Some Telling Quotes On Anthropocentric (man-caused) Global Warming (AGW): Should fraud, fiction, and fear provide the basis for public policy?
Man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. Environmentalism is the new communism.
Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and new leader of the European Union
The threat of environmental crisis will be the “international disaster key” that will unlock the New World Order.
Mikhail Gorbachev, “A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes It’s War On Mankind,” 1996
The new religion of global warming…. Is a great story, and a phenomenal best seller. It contains a grain of truth and a mountain of nonsense. And that nonsense could be very damaging indeed. We appear to have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting. It is from this, above all, that we really need to save the planet.
Nigel Lawson, “An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming,” 2008
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.
Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.
Here we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so
long as reason is left free to combat it.
The great tragedy in science- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
Some heated rhetoric from the politicians and public figures:
Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.
President Barak Obama, November 19, 2008.
We cannot afford more of the same timid politics when the future of our planet is at stake.
President Barak Obama, in 2007
Climate Change is the greatest threat that human civilization has ever faced.
Angela Merkel, German Chancellor
Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet’s climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced- a catastrophe of our own making.
I think we ought to have an immediate freeze on CO2 emissions.
Former Vice President Al Gore, from “An Inconvenient Truth” and Congressional testimony
We are getting close to catastrophic tipping points, despite the fact that most people barely notice the warming yet.
Dr. James Hansen, NASA scientist and Gore ally
The planet is on course for a catastrophe. The existence of Life itself is at stake.
IPCC Principal Research Scientist
Man-made global warming has a potential to kill everybody.
This is an emergency…. It’ll make world war look like heaven.
Presidential candidate John Edwards
Ice is melting at rates that could see many coastal cities- including Boston, Charleston, and right here in New York City completely under water by this October.
Many scientists believe that we have about 10 years left to enact policies that will curb dangerous climate change.
Steve Connor, Science Editor at the UK newspaper, The Independent
(Prince Charles has calculated that have just 100 months to avert catastrophe. James Hansen says 4 years.
Our planet is just five years away from climate change catastrophe- but can still be saved, according to a new report.
The World Wildlife Fund for Nature, 2007
Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990’s and … by the next century it will be too late.
Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institute
Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.
The population of the U.S. will shrink from 250 million to about 22.5 million before 1999 because of famine and global warming.
Stanford University Professor Paul Erlich
This is treason. And we need to start treating them (global warming opponents) as traitors.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., author/activist
Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.
We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point- they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chair of House Energy and Commerce Committee:
(Webmaster’s comment: This statement is shear nonsense and indicates that Representative Waxman knows very little about earth/climate processes and the issues involved.)
By the end of this (21st) century, climate change will reduce the human population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic.
Because of this (AGW), the cull during this century is going to be huge, up to 90 percent. The number of people remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less.
Sir James Lovelock, chemist, author of The Revenge of Gaia
(However, in apparent contradiction, Sir Lovelock stated in The Gaia Hypothesis🙂
The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatiis sc and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeostasis…… Some relatively simple homeostatic mechanisms are generally accepted. For example, when the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rise, the biomass of photosynthetic organisms increases and thus removes more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but the extent to which these mechanisms stabilize and modify the Earth’s overall climate are not yet known.
Confessions by policy makers and media on their real objectives:
(The Kyoto Protocol is) the first component of an authentic global government.
French president Jacques Chirac, 2000
We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.
Timothy Wirth, President of the United Nations Foundation
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.
The Club of Rome (think tank), The First Global Revolution, 1973
It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.
Paul Watson, co-founder of Green Peace
The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.
Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund and Council on Foreign Relations
No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… Climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
So if someone wants to build a coal power plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a HUGE sum for all that greenhouse gas being .…. Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.
Presidential candidate, Barak Obama, 2008
Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.
Barack Obama, January, 2008
I would freely admit that on (global warming) we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.
Not only do journalists NOT have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They a responsibility NOT to report what those scientists say.
Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.
John Houghton, second chairman of the United Nations IPCC, 1994
Climate Change: “A change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”
IPCC definition and terms of reference for (under United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or FCCC)
The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.
There is no link between CO2 emission and climate change.
High Commissioner for the United Kingdom at Club of Rome (Canada) meeting, 2007
Who is promoting man-caused global warming?
The current global warming propaganda scare is being hyped by politicians and special interests such as Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street financial firms that stand to reap billions trading new carbon credit financial futures. They are making an all-out effort to scare the world into a deal at the December (2009) Copenhagen Global Warming summit, the successor to the Kyoto agreement on CO2 emission reducation. It’s been estimated that the Global Warming bill supported by Barack Obama and his Wall Street patrons, passed by the House of Representatives but not by the more conservative US Senage, would cost US taxpayers some $10 trillion
F. William Engdahl, 2009
Our Climate Initiative takes a market-based approach to addressing the risks that we and our customers face from climate change.
