The Global Warming and Climate Change agenda has been percolating along even prior to the Club of Rome’s formation in 1972. It is one of the major tools of the global transnationalist elite long generational goal of imposing on the world a progressive fascist tyranny. There will be no escape from the long arm of the coercive state as it imposes its self-created reality upon Americans and the rest of humanity. Deniers will be lumped with Christians, anti-globalists, patriots and of those who have not knelt and paid homage, savings, incense and myrrh at the altar of this progressive religion.
It is the West’s dhimmitude and like the Islamic originator of this heinous notion, those that do not accept the ways of the progressive One World Order God will pay a price in chains or death. It is the inevitable path. It is human nature unrestrained by religion, moral absolutes and the Rule of Law.
There is no such thing as “settled science”, just ask Claudius Ptolemy.
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer.The next world climate summit in Cancun (2010) is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.
– Ottmar Edenhofer, German environmental economist
Did we really win the Cold War? Some people contend that communism is still a threat because the CFR, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, and the Club of Rome are communist front organizations. They justify that belief by noting that Mikhail Gorbachev, a lifelong member of the KGB and the former dictator of the USSR, is currently working with members of the first three organizations, and is a member of a fourth, the Club of Rome.
==Brotherhood of Darkness (Monteith, Dr. Stanley)
In order to begin to understand world events, it is necessary for us to realize that the many tragic and explosive events of the 20th century did not just happen by themselves; but that they were planned according to a well laid out blueprint.
==Club of Rome (Coleman, John)
“The world has a cancer and the cancer is man,” said Pestell.the principle of unrestricted national sovereignty, cherished by liberals in the nineteenth century and by the Kremlin in the present day, must be abandoned. Means must be found of subjecting the relations of nations to the rule of law, so that a single nation will no longer be, as at present, the judge in its own cause.
==The Impact of Science On Society (Russell, Bertrand)
The ideological environmental movement is a powerful $4 billion-a-year US industry, an $8 billion-a-year international gorilla. (larger now)
The Environmental movement imposes the views of mostly wealthy, comfortable Americans and Europeans on mostly poor, desperate Africans, Asians and Latin Americans. It violates these people’s most basic human rights, denying them economic opportunities, the chance for better lives, the right to rid their countries of diseases that were vanquished long ago in Europe and the United States.
==Eco-imperialism: Green Power, Black Death (Driessen, Paul)
A federal appeals court in Chicago gave a thumbs-up this week to an obscure regulatory practice that helps the U.S. government account for projected costs of climate change. The decision comes less than a week after the White House issued guidance to all federal agencies about how they can build carbon accounting into their decision-making.
Although not as splashy as the economy wide “cap” on climate pollution President Obama proposed in his first term, the intensely wonky “social cost of carbon” is gradually making its mark. The seismic effect of bureaucrats at every level of government adding a new line to their balance sheets cannot be overstated.
The three-judge panel held that the U.S. Department of Energy acted in a reasonable and fair manner when, in 2014, it issued two rules promoting energy efficiency in commercial refrigerators. Multiple lawsuits against the agency were consolidated into one case, which eventually landed in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago.
Current weather is normal; that is, it is well within the range of all previous weather and climate variations. There are no dramatic increases in temperature, precipitation, hurricanes, tornadoes, or any other severe weather. The climate is changing just as it always has and always will and the rate of change is perfectly normal. Of course, that is not what the government, environmentalists, or the media promote and as a result most of the public believe. The misconception is deliberate and central to the exploitation of global warming and climate change as the vehicle for a political agenda.
One phenomenon that creates the illusion weather is abnormal is the attention given by the media. We all experience being introduced to a person then seeing them pop up every time we turn around. It’s the same thing with cars after you buy one you see them everywhere. In both cases they were always there, but not part of your awareness. Weather and climate events seem to occur everyday, but it is because they became a media story. They always occurred. Now the story appears and is amplified by the sensationalism of the media with their “Extreme Weather Reports.”
The entire objective of those pursuing the political agenda was to create the illusion that current weather is abnormal and therefore unnatural. They wanted to show that all this occurred in the last 100 years as a result of human industrial activity. The objective was to create false science, which was easy because few people know about weather and climate, a fact confirmed by a Yale University study that created a High School exam.
Global warming is far from settled’
A former NASA climate scientist has put out a new report criticizing the argument that global warming is settled science.
“It should be clear that the science of global warming is far from settled,” said Dr. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist who now co-runs a major satellite temperature dataset at the University of Alabama-Huntsville.
“Uncertainties in the adjustments to our global temperature datasets, the small amount of warming those datasets have measured compared to what climate models expect, and uncertainties over the possible role of Mother Nature in recent warming, all combine to make climate change beliefs as much faith-based as science-based,” Spencer wrote in a report published by the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation.
“Until climate science is funded independent of desired energy policy outcomes, we can continue to expect climate research results to be heavily biased in the direction of catastrophic outcomes,” Spencer wrote.
Many have suspected that U.S. political intervention in climate science has corrupted the outcome. The new emergence of an old 1995 document from the U.S. State Department to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms those suspicions, or at least gives the allegation credence enough to ask questions.
It’s troubling that a FOIA lawsuit came up empty – “no such correspondence in our files” – when the old 1995 document was requested from the U.S. State Department late last year. This raises a certain ironic question: If I have a copy of your document, how come you don’t?”
State’s response is also somewhat unbelievable because the document that fell into my hands showed State’s date-stamp, the signature of a State Department official and the names of persons still living – along with 30 pages of detailed instructions on how to change the IPCC’s science document and the summary for policymakers.
The document itself consists of a three-page cover letter to Sir John Houghton, head of IPCC Working Group I (Science), from Day Mount, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Acting, Environment and Development, United States Department of State, along with the thirty-page instruction set with line-by-line “suggestions,” written by scientist Robert Watson and others.
Among the more revealing tidbits is a remark scolding a scientist for being honest about the weakness of aerosol forcing data: “We clearly cannot use aerosol forcing as the trigger of our smoking gun, and then make a generalized appeal to uncertainty to exclude these effects from the forward-looking modeling analysis.”
One instruction was to change a correct statement about warming rates into a flat lie: “Change ‘continue to rise’ to ‘rise by even greater amounts’ to provide a sense of magnitude of the extended change.”
The entire document is too convoluted and technical to summarize here, so it is posted here in PDF form for your detailed examination. The document posted here is unchanged and unaltered in any way from exactly what I received from a well known and credible source that must remain anonymous to avoid harm or retribution.
There is evidence that the document is authentic based on a specific mention in the 2000 Hoover Institution report by S. Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz, “Climate Policy—From Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000—and Beyond.”
The 1995 document raises 2016 questions about the State Department’s actions in the subsequent United National IPCC Assessment Reports. What did they do? Where are the correspondence and instructions to change the science in all the IPCC Assessments? What is the Obama State Department doing to corrupt climate science to its forward its radical social and political agenda? Some of that is obvious. It’s the clandestine part we need to know.
I don’t expect our government to answer truthfully. If they did, they might have to start a RICO investigation of themselves.