a giant monkey wrench into global warming science.
His name? John Bates. His target? A recent fraudulent study that claimed the uncomfortable “pause” in warming was really no pause at all. That study, pretending warming had never stopped, was timed to help negotiating nations at the Climate Summit in Paris. It was timed to help them enact draconian economic measures to reduce warming.
But, Bates reveals, that study was cooked on several counts. It was such a mess no self-respecting scientist would sign on to it. However, scientists did sign on to it. And a prestigious journal, Science, published it. Apparently, the brains at Science were on vacation. Or they were determined to play ball and assist the Globalist plan to drastically reduce CO2-producing energy production in nations across the globe, thus escalating poverty, in order to “save us” all from frying.
Here are choice quotes from David Rose’s exclusive Daily Mail article that exposes the far-reaching deception:
“The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.”
“A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed [fraudulent] report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.”
“The [fraudulent] report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected.
Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.”
“But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.”
“It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.”
“His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the [fraudulent] Pausebuster paper.”
“His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.”
“In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.”
“Both datasets [used in the fraudulent study] were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming.
The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.”
“The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.”
“The paper [fraudulent study] relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.”
“None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.”
“Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.”
“Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.”
“The [fraudulent] paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’, the document said the widely reported [warming] ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.”
“But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships.
This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.”
“Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer’.”
“Moreover, the… software [used in the fraudulent study] was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results.”
“Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure’.”
“The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the [fraudulent] Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.”
Get it? Fraud all the way along the line. And a cover-up, to make an examination of the fraud-details impossible.
The perfect worst-case scenario. Can we now, at last, have a few criminal indictments?
Even a prosecuting attorney fresh out of law school, wet behind the ears, with zero courtroom experience, would be able to secure a proper verdict.
Guilty of fraud, and aiding and abetting a far-reaching scheme to reduce energy production in America (and other nations), on the premise that warming is rising and must be stopped.
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, imagine this. The powers-that-be want to cut the production of energy in this country. Anyone can see the result of such a plan. We all become strapped. We all become poorer.
But we’re told this is necessary to save us from the destruction of life on Earth. We’re told we have to go along with the plan, because producing energy releases carbon dioxide, which in turn keeps raising the temperature of the planet.
Recently, a key scientific study was published, and this study bolsters the whole idea that global warming is on the rise.
But a key expert insider will show that this study was false and a fraud and a lie, and the people who wrote it are guilty of deceiving you and me and everyone.
Find these people guilty, once and for all, and send them to prison, where they belong…”
I could try this case in court. You could try this case in court. Three guys in a bar could try this case. And win.
Are you ready, Mr. Trump? Send out the hounds from the Department of Justice and put these liars under arrest.
And let’s see their trial in open court, every minute of it, on camera, on television, online.
Let’s see it in New York and Chicago and Los Angeles and Toronto and London and Paris and Rome and Kabul and Tehran and Sydney and Tokyo and Rio and Durban and Nuuk and Tierra del Fuego…
At long last, put official science and its enablers in the dock.
UN Official Says Global Warming Is About Destroying Capitalism
A shocking statement was made by a United Nations officialChristiana Figueres at a news conference in Brussels.
Figueres admitted that the Global Warming conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which she is the executive secretary, has a goal not of environmental activists to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
She even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake:
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
I was invited to a major political dinner in Washington with the former Chairman of Temple University since I advised the University with respect to its portfolio.
We were seated at one of those round tables with ten people. Because we were invited from a university, they placed us with the heads of the various environmental groups.
They assumed they were in friendly company and began speaking freely. Dick Fox, my friend and Chairman of Temple, began to lead them on to get the truth behind their movement.
Low and behold, they too admitted it was not about the environment, but to reduce population growth.
Dick then asked them, “Whose grandchild are we trying to prevent from being born? Your’s or mine?”
All of these movements seem to have a hidden agenda that the press helps to misrepresent all the time. One must wonder, at what point will the press realize they are destroying their own future?
Ending The Hoax: Team Trump Removes All References To ‘Climate Change’ On Whitehouse.gov Web Site + New York Times 1989: No Global Warming Trend January 27 2017 | From: NaturalNews / JonRappoport
During the campaign, then-GOP nominee Donald J. Trump said he was not convinced that so-called “manmade global warming” and “climate change” was real, pointing out that instead of being “settled science,” there was plenty of conflicting information out there (not to mention outright fraudulent manipulations of temperature data).
As president, Trump’s position appears to be consistent with his skepticism.
During the Obama administration, the official White House site carried an information piece titled, “A Historic Commitment to Protecting the Environment and Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change,” which explained the former president’s commitment to policies that were ostensibly designed to reverse human impact on the climate through industrialization and modernization.
Obama, like all climate change hoaxers, claimed that it was the ‘biggest threat to our children’ than nuclear war or terrorism, and he regularly trotted out “data” that his federal bureaucracy claimed was “proof” that a) the Earth’s climate is “changing” and b) it’s because too many cows fart and too many Americans drive SUVs.
But Trump - and a host of genuinely independent scientists and climatologists interested in real data - has never bought into the hype.
What’s more, he and millions of Americans watched as Obama’s business and economic policies destroyed jobs and opportunity because they were based on something more akin to a religion. (RELATED: How are ‘they’ fooling us today? Find out at Hoax.news)
"Climate skeptics are thrilled that one of the very first visible changes of the transition of power between President Obama and President Trump is the booting of ‘climate change’ from the White House website,” said a statement from Climate Depot, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT, which documents climate change hoaxes and phony data.
“Trump is truly going to make science great again and reject the notion that humans are the control knob of the climate and UN treaties and EPA regulations can somehow regulate temperature and storminess. Welcome to the era of sound science!”
While the Obama-era climate change page has been taken down, the Trump administration has uploaded the president’s “America First Energy Plan” to the Whitehouse.gov site in its place.
"Energy is an essential part of American life and a staple of the world economy. The Trump Administration is committed to energy policies that lower costs for hardworking Americans and maximize the use of American resources, freeing us from dependence on foreign oil,” the plan says.
“For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years.”
The plan also notes that “sound” energy policy must begin with the acknowledgement that the United States has vast, untapped energy reserves that have been placed under federal ‘protection’ for decades by previous administrations.
The administration says it is committed to unlocking those reserves and embracing the shale oil and gas “revolution” that will bring good-paying jobs to millions of Americans. (RELATED: What’s going on with American energy? Find out at Power.news)
That kind of a policy plays right into the hands of the angry Left, which has claimed for months that Trump would destroy the environment by making our air and water dirtier. But such ridiculous claims are based on the irrational premise that our new president wants us to have dirty air and water - which is something he, too, would suffer.
The web site says there is an estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale in the U.S., along with oil, and natural gas, “especially those on federal lands that the American people own.”
The administration would use the revenues from energy production to “rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure,” which Trump frequently brought up on the campaign trail. By tapping into U.S. reserves, energy prices will come down for all Americans, and “will be a big boost to American agriculture as well.”
The Trump administration also said it will be committed to clean coal technology, as well as reviving the coal industry so ravaged under the Obama regime.
“After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.”
“While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.”
“The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.”
Then comes the revisionist stepping-back from the explosive finding:
“Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ‘cast doubt’ on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures…
He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth’s surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.”
That’s a beauty, isn’t it? The US, with its massive spewing industrial/automotive output of CO2 is—owing to a mysterious force - not warming. It’s angels, of course. Angels scrubbing the sky.
"Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan” offers this gem:
“Another possibility, he [Hansen] said, was that there were special conditions in the United States that would tend to offset a warming trend. For example, industrial activity produces dust and other solid particles that help form liquid droplets in the atmosphere. These droplets reflect radiation away from Earth and thus have a cooling influence.”
But I suppose, through a REVERSE miracle, the droplets do allow heat generated at ground level to escape upward. If the droplets did trap heat at ground level, temperatures would rise - and the study showed that wasn’t occurring. More angels. The magic droplets deflect heat coming down, but not going up.
The Times had no follow-up questions.
But don’t worry, be happy. It’s all good. Yes, the warming hypothesis leads to carbon taxes, lowering energy output in order to keep us all from frying, and the consequent decimation of the economy - but look, people make mistakes. And those mistakes generate unpleasant results. However, they mean well. They really do.
They’re not using a bogus warming hypothesis to torpedo america and the rest of the world, as part of a globalist machination of control. they don’t want to decimate the economy and reduce us to a helpless state of poverty.
They would never do that.
Climate Scare Declared Officially Over- Error In Model Calculations Discovered December 16 2016 | From: RickWells
Acclaimed climate realist and former adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Lord Christopher Monckton, has some major news of a breakthrough discovery he has made in the area of climate science. Comment: How long are the Cabal going to try to bury this latest hit?
He’s interviewed at the “Global-Warming; an Inconvenient Lie” conference in Phoenix, AZ by Millie Weaver, a reporter for Infowars.
Moncton is proud to be able to announce that he and his;
“Team of very distinguished professors and doctors of science have discovered a major, significant, substantial error in the way in which the computer models calculate how much warming they would predict should be happening.”
He says, “Take that error away and there is no longer any climate problem. You might get one or two Celsius of warming with a doubling of CO2 concentration but you won’t get much more than that.”
He says, “All the suggestions that we’re facing some tipping point and suddenly we might see five or six, seven, eight, ten, twelve, thirteen Celsius of warming for a doubling of CO2, the kind of dramatic figures that have been appearing in some scientific papers, we can now prove that all of those very high end forecasts of how much warming we might get are based on an error in mathematics.
Correct for the error and we are back down to a maximum of two, perhaps two and a half Celsius of warming for a doubling of CO2.”
Monckton says, “I have been looking for this error in the mathematics for ten years. I have known it was there but I didn’t know what the error was, I just knew they’d made a mistake."
He then goes on to explain in some mathematical detail how he knew it, describing himself as a classical mathematician.
He also has an announcement regarding a discovery by one of his esteemed colleagues, Professor William Happer of Princeton, who discovered that “the central estimate of global warming has been exaggerated by forty percent.”
When his result is combined with the discovery by Monckton declares, officially, that the climate scare is over.
Infowars Reporter Millie Weaver interviews Lord Christopher Monckton who reveals a breaking discovery which may prove the entire 'climate change' scare is based on faulty mathematics.
At the "Global-Warming; an Inconvenient Lie" conference in Phoenix, AZ Lord Monckton covers in depth the mathematical discovery his team has made and announces that these findings have been submitted for proper peer review.
With the election of Donald Trump, climate change and global warming have come back into the spotlight. In a different way.
“The science is settled” isn’t good enough now.
Neither is the Globalist plan to cut energy production in every country in the world, in order to “rescue us from frying.”
“Donald Trump will be about the only head of state who does not believe in climate science or the responsibility of his government to act,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club…”
But all along, there have been dissenters from the manmade warming mantra; they just haven’t been allowed inside government portals.
Freeman Dyson, physicist and mathematician, professor emeritus at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, Fellow of the Royal Society, winner of the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, the Fermi Award:
“What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies [in climate change models] between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger.
It’s clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago… I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this [climate change] issue, and the Republicans took the right side…”
The Register, October 11, 2015
Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel-prize winner in Physics (1973), reported by Climate Depot, July 8, 2015:
“Global warming is a non-problem…I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.”
Green Guru James Lovelock, who once predicted imminent destruction of the planet via global warming:
“The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact, I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change.”
- The Guardian, September 30, 2016
And these are but a tiny fraction of the statements made by dissident scientists who reject manmade global warming.
The science is only settled in government circles where leaders have climbed on board the Globalist plan to undermine economies all over the world by grossly lowering energy production, as a way to “reduce warming.”
One of the major warming hustlers is, of course, Al Gore.
Consider facts laid out in an uncritical Washington Post story (October 10, 2012, “Al Gore has thrived as a green-tech investor”):
In 2001, Al was worth less than $2 million. By 2012, it was estimated he’d locked up a nice neat $100 million.
How did he do it? Well, he invested in 14 green companies, who inhaled - via loans, grants and tax relief - somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion from the Federal government to go greener.
Therefore, Gore’s investments paid off, because the Federal government was providing massive cash backup to those companies. It’s nice to have Federal friends in high places.
For example, Gore’s investment firm at one point held 4.2 million shares of an outfit called Iberdrola Renovables, which was building 20 wind farms across the United States.
Iberdrola was blessed with $1.5 billion from the Federal government for the work which, by its own admission, saved its corporate financial bacon. Every little bit helps.
Then there was a company called Johnson Controls. It made batteries, including those for electric cars. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management (GIM), doubled its holdings in Johnson Controls in 2008, when shares cost as little $9 a share. GIM sold when shares cost $21 to $26 - before the market for electric-car batteries fell on its head.
For a while, the going was good. To make it go good, Johnson Controls had been bolstered by $299 million dropped at its doorstep by the administration of President Barack Obama.
On the side, Gore had been giving speeches on the end of life as we know it on planet Earth, for as much as $175,000 a pop. (It isn’t really on the side. Gore was constantly on the move from conference to conference, spewing jet fumes in his wake.) Those lecture fees can add up.
So Gore, as of 2012, had $100 million.
The man has worked every angle to parlay fear of global-warming catastrophes into a humdinger of a personal fortune. And he didn’t achieve his new status in the free market. The Federal government has been helping out with major, major bucks.
This wasn’t an entrepreneur relying exclusively on his own smarts and hard work. Far from it.
- How many scientists and other PhDs have been just saying no to the theory of manmade global warming?
A letter to The Wall Street Journal signed by 16 scientists just said no. Among the luminaries: William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton University; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
And then there was the Global Warming Petition Project, or the Oregon Petition, that just said no. According to Petitionproject.org, the petition has the signatures of “31,487 American scientists,” of which 9,029 stated they had Ph.D.s.
Global warming is one of the Rockefeller Globalists’ chief issues.
Manipulating it entails convincing populations that a massive intervention is necessary to stave off the imminent collapse of all life on Earth. Therefore, sovereign nations must be eradicated. Political power and decision-making must flow from above, from “those who are wiser.”
Al Gore is one of their front men. He jets here and he jets there, carrying their messages. He’s their delivery kid.
And for his work, he is paid $100 million - a drop in the bucket.
A final note about the “science” of global warming -
A hypothesis is a provisional statement that remains to be confirmed through experiments. Confirmation means making a correct prediction. Not just any prediction, but a useful one.
Take this hypothesis: The Earth has become warmer by X degrees over the past 1000 years.
Putting all the chatter aside, have scientists deployed this hypothesis to make accurate, specific, and useful predictions about warming?
So far, the answer is no.
That eliminates, for the time being, the acceptance of the warming hypothesis. Many predictions have been made, many alarm bells have been rung, many dire warnings have been issued, many threats have been launched…but no correct and useful predictions.
However, scientists will say their (rejected) hypothesis is also a statement of fact. That is, it is a summary of a warming trend derived from thousands of measurements of temperatures, now and in the past, on land, sea, and air.
Scientists will also claim their investigation reveals humans have directly and significantly contributed to a recent warming trend.
At this point, we are leaving the method of hypothesizing and predicting, and moving to a debate about the accuracy of all those temperature measurements and the causes of any actual climate changes.
Among scientists, there is a great deal of disagreement about the accuracy of the measurements. Any fair examination of studies and their critics will reveal that.
In this regard, the science is not settled. Far from it.
So: useless as a hypothesis, the assertion of manmade warming, as fact, is wide open to debate. To say the least.
Yet... based on this non-proof, Globalists want all national governments on the planet to commit to lowering energy production by a significant and destructive percentage in the next 15 years - “to save us from a horrible fate.”
Their real agenda is clear:
“The only solution to climate change is a global energy-management network. We (the Globalist leaders) are in the best position to manage such a system. We will allocate mandated energy-use levels throughout planet Earth, region by region, nation by nation, and eventually, citizen by citizen.”
Yes, citizen by citizen.
This is the long-term goal. This is the Globalists’ Holy Grail. Slavery imposed through energy.
Climate Intervention: A Government Cover-Up Of Epic Proportions December 3 2016 | From: WND
I recently addressed how CIA Director John Brennan gave a historic speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, confessing something few thought they would ever hear: the federal government’s explicit and intentional climate intervention via operations like stratospheric aerosol spraying or injections, or SAI.
What I didn’t explain is that SAI is a ginormous federal geo-engineering cover up that is now being exposed, and yet not a single mainstream media outlet has reported on it. Let me explain.
“Albedo modification would work by lacing the atmosphere with tiny particles or aerosols that would reflect sunlight and mimic natural processes.
For example, in 1991 the volcano Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, which spans altitudes from 10 to 50 kilometers.
There, the sulfur dioxide produced aerosols that reflected enough sunlight to reduce global temperature by an estimated 0.3°C for 3 years.
Albedo modification might also work by using aerosols to seed cloud formation in a lower atmospheric layer called the troposphere.”
The U.S. Senate pushed the DOE to pursue albedo modification action a couple months before CIA Director Brennan gave his blessing to stratospheric spraying as a government operation that “potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change.”
What’s crazy about all that government endorsement is that the February 2015 NAS report, on which the feds base their entire toxic rain operation;
“Warned explicitly that albedo modification shouldn’t be deployed now because the risks and benefits were far too uncertain.”
What are those risks? Here are just three grave consequences that we know about:
Drought: The team under Chien Wang, a co-author of the NAS study and a senior research scientist at MIT’s Center for Global Change Science and the Department of Earth, concluded that albedo modification would lead;
“To dangerous changes in global weather: Precipitation would also decline worldwide, and some parts of the world would be worse off. Europe, the Horn of Africa, and Pakistan may receive less rainfall than they have historically.”
Loss of blue sky: According to a report by the New Scientist, Ben Kravitz of the Carnegie Institution for Science explained, “Releasing sulphate aerosols high in the atmosphere should in theory reduce global temperatures by reflecting a small percentage of the incoming sunlight away from the Earth.
However, the extra particles would also scatter more of the remaining light into the atmosphere. This would reduce by 20 per cent the amount of sunlight that takes a direct route to the ground, and it would increase levels of softer, diffuse scattered light,” making the sky appear hazier.
The U.S. government’s own National Center for Biotechnology Information, or NCBI, released a report in January 2016, the goal of which was “Assessing the direct occupational and public health impacts of solar radiation management with stratospheric aerosols.” The NCBI concluded:
“Our analysis suggests that adverse public health impacts may reasonably be expected from SRM via deployment of stratospheric aerosols.
Little is known about the toxicity of some likely candidate aerosols, and there is no consensus regarding acceptable levels for public exposure to these materials.
There is also little infrastructure in place to evaluate potential public health impacts in the event that stratospheric aerosols are deployed for solar radiation management.”
No wonder the co-author of the study on “Climate Intervention,” Dr. James Fleming, called geo-engineering like SAI: “untested and untestable, and dangerous beyond belief.”
Another colleague and co-author, Dr. Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, the Louis Block professor in geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago, and Sweden’s King Carl XVI Gustafn, chairman in environmental science at Stockholm’s Universitet, took it one step further. He warned;
“The nearly two years’ worth of reading and animated discussions that went into this study have convinced me more than ever that the idea of ‘fixing’ the climate by hacking the Earth’s reflection of sunlight is wildly, utterly, howlingly barking mad.”
(That is why Dr. Pierrehumbert prefers to call albedo modification by the name “albedo hacking.”)
Dr. Pierrehumber added: “The report describes albedo modification frankly as involving large and partly unknown risks. It states outright that albedo modification ‘should not be deployed.'”
So, why are the U.S. Senate and CIA director disregarding the dire and passionate warnings of scientists like Dr. Pierrehumbert and Dr. Fleming by demanding that the Department of Energy proceed with trials on geo-engineering? In the words of Dr. Pierrehumber, are they “wildly, utterly, howlingly barking mad”? Answer: Yes!
Is it a mere coincidence that the very government agencies that are spraying our stratosphere with toxic chemicals were the actual sponsors of the NAS report? The NAS itself confessed:
“The study was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, U.S. intelligence community, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Department of Energy” (italics mine).