Webpage of corporate insurance giant, Zurich
As a leading global reinsurer we actively research, model and reinsure natural catastrophe risks from floods through winter-storms to hurricanes. We have therefore followed the development of climate change for over 20 years and participated in, or sponsored, 100’s of events and projects ranging from research and awareness building to product development and managing our own carbon footprint.
Webpage of Swiss Re
United Nations Environmental Program (article 1) of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC):
Climate change: A change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.
All those fossil fuel emissions need to be eliminated. And we must do so quickly if we are to have any chance of stabilizing the climate and maintaining human civilization as we know it.
The scientific community has a very solid understanding of what is causing global warming.: It is overwhelmingly because of the combustion of fossil fuels. Thus, the solution to the problem is as simple as it is daunting: The elimination of fossil fuel use in our economies.
Andrew Weaver, lead author of the UN IPCCC
Some Real Climate Scientist/Skeptics Speak Out:
The consensus was reached before the research had even begun.
Dr. Richard LInddzen, MIT Meteorologist
And given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research.
Dr. Roy Spencer, testimony before US Senate EPW Committee
If you go around the globe, your find no (sea level) rise anywhere. But they need the rise, because if there is not rise, there is no death threat.
What we see then, is that the foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong… In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming/climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own- quite removed from science.
You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide… All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800’s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.
(Manmade global warming) is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It’s mostly a religion where you have to believe in anthropogenic global warming or else you are nuts. I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion.”
(On Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth): Don’t make me throw up. It is not science. It is not true.
Dr. Reid Bryson, Professor of Physical Geography at University of Wisconsin at Madison, who has been called the “father of scientific climatology” and “the world’s most cited climatologist”
Global air temperatures have been rising at a steady rate of 0.5 degrees C per century since about 1750, as the world recovers from the Little Ice Age. On top of that trend are oscillations that last about 30 years in each direction: Cooling from 1882-1910, warming from 1910 to 1944, cooling from 1944 to 1975, warming from 1975 to 2001. In 2009…. temperature is leveling off and beginning to fall slightly. The patterns suggests that the world has entered a period of cooling until about 2030……
It is worth bearing in mind that there is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide was the main cause of recent warming- it’s only an assumption, and the calculations of future temperature rises derive most of their warming from an assumed water vapor feedback for which there is only counter evidence.
Dr. David Evans, mathematician and engineer, who worked at Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005
A public relations campaign of staggering proportions is being carried forward to convince us that global warming is man-made and a crisis. The historic evidence, however, shows us two similar warming periods in the recent past: the Medieval Warming (950-1300 AD) and the Roman Warming (200 BC to 600 AD). Ice cores dug up from Greenland and the Antarctic show there have been 600 such cycles over the past one million years- all of them moderate.”
S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years (2007)
The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false….
The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv.
Zbigniew Jaworowski, Haring before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Review of available literature raises the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis? Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuels…
Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemisphere air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857, and 1942, the latter showing more than 400 ppm. …
Mauna Loa does not represent the typical atmospheric CO2 on different global locations but is typical only for this volcano at a maritime location in about 4000 m altitude at that latitude.
` Beck, Energy and Environment, Sept., 2008
What a load of poppy-cock! Global warming- at least the modern nightmare version- is a myth.
(CO2) is in fact, the most important airborne fertilizer in the world, and without it there would be no green plants at all. Even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would produce a rise in plant productivity. Call me a biased old plant lover, but that doesn’t sound like much of a killer gas to me. Hooray for global warming is what I say, and so do a lot of my fellow scientists.
It would be terrible if billions or trillions of dollars were wasted “on a problem that doesn’t exist- money that could be used in umpteen better ways: fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.”
David Bellamy, Botany Professor, Great Britain’s best-known environmentalist
In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me. I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, ‘We have got to get rid of the Medieval Warm period.’”
Dr. David Deming, University of Oklahoma, before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Dec. 6, 2006
How can a barely discernable, one-degree F. increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policymakers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. Indeed, the success of scientific alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion (per year) today. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks, or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”
Dr. Richard Lindzen, former professor of mathematics, University of Chicago and Harvard University, “Climate of Fear,” April 12, 2006
The paucity of information in the IPCC reports was hardly surprising: not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire careers as environmental activists.
(The real problem is that) the Intergovernmental Panel (on Climate Change) is precisely that- it is a panel among governments. It is the governments of the world who make up the IPCC, define its remit, and direction. The way in which this is done is defined in the IPCC Principles and Procedures, which have been agreed by governments”
Paul Reiter, Professor of medical entomology, Pasteur Institute in Paris (who resigned from IPCC)
I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process I view as both being motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.”
