Tag Archive | "global warming"

Findings & Forecasts 01/23/2013

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Green Eco­nomics

I have been writing for sev­eral years now that the global elite are plan­ning to imple­ment a Technocracy-oriented eco­nomic system that will turn our existing cap­i­tal­istic eco­nomic system upside-down. Why? Because it will be based on ENERGY instead of MONEY.

The Trojan horse that is enabling Tech­noc­racy is “Green Energy.” You already know that green is on the lips of just about every politi­cian in the world. Obama kick-started the con­ver­sion of America’s energy grid into a “Smart Grid” that will con­trol energy con­sump­tion down to the appli­ance level in your home and busi­ness. Public money is reck­lessly thrown down a rabbit hole into green com­pa­nies like Solyndra. Europe is obsessed with green and sus­tain­able development.

In his second inau­gu­ra­tion speech, Obama stated,

“We will respond to the threat of cli­mate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our chil­dren and future gen­er­a­tions.  Some may still deny the over­whelming judg­ment of sci­ence, but none can avoid the dev­as­tating impact of raging fires, and crip­pling drought, and more pow­erful storms.  The path towards sus­tain­able energy sources will be long and some­times dif­fi­cult.  But America cannot resist this tran­si­tion; we must lead it.”

At the annual World Eco­nomic Forum summit meeting cur­rently taking place in Davos, Switzer­land, the first major head­line to be pro­duced is: Davos call for $14 tril­lion ‘greening’ of global economy. This is an amount larger than the entire global economy. The orga­ni­za­tion behind the pro­nounce­ment is the Green Growth Action Alliance. Who are they and who belongs to it?

The Green Growth Action Alliance was com­mis­sioned at last year’s Davos meeting, and is headed by former Mex­ican pres­i­dent Felipe Calderon. Alliance global banking mem­bers include: Bank of America Mer­rill Lynch, Bar­clays Cap­ital, Deutsche Bank Group, Euro­pean Bank for Recon­struc­tion and Devel­op­ment, Euro­pean Invest­ment Bank, Grupo Financiero Banorte, HSBC, Inter-American Devel­op­ment Bank, Morgan Stanley, World Bank Group. Other industry mem­bers include: Accen­ture, Alcatel-Lucent, Applied Mate­rials, Envi­ron­mental Defense Fund, GE Energy, Infosys, McK­insey & Com­pany, Sam­sung Elec­tronics Com­pany, Siemens, World Trade Organization.

This is a “who’s who” list of global giants. They, among other global movers and shakers, are col­lec­tively screaming for the world to turn “green”, all of it pred­i­cated on the unproven theory called Global Warming.

Given that the sci­ence behind global warming is rid­dled with fraud­u­lent data and pre­de­ter­mined “studies” skewed by grants from these same orga­ni­za­tions, what is the real agenda behind all this hoopla?


The doc­trine of Tech­noc­racy was first for­mal­ized in the 1930’s by M. King Hub­bard at Columbia Uni­ver­sity, who later pro­posed the “Peak Oil Theory”, or Hubbard’s Peak. It sought to bal­ance con­sump­tion with pro­duc­tion based on an energy for­mula instead of supply-and-demand eco­nomics. Money would be dis­carded for energy credits. Society would be run by enlight­ened and unelected sci­en­tists and engi­neers (gov­er­nance), replacing rep­re­sen­ta­tive gov­ern­ments. There would be no pri­vate prop­erty or ability to accu­mu­late wealth. People would be herded, man­aged and directed like cattle in a feed lot.

Hub­bard, et al, believed that tech­nology had caused an organic change in society, which could only then be run by the tech­no­log­ical experts. They viewed politi­cians as igno­rant and even dan­gerous, unable to under­stand the tech­nology they were sup­posed to manage.

This elite thinking has per­sisted, not only in halls of acad­emia, but in the indus­trial world where tech­nology and man­agerism already reigns. At the core of this elitist phi­los­ophy is Sci­en­tism, and I offer the fol­lowing definition.

Sci­en­tism: An exten­sion of Pos­i­tivism based on a mix­ture of pseudo-science and empir­ical sci­ence that states that sci­ence alone, with its self-selected priest­hood of engi­neers and sci­en­tists, is the only source of truth about the nature of man, the phys­ical world and uni­versal reality. By def­i­n­i­tion it rejects the exis­tence of God and all notions of divine truth as is found in the Bible.

A caveat is nec­es­sary. All sci­en­tists are not accused of Sci­en­tism. There are plenty (if not a majority) of sci­en­tists, engi­neers and tech­ni­cians who accept the notion of divine and/or absolute truth out­side of sci­ence. Unfor­tu­nately, these are looked upon as heretics by adher­ents to Sci­en­tism, and are largely ignored. For instance, 31,000 sci­en­tists signed a peti­tion that rejects the pseudo-science of global warming, but this has not deterred the Al Gores’ of the world, including Obama, from mar­keting global warming as if it were a sci­en­tific fact!

If Tech­noc­racy is the appli­ca­tion of sci­ence to the eco­nomic system, then its Siamese twin is Tran­shu­manism, which is the appli­ca­tion of sci­ence to the con­di­tion of man in order to achieve char­ac­ter­is­tics of immor­tality, omni­science and omnipres­ence, among others, and to pro­duce a God-like race of post-humans.

Because of the vocal rise of Tran­shu­manism, you now rou­tinely hear calls that immor­tality for humans is just around the corner, as is the case with Ray Kurzweil. Per­haps you missed the Time Mag­a­zine cover from Feb­ruary 21, 2011 issue pic­tured at the left.