Isn’t that like your right hand quoting your left hand so that your right hand can grab what it’s already holding? Is the NAS report another government push and ploy to collaborate and cite “scientific proof” to justify its clandestine climate agenda?
Why else would the CIA and U.S. Senate be proceeding in climate aerosol spraying when the very scientists preparing the study warned, “Stop! Don’t do it! It’s crazy and dangerous!”
The most colossal and tragic of all government cover-ups is the fact that the feds have been waging climate warfare for more than 30 years, lacing our clouds and stratosphere with dangerous nano-particles, including environmental sulfates, black carbon, metallic aluminum and aluminum oxide aerosols.
The truth is, for decades, the feds have been covertly and overtly running sky criminal operations behind (above!) our backs, leaving humans and the rest of the planet life as lab rats of their toxic cocktail fallout.
Geoengineeringwatch.org reported that a 1978 750-page congressional report was recently discovered with a mountain of information going back decades that “confirms the ongoing extensive involvement of our government in climate modification/weather warfare.
This document also confirms the involvement of foreign governments around the globe, even governments that would otherwise have been considered ‘hostile to US interests.'”
Why hasn’t a single mainstream media outlet reported on the CIA and DOE’s march forward with SAI when the scientific community has explicitly and repeatedly warned against it?
And why in hell are watchdogs on both the left and right dodging the feds’ intentional and hazardous climate intervention, when they seek to uncover government cover-ups and conspiracies with the most scant of evidence?
Dane Wigington, the lead researcher for GeoengineeringWatch.org and a fierce fighter for government geoengineering transparency, was absolutely right when he wrote: “How big does the climate engineering elephant in the room need to be before it can no longer be hidden in plain site?
How much more historical proof do we need of the ongoing climate engineering/weather warfare before the denial of the masses crumbles? When will populations around the globe bring to justice all those responsible for the ongoing and rapidly worsening worldwide weather warfare assault?”
Is it a mere coincidence that, in October 2015, the feds put a universal “gag order” on agency employees in “The National Weather Service,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration” and the “U.S. Dept. of Commerce”?
Is it a mere coincidence that the Obama administration has spent more taxpayer monies for legal prosecutions of government whistleblowers than all other U.S. presidents combined, resulting in 31 times the jail sentences?
It’s time to blow the lid off the government’s climate cover-up!
That is why my wife, Gena, and I encourage citizens everywhere to do their own research on geo-engineering and then write their government representatives to demand action. We also encourage the support of the Legal Alliance of pro-bono lawyers now amassed as a united front to fight the geo-engineering government cover-up in court.
To read or learn more immediately, I highly recommend the work and website of Dane Wigington. GeoEngineeringWatch.org is loaded with great research on the many facets of climate intervention.
Green Gestapo Says You're Mentally Ill If You Challenge Climate Change + Over 30,000 Scientists Say 'Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming' Is A Complete Hoax And Science Lie October 2 2016 | From: Infowars / NaturalNews
Any opposition to the party line constitutes "culpable insanity."
Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville annoyed the climate-extremist establishment a couple of years ago by describing them as “climate Nazis.”
Related: Climate Swindle - Who wants to be a carbon trillionaire?
Recently several of these creatures wrote a supposedly “learned” paper in an obscure journal, saying that anyone who, like Roy and me, raises legitimate questions about the magnitude of Man’s influence on climate or the disproportionate cost of making largely non-existent global warming go away, must be suffering from a psychiatric disorder.
These climate Nazis said that those who dare to question the Party Line on the weather should be regarded as suffering from “identity-protective cognition” and “conspiracist ideation.” I was among those they named.
In Communist Russia, before its defeat at the hands of the triumvirate of liberty – Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II – opponents of the regime whom the dictators had not executed were instead flung into psychiatric institutions, on the ludicrous ground that any opposition to the Party Line constituted culpable insanity.
Lord Christopher Monckton
(Author if this article)
The intellectual pygmies who are the inheritors of the dictators, conveniently forgetting the 250 million people whom communist and fascist socialism sent to their deaths in the 20th century, are now whining that we who have exposed their climate scam should be locked away in state psychiatric prisons, there to be “re-educated” to cure us of the wicked notion that science, not politics, is the way to determine the magnitude (if any) and cost (if any) of the climate problem (if any).
Well, I’ve had enough.
I’ve written to the editor of the obscure journal, to the president of the editor’s university and to the presidents of the universities that provide nests for two of the paper’s authors, to warn them that in Europe, to ensure that the arrogant and un-self-critical totalitarianism that killed so many in the last century will kill none in this, we now have hate-speech laws that make the publication of the offending paper falsely accusing us of lunacy an imprisonable criminal offense.
One of the co-authors, one Cook, recently appointed to a third-rank university in the United States, falsely stated in an earlier paper that 97% of climate scientists had said recent global warming was mostly man-made, when his own records – now in the hands of the fraud police – show he knew the true figure was not 97% but 0.5%.
Lest you should think that my comparing these wretches with the totalitarians of old is unjust, I have obtained a picture of Cook dressed up in his favorite uniform, a parody of a Nazi SS uniform. The photograph bears the self-describing caption Reichsführer-SS J. Cook.
I have sent copies of this photograph to the president of Cook’s new “university,” together with a request that I should be permitted to set straight the crooked record of poisonous and criminal hate-speech that Cook and his ghastly co-authors have published to my detriment.
Watch this space!
Footnote: My recent speech to the London climate conference exposing a huge error at the heart of the climate models – an error without which no one will ever worry about our effect on the climate – is causing major concern among the ranks of the ungodly. It’s unusual for a mathematical presentation to gather 10,000 hits in a week, but it’s happened. If you haven’t seen it yet:
Don’t miss the speech that makes the climate Nazis squirm.
If you like Classical music, you’ll enjoy a recording of the piece I played onstage in the conference hall during the closing-night party. It’s Schubert’s Sechs Ecossaisen der Ehemaligen, six little Scottish dances played as an oran talaidh or lullaby in the dreamy Highland style. If baby won’t sleep, play this resonant recording and all will be well. Enjoy!
Lord Christopher Monckton is a well-known journalist, public speaker, UKIP activist and “global warming” skeptic who also invented the mathematical puzzle Eternity. You can find him at the Lord Monckton Foundation.
Over 30,000 Scientists Say 'Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming' Is A Complete Hoax And Science Lie
The highly-politicized climate change debate rages on as we approach the crucial 2016 U.S. presidential election, despite an ever-growing body of evidence revealing the fact that "catastrophic man-made global warming" is nothing more than an elaborate hoax.
And the November election may prove to be a victory for the hoaxers, according to experts who happen to be among those who dare to challenge the spurious climate change narrative.
[Note: David Wilcock, within his vast body of research and writings has pointed out that: "[He] used official NASA sources to prove that the Sun, planets, and satellites [moons, asteroids etc.] in our system are becoming brighter, hotter, and more magnetic at a remarkable speed."]
Related: When Plutocrats Own The Weather & Nobody Is Buying The “Climate Change” Hoax Anymore
One of these experts is Weather Channel founder John Coleman, who is now warning that the election could prove to be a "tipping point" in favor of people like Al Gore, who continues to amass vast fortunes based on the global warming scam.
In a recent interview with Climate Depot, Coleman said:
“Al Gore may emerge from the shadows to declare victory in the 'global warming' debate if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House. Yes, if that happens and the new climate regulations become the law of the land, they will be next to impossible to overturn for four to eight years."
Climate change proponents remain undeterred in their mission, ignoring numerous recent scientific findings indicating that there has been no warming trend at all for nearly two decades.
Al Gore's dire predictions of the melting of polar ice on a massive scale have proved to be completely false. In fact, in 2014 - a year that was touted as being "the hottest ever" in the Earth's history - there were record amounts of ice reported in Antarctica, an increase in Arctic ice, and record snowfalls across the globe.
Debunking the "97 Percent" Lie
On top of those "inconvenient truths," the White House's assertion that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real has been completely debunked. Several independently-researched examinations of the literature used to support the "97 percent" statement found that the conclusions were cherry-picked and misleading.
More objective surveys have revealed that there is a far greater diversity of opinion among scientists than the global warming crowd would like for you to believe.
From the National Review:
"A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased."
Other mainstream news sources besides the National Review have also been courageous enough to speak out against the global warming propaganda - even the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece in 2015 challenging the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) pseudoscience being promulgated by global warming proponents.
And, of course, there are the more than 31,000 American scientists (to date) who have signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative and 9,029 of them hold PhDs in their respective fields. But hey, Al Gore and his cronies have also ignored that inconvenient truth, as well.
Many of those scientists who signed the petition were likely encouraged to speak out in favor of the truth after retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist John L. Casey revealed that solar cycles are largely responsible for warming periods on Earth - not human activity.
Al Gore and Cronies Continue Getting Richer from the Global Warming Hoax
But the global warming crowd continues to push their agenda on the public while lining their pockets in the process. If you're still inclined to believe what Al Gore has to say about global warming, please consider the fact that since he embarked on his crusade, his wealth has grown from $2 million in 2001 to $100 million in 2016 - largely due to investments in fake "green tech" companies and the effective embezzlement of numerous grants and loans.
You might want to take all of this information into serious consideration before casting your vote in the November election.
When Plutocrats Own The Weather & Nobody Is Buying The “Climate Change” Hoax Anymore August 30 2016 | From: MyEClinik
There are at least two notable human pursuits that have endured across the ages, i.e. physical immortality and the ability to tame nature.
The hunt for the fountain of youth and the ability to please and summon the gods to alter the weather so that rain may fall and crops may grow, have encouraged barbaric rituals, propelled sciences to greater heights, and motivated wars and conflict causing the rise and fall of empires.
Such is the frailty of man, ignorant about his own spiritual immortality, oblivious about his being part of Nature, herself immortal and godly. So, he ventured upon the complete control of Science and all the technological advancements only for himself and himself alone.
At least 100 years ago, humanity has already acquired the ability to control all planetary parameters, e.g. weather engineering, longevity, fuel less engines and light speed travel, which should qualify us as a Type 1 civilization.
But, as the old adage says, “a little knowledge is very dangerous,” his incomplete understanding of himself and Nature pushes him to misuse the ability to control the weather to eliminate others as if his eventual exclusive reign on the planet would make him immortal.
The present empire is far resilient than its predecessors combined. That’s because it has mastered the art of controlling the mind above all other sciences.
We, too, are equally irresponsible to have allowed the reign of these plutocrats who have not toiled to make these scientific achievements a reality. We fall for the deceptive excuse of climate change, overpopulation, silly concept of god’s will, and the unbreakable limits of dogmatic science.
We consented to the madness of the unwise.
"Here is the Bureau of Reclamation’s promotional video entitled “ Mountain Skywater” discussing the effectiveness of the US. government program.
Weather Warfare, March 20, 1967 - July 5, 1972
Operation Popeye first came to public light in March 1971, when reporter Jack Anderson published a story based on a secret 1967 memo from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to President Johnson. The memo read: “Laos operations – Continue as at present plus Pop Eye to reduce the trafficability [sic] along infiltration routes & Authorization requested to implement operational phase of weather modification process previously successful tested and evaluated in some area”. (US Senate, Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment; 26 July 1972; p. 5).
Members of Congress pressed the Pentagon to unveil details of the weather modification program. Senator Claiborne Pell, chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment, and later chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, was the engine behind that effort, although there were others, both in the Senate and the House, who devoted energy to it.
Rainmaking operations were a source of concern not only because the impact of the operations themselves, but because they were seen as opening the door to a new and dangerous type of warfare. Severe rains and typhoons in North Vietnam in 1971 added to concern, a link to the U.S. cloud seeding operations was suspected. According to Pell:
Rainmaking as a weapon of war can only lead to the development of vastly more dangerous environmental techniques whose consequences may be unknown and may cause irreparable damage to our global environment. This is why the United States must move quickly to ban all environmental or geophysical modification techniques from the arsenals of war.
(US Senate, Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment; July 26, 1972; p. 4)
On 23 September 1971, Pell sent a letter to the Defense Department requesting information on Operation Popeye. After waiting 4 months to answer, the Defense Department declined to reply on the basis that it would threaten national security. (US Senate, Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment; 26 July 1972; p. 4). Testifying to the Senate on 18 April 1972, Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird denied any weather modification in Northern Vietnam, saying “we have never engaged in that type of activity over Northern Vietnam.”
(Quoted in: US Senate, Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment; March 20, 1974; p. 109.).
Laird wasn’t the only official whose 1972 weather modification testimony was untruthful.
Benjamin Forman, a senior Department of Defense lawyer, reiterated Laird’s denial later that year: “We have not, as Secretary Laird has previously said, ever engaged in weather modification activities in Northern Vietnam.”
At the same hearing, the Deputy Director of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency had similar difficulties. Asked by Senator Pell if rainmaking projects had been approved by Laos and Thailand, Philip Farley replied: “I don’t wish even to admit, sir, that there were such projects.” 
International Ban on Weather Warfare and (some) transparency in Weather Modification
As a result of the weather warfare over Vietnam and the lies told by top brass at the U.S. military during Congressional testimony, an international ban on weather warfare was drafted and signed in 1978 and numerous weather modification reporting laws were passed in the United States of America.
Weather Modification Reporting Act of 1972 – Public Law 92-205 “AN ACT To provide for the reporting of weather modification activities to the Federal Government”  15 CFR Part 908 — “Maintaining Records and Submitting Reports on Weather Modification Activities”  – NOAA reporting forms 
National Weather Modification Policy Act of 1976 – Public Law 94-490 “AN ACT To authorize and direct tlie Secretary of Commerce to develop a national policy on weather modification, and for other purposes”  15 U.S. Code Chapter 9A – “Weather Modification Activities or Attempts; Reporting Requirement” 
In addition, Congress ordered a full accounting of weather modification activities across the United States of America.
Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy, and Potential – Prepared at the Request of Hon. Howard W. Cannon, Chairman Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate 
Summary of Weather Modification Activities Reported in 1979, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Research and Development ’
Cloud seeding went from invention, to nationwide experimentation, and finally weaponization in less than thirty years.”
While they manipulate the weather to support the global warming, or climate change false narratives, they are also establishing trillion dollar industries that would reduce carbon emissions, on top of the the carbon taxes floated before, all purposely to siphon funds from UN member countries into their pockets.
Heck, it’s why EDF, Engie, Air France, Renault, BNP Paribas and a host of other oiligarch companies footed 20% of the bill for the Paris conference itself (and why the French government bent over backwards to point out their “green” credentials).
Take just one structural element of the climate swindle: the Green Climate Fund. Never heard of it? Hardly surprising. It’s just the facility through which the UN is expected to be clearing $100 billion in climate funding per year by the end of the decade. That’s right: $100 billion per year. Every year.
The Fund was established at the 2010 edition of the UN Climate Conference (COP16) in Mexico in order “to support concrete mitigation actions by developing countries that are implemented in a transparent way,” which is UN Newspeak for “create a bottomless trough of pork for corrupt kleptocrats, bureaucrats, kakistocrats and tyrants to siphon off before funneling some loose change into some makework projects.”
And it brags that it represents “a new and equitable form of global governance to respond to the global challenge of climate change” which you hardly need the globalist decoder to figure out.
The Fund is headquartered in the Songdo Business District of Incheon, South Korea, because the Korean Secretary-General of the UN and the Korean President of the World Bank probably just threw darts at a map (since, as we all know, blatant political nepotism never happens at those institutions).
Even the Fund’s biggest supporters are criticizing the “transparent way” it is handling its first disbursement. The Fund claims it consulted indigenous communities before approving $6.2 million for a Peruvian wetlands resilience programme, but there is no verification that this ever took place. Worse, details of the projects it has decided to fund so far have not been publicly released, only proposal documents (and in two cases, only a summary).
But for those who still believe this money is being handled by angels with nothing but the best interests of humanity in mind, note this passage from the Nature article on the Fund’s shadiness:
“For some, another contentious issue is that the GCF is flowing its money mainly through international organizations, such as multilateral or private banks such as the World Bank and Deutsche Bank — rather than sending it directly to institutions in developing countries where the projects are taking place.”
For some? You mean, for people with their head screwed on straight?
Oh, and the kicker? The Fund’s Executive Director just happens to be an ex-Citibank investment banker. Who woulda thunk it?
Yes, the global climate swindle is well under way, brought to you by the same trustworthy folks in the banking industry and in the Fortune 500 / CFR / globalist jetset who have been steering us into the happy economic, political and environmental conditions that we enjoy today…”
Not only that they’ll gain considerable “liquidity,” but also justify the need to reduce the population, the number one source of carbon emissions according to vaccine advocate Bill Gates.
All is well and good in Kleptoland until the non-aligned nations on Earth, together with the BRICS Collective, started planning for the systematic downfall of the Bilderbergers, by moving away from fiat dollar, among other strategic covert measures now forcing the Western Oligarchy to sit on the table with Russia about the Syrian issue, and the successful conclusion of the Iran Nuclear Deal.
This is the cause why those who have expressed commitment to the Paris Climate Conference last year are not about to put substance to the “save the planet” rhetoric yet.
“If there’s any bright spot in all of this it’s that so far the Fund has only managed to raise just over $10 billion in pledges from the developed countries. And even that is an inflated number which includes the $3 billion which Obama made a big show of pledging in 2014 but so far hasn’t actually delivered. It’s a long way to go to get to that $100 billion/year mark they’re hoping to reach by 2020.
Don’t feel too sorry for the globalists, though. Their game is a war of attrition, and as long as people continue to buy into the narrative that all of this money is going to help the poor and downtrodden (by way of the UN and the World Bank and their corporate crony Wall Street financial institutions) then it’s only a matter of time before this thin edge of climate cronyism turns into the full wedge of global kleptocracy.”
They are now waiting for the unfolding of something big, hopefully within the next quarter, or the second half of this year.
The recent defeat of the Rothschild Khazarian Mafia in the Middle East, the global crime syndicate that controlled world finance and corporate governments around the world for the last 80 years, or so, has also crippled its ability to control the “climate change” narrative as the coercion factor dissipates.
Although, there’s still a lot of work to be done before the formal announcement of the global reset, it’s still good to know that we are now moving towards a more positive future for humanity.
One of the suppressed technologies that will soon be released has to do with longevity.
We’ve been here before. Countless archaeological evidences are showing we have undergone so many cycles of decays and repopulations, because we have never learned yet that passivity, too, is a disease which needs to be cured.
Never forget that the enemy still has access to weather weapons, and carbon is not the culprit, but an essential component of life on this planet.
We can mitigate the effects of any chemicals and neutralized all types of parasites without using highly toxic drugs and expensive procedures, but only with a very simple and complete protocol that defeats all known and unknown diseases for good, without any long-term side-effects. Find more about it here.
Hollywood Sci-Fi Filmmakers Tapped To Dramatize Fictional Climate Change To Scare Everybody Into Voting For Climate Totalitarians August 26 2016 | From: NaturalNews
I'm almost rolling with laughter watching all this unfold: Because democrats refuse to face the real threats facing America - Islamic terrorism, debt spending, illegal immigration and job-crushing federal mandates like Obamacare - they have to invent their own fake emergencies to try to win the votes of people who don't have any clue about the real world.
So-called "climate change" - previously known as "global warming" but renamed after the data revealed no warming trend at all - is entirely rooted in false mythologies, official narratives and creative storytelling.
That's precisely why democrats had to hire James Cameron, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sigourney Weaver to present a climate change scary in a new short film. These are the very same people whose films depict time-traveling Terminator robots, interplanetary aliens with green acid blood, and poltergeists that could be captured with vacuum cleaners (the original "Ghostbusters" movie... the one that didn't suck).
If you believe in time-traveling robots from the future, you might also believe in the climate change narrative, too.