Dr. Christopher Landsea, NOAA research meteorologist, in his letter of resignation from the IPCC
Any body of scientists that adopts pressure group tactics is endangering its status as the guardian of principles of scientific philosophy that are worth conserving.
Sir Charles Fleming, 1986
Atmospheric physics is quite clear that increasing CO2 concentrations increases temperature. The best way to demonstrate this is to model the temperature of the atmosphere with all CO2 removed. It is very cold. Then, increase CO2 by small increments and plot the graph of temperature increase. It is very rapid initially and then flattens out. Doubling CO2 from today’s concentration, holding all other parameters constant, has a “negligible” effect.
John Bluemle, North Dakota State Climatologist
Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of about 1.1 degree C by 2100 AD… Recall that most of the 1.1 degree- about 0.7 degrees- has already occurred. As far as I can say, all the people who end up with 2 or even 3 Celsius degrees are just playing the children’s game to scare each other by making artificial biased assumptions about positive feedbacks.
Dr. Ian Wilson, reviewer of Dr. Stephen Schwartz’ “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 2008
Sadly the presidential candidates are relying far too much on the reports of the IPCC, a body which has used sloppy science to further specific political and policy goals.
I predict that the IPCC experience will end up being the worst case of scientific malpractice in history. Not that the scientists are at fault, I think they have been led around by some politically savvy, almost charismatic leaders.
If the new President and Congress are not careful, the resulting “sub-prime science meltdown” we are headed for will have caused carbon dioxide regulations which will make the current financial crisis seem puny by comparison.
Ex-NASA meteorologist, Dr. Roy Spencer, author of Climate Confusion; How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor (2008)
The global warming alarm is dressed up as science, but it is not science. It’s propaganda.
Professor Paul Reiter, Pasteur Institute, The Great Global Warming Swindle
On the Computer Models (aka GCMs or General Circulation Models)
The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.
Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.
Dr. David Frame, climate modeler at Oxford University
If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it.
I don’t want to undermine the IPCC, but the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain.
Tim Palmer, leading climate modeler at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
Physical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming.
Essex, Andersen and McKitrck, “Does a Global Temperature Exist?” Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics
Sophisticated climate models have been running for twenty years now. It has become evident that these models cannot be made to agree on anything except a possible relation between greenhouse gases and a slight increase in globally averaged temperatures…We should stop our support for the preoccupation with greenhouse gases our politicians indulge in. Global energy policy is their business, not ours. We should not allow politicians to use fake doomsday projections as a cover-up for their real intentions.”
Dr. H. Tennekes, Professor of Meteorology, “A Personal Call for Modesty, Integrity, and Balance,” Climate Science, 2007.
I have studied their climate models and know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics and do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behavior in a world with different chemistry, for example, in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
Here, I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens that believe the numbers predicted by their models. The problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important- poverty, infectious diseases, public education, and public health.
Dr. Freeman Dyson, “The Science and Politics of Climate,” 1999
The full spectrum of spatial and temporal scales exhibited by the climate system will not be resolvable by models for decades, if ever.
Dr. Paul Williams, University of Readings Center for Global Atmospheric Modeling
“Uncertainties in emissions scenarios feed into uncertainties in carbon-cycle modeling, which feed into uncertainties in climate modeling, which drive and even larger range of uncertain climate impacts.
Dr. Stephen Schneider, Nature 411: 17-19
We’re talking here of mathematical models whose results have consequences costing billions of dollars and involve the responsibility of all the governments of the world. It is necessary to bring these basic themes back to the scientific laboratories where they belong, talking them away from the hands of those who use them to satisfy ambitions that have nothing to do with scientific truth.
Dr. Antonio Zichichi, professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna.
GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).
Popular adage for computer scientists and statisticians
Admissions From the IPCC Reports and Alarmists Themselves:
For the next two decades of warming of about 0.2 degrees C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all GHGs (Green House Gases) and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1 degrees C per decade would be expected. (2007 IPCC; SRES is a Special Report on Emissions Scenarios).
In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. (IPCC third assessment Report, TAR, p. 774)
Scenarios are not predictions of the future and should not be used as such. (First Assessment Report (IPCC First Assessment Report, Climate Change, 1992)
The possibility that any single emissions path will occur as described in this scenario is highly uncertain .…
No judgment is offered in this report as to the preference for any of the scenarios and they are not assigned probabilities of recurrence, neither must they be interpreted as policy recommendations (IPPCC, Climate Change, 2001).
Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change. (AR4, chapter 8, p. 600)
Just completed Mike’s (Mann, of Mann et al., 1998) Nature trick …. to hide the decline.
