The hoax of the doctrine of man-made global warming that is being foisted
upon the world by decree, and the junk science that is manipulated to
support it, represents a creeping fascism whose agenda to stifle open debate
betrays the fact that climate change hysteria is a farce intended to crush
freedoms and further centralize global power.
In an interview with a Czech newspaper, Vaclav Klaus, the President of the
Czech Republic blamed the "whip of political correctness" for preventing
more scientists and statesmen from going public with their skepticism on
man-made global warming. This is precisely what we have arrived at, in a
bizarre vacuum of common sense and without any attribution, the
establishment and the controlled left have managed to squash reasoned
two-sided debate about global warming by coating their argument with the
nebulous claim that expressing disagreement is somehow bigoted, backward and
The very fact that the man-made advocates have to introduce such a far
distant concept as race into a debate about scientific climate change makes
it self-evident that their argument is inherently weak and vulnerable.
In an article we published in November about global warming being primarily
caused by the sun, we commented somewhat tongue in cheek that people who
express doubts about global warming would soon be compared to holocaust
deniers by the media and other self-appointed cultural kingpins who demand
total adherence to orthodox religion style beliefs about climate change.
Here's what we wrote:
The assertion that global warming is man made is so oppressively enforced
upon popular opinion, especially in Europe, that expressing a scintilla of
doubt is akin to holocaust denial in some cases. Such is the insipid
brainwashing that has taken place via television, newspapers and exalted
talking heads - global warming skeptics are forced to wear the metaphoric
yellow star and only discuss their doubts in hushed tones and conciliatory
frameworks, or be cat-called, harangued and jeered by an army of do-gooders
who righteously believe they are rescuing mother earth by recycling a wine bottle or putting their paper in a separate trash can. It's not longer a joke.
I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to
deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with
Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the
present and future.
This assault betrays what's at the heart of the global warming agenda - a
cadre of control freaks who can't respond to the overwhelming evidence that
the Sun and other long term natural cycles are responsible for climate
change and thus have to resort to vile propagandistic personality attacks to
sway the court of public opinion.
During a debate on the BBC's Question Time program, a panelist's appeal for
viewers to simply look at both sides of the argument and consider other
causes besides the man-made explanation was met with boos and cat-calls from
the audience and the speaker was shouted down. It's now treated as
sacrilegious to even question the force fed dogma that leads the automatons to endlessly repeat what has been brainwashed into them by the establishment,
media like a broken record.
"We can't afford to have this debate," they scream, arguing that the end is
nigh and unbelievers need to be metaphorically burned at the stake of public
opinion in the interests of human survival.
But for those with memories and the nerve to actually think for themselves,
the climate doomsayers have been proven wrong throughout the decades. In the
late 60's and early 70's, the in-vogue hysteria about climate change and how
it spelled the end for humanity as we know it revolved around the concept of
global cooling. Again, this arose out of a misunderstanding of long term
temperature fluctuations and the fact that the earth was at the end of the
cycle of the Little Ice Age.
Writer John Bender has done an excellent job of compiling quotes from
environmental "authorities" of past decades who told us that the sky was
falling yet have been completely discredited with hindsight. Keep these dire
proclamations in mind when you hear yet another "repeater" regurgitate the
brainwashing that he or she has been indoctrinated with by the
The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the
increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization,
mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson,"Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo
famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)
I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)
This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976
There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to
change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in
food production - with serious political implications for just about every
nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The
evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)
This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it
continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world
chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. --
Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for
the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year
2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
The IPCC [Intergovernemntal Panel on Climate Change] is a political body, not a scientific organization, therefore its
proclamation is purely intended at achieving a political agenda. The
document they released on February 2 that was devotedly afforded days of
intense coverage by the compliant establishment media was a political
manifesto based on a scientific undertaking that has not even been
completed. How empirical is a "scientific experiment" whose conclusions are
announced before tests have even been completed? The document immediately
states that the "scientific" research is being edited to conform to the already released political summary.
"Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after
acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to
ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview
Chapter," states the brief.
The U.N. has confidently announced "case closed" on man-made global warming
because they are editing their own uncompleted report to mirror their
pre-conceived conclusion. Hardly "independent" is it?
The IPCC report was piggybacked onto a bandwagon of public relations stunts
that had nothing to do with the evidence behind global warming, but were enough to leave an impression in the mind ofthe casual viewer that the
man-made explanation was a global consensus.
These included the Eiffel Tower's lights being turned off for 5 minutes and a ludicrous incident in which British primate expert Jane Goodall imitated the wild call of a tropical chimpanzee.
Czech President Klaus stated, "Global warming is a false myth and every
serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N.
panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort
of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of
neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are
politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a
Man-made advocates go to great lengths to highlight the fact that
transnational oil giants such as Exxon-Mobil offer thousands of dollars for
reports aimed at disproving the UN theory, claiming this taints any opposing
viewpoint as biased, and yet conveniently ignore the fact that it was the U.N. itself and Ted Turner, a man-made devotee and advocate of drastic
population reduction to save the planet, who gifted the organization $1
Billion which in part funded the IPCC report. Is that not biased? Is that
not a example of scientists being lavishly bankrolled to produce evidence
that fits a pre-conceived outcome? Is the fact that a carbon tax fueled by
fear of climate change that will go directly to assorted U.N. agencies
itself a commentary on the U.N.'s role on hyping man-made global warming?