That narrative is based entirely on ridiculous, absurd, make-believe notions such as:
The hilariously ignorant idea that polar bears can't swim (or even that their numbers are plummeting). In truth, polar bears are champion swimmers, and their population numbers are on the rise.
The scientifically illiterate notion that carbon dioxide is bad for the planet. In reality, it's the No. 1 nutrient source of all forests, food crops, herbal plants and green zones across the planet. CO2 reforests deserts and amplifies food production.
It's also impossible for humans alone to raise CO2 levels much at all for the simple reason that plants are starving for it and keep consuming it as fast as we can make it. (This is Botany Science 101.)
The laughably anti-science narrative that says oceans are going to rise so quickly, they'll drown out coastal cities and devastate human civilization. In reality, even during warming periods of Earth's history, oceans barely creep up at the pace of only about 1-2mm per year. That's about 1-2 DECADES for a single inch of ocean level rise. (Yep, not exactly the tidal wave apocalypse depicted in climate change scare films, is it?)
There is no man made climate change
You have hopefully realized by now that everything the democrats invoke in their political campaigning is based on lies. Man made climate change is a cult science myth rooted in a convenient political narrative, not scientific facts.
That's why their climate change scare film had to be made: to stir up the imagination of climate change and make it seem visually real even though it is scientifically false. It sort of reminds me of the original "Reefer Madness" film which was also created as a propaganda political film to scare people away from medical marijuana.
That film was also based on quack science hysteria, just like the climate change films being made today.
Yep, you heard me right: There is no legitimate scientific evidence whatsoever to support their climate change narrative. The data that have been presented to the public are all "corrected" (i.e. fraudulent altered) to artificially insert new "data points" that fit the political narrative we're all being spoon fed by the corrupt democrats.
Remember: The climate changing pushing politicians are all exactly the same people who lie to us all about vaccines, GMOs, fluoride, government debt and antidepressant drugs.
Why on Earth would anyone believe they are magically and selectively telling the truth only about climate change when we all know they are constantly lying about everything else?
The pro climate change position is truly just climate superstition masquerading as science. It should be obvious at this point, but everything the democratic establishment insists is TRUE is almost certainly FALSE.
It states, "Climate alarmists are no different from 16th century Europeans who burned 15,000 witches for 'cooking the weather.' They observe ordinary events, and convince themselves that it is unprecedented and somebody's fault."
"Planetary temperatures have remained largely stable throughout the past several decades, according to new data released by the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite.
Mean temperatures gauged across multiple measurement platforms including GISS, HadCRUt4, NCDC, UAH and RSS definitively show that the planet has not been warming for nearly 18 years, taking the wind out of the sails of the global warming fallacy.”
"The US government's Global Historical Climate Network reversed the results of temperature recordings to suggest that the temperature was rising through 60 years of research. These recordings were amplified by two official surface records.
The Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Climate Data Center amplified surface records to estimate temperatures across entire regions of the Earth where temperatures aren't even recorded. By falsifying records and then amplifying the data, these large data centers misrepresented temperatures records across an entire region of the earth.”
"Now, in what might be the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered, NASA and the NOAA have been caught red-handed altering historical temperature data to produce a "climate change narrative" that defies reality.
We now know that historical temperature data for the continental United States were deliberately altered by NASA and NOAA scientists in a politically-motivated attempt to rewrite history and claim global warming is causing U.S. temperatures to trend upward.
The data actually show that we are in a cooling trend, not a warming trend (see charts below).
This story is starting to break worldwide right now across the media, with The Telegraph now reporting, "NOAA's US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been 'adjusting' its record by replacing real temperatures with data 'fabricated' by computer models."
Because the actual historical temperature record doesn't fit the frenzied, doomsday narrative of global warming being fronted today on the political stage, the data were simply altered using "computer models" and then published as fact.”
1) There is no 97% consensus of scientists. In a 2013 survey of the professional members of the American Meteorological Society, only 52% believed that global warming was primarily man-made – much less dangerous. No group in the survey came anywhere close to reaching 97%.
2) Heatwaves are not getting worse. According to the EPA, the worst heatwaves in the US (by far) occurred during the 1930's - when the Midwest commonly saw temperatures over 110 degrees, and as high as 120 degrees.
3) Droughts are not getting worse. According to NOAA, the US has been getting steadily wetter over the past century. In the 1930's, drought covered 80% of the US, as poignantly described by John Steinbeck in "The Grapes of Wrath."
4)Scientists say that California has had much more severe droughts in the past, lasting as long as 200 years. The past 100 years was the wettest century on record in California.
5) Hurricanes are not getting worse. The US is experiencing a record quiet period for hurricanes.
6) According to the Danish Meteorological Institute, the Arctic Ocean is full of thick ice. There is more ice on the Russian side than there has been in years, and a group of global warming sailors are currently blocked by impenetrable ice in the Northeast Passage.
7) Polar Bear populations are not decreasing. (They are steadily rising, year after year.)
8) Sea level has been rising for 20,000 years, since the end of the last ice age. Most of that time much faster than now. It has nothing to do with humans.
9) According to NOAA, sea level is only rising 1.7 to 1.8 mm/year. At that rate, it will take thousands of years for Manhattan to drown.
10) According to NOAA, sea level at Manhattan has been rising at about the same rate (2.8 mm/year) since the 1850's. There is no indication that humans are affecting the rate of sea level rise.
11) Glaciers have been melting for a very long time. In 1879, John Muir (founder of the Sierra Club) found that Alaska's largest glacier had retreated 48 miles since 1794. Twenty thousand years ago, Chicago was buried under a mile of glacial ice.
12) Forest fires are not getting worse over the long term. According to USDA, the US had five times as much burn acreage in the 1930's as we do now. The New York Times confirmed this.
13) Climate models have failed, and greatly over-predict warming.
14) Our most accurate systems for measuring global temperature, satellites, show that this year is no warmer than 1998.
15) NASA shows that global surface temperatures have fallen 0.54 degrees C over the last four months. The largest drop on record in such a short time.
Sites to visit where you can get educated about climate change:
Junk Science Week: Science Is On The Verge Af A Nervous Breakdown July 4 2016 | From: TheFinancialPost
Welcome to FP Comment’s 18th annual Junk Science Week, dedicated to exposing the scientists, NGOs, activists, politicians, journalists, media outlets, cranks and quacks who manipulate science data to achieve their objectives.
Our standard definition over the years has been this: junk science occurs when scientific facts are distorted, risk is exaggerated and the science adapted and warped by politics and ideology to serve another agenda.
Much of our content over the past 18 years has focused less on science itself and more on the NGOs, politicians and others who have found it convenient to use and abuse science as a springboard to political action.
It is easy, perhaps too easy, to follow the empty-headed foibles of a media culture that mindlessly recycles reports that bacon may cause heart disease or that cell phones cause cancer. Less easy is dealing with the much bigger problem: the break down of science itself.
In The Guardian last week, Jerome Ravetz, considered one of the world’s leading philosophers of science, reviewed what he and many others describe as “the crisis in science.” Ravetz, who has been warning of the emerging internal conflicts in science for decades, sees the crisis is spreading to the general public.
"Given the public awareness that science can be low-quality or corrupted, that whole fields can be misdirected for decades (see nutrition, on cholesterol and sugar), and that some basic fields must progress in the absence of any prospect of empirical testing (string theory), the naïve realism of previous generations becomes quite Medieval in its irrelevance to present realities.”
Present reality is that science is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. That’s the not-so-tongue-in-cheek message in Science on the Verge, a new book by European scientist Andrea Saltelli and seven other contributors. Science on the Verge is a 200-page indictment of what to the lay reader appears to be a monumental deterioration across all fields, from climate science to health research to economics.
The mere idea that “most published research results are false” should be cause for alarm.
But it is worse than that. The crisis runs through just about everything we take for granted in modern science, from the use of big data to computer models of major parts of our social, economic and natural environment and on to the often absurd uses of statistical methods to fish for predetermined conclusions.
Examples from the book help prove the point. In a chapter titled “Numbers Running Wild,” one of the book’s authors, Jeroen P. van der Sluijs of the University of Bergen, asks how is it possible for a paper in Science magazine to claim that precisely 7.9 per cent (not eight per cent or seven per cent) of the world’s species would become extinct as a result of climate change - when the total number of species is unknown?
Even odder, the species study concluded that the 7.9 per cent demonstrates:
"“The importance of rapid implementation of technologies to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and strategies for carbon sequestration.”
How, asks van de Sluijs, do the researchers jump from species extinction to carbon sequestration?
"This sounds like an opinion for which the underlying arguments are not even given.”
Others examples come from economics, a science filled with unwarranted claims to certainty and predictability. Science on the Verge recalls Nobel economist Robert Lucas’s 2003 declaration that the -
"Central problem of depression-prevention has been solved.”
Also noted is the 2004 claim by former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke that the volatility of business cycles had been tamed.
These and other economic blunders lead critics to suspect the discipline of economics:
"Had reverted to (or never developed beyond) a state of immaturity.”
Few fields and practices are exempt from scrutiny in Science on the Verge. In a chapter on evidence-based science, Andrea Saltelli - also at the University of Bergen - spreads the net wide:
"It is futile to expect, for example, that modelling approaches which have failed to predict a purely financial and economic crisis will be able to inform us accurately about the behaviour of a system involving institutions, societies, economies and ecologies.
Yet this is what we do when we apply the technique of cost – benefit analysis (CBA) to dimensions of climate change”
This kind of quantitative approach to complex systems, says Saltelli, “can only foster abuse and corruption.”
It would be wrong to suspect that Science on the Verge is the work of right-wing activists, climate skeptics and hide-bound traditionalists.
It is the work, rather, of scientists with a range of ideological views despairing over what appears to be a fundamental breakdown as science has become more and more enmeshed in the business of providing evidence for policy-making.
Science, in short, has already been corrupted. We explore just some of the examples in this year’s Junk Science Week, including the GDP factory myth, sugar scares, the social cost of carbon, the last pesticide Roundup, killer lipstick, and our annual Rubber Duckies awards.
The Royal Society of New Zealand has released a study claiming that, in the next
hundred years, New Zealand sea levels will surely rise by 0.3m and 1m is possible. It
strongly recommends that we should be taking action now to deal with this.
The RoyalSociety claim does not stand up to close examination.
First, the rise in sea level and New Zealand coast has been about 0.14 m over the last 100 years with no sign of a recent increase in the rate.
There is no solid evidence to indicate that this steady rate will increase rapidly in the future. The Royal Society's claims are based on dubious climate models that predicted that, by now, temperatures would be 0.5° higher than they really are and increasing faster and faster.
When they fed this dubious data into their sea level models, they predicted rapidly increasing sea level rise. How surprising!
A Russian climate model alone makes predictions that match recent temperatures. This model assumes that CO2 makes only a small contribution to global warming. Perhaps it is right!
Secondly, they have ignored the fact that, all around New Zealand the land is rising or falling at different rates. So it is quite wrong to assign a single value of sea level rise to the whole country.
The Royal Society’s conclusions are a serious matter because many Councils are now restricting building close to the sea and putting restrictions on existing houses that have substantially reduced their value.
So what do we really know about sea level rise?
The long-term record is from tide gauges spread around the world. The oldest records date back to the 1890s and the average rise for 225 tide gauges spread around the world is 1.48 mm per year.
These show that, for the majority of sites, the sea level rise since the mid-1990s was less than 2 mm per year.
The Pacific Islands record shows, for instance, that the sea level in Tuvalu has hardly changed since 1992. At the moment, as a result of the current El Niño, Tuvalu sea level is about 100 mm below the level in 1994 - 1997.
According to "Sea level rise –history and consequences” by Douglas there has been noacceleration of the rate of rise during the 20th century.
Data is available is from satellite observations since 1993. These show a rise of about 3.2 mm per year with indications of a recent decline in the rate.
Nobody seems to be able to explain why it is about twice the tide gauge rate. Many “climate scientists” have adopted the dubious practice of substituting satellite for tide gauge readings post 1993 so that they can claim that the rate of rise is increasing.
Predictions of sea level rise from the more realistic of the IPCC computer models range from about 150 mm to 600 mm by 2100. In 2011, NASA’s predictions range from 200 mm to 700 mm.
The Ministry for the Environment and NIWA seem to have used an Australian prediction that cobbled the satellite record onto the tide gauge record and predicts a sea level rise of something like 0.5 m to 0.8 m by 2100.
The Royal Society of New Zealand leads the pack with a projected rise of 0.3 m to 1 m. More than anybody else and much more than the 0.125 m we would expect if sea level rise continued at its present rate!
So there we have it. All the observational evidence indicates that the sea level is likely to rise 0.1 to 0.2 m by 2100.
But the government, the Royal Society and other public bodies ignore this evidence and, instead, choose to believe the predictions of the climate and sea level computer models that have never made an accurate prediction.
On the basis of this dubious evidence they are devaluing coastal properties, preventing development in places where, in all probability, there would be negligible risk for hundreds of years and, on Auckland's north-western motorway at least, spending millions of dollars on extra raising of the existing road to a level far above the likely sea level rise within its lifetime.
So blind belief in flawed computer models overrules the evidence.
Taxpayers and coastal communities bear the cost.
What we need is an independent study by people with open minds and practical experience of the New Zealand coastline and sea level rise rather than a group of academics.
It should be noted that many of these academics have careers devoted to supporting the increasingly dubious hypothesis that man - made carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming that, in turn, causes rapid sea level rise.
However, in the decade since the documentary was produced, its creator has raked in millions of dollars from the entire "global warming" scam, and is now poised to become "Our first carbon billionaire."
In the 2006 film, Gore made a number of wild claims regarding what we could expect to see happening over the next few years due to global warming, but virtually all of his alarmist prognostications have turned out to be false.
Arctic Didn't Melt, Polar Bears are Thriving
For instance, the film predicted that that the Arctic could become ice-free within the next decades, and that polar bears would begin drowning. Both claims were untrue.
As reported by Investor's Business Daily:
"In the mid- to late-2000s, Gore repeatedly predicted that an ice-free Arctic Ocean was coming soon. But as usual, his fortune-telling was wrong. By 2014, Arctic ice had grown thicker and covered a greater area than it did when he made his prediction."
And the polar bears?
The Daily Caller reports:
"A new study by Canadian scientists once again debunks the notion polar bears are currently being harmed by global warming. Researchers with Canada's Lakehead University found 'no evidence' polar bears are currently threatened by warming.""
Kilimanjaro's Snow Hasn't Disappeared
Another prediction made in the film was that Mt. Kilimanjaro would be snow-free "within the decade." But in fact:
"In 2014, ecologists actually monitoring Kilimanjaro's snowpack found it was not even close to being gone. It may have shrunk a little, but ecologists were confident it would be around for the foreseeable future."
In Inconvenient Truth, Gore also forecasted that storms would begin occurring more often and at higher intensities.
Wrong again, Al:
"Gore's claim is more hype than actual science, since storms aren't more extreme since 2006. In fact, not even findings from the United Nations's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) support Gore's claim.
"The IPCC found in 2013 there 'is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.'
The IPCC also found 'no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century' and '[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.'
"Gore should probably take these findings seriously since he shared the Nobel Prize in 2007 with the IPCC for its work on global warming."
Despite False Claims, Gore Grows Richer from Climate Change Myth
Although Gore's claims have been thoroughly debunked by a number of experts, he has been quietly amassing a huge fortune based on the climate change scam.
Mad World News reports:
"Gore's wealth went from $700,000 in 2000 to an estimated net worth of $172.5 million by 2015 thanks to his environmentalist activism. Gore and the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management made nearly $218 million in profits between 2008 and 2011 from a carbon trading company they co-founded. By 2008, Gore was able to put a whopping $35 million into hedge funds and other investments."
Related: The Climate Change Scam
Additionally, in less than a week a documentary entitled "The Climate Hustle" is being released in movie theaters nationwide on May 2nd debunking the notion that humans have caused global warming from the alleged increased CO2 greenhouse effect.
This new film arrives as the answered rebuttal exactly a decade after ex-VP Al Gore's Oscar winning "Inconvenient Truth" pushed the global warming agenda to unprecedented heights.
Gore was rewarded with a Nobel Peace Prize for his propagandist sci-fi movie. Recall his "true planetary emergency" calling for "drastic measures" to reduce the greenhouse gases before "reaching the point of no return" within ten years.
Well, his ten years have come and gone and for all his over-predicting of end-of-the-world crises due to global warming, Gore and his alarmist minions have virtually no evidence of any warming to show for all their doom and gloom catastrophic warnings.
That said, the global warming industry stakes are now worth an annual $1.5 trillion. Yet despite the global elites adapting a climate change agreement, a vast array of critics are blasting their Paris climate accord as merely a $100 billion boondoggle lacking any specific strategies or methods for reducing CO2 levels nor any mandated authority to enforce recommendations hinging on voluntary participation from all nations. Even the father of the global warming movement former NASA climatologist and green activist James Hanson trashes the Paris agreement:
“It's just bullshit for them to say 'we'll have a 2 C. warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.' It's worthless words. There is no actions, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned."
The earth's global warming that Al Gore and his movement attribute to humans burning fossil fuels over the last century has absolutely nothing to do with the global warming presently being observed on every planet in our solar system. Scientists are blaming it on solar warming and the sun's electromagnetic field is becoming more intense.
The fact that solar warming is heating up all the planets strongly suggests that global warming on our planet is not being caused by human activity at all.
Few skeptical scientists on global warming deny that human-generated CO2 does not warm the planet. But the amount of heating caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases has never been scientifically determined and is believed to be miniscule. In contrast, in recent years virtually all of Al Gore's contentions have been refuted and debunked by actual science.
Bill Clinton's Vice President while campaigning for president claimed that he "created the internet" and of course we all know he conveniently stretched the truth on that one. As a lifelong politician raised by another lifelong politician father, his trademark is bending the truth any time he feels the need to impress his audience.
Though Al Gore likes to pass himself off as an altruist out to save the world, as a partner in Kleiner Perkins, a venture capital firm that invested a billion dollars in 40 different companies, Gore and his partners stand to hugely profit from cap and trade laws that would make him the first carbon billionaire.
Back in 2008 Al Gore made the bold prediction that all the ice in the Arctic Sea would be completely melted by 2013-2015. It clearly hasn't. The polar icecap has actually grown thicker in 2015 than it was in 2008. Meanwhile, the climate and ice pack on Antarctica is consistently growing thicker and colder at record levels.
These polar discrepancies stand in direct contradiction to the global warming alarmist's original statements as literally the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how Gore's dire warnings never quite materialize. Hence, in recent years Gore's political camp quietly and seamlessly renamed their all-important cause from global warming which was disproven to a more benign, less disprovable assertion called climate change.
One of Gore's "facts" that acts as his basic premise behind his entire theory is the notion that rising CO2 levels cause global warming. This is not true. What scientists do know is for millions of years the earth has taken turns cyclically shifting back and forth between relative short warming periods compared to longer cooling periods.
During the last 800 years of a typical 5,000 year ice age, it's been determined that temperatures rose before CO2 levels did. This lagging anomaly is a scientific fact that disproves climate change contenders' central tenet that increasing CO2 levels always cause higher temps.
Many scientists maintain that increasing CO2 levels only help to stimulate plant growth since the plant kingdom's fuel is carbon dioxide.
The clichéd quote so often heard by the alarmists claiming a consensus of 97% of all climate scientists maintain that manmade CO2 levels are causing global warming has also been proven wrong. A closer examination has demonstrated that an extremely minute number of research studies wholeheartedly embrace global warming as fact and that the zealot counting the supposed 12,000 abstracts subjectively misclassified the vast majority as being pro-global warming, in fact doctoring the results.
On the other hand, 31,487 scientists(over 9,000 with PhD's) signed a petition confirming that they do not believe that anthropomorphic (human causing) generated CO2 is a valid concern causing any global warming danger. Yet the lies spewing forth from politicized pseudo-science dogma passed all around the world by MSM presstitutes will never admit it.
“Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Now you can see how the recent globalist manufactured migration crisis and the Paris climate accord committing $100 billion to "fighting CO2" fits right in with Strong's mission with billions in carbon tax used to codify world governance laws.
In 1993 an even more glaring admission to misuse global warming to further advance the New World Order agenda was explicitly declared by the Club of Rome, an elitist think tank comprised of scientists, economists, business and political leaders that often serve as UN consultants of which Maurice Strong himself was a onetime member:
“In searching for a 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....
All these dangers are caused by human intervention...
and thus the real enemy, then, is humanity itself...
believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or... one invented for the purpose."
Thus the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was born, opportunistically latching onto the highly bogus 1998 MBH98 study that included grossly flawed methodology as its smoking gun "proving" global warming with the infamous "hockey stick" CO2 spike pattern used by Al Gore in his acclaimed disinfo propaganda flick.
Later researchers debunked the MBH98 findings identifying errors that when corrected to include missing 15th century data showed even higher temperatures than today minus of course any manmade cause back then, thus shattering the myth of human carbon dioxide emissions causing a warmer earth.
Even surface readings over the last decade have failed to deliver the bad news globalists like Gore were literally banking on.
So by default, let's call it climate change and keep hammering away with more lies until they become accepted science dogma.
The often heard climate change narrative readily cites increasing number of hurricanes and tornadoes as the sought after proof that climate change is real. Yet once again reality fails to back up the claims. For the fourth year in a row tornadoes fell under the average with 2015 one of the lowest years on record.
And regarding killer hurricanes, the US is in the longest drought in its recorded history since records began in 1851. The last category 3 hurricane was Wilma that struck Florida over a decade ago. Furthermore, a University of Colorado study released results last year stressing the need for caution in interpreting extreme weather, warning not to succumb to an obvious temptation to attribute every extreme weather event to global warming.
The study concluded that no statistical evidence supports a rise in extreme weather caused directly by global warming or climate change.
In the case of the spike in major earthquakesand active volcanoes (40 now) this year, solar activity, 11-year sun cycles and increased risk of comets and asteroids heading towards the earth are more commonly linked as a potential causal explanation than climate change or global warming.
The presence of profound earth changes appear to be occurring on a global scale, but again these changes may well be part of a larger stellar phenomenon unfolding within our solar system and not due at all to anthropomorphic CO2 levels.
Spraying chemicals has become so pronounced in recent years throughout North America and Europe that in places it has seemingly permanently altered the skyline coloring it a dull whitish grey. A number of heavy toxic metals falling to the ground have been detected including aluminum, barium, strontium, sulfur, all are harmful to human health far more than CO2 emissions.
Yet their destruction and increasingly health hazard to animals, humans as well as vegetation (especially scorched trees) intentionally at hidden taxpayer expense is covertly been perpetrated by US and other Western governments.
For an alternative and in-depth discussion of chemtrails, see these articles:
Temperatures measured at both ground level and lower atmospheric levels are affected by a myriad of factors. Yet the UN agreement and the widespread political dogma masquerading as science that climate change/global warming is indisputably caused by the rise in manmade CO2 levels blindly denies all the other scientifically known factors that influence the planet's temperatures rendering them all inconsequential.
This is totally misleading and downright false. Prevailing global winds, cloud cover, orbital earth changes in tilting of axis, ocean cycles that include growth of microscopic creatures, water vapor, methane gas, volcanic activity, the solar system and the sun all are scientifically-established co-determinants in varying global temps and climate change. It's an extremely complex interplay of dozens of co-occurring variables that cause climate.
Over simplistic analyses based on computer model algorithms insisting that man's CO2 gases are heating up the planet has been coalesced and co-opted into a unifying political agenda pushed by environmental extremism, the Democratic Party and ultimately globalism and its world governance to use global warming as its prime mover and shaker to bring about the long plotted one world government tyranny.
The bottom line reality to virtually everything today is driven by money, power and control. The climate change issue is no different as it has been politicized to where scientific research funding is predicated on only one thing, producing results that the government desires and demands... be it in the US or research sponsored by the UN's IPCC.
Thus, only researchers that produce the numbers supporting the contention that CO2 is causing rising temps get funded. Honest researching scientists who dare investigate the inconvenient truth simply don't get financed. And only the pro-global warming scientists are given a credible voice to disseminate their findings through respected journals and mainstream media outlets.
Like 9/11 truth-ers and vaccine non-believers, dissenting scientists not bought and paid for by big oil or big government, are typically denigrated and dismissed as fringe conspiracy nuts and crackpots. A global warming skeptic is subject to ridicule, career and reputation assault and harassment threatened with RICO litigation.
In other words, science just like mainstream media has become so polluted and prostituted by today's rampant corruption that it no longer is guided by legitimate scientific inquiry and ethically driven investigation for empirical truth... much like Monsanto and Big Pharma control the FDA and EPA to approve harmful drugs without adequate research trials and/or look the other way with egregious earth degradation and pollution.
But then this is the regressive, Orwellian dark age we're now living in when dissenting free speech has systematically become criminalized, when our soldiers sent by our government into harm's way putting their lives on the line come home only to be targeted as the feds' number one enemy - even more so than the ISIS terrorists the treasonous neocons secretly created and continue supporting, and the mob rule mentality of political correctness that now both trumps and tramples on the constitutional First Amendment.
Free intellectual discourse on college campuses has been militantly usurped by angry PC police Nazis acting blindly on emotion to demonize and silence those who dare disagree. If anyone on the planet's feelings are hurt, PC laws prohibiting free speech are being busily erected to put people exercising their criminalized free speech in jail, be they critics of Islam or so called climate change "deniers."
The crime cabal government is now an oligarchic fascist totalitarian police state ushering in yet another reign of terror era where truth itself becomes deep state's enemy. The elite's covert agenda to misuse and debase the educational system and mass media through pervasive social engineering and mind control designed to diabolically dumb down and brainwash multiple generations into robotically operating completely devoid of any capacity for critical thinking and reasoning, absolutely clueless in discerning truth from 24/7 lies, disinformation and propaganda has been a resounding success.
That said, more citizens of the world every single day are ultimately realizing that their own government as the elite's authoritarian thugs is their true enemy merely carrying out eugenics marching orders amounting to human genocide.
Like the sacrificial lambs of the 3,000 Americans murdered by the ruling elite on 9/11, we are all targets for extermination, all but a half billion slaves left alive to service the psychopaths in charge.
Green Climate Fund: Where Big Banks Profit Again from Crisis They Helped Create April 1 2016 | From: CommonDreams Letting big financial institutions manage climate adaptation funds 'would pose serious reputational and moral risk' to global body
"There is no profit to be made in building the resilience of those adversely impacted by climate change," says Sam Ogallah of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance.
As the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the financial mechanism for the UN climate agency, meets this week in South Korea, more than 170 civil society groups are calling on the international body to reject bids from big banks HSBC and Crédit Agricole to receive and manage funds to help poorer nations tackle climate change.
Comment: This is poetry. A farce within a farce. Zombie banks, completely unnecessary fossil fuels and fraudulent man-made climate change (minus the chemtrails) all mixed up into a NWO clusterf*ck.
Given their role in financing climate pollution and their poor records on human and environmental rights, approving the financial giants' applications would run counter to the Fund's goals, the groups say.
"Creating new business for big banks with large fossil fuel portfolios and poor records on human rights and financial scandal would undermine the very purpose of the Fund,"said Karen Orenstein of Friends of the Earth U.S. on Monday.
"There is no profit to be made in building the resilience of those adversely impacted by climate change," added Sam Ogallah of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance.
"Public funds must be used to support local communities in developing countries, not to subsidize big banks."
What's more, "accrediting HSBC and Crédit Agricole would be inconsistent with...the Paris Agreement," said Annaka Peterson of Oxfam, referring to the deal hammered out at the COP21 climate talks.
"Any private sector partner of the GCF must have a credible strategy in place to make its entire portfolio and operations consistent with keeping global temperature rise to no more than 2 °C, let alone well below 1.5 °C."
Friends of the Earth, Pan African Climate Justice Alliance, and Oxfam are just three of 172 NGOs that released a statement (pdf) earlier this month arguing that offering accreditation to HSBC and Crédit Agricole:
"Would pose serious reputational and moral risk to the GCF" due to the banks' historic conduct.
Well-documented involvement in recent money laundering or other fiduciary mismanagement scandals;
Large exposure to the coal industry and other climate polluting sectors; and
Poor-quality policies and weak compliance arrangements meant to manage the social, gender, and environmental impacts of their lending, and consequent harm on-the-ground.
For example, a report from BankTrack has shown that HSBC and Crédit Agricole provided $7 billion and $9.5 billion, respectively, to the coal industry between 2009 and 2014, "and their coal financing does not show a clear downward trend," notes BankTrack's Yann Louvel.
The Fund's board meeting runs Tuesday through Thursday in Songdo, South Korea. GCF executive director Héla Cheikhrouhou told the Thomson Reuters Foundation last week that she will ask for an increase of between 80 and 120 new staff in order to meet its targets. She also said it was too early to say whether the Fund could meet the board's goal to allocate $2.5 billion in 2016.
This isn't the first time the Fund has engendered criticism from climate justice groups or frontline communities, who say developed nations, despite their role in driving global warming, have been slow to pony up the necessary - and just - financing.
Last year, environmental and social justice organizations expressed outrage when the Fund accredited Deutsche Bank, one of the world’s largest financiers of coal, to receive and distribute climate adaptation and mitigation funds.
"We want the Green Climate Fund to succeed," groups wrote at the time. "But for it to do so, it needs to change direction away from accrediting controversial big banks that are heavily invested in fossil fuels and thus actually exacerbating climate change. If the [Green Climate Fund] continues in such a direction, this would reinforce our fears that in the near future we may have to protest an institution we have thus far been supportive of and integral to creating."
Things You Know That Ain't So - Carbon Dioxide Is A Pollutant March 25 2016 | From: BreakingViewsNZ
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency and many environmental groups and governments around the world carbon dioxide is a pollutant that needs to be regulated because it may endanger public health or welfare.
But is it? To most people, “pollutant" is something that we would be better off without. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas that is essential to life on earth.
If the level falls below about 180 ppm plant growth will suffer and, at lower levels, will cease.
So what happens if the level increases? At the time of the dinosaurs carbon dioxide levels were at least five times higher than they are now. Herds of dinosaurs devoured grasses, trees and other plant life that, under the influence of the high levels of carbon dioxide, was growing at a hugely greater rate than it does now.
The high levels of carbon dioxide didn't cause the world to reach a “tipping point" and burn to a crisp. Instead, the high levels produced a world of plenty that could sustain the voracious appetites of huge numbers of enormous creatures.
So we can conclude that insufficient carbon dioxide would end life on earth and, at five times the present concentration, the ecosystem thrived. How can it be a pollutant?
Confirmation of the agriculturally beneficial effects of high levels of carbon dioxide comes from commercial greenhouses that burn large quantities of natural gas to boost the carbon dioxide levels from the current 400 ppm to 900 ppm. As a result, productivity is increased by about 40% without any increase in the amount of water needed.
There is also ample evidence that the increase in carbon dioxide levels has reduced desertification and benefited agriculture worldwide.
The EPA’s claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant is based on its belief that it could cause dangerous global warming.
We now know that this is not true because the world has not warmed as predicted over the last 18 years.
According to the climate model predictions that the EPA relied on, the world should be 0.5° hotter than it is now.
Trillions of dollars have been squandered over the last 20 years subsidising wind and solar power, shutting down modern and clean coal-fired stations whose main emissions were water vapour and carbon dioxide, subsidising electric cars and promoting massively fraudulent carbon trading. This has made no detectable difference to the steady increase in carbon dioxide levels.
Their solution is to squander even more money on the same expensive and futile attempts to limit the emissions of an entirely beneficial gas that has made a major contribution to reducing poverty around the world.
The campaign against coal-fired power generation has increased the price of electricity and, in many countries, limited the access of poor people to an adequate and affordable supply of electricity.
To make the whole thing even more crazy, the same people that oppose coal-fired power generation also oppose nuclear power generation which is carbon dioxide free and is the safest form of power generation in the world.
It is the only technology that can make a big reduction in carbon dioxide emissions at little or no additional cost. Are these people in the pay of the renewable energy industry?
Right now, the New Zealand government is contemplating ways of extending our idiotic Emissions Trading Scheme even though it will make no difference to our carbon dioxide emissions and increase the cost of electricity and transport.
It will increase the cost of electricity from the Huntly coal-fired station and, because of the way our electricity market works, all the renewable energy generators will receive windfall profits.
So if they respond to market signals (as they should), they will be rewarded for shutting down hydro power generation so that Huntly continues to burn coal and keeps the price high. You can't get crazier than that!
Some Of The Biggest Lies Of Science February 11 2016 | From: ActivistTeacher
The maintenance of the hierarchical structures that control our lives depends on Pinter’s “vast tapestry of lies upon which we feed.”
The maintenance of the hierarchical structures that control our lives depends on Pinter’s “vast tapestry of lies upon which we feed.” Therefore the main institutions that embed us into the hierarchy, such as schools, universities, and mass media and entertainment corporations, have a primary function to create and maintain this tapestry. This includes establishment scientists and all service intellectuals in charge of “interpreting” reality.
In fact, the scientists and “experts” define reality in order to bring it into conformation with the always-adapting dominant mental tapestry of the moment.
“[T]he majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power.
To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.”
– Harold Pinter, Nobel Lecture (Literature), 2005
They also invent and build new branches of the tapestry that serve specific power groups by providing new avenues of exploitation. These high priests are rewarded with high class status.
The Money Lie
The economists are a most significant example. It is probably not an accident that in the United States at the end of the nineteenth century the economists were the first professional analysts to be “broken in,” in a battle that defined the limits of academic freedom in universities. The academic system would from that point on impose a strict operational separation between inquiry and theorizing as acceptable and social reform as unacceptable.
Any academic wishing to preserve her position understood what this meant.
As a side product, academics became virtuosos at nurturing a self-image of importance despite this fatal limitation on their societal relevance, with verbiage such as: The truth is our most powerful weapon, the pen is mightier than the sword, a good idea can change the world, reason will take us out of darkness, etc.
So the enterprise of economics became devoted to masking the lie about money. Bad lending practice, price fixing and monopolistic controls were the main threats to the natural justice of a free market, and occurred only as errors in a mostly self-regulating system that could be moderated via adjustments of interest rates and other “safeguards.”
Meanwhile no mainstream economic theory makes any mention of the fact that money itself is created wholesale in a fractional reserve banking system owned by secret private interests given a licence to fabricate and deliver debt that must be paid back (with interest) from the real economy, thereby continuously concentrating ownership and power over all local and regional economies.
The rest of us have to earn money rather than simply fabricate it and we never own more when we die. The middle class either pays rent or a mortgage. Wage slavery is perpetuated and degraded in stable areas and installed in its most vicious varieties in all newly conquered territories.
It is quite remarkable that the largest exploitation scam (private money creation as debt) ever enacted and applied to the entire planet does not figure in economic theories.
Economists are so busy modeling the ups and downs of profits, returns, employment figures, stock values, and the benefits of mergers for mid-level exploiters that they don’t notice their avoidance of the foundational elements. They model the construction schedule while refusing to acknowledge that the terrain is an earthquake zone with vultures circling overhead.
Meanwhile the financiers write and re-write the rules themselves and again this process does not figure in macroeconomic theories. The only human element that economists consider in their “predictive” mathematical models is low-level consumer behaviour, not high-level system manipulation.
Corruption is the norm yet it does not figure. The economies, cultures and infrastructures of nations are wilfully destroyed in order to enslave via new and larger national debts for generations into the future while economists forecast alleged catastrophic consequences of defaulting on these debts…
Management tools for the bosses and smoke and mirrors for the rest of us – thank you expert economists.
The Medicine is Health Lie
We’ve all heard some MD (medical doctor) interviewed on the radio gratuitously make the bold proposal that life expectancy has increased thanks to modern medicine. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Life expectancy has increased in First World countries thanks to a historical absence of civil and territorial wars, better and more accessible food, less work and non-work accidents, and better overall living and working conditions. The single strongest indicator of personal health within and between countries is economy status, irrespective of access to medical technology and pharmaceuticals.
It’s worse than that because medicine actually has a negative impact on health. Medical errors (not counting misattributed deaths from correctly administered “treatments”) are the third leading cause of death in the US, after heart disease and cancer, and there is a large gap between this conservative underestimate in the number of medical error deaths and the fourth leading cause of death.
Since medicine can do little for heart disease and cancer and since medicine has only a small statistical positive impact in the area of trauma interventions, we conclude that public health would increase if all MDs simply disappeared. And think of all the time loss and stress that sick people would save…
One of the most dangerous places in society is the hospital. Medical errors include misdiagnoses, bad prescriptions, prescriptions of medications that should not be combined, unnecessary surgery, unnecessary or badly administered treatments including chemotherapy, radiation treatment, and corrective surgeries.
The lie extends to the myth that MDs anywhere near understand the human body. And this well guarded lie encourages us to put our faith in doctors, thereby opening the door to a well orchestrated profit bonanza for big pharma.
The first thing that Doctors Without Borders (MSF) volunteers need to do in order to contribute significantly in disaster zones is to “forget their medical training” and get to work on the priority tasks at hand: water, food, shelter, and disease propagation prevention; not vaccinating, or operating, or prescribing medication… Public health comes from safety, stability, social justice, and economic buying power, not MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) units and prescription drugs.
These bone heads routinely apply unproven “recommended treatments” and prescribe dangerous drugs for everything from high blood pressure from a sedentary lifestyle and bad nutrition, to apathy at school, to anxiety in public places, to post-adolescence erectile function, to non-conventional sleep patterns, and to all the side effects from the latter drugs.
In professional yet nonetheless remarkable reversals of logic, doctors prescribe drugs to remove symptoms that are risk indicators rather than address the causes of the risks, thereby only adding to the assault on the body.
It’s unbelievable the number that medicine has done on us: Just one more way to keep us stupid (ignorant about our own bodies) and artificially dependent on the control hierarchy. Economically disadvantaged people don’t die from not having access to medical “care” – They die from the life constraints and liabilities directly resulting from poverty. How many MDs have stated this obvious truth on the radio?
Environmental Science Lies
Exploitation via resource extraction, land use expropriation, and wage slavery creation and maintenance are devastating to indigenous populations and to the environment on continental scales. It is therefore vital to cover up the crimes under a veil of expert analysis and policy development diversion. A valued class of service intellectuals here is composed of the environmental scientists and consultants.
Environmental scientists naively and knowingly work hand in hand with finance-corporate shysters, mainstream media, politicians, and state and international bureaucrats to mask real problems and to create profit opportunities for select power elites. Here are notable examples of specific cases.
Freon and Ozone
Do you know of anyone who has been killed by the ozone hole?
The 1987 Montreal Protocol banning chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) is considered a textbook case where science and responsible governance lead to a landmark treaty for the benefit of the Earth and all its inhabitants. How often does that happen?
At about the time that the DuPont patent on Freon(TM), the most widely used CFC refrigerant in the world, was expiring the mainstream media picked up on otherwise arcane scientific observations and hypotheses about ozone concentration in the upper atmosphere near the poles.
There resulted an international mobilization to criminalize CFCs and DuPont developed and patented a replacement refrigerant that was promptly certified for use.
A Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded in 1995 for a laboratory demonstration that CFCs could deplete ozone in simulated atmospheric conditions. In 2007 it was shown that the latter work may have been seriously flawed by overestimating the depletion rate by an order of magnitude, thereby invalidating the proposed mechanism for CFC-driven ozone depletion.
Not to mention that any laboratory experiment is somewhat different from the actual upper atmosphere... Is the Nobel tainted by media and special interest lobbying?
It gets better. It turns out that the Dupont replacement refrigerant is, not surprisingly, not as inert as was Freon. As a result it corrodes refrigerator cycle components at a much faster rate. Where home refrigerators and freezers lasted forever, they now burn out in eight years or so.