Dr. Phil Jones, University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, 1999 email, part of “Climategate”
We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
Dr. Phil Jones, University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit
Energy Issues: A Reality Check
Comparisons of wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas and coal sources of power coming on line by 2015 show that solar power will be 173% more expensive per unit of energy delivered than traditional coal power, 140% more than nuclear power and natural gas and 92% more expensive than wind power. Wind power is 42% more expensive than nuclear and natural gas power.
Wind and solar’s “capacity factor” or availability to supply electrical power is around 33%, which means 67% of the time wind and solar cannot supply power and must be supplemented by a traditional energy source such as nuclear, natural gas, or coal.
Anthropocentric Global Warming (AGW): Centerpiece of a twisted new “Green Agenda” and world government under the UN?
Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class- involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and sub-urban housing- are not sustainable….. Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?
Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the United Nations’ Rio Earth Summit, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), founder, president of Earth Council, co-author of the Earth Charter with Mikhail Gorbachev, etc. etc. etc.
The emerging “environmentalization” of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government…..
I envisage the principles of the Earth Charter to be a new form of the Ten Commandments. They lay the foundation a sustainable global earth community.
Nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred; trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals.
Mikhail Gorbachev, Former Premier of the Soviet Union, State of the World Forum and co-author of the Earth Charter
Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.
UN Commission on Global Governance
A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At a more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.
United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment
More and more it is becoming clear that those who support the so-called “New World Order” or World Government under the United Nations have adopted global environmentalism as a basis for the dissolution of independent nations and the international realignment of power.
Dixy Lee Ray, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, 1993, from Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?
The earth has a cancer and the cancer is man.… The real enemy, then, is man himself.… The resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.
Club of Rome (think tank), from Goals for Mankind, Mankind at the Turning Point, and The First Global Revolution
One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It’s a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.
Jacques Cousteau, ecologist, United Nations (UNESCO) Courier
The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.
Christopher Manes, Earth First!
A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.
A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-develop means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.
Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.
Professor Paul Erlich (a biologist), Professor of Population Studies, Stanford University, author of The Population Bomb
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
More and more it is becoming clear that those who support the so-called “New World Order” or World Government under the United Nations have adopted global environmentalism as a basis for the dissolution of independent nations and the international realignment of power.
Dixie Lee Ray, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, 1993
The recent global warming hysteria is in reality a geopolitical push by leading global elite circles to find a way to get the broader population to willingly accept drastic cuts in their living standards, something that were it demanded without clear reason by politicians, would spark strikes and protest. The UN’s latest IPCC report on Global Warming calls for diverting a huge 12% of global GDP to “prevent the harmful effects of climate change.” The UN report, for example, estimated that its recommendations to reduce certain manmade emissions would cost about $2,750 per family per year in the price of energy.
F. William Engdahl, “Disproof of Global Warming Hype,” 2008
So where does the passion in support of the man-made global warming hoax originate? Freedom First Society believes that the best explanation for the widespread propaganda is that the “crisis” hoax supports an immense power grab. High-level internationalist insiders have selected the global warming scare as one pretext to help them drive forward their revolutionary “new world order.” In particular, they seek to persuade independent nations to submit to world government, cleverly controlled by an elite few from behind the scenes.
Tom Gow, “The Global Warming Hoax,” 2008
So should we now ask United Nations to save us from the threat of catastrophic man-caused global warming?
In short, the house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault…. One way to garner public support for new international treaties would be to propagandize world wide predicaments. If people are scared of terrorism, financial chaos or global warming, they will be willing to cede national sovereignty, freedom and liberties for global authority.
Richard N. Garner, member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and former Secretary of State, 1974, “The Hard Road to World Order,” published in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the CFR.
Or should we ask our own government to destroy our country in order to save the earth?
“Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse emissions 80 percent by 2050.”
From 2009 Cap and Trade bill (American Carbon and Energy Securities Act, or ACES)
The “Bloggers” speak out:
The AGW propagandists don’t care about facts or science. The AGW cause is nothing but a means to spread and enforce the socialist green religious ideology of the modern left…. We are doomed to live our lives under strict control unless action is taken against those in the media promoting this.
Check out the difference between the U.S. Constitution and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
Science that is not used for the betterment of humanity becomes a perversion of itself.
Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.
The enemies of freedom do not argue, they shout and they shoot.
Dean William Inge
There are three things in the world that deserve no mercy, hypocrisy, fraud, and tyranny.
Frederick W. Robertson
While the people maintain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.
Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.
March 25, 2009 Gallup Poll: Global warming is clearly the environmental issue of least concern to Americans. In fact, global warming is the only issue for which more Americans say they have little to no concern than say they have a great deal of concern.