In addition, Greenpeace are recruiting "global warming field organizer's"
whose job it is to lobby members of Congress to push the agenda for man-made
global warming. So if you thought your donation was going to help save
whales or protect the rainforest you're sorely mistaken - it's partly
funding a PR assault that will eventually orbit right back to you in the
form of a draconian carbon emissions tax that will do nothing to prevent
global warming but will fill the pockets of global government and the U.N.
Not all scientists were prepared to sacrifice their impartiality to be in on
the scam. Dr. Chris Landsearesigned from the IPCC in his own words because,"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that
I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being
Landsea is one of many climate experts, meteorologists, geologists and
others who have braved the scorn of the flat-earthers to point out that
man-made advocates have utilized myopic and blinkered scientific trickery to
make their case.
Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and
former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, recently penned
an outstanding piece in which he detailed how the illusion is being played
out and how skeptics of the farce are increasingly being made pariahs simply
for having an opposing view. Ball puts it better than I ever could so I make
no apologies for quoting his article at length.
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only
one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially
the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on
human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a
Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon
Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of
science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we
don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is
why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever
cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President
of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was
the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global
Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and
adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your
stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the
survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered
as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not
denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the
nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally
continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural
variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is
nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London,
Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles.
Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global
cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific
fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global
Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and
makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life
during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to
speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
No one disagrees with the notion that global warming is occurring, but to
discount the fact that it has anything to do with that giant flaming ball of fire in our sky that we can barely look at without being blinded is ignorance unparalleled.
How do we square the fact that almost every planet in our solar system is
simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns?
Does this not suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of
the evolving nature of the sun and other celestial phenomena? Can Al Gore
fill me in on this one?
Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, Saturn, Triton and numerous other nooks and crannies
throughout the solar system are experiencing warming trends and volatile
weather patterns. How many SUV's are there on Jupiter?
The earth and its celestial counterparts are getting hotter because the Sun
is burning more brightly than at any time in the past 1,000 years, according
to a study undertaken by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research
in Gottingen, Germany.
In addition, cosmic rays from exploding stars have now been found to
contribute substantially to cloud formation and the greenhouse effect as the
London Times reported yesterday.
The simple fact is that throughout the ages the earth has swung wildly
between a warm, wet, stable climate, to a cold, dry and windy one - long
before the first fossil fuel was burned. The changes we are now witnessing
are a walk in the park compared to the battering that our rugged planet has
taken in the past.
This is not a defense of the oil cartels or the Neo-Con wreckers, who would
have every motivation to ignore global warming whether it is man-made or
Nor is it a blanket denial of the fact that the earth is getting very
gradually hotter, but how do we reconcile global warming taking place at the
farthest reaches of the solar system with the contention that it is caused
by human activity? Have our exhaust fumes left earth's atmosphere and
slipped through a black hole to Triton?
Countless other heroes of science have put their reputation and careers on
the line in the name of truth to expose the man-made fraud and challenge the
creeping fascism being engendered by means of using political correctness to
hijack the debate. They have bucked the orthodoxy and risked being stripped
of their credentials, as the Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist
would have it. Here are several insightful statements from these brave
I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and
dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys
into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can't find them. Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into
the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made
global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about
it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at"The Weather Channel" probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on
climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing
wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a
scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a
big cash grab. The climate of this planet has been changing since God put
the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years
is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.
ABC-TV MeteorologistJames Spann.
"It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that.
Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with
someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several
years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13
of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written byrepresentatives of
governments, of environmental organizations like theUnion of Concerned
Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit."
MIT's Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen on the IPCC report.
"Climate keeps changing all the time. The fact that climate changes is not in itself a threat."
Dr. S. Fred Singer, Atmospheric Physicist at George Mason University.
Man-made global warming feeds into humanity's arrogant self-importance in
thinking that it has become the master and therefore the decider of the
earth's destiny. On an individual level, it also helps a person stroke their
ego and feel good about themselves for recycling a few beer cans or wine
bottles in the belief that they're saving the planet, and also gives them the excuse to exercise their judgment against anyone who doesn't do likewise.
Fearmongering about an imminent climate doomsday also hogs news coverage and
important environmental issues like GM food, mad scientist chimera cloning
and the usurpation and abuse of corporations like Monsanto flies under the
Global warming is cited as an excuse to meter out further control and
surveillance over our daily lives, RFID chips on our trash cans, GPS
satellite tracking and taxation by the mile, as well as a global tax at the
The extremist wing of the environmentalist movement, characterized by people
like Dr. Erik Pianka,advocate the mass culling of humanity via plagues and
state sanctioned bio-terrorism, in order to "save" the earth from the
disease of humanity. Nazi-like genocidal population control measures and the
environmental establishment have always held a close alliance.
The world is laboring under enforced adherence to a program of mass
deception while scientists who attempt to blow the whistle on the fraud are
silenced, tarred, ridiculed and fired. The biased control freaks at the
United Nations and their intellectually spayed cheerleaders, whose goal it
is to use the hysteria of climate change to impose draconian control
measures on society and centralize world power, have declared "case closed"
on the man-made origins of global warming. However, their foolish attempts
to zealously mute mere expression of an opposing view betray the inherent
flaws of their own mantra and will ultimately lead to its downfall.
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.