This has caused catastrophic increases in major appliance contributions to land fill sites across North America; spurred on by the green propaganda for obscenely efficient electrical consumptions of the new appliances under closed door (zero use) conditions.
In addition, we have been frenzied into avoiding the sun, the UV index keeps our fear of cancer and our dependence on the medical establishment alive, and a new sun block industry a la vampire protection league has been spawned.
And of course star university chemists are looking for that perfect sun block molecule that can be patented by big pharma.
And as soon as it is, I predict a surge in media interviews with skin cancer experts…
Acid Rain on the Boreal Forest
In the seventies it was acid rain. Thousands of scientists from around the world (Northern Hemisphere) studied this “most pressing environmental problem on the planet.” The boreal forest is the largest ecosystem on Earth and its millions of lakes were reportedly being killed by acid from the sky.
Coal burning plants spewed out sulphides into the atmosphere causing the rain to be acidic. The acid rain was postulated to acidify the soils and lakes in the boreal forest but the acidification was virtually impossible to detect. Pristine lakes in the hearts of national parks had to be studied for decades in attempts to detect a statistically significant acidification.
Meanwhile the lakes and their watersheds were being destroyed by the cottage industry, agriculture, forestry, mining, over fishing and tourism. None of the local and regional destruction was studied or exposed. Instead, scientists turned their gaze to distant coal burning plants, atmospheric distribution, and postulated chemical reactions occurring in rain droplets.
One study found that the spawning in aquarium of one fish species was extremely sensitive to acidity (pH). Long treatises about cation charge balance and transport were written and attention was diverted away from the destruction on the ground towards a sanitized problem of atmospheric chemistry that was the result of industrialization and progress rather than being caused by identifiable exploiters.
As a physicist and Earth scientist turned environmental scientist, I personally read virtually every single scientific paper written about acid rain and could not find an example of a demonstrated negative impact on lakes or forests from acid rain.
In my opinion, contrary to the repeated claims of the scientist authors, the research on acid rain demonstrates that acid rain could not possibly have been the problem.
This model of elite-forces-coordinated exploiter whitewashing was to play itself out on an even grander scale only decades later with global warming.
Global Warming as a Threat to Humankind
n 2005 and 2006, several years before the November 2009 Climategate scandal burst the media bubble that buoyed public opinion towards acceptance of carbon credits, cap and trade, and the associated trillion dollar finance bonanza that may still come to pass, I exposed the global warming cooptation scam in an essay that Alexander Cockburn writing in The Nation called "one of the best essays on greenhouse myth-making from a left perspective".
My essay prompted David F. Noble to research the question and write The Corporate Climate Coup to expose how the media embrace followed the finance sector’s realization of the unprecedented potential for revenues that going green could represent.
“I also advance that there are strong societal, institutional, and psychological motivations for having constructed and for continuing to maintain the myth of a global warming dominant threat (global warming myth, for short). I describe these motivations in terms of the workings of the scientific profession and of the global corporate and finance network and its government shadows.”
“I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized.”
Other passages read this way:
“Environmental scientists and government agencies get funding to study and monitor problems that do not threaten corporate and financial interests. It is therefore no surprise that they would attack continental-scale devastation from resource extraction via the CO2 back door. The main drawback with this strategy is that you cannot control a hungry monster by asking it not to shit as much.”
“Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass. Nobody else cares about global warming. Exploited factory workers in the Third World don’t care about global warming. Depleted uranium genetically mutilated children in Iraq don’t care about global warming. Devastated aboriginal populations the world over also can’t relate to global warming, except maybe as representing the only solidarity that we might volunteer.”
“It’s not about limited resources. [“The amount of money spent on pet food in the US and Europe each year equals the additional amount needed to provide basic food and health care for all the people in poor countries, with a sizeable amount left over.”
(UN Human Development Report, 1999)] It’s about exploitation, oppression, racism, power, and greed. Economic, human, and animal justice brings economic sustainability which in turn is always based on renewable practices.
Recognizing the basic rights of native people automatically moderates resource extraction and preserves natural habitats. Not permitting imperialist wars and interventions automatically quenches nation-scale exploitation. True democratic control over monetary policy goes a long way in removing debt-based extortion. Etc.”
And there is a thorough critique of the science as band wagon trumpeting and interested self-deception. Climategate only confirms what should be obvious to any practicing scientist: That science is a mafia when it’s not simply a sleeping pill.
[Recent development (March 2011): Incisive deconstruction of the dominant climate science narrative - here.]
It just goes on and on. What is not a lie?
Look at the recent H1N1 scam – another textbook example. It’s farcical how far these circuses go:
Antiseptic gels in every doorway at the blink of an eye; high school students getting high from drinking the alcohol in the gels; out datedness of the viral strain before the pre-paid vaccine can be mass produced; unproven effectiveness; no requirement to prove effectiveness; government guarantees to corporate manufacturers against client lawsuits; university safety officers teaching students how to cough; etc.
Pure madness. Has something triggered our genetically ingrained First World stupidity reflex? Is this part of our march towards fascism?
Here is another one. Educators promote the lie that we learn because we are taught. This lie of education is squarely denounced by radical educators.
University professors design curricula as though the students actually learn every element that is delivered whereas the truth is that students don’t learn the delivered material and everyone only learns what they learn. One could dramatically change the order in which courses are delivered and it would make no measurable difference in how much students learn.
Students deliver nonsense and professors don’t care. Obedience and indoctrination are all that matter so the only required skill is bluffing. Students know this and those that don’t don’t know what they know, don’t know themselves.
Pick any expert opinion or dominant paradigm: It’s part of a racket.
We can’t know the truth because the truth is brutal.
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims January 3 2015 | From:Forbes
Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming.
After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics.
At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.
Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature.
Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics.
The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming.
The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.
Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.
Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.
Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded;
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper.
The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle.
Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change.
It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”
When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.
"Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,”
Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”
“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.
Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming.
Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded;
"Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity.
i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”
“I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.
To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming.
When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.
Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”
Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”
“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.
“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.
Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming.
By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.
Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate.
Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.
These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.
“All this makes us think that the state of emergency is being used as a way to shut us up,” said Juliette Rousseau, who coordinates a coalition of environmental and social justice groups known as Climat 21.
Pushing The Ongoing Global Geoengineering Insanity
Many claims have been made about the true agenda of this conference, do such claims match available facts? Dichotomous thinking must be abandoned if grounded conclusions are to be reached. Honest objective investigation without bias is essential.
Claim: The major global powers are actually trying to force a legally binding carbon reduction treaty.
Claim: Global geoengineering will be legalized at the Paris conference.
In all previous climate conferences, global climate modification has never been admitted to as an ongoing reality. Thus far, there is no credible information to indicate the Paris meeting will admit to or confirm the geoengineering reality, let alone legalize it.
Claim: Global warming is just a "problem, reaction, solution" scenario that has been manufactured by those in power as a means of producing profits. Also claimed: Global warming does not exist or cannot be verified unless or until climate engineering is halted.
If a person was found injured and unconscious, but the cause or various causes of the injury were not yet known, admitted to, or conclusively confirmed, does that mean the injury doesn't exist in the first place? Wars are most certainly utilized by the power structure to produce massive profits, does that mean wars are not real?
Such lines of thinking are not rational or a factual basis on which to form a conclusion. Though there are countless "disaster capitalists" trying to make all the profit they can from the disintegrating climate system, that does not negate the reality itself.
Many claim that there has been a nearly two decade "pause" in escalating global temperatures. Does front line data support this claim? No.
“Many countries are comfortable with both the term "treaty" and legally binding emissions targets. But this would increase the likelihood that the agreement would have to go to a hostile US Congress for approval, an outcome the Obama administration is keen to avoid.
Veteran observers have long expected that a final deal would need to be worded in a way that satisfied the US, as well as China and other large emerging economies reluctant to take on onerous legal obligations to cut emissions."
Clearly the major global powers (most responsible for the geoengineering juggernaut of destruction) want nothing to do with cutting emissions. Though these powers (like the US, China, and Russia) have well known and well publicized opposing interests, they are all collaborating on the issue of climate engineering.
There can be no legitimate discussion about the state of the climate without first and foremost addressing the geoengineering issue
The planet is not just warming, it is being pushed into total meltdown. Any valid discussion of this fact must include the climate engineering factor. I attended a Global Climate March in Chico, California, on November 28th, the march was put on by the "350.org" group.
Unfortunately, the climate science community and the environmental groups that support them are (with few exceptions) in total denial in regard to the geoengineering elephant in the room. Astoundingly, very few from this group were interested in geoengineering information I and other activists were trying to pass on to them. Bill McKibben is the head of this group. McKibben receives funds from the Rockefeller foundation, what a surprise.
2015 will break that record and 2016 will likely shatter the record yet again. Facts about global warming have nothing to do with Al Gore or carbon credits (both of which are scams). Rather, it is about reality and credibility. Both factors are essential pillars to stand on if the battle to expose and halt climate engineering is to be successful. The planet's former energy balance and equilibrium has been radically altered from countless anthropogenic causes, with geoengineering at the top of the list.
By making every day count in the battle to reach a critical mass of awareness. The human race has decimated the planet in countless ways, climate engineering is the epitome of the insanity and destruction. Make your voice heard for the greater good, all of us are needed in this fight.
Undercover Police Crack Down On Freedom Of Speech Iin Paris
This is amazing. The thin coat of green has come off the COP21 UN Climate Change conference in Paris. And millions are tuning in to see the corporate tyranny for what it is.
Shockingly, undercover police are simply hauling off demonstrators, one after another. Gulag-style. No badges. No arrests.
And it's all on video. Over six million people have watched this so far:
The promotion of 'smart grid' is a prime focus of the conference.
As a friend stated;
"This whole thing reminds me of war and disaster capitalism. Let's scare the people then provide false solutions that will make us billions and give us more control."
Perhaps the COP21 slogan should be GO GREED.
The world is watching - and waking up. Thank you for helping to light the way in truth.
Global Warming HOAX Unravels: Globalist Science Fraud Engineered To Control Humanity, Not Save It
+ Global Warming - The Largest Science Scandal In History
December 8 2015 | From: Natural News / DrSircus / RichardPresser / DavidIcke / RT
The global warming farce being pushed on us by global governments is a science fraud.
The satellite data purported to show a warming "trend" over the last hundred years has been fraudulently altered to show a warming trend where none exists.
What the data really show are an obvious cooling trend over the last hundred years (see below). But because this cooling trend doesn't fit the globalist agenda of enslaving the population under a system of absolute behavioral control, the data had to be altered to fit the government narrative of global warming / climate change.
I used to casually believe the global warming narrative, but when I took a closer look at the data and motivations of those pushing the global warming agenda, it became obvious to me that global warming is a massive scientific hoax being perpetrated for political reasons.
I've just posted a podcast that explains the systemic fraud and deception being carried out by "climate change alarmists" in their effort to enslave all of humanity under globalist regulatory control that would dictate all human activity (including breathing).
In this podcast, shown below, I cover:
The utterly false premise that any government wants to "help the people" or "save the planet." History shows that governments only exist to expand their power, crushing freedom in the process.
The fake media's false narrative and why the mainstream media is nothing more than a puppet for totalitarian government.
Why governments remain totally silent on the real threats to humanity such as Fukushima radiation, mercury in vaccines, fluoride in water, GMOs grown in open field experiments and the total medical fraud of toxic medications such as statin drugs.
Why CO2 is a gift to the planet that can create food abundance and reforestation as CO2 levels rise.
How governments destroy the careers of scientists who aren't willing to perpetuate the global warming hoax.
In what ways global warming "science" mirrors Adolf Hitler's eugenics science from the 1930's.
How satellite temperature data was systematically faked to create the illusion of global warming where none exists.
How "science" has now been almost universally corrupted by corporations and governments, abandoning the very principles of real science.
Global Warming – The Largest Science Scandal In History
Seems like summer just ended in the US. However, already ground frost and wintry snow are gripping large parts of Europe. Parts of northern Maine have already seen their first bout of wintry precipitation in the past few days. The National Weather Service said the 138-day period without a trace of snow in Caribou that began May 24 and ended Oct. 8 was the shortest such period on record for that location.
In Marquette, Michigan, where thermometers dropped to 27°F, about 2.5 inches of snow fell this past weekend. Snow was also experienced in Ohio, Maine, New Hampshire, western New York and northwest Pennsylvania. Even though winter does not officially start until December 22, freeze watches and warnings and frost advisories have been issued from Missouri to Massachusetts, according to the Weather Channel.
It is the middle of October and governments are still insisting that we are living through record warmth and politicians around the world met up again in Paris to see if they can turn the entire human race into carbon slaves.
Reality does not count, as if it ever did to politicians.
The global warming (climate change) story is getting stranger because Nature is not cooperating. It is getting colder. The plan by climate alarmists to have other scientists imprisoned for their ‘global warming’ skepticism is backfiring horribly, and the chief alarmist is now facing a House investigation into what has been called “the largest science scandal in US history.”
What did they expect when they took the outrageous step of asking the White House and Justice Department to use the RICO Act to investigate and prosecute organizations like the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, Competitive Enterprise Institute and Heartland Institute … for the “crime” of “deceiving the American people about the risks of climate change.”
Maurice Strong, the NWO father of anthropogenic global warming and Agenda 21 is dead
Philippe Verdier, someone who does know, because he is weather chief at France Télévisions, the country’s state broadcaster, has just been taken off the air after releasing a book where he accuses leading climatologists and political leaders of having “taken the world hostage” with misleading data.
"The climate models used by alarmist scientists to predict global warming are getting worse, not better; carbon dioxide does far more good than harm; and President Obama has backed the “wrong side” in the war on “climate change,” says one of the world’s greatest theoretical physicists, Dr. Freeman Dyson.
“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”
The poles are cooling, even though scientists say that underwater volcanoes are doing what little warming there is up there, and so is the North Atlantic. Parts of the North Atlantic Ocean saw record cold in the past eight months and this is a problem for Europe.
Thus, England and much of the rest of Europe faces decades or more of savage winters driven by freak changes in global ocean conditions and a weakening of the sun.
Most observers agreed that the lunar eclipse on September 27 was darker than usual. “Little did they know, they were witnessing a sign of global cooling,” says spaceweather.com.
Extraordinary amounts of volcanoes are blowing their tops putting massive amounts of sun blocking materials high up into the atmosphere. Obama and the Pope just pretend this is not happening on the planet they live on.
David Icke talks about The Climate Change Scam, What its really all about? The David Icke Videocast
In Kashmir farmers are worried about early snow and sudden drops of temperature. Snowfall was witnessed in Kailash mountain range, Asha Pati, Seoj Dhar, Chattar Gali in the upper reaches of Bhadarwah town, leading to a sudden drop in temperature and forcing people to wear warm clothes to protect themselves from chilly winds, an official said.
"Our maize and paddy crop is still in the fields and the sudden drop in temperature will spoil the crop,” said Mohammad Hanif Butt, a resident of Sharekhi village.
In New Zealand, the thermometer dropped to -3.1°C on August 11, the King Country town’sthird lowest temperature in the 56 years records have been kept. Air temperature was the third coldest on record, averaging 8°C, though 2.7°C was the average minimum temperature.
In a post-entitled “Quick Note to the Pope,” meteorologist Joe Bastardi asks the Pope to look at the factual record of CO2 and temperature in the geological history of the earth.
When you look at this chart, you can easily see that there is no apparent linkage between CO2 and temperature but that will not stop president Obama or anyone in the global warming mob from continuing to toot their warming disaster horns.
“The (IPCC) has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times,” writes Dr. David Evans. Perth electrical engineer Evans has discovered a mistake in mathematical calculations that may change everything about the climate debate.
"Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control,” says Evans who has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
This is of course very important. Sen. Cruz tells us that the Obama administrations new global warming regulations could cost up to 10 million jobs and impose massive costs on American consumers… including millions of African Americans and Hispanics.
In addition, people are being mislead and instead of preparing for increasing cold, which is much more dangerous to health, they have everyone believing that it is getting warmer when it is not.
"Our way of life faces a huge threat in the next couple of months. Totalitarians of all complexions are hoping to seize an opportunity in Paris to sneakily create the legal and political chains to turn the free democracies into a little soviet cogs in a suffocating UN-controlled world,” says Viv Forbes.
Britain is possibly facing the ‘longest winter in 50 years’ as Siberian swan arrives early. These birds know something many scientists and politicians do not.
Ice in Northwest Passage still too thick ice for regular shipping as of the end of September and that is quite funny considering that according to NOAA we just suffered through the warmest year in recent history.
Despite “climate change,” sea ice in the Northwest Passage (NWP) remains too thick and treacherous for it to be a regular commercial Arctic shipping route for many decades, according to new research out of York University.
Though we are hearing constant reports of ice melting and oceans rising the truth is Arctic sea ice extent is now higher than 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2011.
Ted Maksym, an oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, conducted a study in which he sent an underwater robot into the depths of the Antarctic sea to measure the ice. His results contradicted previous assumptions made by scientists and showed that the ice is actually much thicker than has been predicted over the last 20 years.
President Obama and many others like him are con men selling the world on a fabrication that depends on ignoring the hard reality that the sun is the center of our solar system and the giver of life and warmth on our world.
A study from Lund University in Sweden last year reconstructed solar activity during the last ice age.
Scientists concluded the sun influences climate. It is an obvious conclusion.
The study showed that changes in solar activity are nothing new and that solar activity influences the climate.
Scientists, the real ones that are still around, are telling us about serious decreases of solar radiation that is going to put a big chill here on earth. It is already happening and it is going to get worse, much worse, meaning much colder.
Years ago, Dr. Bruce West, with the Army Research Office, argued that;
"Changes in the earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to … the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles."
This makes perfect sense whereas screaming about the dangers of carbon dioxide while ignoring the central role of solar activity is perfectly planned hysterics.
"I’ve been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I’ve never seen anything quite like this," says Dr. Richard Harrison, head of space physics at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire.
"If you want to go back to see when the Sun was this inactive… you’ve got to go back about 100 years," he says.
This is just the beginning of a deep freeze. Anyone who says otherwise is lying and consumed with their own egos that are bigger than the sun.
We Need An Economic System Change Summit, Not A “Climate Change” MeetUp December 7 2015 | From: Geopolitics
This week, 150 world leaders are kidding themselves by speaking and listening to themselves about how they can change the climate of the planet as if it is independent from the solar system climate.
They have falsely equated the amount of carbon emissions to the rising global temperature of the planet, and yet their travel to Paris alone is contributing hugely to the amount of carbon emissions they sought to lessen.
That’s not the only hypocrisy we can point out from these clowns.
The continued suppression of non-fossil fuel technologies, e.g. cold fusion, in favor of the more expensive solar and wind farms is proof enough that the ongoing climate change summit is not held to solve the problem they have imagined but only to socialize with their fellow psychopaths.
The release of cold fusion and other suppressed free energy technologies require a change of the economic system into one that is resource-based and anti-pyramidal structure in our society. These morons are not about to step down from their grand delusions.
Merkel spoke of decarbonization “by the end of the century” when they are all dead.
Obama advertised his government’s desire to helping poorer countries achieve “low carbon” with $50 million budget, when what the Third World wants is non-interference from the United States.
Xi shifted from “China carbon emissions to last at the end of the century” to “China carbon emissions will peak in 2030 at the latest”.
To China’s credit, of course, they are already mass producing and selling HHO generators to fuel internal combustion engines. But even so, China raised the orange “hazardous” alarm as smog levels are at its worst.
Why can’t China go all the way from fossil fuel to hydrogen economy right now?
It’s not for lack of political will but it has to do more of the world outside of China not being ready yet to transition from the old monopolistic enterprise into a new form of economic system where the people enjoys far more freedom that they currently have.
The ongoing “oil wars” in the Middle East is just one proof of that.
Shonkey in the background there
China doesn’t want more nukes dropped on its economic centers. In fact, it could be deliberately raising the air pollution bar to literally coerce the Climate Change Summit attendees to institute a realistic program that is not anchored merely on depopulation agenda, i.e. China has officially abandoned its decades old One-Child Policy.
Not only that the global warming is a natural cyclical phenomenon, some G7 countries do possess the machine to alter the weather at will, and it is highly probable they are responsible for erratic weather patterns, or the persistent warming on one location only.
The technologies that can solve air pollution can also solve the people’s economic stagnation, but will effectively stave off the power of the Corporation, the majority of CEOs attending the Climate Change Summit in Paris don’t want to do that.
"Taken together, they commit the world to a reduction in fossil fuel demand by 30pc to 40pc over the next 20 years, and this is just the start of a revolutionary shift to net zero emissions by 2080 or thereabouts. “It is unstoppable. No amount of lobbying at this point is going to change the direction,” said Christiana Figueres, the UN’s top climate official.
"Yet the energy industry is still banking on ever-rising demand for its products as if nothing has changed. BP is projecting a 43pc increase in fossil fuel use by 2035, Exxon expects 35pc by 2040, Shell 43pc and OPEC is clinging valiantly to 55pc. These are pure fiction.”
Yes, they are still debating on mere a pittance of reducing air pollution when it can be resolved to safe levels that nature’s vegetation can accommodate almost overnight, but the urge to profit is so hard to overcome.
That is the humongous conundrum the people of the planet is facing right now, and it would take no less than a people’s revolution to achieve a total change to a whole new system.
Is the world ready to evolve from being Sheeples to Sovereign Beings?
Withdraw Consent To UN Climate Agreement And Global Warming Campaign
+ The Global Warming Hoax: German Scientist Finds Evidence That NASA Manipulated Climate Data December 6 2015 | From: OurGreaterDestiny / ClimateDepot / DCclothesline
Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit ‘Irrational’ – ‘Based On Nonsense’ – ‘Leading us down a false path’
From Left to Right: Dr. Will Happer, Dr. Richard Lindzen & Dr. Patrick Moore
A team of prominent scientists gathered in Texas today at a climate summit to declare that fears of man-made global warming were “irrational” and “based on nonsense” that “had nothing to do with science.” They warned that “we are being led down a false path” by the UN climate summit in Paris.
Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, derided what he termed climate “catastrophism.”
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen:
"Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.’
Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc. - is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.”
Lindzen also challenged the oft-repeated UN IPCC claim that most of warming over past 50 years was due to mankind.
“People get excited over this. Is this statement alarming? No,” Lindzen stated.
“We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celsius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity – meaning no problem at all,” Lindzen explained.
“I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales! The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree,” he noted.
“When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree,” Lindzen said.
“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree,” he said.
Lindzen also featured 2006 quotes from Scientist Dr. Miike Hulme, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, admitting that claims of a climate catastrophe were not the “language of science.”
“The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science,” Hulme wrote.
“Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?” Hulme continued.
Lindzen singled out Secretary of State John Kerry for his ‘ignorance’ on science.
“John Kerry stands alone,” Lindzen said. “Kerry expresses his ignorance of what science is,” he added.
Lindzen also criticized EPA Chief Gina McCarthy’s education: “I don’t want to be snobbish, but U Mass Boston is not a very good school,” he said to laughter.
Lindzen concluded his talk by saying: “Learn how to identify claims that have no alarming implications and free to say ‘So what?’”
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 “based on nonsense.”
"Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?"
“Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. And it’s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low,” Happer explained.
Happer continued: “CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase.” “More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,” he added.
Happer then showed a picture of polluted air in China with the caption: “Real pollution in Shanghai.”
"Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?"
“Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. And it’s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low,” Happer explained.
Happer continued: “CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase.” “More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,” he added.
“If you can see it, it’s not CO2,” Happer said.
“If plants could vote, they would vote for coal,” Happer declared.
Happer also rebutted the alleged 97% consensus.
“97% of scientists have often been wrong on many things,” he said.
Ecologist and Greenpeace founding member Dr. Patrick Moore discussed the benefits of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
“Let’s celebrate CO2!” Moore declared.
“We know for absolute certain that carbon dioxide is the stuff of life, the foundation for life on earth,” Moore said.
"We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science." he continued.
“The deserts are greening from rising CO2,” he added.
“Co2 has provided the basis of life for at least 3.5 billion years,” Moore said.
Are emissions from our cars, factories, and farms causing catastrophic climate change? Is there a genuine scientific consensus? Or is man-made “global warming” an overheated environmental con job being used to push for drastic government control and a radical “Green” energy agenda?
Climate Hustle will answer these questions, and many more. Produced in the one-of-a-kind entertaining and informative style that has made CFACT and Marc Morano’s award-winning ClimateDepot.com one of the world’s most sought after sources for reliable, hard-to-find facts about climate issues, this groundbreaking film will tear the cover off of global warming hype, and show what’s really behind this multi-billion dollar scam.
Climate Hustle will reveal the history of climate scares, examine the science on both sides of the debate, dig into the politics and media hype surrounding the issue, show how global warming has become a new religion for alarmists, and explain the impacts the warming agenda will have on people in America and around the world.
Say “No” to the UN climate agreement and the global warming campaign
Scientific observations reveal there has been no meaningful global warming since the turn of the millennium and at most a brief and minor warming above scientific baselines during the century past.
The computer models relied upon by the UN have completely failed to explain current temperature trends.
This calls into question the entire theory that carbon dioxide emissions from human activities pose a significant risk to the planet.
Yet the public is daily subjected to tales of catastrophic climate change.
Ruinously expensive energy, adaptation and wealth-redistribution policies are being demanded that will not affect the climate in any meaningful way yet will harm people and nature, and trap poor developing nations in long-term energy poverty.
Scientists and citizens who question or find fault with this global warming campaign are routinely marginalized, slandered, and silenced.
This is not how valid science and policy is conducted.
We the undersigned therefore call upon our government to reject any international agreement put forth by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and to return to policies fostering access to abundant, efficient and affordable energy for people everywhere.
The surgically precise execution and timing of the Paris terror attacks on Friday the 13th have created a fastidiously engineered climate of fear in France and around the globe. It is this perfectly sculpted environment which will be used to intimidate and threaten the attendees of the climate conference to agree to what is essentially a new One World Government
When the publicly available data that was archived in 2010 is compared with the data supplied by NASA in 2012, there is a clear difference between the two. The GISS has been retroactively changing past data to make it appear that the planet is warming, especially after the year 1950.
In reality, the original data shows that the planet has actually been getting colder throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Overall, 10 different statistical methods have been used to change the climate’s trajectory from cooling to warming.
“Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C. …
The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.”
The original data shows 4 cooling phases and 3 warming phases since 1881, and we’re currently in a cooling phase. Since the warming cycles occurred before there was any significant rise in CO2 levels, Ewert concluded that:
“An influence of our CO2 emissions on temperatures can not be seen.”
Though his revelation was first announced at a climate conference in 2012, it is only just now reaching the public’s awareness. However, somehow I doubt that the climate cult is going to change its tune anytime soon.
Good Hearts, Fooled Minds: 4 Fallacies Of The (Hijacked) Environmental Movement November 17 2015 | From: WakeUpWorld
The hijacked environmental movement is a symptom of the current general, collective state of humanity: good hearted but ignorant.
Many people in the environmental movement are in it for the right reasons: they see the ongoing poisoning and destruction of the planet, led by corporations, and are determined to defend and speak out for the Earth. Yet, in spite of their good intentions, they have unwittingly allowed themselves to be channeled in a direction that is not really going to help the Earth, unintentionally supporting the very forces that are responsible for the pillaging of it.
By continuing to push notions that carbon dioxide is a poison, that global warming exists and all of mankind is responsible for it, that we need a worldwide carbon tax and that we require Agenda 21-style global governance, these people are unknowingly promoting the New World Order program – and unwittingly placing elite controllers in power who don’t care about the environment and view it merely as a resource to be exploited.
Welcome to Planet Earth. If your opinion diverges too much from the mainstream, you could get locked up for thinking “wrongly”.
With the current focus being on the outcomes of the recent 2015 UN Summit, the hackneyed buzzword of sustainability is being thrown around like there’s no tomorrow. In this context, it’s worth revisiting how the environmental movement came to be so hijacked and co-opted.
Basis for the Hijack: Conspiracy Reports from The Iron Mountain and The Club of Rome
The basis for the hijacked environment movement lies within formerly secret military reports, and one of the elite Round Table groups that run the world: the Club of Rome.
The Club of Rome meeting in Salzburg in 1972. "The Club of Rome, the prestigious think tank founded in 1968, is for the first time meeting in the Dutch capital Amsterdam. Key guest is former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachov, who is to speak on Monday. Other guests include Queen Beatrix, former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers and Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer.The think tank, which comprises economists, scientists, politicians and business people, meets once a year to discuss environmental pollution, the depletion of natural resources and the growth of the world population." As pointed out by an astute reader, the man fifth from the left is the Prime Minister of Canada - Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliot Trudeau.
I wonder if those who believe in AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) or Manmade Global Warming have any idea that the elite came up with the idea of using mankind itself as the global threat against which we are all supposed to gather behind a One World Government?
The 1966 Report from the Iron Mountain was commissioned by John F. Kennedy and considered by Lyndon B. Johnson as too dangerous to reveal to the public at the time when it was completed. This excerpt from it discusses how a global government could be imposed without war, and suggests the threat could instead be environmental pollution:
“The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power… An effective political substitute for war would require “alternate enemies,” some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system.
It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species.
Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power.
But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis… [however] the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose”.
The Club of Rome’s 1991 document entitled The First Global Revolution? contains this passage:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, 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 their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together …
all these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
Are You Being ‘Green Washed’?
The current environmental movement we see today was hijacked a long time ago. Let’s take a look at the top 4 fallacies the NWO conspirators have managed to get ‘greenies’ to believe.
The Hijacked Environmental Movement Fallacy #1: Carbon Dioxide is a Poison
Let’s start with the basics: carbon dioxide (CO2) is a nutrient, not a poison. We breathe out carbon dioxide every breath, but we also take some of it in on the inbreath. According to the IPCC (Interplanetary Panel on Climate Change), we are therefore poisoning ourselves every breath!
Think about it – if CO2 were really a poison, why does it help plants grow so much?
Why is it a key part of the fundamental equation of biology: sugar + oxygen = carbon dioxide + water + heat?
How is it that those in the environmental movement are ignorant of basic biology?
As the website PlantsNeedCO2.org states, the more CO2 around, the better plants grow:
“In Idso and Idso’s (1994) analysis of soil nutrient limitations, the percentage growth enhancement due to a 300-ppm rise in the air’s CO2 content actually did exhibit a slight (but statistically non-significant) decline, dropping from 51% to 45% when nutrients went from non-growth-limiting to limiting in a group of 70 experiments.
But when the atmospheric CO2 enrichment was 600 ppm, this slight negative trend reversed itself, going from a CO2-induced growth stimulation of 43% when nutrients were present in abundance to a 52% enhancement when their supply was sub-optimal.
And for a 1200-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2, the percentage growth enhancement jumped from 60% when the soil nutrient supply was adequate to 207% when it was less-than-adequate.”
It’s a simple equation: the more CO2 you have, the more the plants like it, and the faster they will grow.
The demonization of carbon dioxide is not about helping the environment.
The NWO idea has always been to attach the worsening condition of the environment to an individual’s energy usage – and even his or her breathing – so as to introduce a carbon tax.The Government literally wants to tax you for breathing – for merely being alive.
The Hijacked Environmental Movement Fallacy #2: The Manmade Global Warming Hoax
That is why the term global warming got changed to climate change – this way, no matter what happens with the weather, the IPCC can say the climate is changing. But climate change is a slick truism – you can’t argue against it. Of course the climate is changing. When has it not changed?
The Hijacked Environmental Movement Fallacy #3: The Carbon Tax and Global Governance as Eco-Solutions
As pointed out above, all this focus on carbon is for one reason: taxation. The whole scheme to get people and corporations fixated on their carbon footprint – rather than how much actual benefit or harm they are doing the environment – is to pave the way for more taxation and centralization of power.
To have a worldwide carbon tax, of course, you need a One World Government to enforce and collect it. The UN, ICLEI and its other subdivisions are constantly talking about global governance for this very reason.
It also means extending the reach of the United Nations so that local bodies such as local councils and municipalities that belong to ICLEI, (the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, created in 1990 as a non-governmental spin-off of the United Nations) can implement its global directives and make it look ‘grassroots’, or like it was locally decided.
For further information on this topic, check out George Hunt’s work in exposing how Evelyn Rothschild and David Rockefeller were cooking up the cap-and-trade scheme in the 1980s. Hunt was present at some of the meetings where the carbon tax was first being discussed.
The Hijacked Environmental Movement Fallacy #4: Overpopulation
Mahatma Gandhi once said: “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.” There is no doubt that rising populations can put a strain on resources, yet where is the proof that the Earth cannot support 7 billion people? Or 9 billion people? Is it really population that is the problem here, or is it rather self-centered greed and destructive environmental practices and technologies?
We can accept the world’s rising population not as a threat or a reason to justify killing (which goes by the euphemism of depopulation) but rather as a challenge. It can propel us into living more from the heart, to having more compassion for those less well off than us, to doing a better job of sharing, of distributing resources equitably.
It can stimulate us into better modes of efficiency. Could the rising population help a critical mass of people awake to the truth of free energy, and the fact that free energy or over unity devices already exist which provide practically unlimited energy for free or very cheaply?
When people gain a higher education, they organically choose to have less kids. If the conspirators really cared about the planet’s population, why not use their money to help everyone access better education? The answer is, of course, that they don’t.
Underpinning the propaganda of overpopulation is eugenics. It’s the idea that some humans are superior to others, and that some humans don’t deserve to be here.
This is really the philosophical and spiritual basis of the hijacking. As they have confessed, the conspirators in their delusions view the rest of the population as a virus that must be rid from the planet. Yet, the real virus is the fear mindset that runs the show in the brains of the elite controllers.
“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
Some of the most powerful and wealthiest environmental organizations have… led the climate movement down various dead ends: carbon trading, carbon offsets, natural gas as a “bridge fuel” - what these policies all held in common is that they created the illusion of progress while allowing the fossil fuel companies to keep mining, drilling and fracking with abandon.
When it comes to our environment, as David Icke says, we need streetwise spirituality.
We need to have our hearts in the right places, but also put our thinking caps on, otherwise we will easily by led astray by tricksters.
Only once the leaders of the environmental movement have their hearts and brains in alignment can we effect real change on the ecosystems of Planet Earth.
Top Scientist Resigns From His Post At The University Of California Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam October 22 2015 | From: YourNewsWire / TheTelegraph Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned from his post at the University of California after admitting that global warming was a big scam, in a shocking resignation letter.
The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emiritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara:
Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence - it was World War II that changed all that.
The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time.
We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.
Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one.
In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original.
The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3.In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation.
I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind - simply to bring the subject into the open.
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.)
There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue.
I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago.
There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.
Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst.
When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
Former member Defense Science Board
Chairman of Technology panel
Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter
Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee
Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group
Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON
Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board
Served in US Navy in WW II
Books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
Al Gore Sued By 30,000 Scientists For Global Warming Fraud October 9 2015 | From: HealthWyze
Environmentalism has been politically linked to alternative medicine for many years, due to the unfortunate pervasive presence of the paganistic religions. It is truly a tragic situation that has impeded alternative medicine in the U.S. perhaps as much as any other factor.
At The Health Wyze Report, we believe that reducing human harm to the planet is a reasonable goal, so long as it is not given precedence over the rights and livelihoods of people.
Increasingly, environmentalists and politicians have exploited the shoddy global warming hypothesis as a method to take away the rights of the people in a draconian manner, and to tax all of us exorbitantly.
In the past few years, there has been massive growth in the amount of people who believe that man is the primary cause of global warming, and that ironically, an ice age is somehow coming. It really is incredible when one steps back to examine the ridiculousness of it all.
The theory of man-made global warming has actually been widely accepted by society. The power elites have told us that the world will come to an end if we do not reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, and lower our output of carbon dioxide (CO2).
Dissenting scientists have been silenced, even as they explained that most CO2 is emitted from the oceans, and that CO2 does not lead to any increases in temperatures.
In fact, the reverse is true. The warming of the earth (due to solar cycles) leads to increases in CO2.
Now, 30,000 scientists, including the founder of The Weather Channel, have come forward to sue Al Gore for fraud. Al Gore has made massive profits in the promotion of the global warming mythology, and he played a key role in getting the 'Cap and Trade' legislation passed. Perhaps this lawsuit will finally give the thousands of 'dissenting' scientists a voice again.
Related: Australian PM's Adviser: Climate Change Is UN-Led Hoax To Create 'New World Order'
“Our clouds take their orders from the stars,” says the Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark. That's the amazing and provocative discovery reported here. Most experts thought the idea was crazy.
The film records ten years of effort by the small team in Copenhagen that, in the end, solved the mystery of how the Galaxy and the Sun interfere in our everyday weather.
[Comment: This documentary presents similar findings to those that have been made by others including David Wilcock; shining a light on the truth that the Cabal have concocted man-made climate change as a method to leverage their fascist control to the extreme. NASA's own data shows that all of the planets in this solar sytem are warming up! Global warming / climate change is NOT man-made, it is a solar-system wide phenomena.]
It's provocative because Dr Svensmark's revelations challenge the belief of most climate theorists that carbon dioxide has been the main driver of global warming. As a result he has faced never-ending opposition.
But strong support for the cosmic view of climate change comes from astronomer Nir Shaviv and geologist Jan Veizer. In the film they tell how the Galaxy has governed the Earth's ever-changing climate over 500 million years.
The Cloud Mystery is aimed at a wide audience. Astonishing pictures from our Galaxy, the Sun, and cloud formations are mixed with spectacular animations to simplify the science. Comments by astronomers, geologists and climate experts convey their sense of adventure, and give scientific weight to the discoveries presented.
The audience is taken on a trip around the world, where scientists from Denmark, Israel, Canada, the USA, and Norway contribute to this exciting story.
Linking all the discoveries is the non-stop rain of cosmic rays – energetic particles from exploded stars that battle with the Sun's magnetic field to reach the Earth. Central in the story is an experiment in a Copenhagen basement. It showed how cosmic rays help to make chemical specks in the air on which water drops condense to make clouds.
The story concludes that clouds are the main driver of climate change on Earth.
The documentary follows Henrik Svensmark in his struggle to find the physical evidence of a celestial climate driver. The film demonstrates that science can be a rough place to be if you are in opposition to the established “truth”.
Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen has produced and directed a number of international acclaimed documentaries. He is the winner of numerous awards including CirCom Regional, Monte Carlo and the Télé Science awards.
A peer reviewed, court admissible scientific evidence of the deliberate annihilation of the global population has been released to the public by a very prominent scientist. This explosive revelation was made through the peer reviewed International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
The days of highly intoxicated pro-chemtrail trolls are officially over.
Coal Fly Ash Used In Chemtrail Aerosols: Geophysicist Produces Conclusive Evidence
Evidence of Toxic Coal-Fly-Ash and Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D.
Peer-Reviewed, Court-Admissible, Scientific Research Paper Published Exposing Geoengineering
Scientific evidence now exists which indicates the presence of “toxic coal combustion fly ash” in the Earth’s atmosphere. The following abstract excerpt comes from a peer-reviewed paper recently published in the August 11th issue of the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health under the title:
“The widespread, intentional and increasingly frequent chemical emplacement in the troposphere has gone unidentified and unremarked in the scientific literature for years.
The author presents evidence that toxic coal combustion fly ash is the most likely aerosolized particulate sprayed by tanker-jets for geoengineering, weather-modification and climate-modification purposes and describes some of the multifold consequences on public health.”
What makes these scientific revelations so explosive is the source - J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D. Not only has the highly experienced and well-regarded scientist utilized rigorous scientific methods to arrive at his firm conclusions, the research paper has been published in a prestigious, peer-reviewed open access journal.
The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health has in fact permitted the publication of many highly consequential research papers over the years. However, this particular scientific study on chemical geoengineering is as serious as it gets. Which begs the question: Just who is J. Marvin Herndon?
Marvin Herndon is no ordinary geophysicist. According to his Wikipedia page he has been dubbed a “maverick geophysicist” by The Washington Post. It is his extraordinarily diverse background, deep and broad knowledge base, as well as unique skill set which distinguishes him from his peers. In order to better know the source of this critical information, regarding the ongoing and nationwide covert geoengineering program, PhD Herndon’s wiki-profile is presented below.
Chemtrails in satellite photography over Wllington, New Zealand.
J. Marvin Herndon (born 1944) is an American interdisciplinary scientist, who earned his BA degree in physics in 1970 from the University of California, San Diego and his Ph.D. degree in nuclear chemistry in 1974 from Texas A&M University. For three years, J. Marvin Herndon was a post-doctoral assistant to Hans Suess and Harold C. Urey in geochemistry and cosmochemistry at the University of California, San Diego.
J. Marvin Herndon
He is the President of Transdyne Corporation in San Diego, California.
He has been profiled in Current Biography, and dubbed a “maverick geophysicist” by The Washington Post.
He is most noted for deducing the composition of the inner core of Earth as being nickel silicide, not partially crystallized nickel-iron metal.
As the energy source and production mechanism for the geomagnetic field and stellar ignition by nuclear fission.
With credentials like these, it will be very difficult for the U.S Federal Government to deny the fact that toxic Coal-Fly-Ash is being systematically used in the now ubiquitous geoengineering program that generates chemtrails on a regular basis around the world.
Dr. Herndon’s exceptionally thorough and authoritative paper goes on to state the following about these toxic and/or poisonous components found in the chemtrail aerosols.
“The consequences on public health are profound, including exposure to a variety of toxic heavy metals, radioactive elements, and neurologically-implicated chemically mobile aluminum released by body moisture in situ after inhalation or through transdermal induction.”
For those who are uninitiated in the science of geoengineering, the preceding excerpt basically intimates that whoever lives, works or plays under chemtrailed skies is exposed to a whole range of chemical contaminants and toxic pollutants.
Therefore, the longer those individuals (read: every resident of the USA) are exposed to such chemtrail aerosols, which eventually fall down to Earth, the more likely they are to be directly involved in this developing public health disaster.
For those who are unaware of the chemtrail phenomenon, please view the following comprehensive photo-doc. Should any questions or concerns arise about chemtrails or chem-clouds, geoengineering programs or chemtrail operations, please watch the videos posted here and here.
Health Concerns and Medical Consequences What is particularly alarming are some of the “Keywords” which are listed in Marvin Herndon’s journal article as follows:
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD)
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD);
There are many other medical ailments and health conditions which are caused and/or exacerbated by chemtrail-disseminated coal fly ash and their other toxic contaminants. There is even a quite common illness that is now well-known as Chemtrail syndrome which is further explained at the link below.
Just what is coal fly ash and what does it contain?
According to the research paper coal fly ash is one of four major byproducts of the industrial coal-burning process.
Here is a more complete breakdown:
Industrial coal burning produces four types of coal combustion residuals (CCRs): fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization product (FGDP), i.e., gypsum. Bottom ash is heavy and settles out; coal fly ash, on the other hand, is comprised of micron and sub-micron particles that would go up the smokestack unless captured and stored. Because of its well-known adverse environmental health effects, Western nations now mandate that coal combustion fly ash is to be captured and stored.
The research paper introduction goes on to explain the “potential environmental health risks” that are associated with the many trace elements which are concentrated in the coal fly ash repository. Some of the more toxic and/or potentially poisonous elements are “arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, thallium, thorium, vanadium and uranium“.
Two Test Methods Were Used That Produced Almost Identical Results
The results of two different test methods, both of which compared the composition of the aerosolized particulates with the known elements from coal fly ash, were not just compelling, they were overwhelming similar. That virtually identical results were arrived at provides an excellent legal basis for class action suits to proceed successfully. Both individuals and families, communities and businesses, which have been injured by ongoing geoengineering operations, now have sufficient scientific evidence to sue the government for both compensatory and punitive damages.
The test results as reported in the abstract are as follows:
“The results show: (1) the assemblage of elements in rainwater and in the corresponding experimental leachate are essentially identical. At a 99% confidence interval, they have identical means (T-test) and identical variances (F-test); and (2) the assemblage of elements in the HEPA dust and in the corresponding average un-leached coal fly ash are likewise essentially identical."
Given the information which has been presented thus far, who in their right mind would not want to immediately get to the very bottom of how this extremely hazardous waste product — Coal Fly Ash — is being SPRAYED IN OUR SKIES ON A DAILY BASIS!
Geoengineering Programs Must Be Terminated; Chemtrails Must Be Stopped
Now many will better understand why so many health advocates and environmental activists within the anti-geoengineering movement believe that the geoengineers are truly mad, clinically insane, certified crazymakers, or all three. Who but mentally incapacitated geoengineers would ever implement such an exceedingly dangerous and destructive atmospheric engineering program? Across the planet, no less!
This toxic/poisonous chemtrail pollution is now constantly permeating the air that we breathe — all of us. The coal fly ash falls on the water bodies and water courses of the world. Coal fly ash now rains on the crops and the orchards and the grain fields below. The coal fly ash descends on the forests and fields, the cities and suburbs. The toxic chemtrail brew ends up on our homes, our lawns, our vehicles and our previously organic gardens.
In light of this ever-worsening predicament, one question emerges. How do we stop this slow-motion genocide?
Michael J. Murphy, Producer/Director of Why in the World are they Spraying? is initiating a class action lawsuit which addresses the damaging effects from the ongoing, worldwide geoengineering programs. He has been informed that a scientific, peer-reviewed research paper on geoengineering process and procedure, aerosols and their chemical composition will have sufficient legal weight in a class action lawsuit. This irrefutable evidence will be presented in Michael’s upcoming documentary An Unconventional Shade of Gray.
A class action lawsuit will surely bring to light many of the facts and figures that Mr. Herndon has meticulously ferreted out and confirmed. Through the legal process of discovery the government agencies, military installations, and corporate contractors, which directly participate in this crime against humanity, will be forced to disclose their many closely-held secrets. The following link provides more information about what a class action lawsuit initiative might look like.
The bottom line here is that “NATIONAL SECURITY” will no longer prove to be an acceptable justification for poisoning the skies of the world. That is exactly what the U.S. government and military will invoke — ‘national security’. They are used to getting their way — every day — over many decades by committing their many crimes against humanity in the interest of ‘national security’. The following article presents firsthand testimony about how well this strategy has served their covert geoengineering programs over decades.
Times have now changed … profoundly. Many are now waking up to the serious medical consequences that Dr. Herndon has identified. When the health of all human, animal and plant life have been placed at great risk, something radical must be done about it. Clearly, the implications of the Herndon study are so vast and grave that the American people must respond appropriately.
For starters, perhaps they ought to consider how to peacefully militate — POST HASTE — against all geoengineering programs which spray chemtrails. Doing so “post haste” is highly recommended because of the current international push to legalize geoengineering as a means of combatting global climate change. Should sky chemtrailing become unlawfully legalized by international treaties or legislation, the challenge of undoing those measures will be formidable. As the following article indicates, the upcoming December 2015 climate conference in Paris is an important milestone in their drive to legitimize geoengineering worldwide.
When scientists like Marvin Herndon risk their careers, their reputations and even their lives in order to reveal the details about highly classified geoengineering programs, it’s time to rally around them and support their efforts.
Marvin’s paper is 1 out of only 2 peer-reviewed scientific research papers ever written about the connection between geoengineering and environmental contamination. He wrote them both. Because they are peer-reviewed, they can be used in a court of law with great effect. They can therefore be used in a class action lawsuit.
Marvin is collaborating with other scientists in an effort to get more tests and peer- reviewed papers out into the public domain. In those future studies they will endeavor to prove the direct correlations between chemtrail contaminations and other diseases/ailments/conditions. Aluminum-related illnesses are of particular interest to these courageous investigators. So are other known toxins and their health complications which are now frequently showing up in human populations everywhere.
This chemical geoengineering exposé is so explosive that it will surely come under all sorts of attack. Ad hominem attacks in the form of baseless claims are usually the first type of criticism to be leveled. In the interest of further solidifying Dr. Herndon’s credentials to expertly investigate chemtrail composition, the following excerpt is offered for the reader’s consideration.
“In 2005 Herndon postulated what he calls whole-earth decompression dynamics, which he describes as a unified theory combining elements of plate tectonics and Earth expansion.
He suggests that Earth formed from a Jupiter-sized gas giant by catastrophic loss of its gaseous atmosphere with subsequent decompression and expansion of the rocky remnant planet resulting in decompression cracks at continental margins which are filled in by basalts from mid-ocean ridges.”
*Coal Ash is a generic term for Coal Combustion Residuals or CCR. Coal Fly Ash, also known as “pulverised fuel ash” is one of the primary residuals generated by coal-fired power plants. Hence, Coal Ash often refers to any of the 4 main hazardous waste products produced by burning coal, including Coal Fly Ash.
The Geoengineer PhDs are especially dangerous and deadly in their doings.
This particular piece deeply penetrates the existing institutional arrangements and pervasive ‘political correctness’ which have created an environment for so many scientists to do things which are relentlessly destroying the biosphere. So many among us have misplaced their trust in exceedingly misguided scientists and their destructive junk science. The aforementioned commentary lays bare how the whole corrupt academic and scientific research system really works. Hence, the unbeliever(s) ignores this crucial info at their peril.
Dr. Herndon has obviously escaped that same system. Not only does he run his own company, he appears to enjoy a high degree of investigative research license. In other words he can investigate serious matters which the system scientists are forbidden from doing. For this reason Marvin Herndon deserves every form of material and spiritual support. Whether it is his stated cause or not, the research mission he has embarked upon is nothing less than saving humankind from certain self-destruction.
After all, what is more essential to life - vital to human existence - than the very air that we breathe … 24/7 … everywhere and anywhere we go?
Nobel Laureate Smashes The Global Warming Hoax August 18 2015 | From: Youtube
Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever's speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015.
Ivar points out the mistakes which Obama makes in his speeches about global warming, and shares other not-well known facts about the state of the climate.
New Paper Suggests No Warming In New Zealand In Past 100 Years July 21 2015 | From: Scoop
New Zealand may not have warmed at all in the past 100 years, according to a peer-reviewed paper published in the international science journal, Environmental Modeling & Assessment.
The paper, “A Reanalysis of Long-Term Surface Air Temperature Trends in New Zealand,” by New Zealand authors, Chris De Freitas, Bob Dedekind and Barry Brill, covering the period 1909-2009, shows an increase of 0.28 degrees C, +/- 0.29 degrees/century; compared with the current official NIWA 7-station (7SS) series showing an increase of nearly 1 degree C.
The government must take this new finding into account in future climate policy development, says Prof Robert M. Carter, a graduate of Otago University and Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand.
Professor Carter explains:
“To place a rate of warming of 0.28 deg. C in context, extensive geological data sets show that rates of temperature change have varied naturally by up to plus and minus 2.5 deg. C/century during the last 10,000 years (i.e., through the interglacial warm period that we currently live in). In other words, pre-historic rates of natural change exceeded the warming in New Zealand over the last century by as much as 10 times."
“Furthermore, the margin for error associated with de Freitas et al.’s warming estimate is plus or minus 0.29 deg. C/century. In other words, statistically, this is indistinguishable from no warming at all in New Zealand over the last 100 years."
“The De Freitas et al. 2015 7SS New Zealand temperature record now being an established and peer-reviewed result surely requires that the Government incorporates it into future climate policy development,” said Professor Carter."
In 1980, Dr M.J. Salinger applied a new statistical technique of homogenisation to the period of New Zealand record between 1853 and 1975, using data from seven geographically spread observing stations. This seven-station series (7SS) showed a rate of warming of about 1 deg. C/century, which figure was subsequently widely factored into climate policy determinations in New Zealand.
In this new paper, the authors have undertaken an updated reanalysis of the 7SS record. They say they have followed strictly the statistical technique pioneered by Salinger (as published in a paper by Rhoades & Salinger in 1993), though incorporating subsequent data corrections identified in the scientific literature, and provide a detailed schedule of the adjustments that were made in their analysis.
Climate Change Is UN-Led Hoax To Create 'New World Order': Australian Prime Minister's Chief Business Adviser May 9 2015 | From: RT
The Australian Prime Minister's chief business adviser says that climate change is a ruse led by the United Nations to create a new world order under the agency's control.
The statement coincided with a visit from the UN's top climate negotiator.
Maurice Newman, chairman of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's business advisory council, said the UN is using false models which show sustained temperature increases because it wants to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule.
"It's a well-kept secret, but 95 percent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error," he wrote in an opinion piece published in The Australian newspaper on Friday, without providing evidence.
"The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook,” he said, adding that the UN is against capitalism and freedom and wants to create a “new world order.”
The adviser's inflammatory comments coincided with a visit from UN climate chief Christiana Figueres.
According to Newman, Figueres is:
"on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming."
Communist China, she says, "is the best model.”
Figueres was in Australia to discuss practical climate change action, urging the country to move away from heavily polluting coal production. She also urged Australia to play a leading role at the climate summit in Paris in December.
But that call is unlikely to be heeded. During November's G20 meeting in Brisbane, Abbott warned that the Paris summit would fail if world leaders decided prioritize the cutting of carbon emissions over economic growth.
Abbott, who called the science behind climate change “crap” in 2009, also repealed a tax on carbon pricing and abolished the independent Climate Commission advisory body in Australia.
The prime minister has been reluctant to take part in climate change politics, trying but failing to keep it off the agenda at last year's G20 summit.
Both Abbott's office and the United Nations have so far declined to comment on Newman's statements.
A well-known climate change skeptic, Newman has made similar provocative comments in the past, calling the notion a “myth” and a “delusion.”
In February, he criticized renewable energy policies. Citing British charity Age UK, he stated that elderly citizens in Britain often die of “winter deaths” because they can't afford power. He blamed renewable energy policies which drive up the price of energy.
However, when asked about his claim by The Guardian, the charity sent back a statement which referenced high energy costs, but failed to mention anything about renewable energy.
Just a few months earlier, in November 2014, Newman cited a Scottish government-commissioned study which allegedly said that for every job in the renewable sector, 3.7 jobs were lost elsewhere.
However, the report itself made no mention that it was commissioned by the government.
In fact, the government called the study “misleading,” adding that the industry would actually have the opposite effect on jobs.
According to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the global mean temperature could rise by up to 4.8° Celsius (40.6° Fahrenheit) this century alone. The prediction is seen as a recipe for droughts, floods and rising seas.
Comment: Aside from all of the post-statement twaddle, it is in the very least interesting to see such matters considered in a public mainstream media outlet. While there are mixed sentiments in the above, a formerly taboo viewpoint has at least been forced into the mainstream.
The Climate Change Industry And The Hoax Of Global Warming May 2 2015 | From: FreedomOutpost
This is not just Amerika - but worldwide. Hundreds of billions have already been spent around the globe on a deliberately manufactured panic.
I am not sure who coined the term "climate change industry," but it is an apt description of the snake oil salesmen who have become billionaires on the unfounded and irrational fear of debunked global warming and of climate change based on manufactured consensus science.
The climate has been changing for millennia in cyclical periods dominated by either unusually cold or unusually hot temperatures.
It is convenient to the promoters of the climate change industry to purposefully confound weather events with climate.
Having declared that the "science is settled," the global warming scaremongering environmentalists are moving on to the next target of limiting our property rights and freedoms via carbon footprint and draconian, coal-industry destructive EPA regulations.
After all, the number one threat to national security has been declared to be climate change.
It is not the crushing, out-of-control debt; it is not the planned and unchecked flood of immigrants into countries around the world, changing the demographics and eliminating sovereignty to the benefit of global elitist control; it is not ISIS beheading Christians and occupying the formerly liberated towns and provinces in Iraq; and it is not Iran, with its nuclear bomb program, threatening to wipe Israel off the map - Israel, our ally, and the only sane patch of reality in the Middle East.
The climate change industry has admitted through a Freudian slip that their agenda of climate change is "disrupting national economies, costing us dearly today and even more tomorrow."
Of course, climate has been changing, and we are in a cooling period now, but truth cannot impede the liberal political advocates' agenda of taxing rich countries more, spreading the wealth, and destroying our economy in the name of protecting the Earth.
The climate change industry has managed to transform a natural phenomenon of climate change into a global disaster that needs to be addressed by bureaucrats through fundamentally changing how we live, what we own, how our economies are run, by carbon footprint taxation, Smart Growth, Green Growth state and local programs around the world, and through weather modification spraying of chemicals into the atmosphere.
This spraying of chemicals (chemtrails) is really affecting the weather and the growing season for agriculture, reducing yield. The climate change industry has become such a religion of environmentalism gone berserk that they are now trying to ban farming.
Electricity costs are going up, smart meters that catch on fire have been installed everywhere in order to control people's energy consumption and in-home ambient temperature, and many electricity generation plants are scheduled to be closed due to draconian EPA regulations.
The government's all-out assault to redress climate change through regulatory planning and financial control is having a serious impact on our economy, the coal industry, the oil industry, and on everybody's lives.
The hypothesis that rich nations caused climate change by burning fossil fuels to produce energy has never been proven by IPCC's computer modeling.
The fact that now the hypothesis changed its name from global warming to climate change in the face of obvious 18 years of global cooling is enough evidence that the purveyors of the industry of climate change are desperate but are not giving up.
There is never a shortage of young, idealistic rioters-for-hire who, for a nominal fee will demonstrate anywhere against global warming, even in Quebec in the snow. Fleecing rich countries with carbon taxes is too lucrative a scam to give up the agenda.
The real reason behind the global warming scare and why the United Nations' alarmists have been driving us into forced submission of environmentalist stewardship is that they want capitalism destroyed and replaced with their vision of a utopian communist economy that has never worked across the centuries.
These progressives have a problem with the Industrial Revolution, with "fossil fuels" (They are not so fossil, since the earth keeps producing them), with the only successful economic model that has provided generous income to all these hot-air spewing, idle bureaucrats, who have nothing better to do than meet in exotic locales planning the destruction of the goose that lays the golden eggs that feed their exorbitant lifestyles, salaries, bonuses, and pensions.
Christina Figueres, Executive Secretary of U.N.'s Convention on Climate Change, disclosed the real reason for the climate change industry when she told us that they are not interested in saving the world from global warming Armageddon, but they want to destroy capitalism:
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution."
The beguiling simplicity of the first sentence of an article in last week’s Dominion Post by Wratt, Reisinger & Renwick (WRR) about the IPCC’s view of climate change masks deep ambiguity and confusion about what precisely the dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) hypothesis is all about.
In that sentence WRR say that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and human influence on the climate system is clear.”
The statement that warming of the climate system is unequivocal; it depends entirely on the time period considered.
For instance, mild global warming occurred between the end of the Little Ice Age (say 1860) and now, and also between 1979 and 1997. However, it is also true that cooling of a degree or two has occurred since the peak of the Mediaeval Warm Period (say 900 AD), and also since the Holocene Climatic Optimum about 8000 years ago.
Planet Earth is therefore clearly on a long-term cooling trend within which the 20th century multi-decadal warmings that the IPCC focuses on represent weather variability and oceanographic-atmospheric oscillations more than they do long-term climate change.
It is also the case that no statistically significant warming has occurred since 1997, an 18 year-long period during which atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increased by 10%. That 10% increase represents fully 30% of all the human-related emissions since the start of the industrial revolution – all for no warming.
Which brings us back to the real hypothesis that we wish to test. It is not, as WRR seem to believe, that “warming of the climate system (is) happening” but specifically that “dangerous global warming will be caused by human-related carbon dioxide emissions”.
Science is about testing hypotheses, and the facts related above are a primary test of the DAGW hypothesis as just stated. The hypothesis fails that, and many other, empirical tests.
In addition, there is another primary hypothesis that WRR have failed to address, which is the simplest hypothesis that explains all the facts – called by scientists the null hypothesis. Given the highly variable nature of both weather and climate through time, the simplest hypothesis is that “observed modern changes in the climate system, or in plants and animals affected by it, are due to natural causes unless and until specific evidence indicates otherwise”.
Neither WRR nor their favoured IPCC scientific sources describe any evidence whatever that invalidates that hypothesis.
WRR’s innocuous first sentence continues “…. human influence on the climate system is clear”.
Well, of course, for we can’t imagine a single scientist who would dispute that statement.
For example, the building of towns and cities alike replaces natural vegetation and land surfaces with industrial materials, thus providing a heat trap for solar radiation and causing the local warming that is termed the urban heat island effect.
Similarly, in the countryside, farmers cut down dark-coloured native vegetation and replace it with light-coloured crops such as wheat. These fields now reflect more incoming solar radiation than did the native forest, which results in local, human-induced cooling.
Adding up the various human warming and cooling influences around the globe must result in a figure that represents the net human effect on global temperature. But the effect is so small that it has yet to be calculated accurately, let alone measured; indeed, we do not even know whether the net human effect worldwide is one of warming or cooling.
The issue then is not one of “is there human influence” on climate, but of “how great is the human influence and is it warming or cooling?”?
As summarised in the reports of both the IPCC and NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), thousands of scientists have expended hundreds of billions of dollars researching this question since 1988 (formation year of the IPCC) without any evidence emerging that the human effect exceeds the natural, random variations above and below the lineal trend-line employed to portray the global temperature signal, or that any of the manifold changes in the natural world around us today are being caused by human-related carbon dioxide emissions.
Given that it has taken us 824 words to dissect and correct just the single opening sentence of the WRR article, readers will appreciate that it would take nearly a book to adequately discuss, and in many instances correct, the remainder of their tendentious article.
For interested readers, we have provided a point by point commentary on the eleven points enumerated by WRR at this web address - http://tinyurl.com/m8e5bag. Here, we conclude by offering just a brief summary statement of the remainder of the WRR article - which is this.
WRR (and the IPCC) present many statements of fact with which we, and many other scientists, agree. In interpreting those facts, however, WRR fail to use them to test the DAGW hypothesis, fail to disprove the null hypothesis, often treat evidence in an anecdotal way, and reveal a partiality for adopting alarmist environmental projections from deterministic computer models that have failed to make correct predictions.
UN Climate Change: 1,000 Scientists Say No September 19 2014 | From: JonRappoport
It’s a shocking 321-page report assembled by The Climate Depot:
"More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.”
It names names. It lists reasons for the dissent.
Reality is engineered consensus. But when that doesn’t work, “experts” just assert there is a consensus when there isn’t.
"What the hell, let’s just say that ‘everybody agrees’ manmade warming is destroying Earth and we have ten minutes to solve it, and let’s get our friends in the press to shut out the naysayers. You know, media blackout.”
Science is supposed to be about evidence and proof, not consensus. But that idea is now laughed out of court. Science is about PR and who sits on the important thrones.
Which is why the UN is holding Climate Summit 2014 in New York in a few days. Yes, the city that never sleeps will be hosting the gala and also kicking off Climate Week NYC 2014.
And then there is this. The UN Secretary General has appointed Leonardo DiCaprio a “messenger of peace, with a special focus on climate change.” Messenger of Peace. Wow. Will Leo appear out of a cloud hovering above the Chrysler Building? Will an angel anoint Leo? Will anybody call the Ghostbusters?
Will Obama show up and read from the teleprompter, “The science is settled, the science is settled…”
Will a CIA drone zoom over Times Square and launch gluten-free electromagnetic love bombs on the adoring crowds?
Will a blimped-out Al Gore waddle into the UN General Assembly hall, trailing fumes from his jet and casting oil leases to a few favored ambassadorial hustlers?
The latest climate science tells us that upcoming freezing weather or boiling hot weather are both reasonable inferences from the basic Climate Change hypothesis. This is, logically speaking, a new brand of tautological “research.” Round and round it goes, inside its bubble.
"Useful predictions? We don’t need no stinkin’ useful predictions. We just need dupes, and we got plenty of them.”
Here are a few excerpts from the boggling Climate Depot report:
“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”
— UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”
— Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the [UN] IPCC.”
— Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.
“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.”
— South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.
“In December 8 2009, 166 scientists from around the world wrote an Open Letter to the UN Secretary-General rebuking the UN and declaring that ‘the science is NOT settled.’”
“On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS [to] revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group’s climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: ‘Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.’”
Consensus on manmade global warming? Are you kidding?
The “consensus” is in favor of something else: staging and maintaining a media blackout to conceal the dissenters, to pretend they don’t exist, to pretend “the science is settled.”
Leo DiCaprio, messenger of peace. We’re living in a cartoon of a cartoon.
The Scandal Of Fiddled Global Warming Data June 25 2014 | From: TheTelegraph
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record.
Comment: But the cooked-up man-made global warming data sure does play into the hands of the cabal. It's just what the Doctor ordered for gaining more power, control and theft of money - forcing the stupid sheeple to pay 'carbon taxes' and such.
A scene from 'The Day After Tomorrow': in reality, officially approved scientists fudge the data
When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster.
But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data.
In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN / GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time.
These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.
Founder Of The Weather Channel On How The Global Warming Scare Began
March 27 2014 | From: ChemtrailsNorth
KUSITV9, 12, March, 2014. A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was Senile and refused to debate. John Coleman documents the entire story and shows how our tax dollars are perpetuating the Global Warming alarmist campaign even though temperatures have not risen in years and years.
This is a presentation by John Coleman, an American TV weatherman and founder of The Weather Channel. He now works as a broadcast meteorologist at KUSITV9 in San Diego. He calls global warming “the greatest scam in history.”
Climatists Must Be Pushed Off The Earth Day Stage 21 March 2012 | From Scoop
Activists need to refocus on known environmental problems
Ottawa, Canada, April 20, 2012: “Climatism, the misguided belief that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are destroying Earth’s climate, has overwhelmed the environmental movement,” said Steve Goreham, Executive Director of the Chicago-based Climate Science Coalition of America (CSCA) and author of Climatism! Science, Common Sense and the 21st century’s Hottest Topic. “If activists want to be taken seriously on Earth Day, then they must divorce themselves from this extreme form of environmentalism and focus only on problems we know to be real.”
Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) which is headquartered in Ottawa, Canada observed, “Climatism is damaging the credibility of the environmental movement and diverting governments, concerned citizens and corporations away from solving important air, land and water pollution challenges. It is no coincidence that, as the weak scientific foundation of the climate scare is revealed, the public’s interest in environmental issues in general is plummeting. For their own credibility, indeed for their survival as a meaningful movement, practical environmentalists must cut climatists loose.”
“Despite the failure of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming, there is a very real climate problem,” said ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University in Queensland, Australia and author of Climate: the Counter Consensus. “It is the risk associated with natural climate phenomena, including short term events such as floods and cyclones, intermediate events such as drought and longer term warming and cooling trends.”
“The great danger posed by current global warming hysteria is that it distracts attention and resources away from development of sound policies of adaptation to the natural climate variations that are a certain part of our future,” explained Carter. “That only 5% of the world’s spending on climate is dedicated to adaptation (ref: October 27, 2011, Climate Policy Initiative report) is a travesty of the first order.”
New Zealand-based Terry Dunleavy, ICSC founding chairman and strategic advisor added, “All sensible people are environmentalists. Besides the affinity most of us feel towards the natural world, we rely on the environment for the security and well-being of our societies. It's important to reduce, re-use and recycle so as to minimize pollution and protect species at risk. Those are the right reasons for Earth Day, not concerns about the forecasts of unverified climate models that have little meaningful connection with the real world.”
Goreham sums up, “The world spent $240 billion reducing our carbon dioxide emissions in 2010 and more than $1 trillion over the last ten years. This means that twice as much is annually spent on “decarbonization” than total global foreign aid, while billions continue to live in poverty, without electricity, proper sanitation or clean drinking water, and millions die each year from disease. The proponents of Earth Day need to reassess their priorities.”
50 Top Astronauts, Scientists Sign Letter Slamming NASA For Promoting Man-Made Climate Change Dogma 28 March 2012 | From InfoWars
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
Humans Are NOT To blame For Global Warming, Says Greenpeace Co-Founder, As He Insists There Is 'No Scientific Proof' Climate Change Is Manmade
February 27 2014 | From: DailyMail
Patrick Moore has poured cold water on manmade global warming theories
The Canadian said that a hotter earth would actually be better for humans
He said that there's 'no actual proof' of manmade global warming
Moore was a member of campaign group Greenpeace for 15 years
There is no scientific proof of man-made global warming and a hotter earth would be ‘beneficial for humans and the majority of other species’, according to a founding member of environmental campaign group Greenpeace.
The assertion was made by Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, a member of Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986, to U.S senators on Tuesday.
He told The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: ‘There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.
If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.’
Moore pointed out that there was an Ice Age 450million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher. He said: ‘It is extremely likely that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.’
Humans, he added, just aren’t capable of predicting global temperature changes.
MIT Professor Exposes Climate Change Hysteria
January 17 2014 | From: StoryLeak
“Global warming, climate change – all these things – are just a dream come true for politicians.The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense” – MIT Professor Richard Lindzen.
A world-renowned climate expert is speaking out against the government’s ridiculous and continued climate change hysteria.
Speaking in regards to Massachusetts’ new $50 million climate change proposal, MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, a leading figure in the climate change movement, pointed out the absurdity of blaming every weather event on global warming and climate change.
“The changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for,” Lindzen told WBZ-TV. “It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with where we live.”
Although supporting the theory of man-made global warming, Lindzen admitted that rhetoric from the political class and green movement has been nothing more than over-the-top “catastrophism.”
“Even many of the people who are supportive of sounding the global warning alarm, back off from catastrophism,” Lindzen said. “It’s the politicians and the green movement that like to portray catastrophe.”
Even more surprising, Lindzen goes on to point out the government’s obvious use of climate change alarmism to push greater state control, even warning over politicians’ use of “crony capitalism.”
“Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,” Lindzen said.
The growing number of failed predictions from alleged global warming experts has only cooled the public’s belief in recent months.
From 2007 to 2009, Al Gore hysterically warned that the North Pole would be completely “ice-free” by 2013. Instead, 2013 experienced record breaking cold and major growth in Arctic ice.
Similarly, Gore made desperate warnings over the danger of increased hurricanes during the same time period. Climate scientists had trouble explaining the record low hurricanes that followed soon after.
In his 1992 book “Earth in the Balance,” Gore went on to claim that global warming would soon wipe coastal areas of Florida off the map in as little as a few decades. Sea level statistics taken 18 years later revealed Gore’s predictions to be completely inaccurate.
White House Science Adviser John P. Holdren, who made failed predictions of global cooling in his 1977 book Ecoscience, blamed the recent “polar vortex” on global warming. Researchers soon uncovered a 1974 Time Magazine article where scientists claimed a cold polar vortex was the result of global cooling instead.
Climate change alarmists have become so crazed in their beliefs that some have attempted to equate skepticism with racism, claiming any denial of global warming is a “sickness” in need of “treatment.”
Unsurprisingly, major environmental issues such as the ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster are completely ignored by Gore and company. Given the massive amount of money Gore has continued to make from generating climate fear, it seems unlikely that any real disaster unable to generate cash will receive proper attention.
See the full story with further links at: StoryLeak
Scientists Occupy Wall Street Journal 3 February 2012 | From Scoop.co.nz
A group of expert climate researchers has rounded robustly on 16 scientists who complained in the Wall Street Journal
( No Need to Panic About Global Warming ) that presidential candidates should understand that the statement that "nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming" is not true.
The initial complaint used Auckland academic Dr Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research - and a vocal critic of some aspects of climate change science - as a poster boy for its argument that "many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted-or worse". GA_googleFillSlot("Scoop_Super-Rectangle");
It said that when Dr de Freitas published a peer-reviewed article in 2003 "with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years" members of a "warming establishment" mounted a determined - though unsuccessful - campaign to have him removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. The op-ed page piece also re-visited "Climategate" allegations against another New Zealander, Dr Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the climate analysis section of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research.
But a sharply-worded response has now been published in the WSJ - signed by Dr Trenberth and over 30 other scientists from Australia, Canada, Britain, France and the USA - and referred to the group of 16 as the "climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology".
"Most of these authors have no expertise in climate science," it said. "The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert". Observations showed unequivocally that the planet was getting hotter, and computer models had shown that during periods when there was a smaller increase of surface temperatures, "warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean". It pointed out that a quote attributed to Dr Trenberth was used out-of-context and misrepresented .
New Top Scientists’ Statement: ‘No Need To Panic About Global Warming’ From InfoWars.com
New consensus is that there’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy
Wall Street Journal, January 27, 2012
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Special Report Presented To UN Summit - A-Z Climate Exposé From BreakingViewsNZ
The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim -- from A-Z -- the claims of the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing, and in many instances the claims are moving in the opposite direction. The global warming movement is suffering the scientific death of a thousand cuts. This Climate Depot special report categorizes and indexes the full range of climate developments in a handy A-Z reference guide. The A-Z report includes key facts, peer-reviewed studies and the latest data and developments with links for further reading, on an exhaustive range of man-made global warming claims.
Lord Monckton Provides Evidential Proof Of The Climate Change Scam From PrisonPlanet.com
Appearing on The Alex Jones Show yesterday, Lord Christopher Monckton went further than ever before in his vehement opposition to the elitists running the climate change scam, calling for the UN to be shut down and for fraudulent peddlers of global warming propaganda like Al Gore to be arrested and criminally prosecuted.
Monckton said that those who are threatening to shut down economies, bankrupt nations, and deepen the problems of the third world by implementing draconian policies in the name of global warming should be indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned “for a very long time”.
“The fraudsters and racketeers from Al Gore to the people at the University of East Anglia who have been making their fortune at the expense of taxpayers and the little guy,” should be criminally charged, said Monckton, in response to the climategate scandal.
“We the people have got to rise up worldwide, found a party in every country which stands for freedom and make sure we fight this bureaucratic communistic world government monster to a standstill – they shall not pass,” he added.
Monckton said that the United Nations should be “closed down,” adding that he talked to a senior UN ambassador in Canada who told him that he no longer saw any purpose in the UN and it exists “only to enrich itself at the expense of the nations it claims to serve, it’s time it was brought to an end.”
“We would all save billions if we shut down the UN and just about all of its hideous bureaucracy,” said Monckton.
Lord Monckton emphasized how the emails released as a result of climategate prove that global warming alarmism was still prevalent in public but behind closed doors, warmist scientist are admitting that the “deniers” as they label people like Monckton are correct.
“Publicly they’re saying the science is settled, we’re all doomed unless you close down the economies of the west, whereas privately they’re saying to each other ‘we’ve got it wrong, none of this adds up and it’s a travesty that we can’t explain it’.”
Soros Mouthpiece Calls On Google To Police “Conspiracy Theories” From InfoWars
Stanford scholar wants search engines to flag global warming, vaccine skepticism as thought crimes
Former fellow of George Soros’ Open Society and current Stanford University scholar Evgeny Morozov has called on Google and other search engines to become thought crime enforcers, by providing warnings about websites that contain “conspiracy theories” such as the belief, held by a majority of Americans, that global warming is not primarily man-made.
Morozov, whose biography confirms him as a well-connected insider, decries in a Slate piece how the Internet is a useful tool for “People who deny global warming” as well as “the anti-vaccination movement,” calling on Google to provide a “socially responsible curated treatment” that would marginalize such beliefs by amending search results.
His solution is to, “Nudge search engines to take more responsibility for their index and exercise a heavier curatorial control in presenting search results for issues like “global warming” or “vaccination.” Google already has a list of search queries that send most traffic to sites that trade in pseudoscience and conspiracy theories; why not treat them differently than normal queries?
Marc Morano: Scientific Case For Man-Made Global Warming Fears Is Dead From BreakingViewsNZ
Many of the proponents of man-made global warming are now claiming that climate change is worse than they predicted. According to an Oct. 18, 2011, Daily Climate article, global warming activists claim that the "evidence builds that scientists underplay climate impacts," and "if anything, global climate disruption is likely to be significantly worse than has been suggested.
But a forthcoming Climate Depot A-Z Climate Reality Check report on the failure of the science behind man-made global warming theory will shatter any such illusions that the climate is "worse than we thought." Recent scientific data and developments reveal that Mother Nature is playing a cruel joke on the promoters of man-made climate fears. The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim, the scientific case for man-made climate fears has collapsed. The only thing "worse than we thought" is the shoddy journalism of the mainstream media, which parrots global warming activists' baseless talking points.
Consider these facts:
The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers; the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007; polar bears are thriving; the sea level is not showing acceleration and is actually dropping; cholera and malaria are failing to follow global warming predictions; Mount Kilimanjaro-melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover; global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade or more as many scientists are predicting global cooling is ahead; deaths because of extreme weather are radically declining; global tropical cyclone activity is near historic lows; the frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined; the oceans are missing their predicted heat content; big tornadoes have dramatically declined since the 1970s; droughts are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind; there is no evidence we are currently having unusual weather; scandals continue to rock the climate fear movement; the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been exposed as being a hotbed of environmental activists; and scientists continue to dissent at a rapid pace.
Even President Obama has been criticized by former Vice President Gore for failing to do enough when it comes to climate change legislation. The now-defunct congressional climate bill failed because the Democrats realized it was political suicide. The new political expediency in Washington is global warming skepticism. The U.N. global warming treaty process lies in shambles.
The promoters of man-made climate fears are now reduced to claiming -- as University of California, Berkeley, professor Richard Muller did last week -- that any warming trend equals some sort of "proof" of man-made warming. Those of us who laugh at Gore's mythical "climate crisis" tip our hat to Obama for not pushing very hard for the Congressional Climate Bill and for being so tepid at U.N. climate conferences.
Of course, Obama is still threatening to unleash the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate that harmless trace essential gas we exhale from our mouths -- CO2 -- but that effort will most likely wait until after the next presidential election.
As for Gore and the U.N.'s scientific claims, it has been quite a joy to watch the entire man-made global warming fear movement disintegrate before our eyes. A movement that had the divisive Gore as its face was bound to fail. A movement that utilized the scandal-ridden U.N. -- which is massively distrusted by the American people -- as the repository of science was doomed to fail. Gore is now reduced to pointing to every storm, flood, hurricane or tornado as proof of man-made global warming.
But a scientific moment of clarity is now prevailing: The U.N. and Congress do not have the power to legislate, tax or regulate the weather.
Professor emeritus of biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London explained the crux of the entire global warming debate when he rebutted the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver.
"As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets," Stott wrote.
To put it bluntly, the great man-made global warming catastrophe that was predicted has been canceled! And that is a victory for science.
Marc Morano is publisher of Climate Depot and a former staff member of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Top Scientist Resigns From Post – Admits Global Warming Is A Scam
As reported by the Gateway Pundit : Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned this week from his post at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He admitted global warming climate change was nothing but a scam in his resignation letter.
From the Telegraph (because for some reason the Liberal Media here in the U.S don't like this stuff getting out).
The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.
Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave . It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…
New, Convincing Evidence Indicates Global Warming Is Caused By Cosmic Rays And The Sun - Not By Humans FinancialPost.com August 26th 2011 - Source Article
The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.
The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.
In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — – demonstrate that cosmic rays can seed clouds, and that the more that cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere, the cloudier it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.
The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.
The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”
But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.
“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.
The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.
Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.
CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate science won’t yet permit a celebration of the find.
This website is optimised for viewing in Mozilla Firefox