Do you think this is all benev­o­lent and benign? Think again. The reli­gious evil that runs below the sur­face of any­thing con­nected to Sci­en­tism is of the greatest mag­ni­tude. It’s a dan­gerous phi­los­ophy for mankind in gen­eral, and espe­cially to Bible-believing Chris­tians in par­tic­ular, because its adher­ents see them­selves as gods, far above mere mor­tals of the une­d­u­cated classes.

For instance, a leading tran­shuman, cloning researcher and nuclear physi­cist, Dr. Richard Seed, stated point­edly in an inter­view for a doc­u­men­tary: “We are going to become Gods. Period. If you don’t like it, get off. You don’t have to con­tribute, you don’t have to par­tic­i­pate. But if you’re going to inter­fere with ME becoming God, then we’ll have big trouble; we’ll have war­fare. The only way to pre­vent me is to kill me. And you kill me, I’ll kill you.” [Dr. Richard Seed, Nuclear physi­cist and cloning researcher. Tech­no­ca­lyps, Part II — Preparing for the Sin­gu­larity]. Yes, he said that; If you don’t believe it, go listen to the entire doc­u­men­tary. [https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/technocalyps-pt.-2-preparing/id490742472]

Where is this leading? Sci­en­tism, Tech­noc­racy and Tran­shu­manism are headed straight into a Sci­en­tific Dic­ta­tor­ship: That is, the utopian con­cept of sci­en­tific man­agerism whereby all facets of polit­ical, social and eco­nomic life are man­aged solely by the sci­en­tific method and dic­tates of sci­ence. If unchecked, it will put mankind back into the dark ages of a feudal society where a few own every­thing and have all the priv­i­leges while the rest own nothing and have zero privileges.

Fur­ther­more, all of this is coming at us like an express train. Is any­body else paying atten­tion? Appar­ently not, for I am still the only one harping on this week after week and month after month.

You are wel­come to share this article with anyone who might want to see beyond the cha­rade of modern global pol­i­tics and sci­en­tific psycho-babble.

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.



VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Law of the Sea Redux

Tags: , , , , ,

Editor’s Note: Pres­i­dent George Bush was the last pres­i­dent to attempt rat­i­fi­ca­tion of the Law of the Sea Treaty, but failed. LOST has been heavily lob­bied by mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion as a means to con­trol tax­a­tion on the high seas and the vast store of min­eral wealth under the seas. If enacted, America will essen­tially lose all of its sov­er­eignty over coastal waters and the high seas in general.]

Thirty states will be encroached upon by Obama’s Exec­u­tive Order estab­lishing the National Ocean Council for con­trol over America’s oceans, coast­lines and the Great Lakes. Under this new council, states’ coastal juris­dic­tions will be sub­ject to the United Nations’ Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST) in this UN Agenda 21 pro­gram. America’s oceans and coast­lines will be broken into 9 regions that include the North East, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, the Gulf Coast, West Coast, the Great Lakes, Alaska, the Pacific Islands (including Hawaii) and the Caribbean.

Because of the decades of dif­fi­culty that the col­lec­tivists have had trying to ratify the Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST), Obama is sneaking it in through the back door, by way of this Exec­u­tive Order estab­lishing the Council. Because LOST is a treaty, Obama’s Exec­u­tive Order is not Con­sti­tu­tional as treaty rat­i­fi­ca­tion requires 2/3 approval from the Senate. Michael Shaw said that the Agenda 21 Con­ven­tion on Bio­di­ver­sity treaty of 1992 failed to pass Con­gress so it was exe­cuted through soft law and admin­is­tra­tively on local levels, and Obama’s Exec­u­tive Order is a sim­ilar soft law tactic to enact the LOST treaty.

In fact, our Con­sti­tu­tional form of gov­ern­ment is being com­pletely destroyed because buried in the CLEAR Act (HR 3534) there is a pro­vi­sion for a new council to oversee the outer con­ti­nental shelf– it appears that this Regional Outer Shelf Council will be part of the National Ocean Council. This means that if Con­gress makes the CLEAR Act into law, then the imple­men­ta­tion of the UN Law Of Sea Treaty, as part of the National Ocean Council’s agenda, will be “rat­i­fied” in a con­vo­luted and stealth manner, in full oppo­si­tion to the Con­sti­tu­tion and its intent.

The excuse for this extreme action is because of the emer­gency in the Gulf of Mexico. Obama and Con­gress have always had the legal and mil­i­tary power to force BP Oil to take all nec­es­sary action to stop the gusher and clean the oil spew. While there is evi­dence that the prob­lems in the Gulf have been a result of col­lu­sion and planned incom­pe­tence, it begs the ques­tion, why in world should America’s oceans and resources be con­trolled by Obama appointees?


John Hol­dren, Obama’s sci­ence and tech­nology adviser, is the co-chairman of this new council. He is also a depop­u­la­tion enthu­siast and advo­cates ster­il­iza­tion by way of using infer­tility drugs in water and food as well as forced abor­tions which he describes in his book “Eco­science”.

Ken Salazar, Sec­re­tary of the Depart­ment of Inte­rior, and its sub­agency, MMS (Min­erals Man­age­ment Ser­vice) has authority over off­shore drilling and respon­si­bility for enforcing spill pre­ven­tion mea­sures. The Depart­ment of Interior’s BLM (Bureau of Land Man­age­ment) is the entity that con­trols fed­er­ally man­aged land extending across 30% of America in 11 western states. Last week, Con­gressman Louie Gohmert said that Ken Salazar per­son­ally pre­vented drilling on land in Utah, Wyoming and Col­orado, thereby also pre­venting energy inde­pen­dence. In addi­tion, the fed­eral lands have been grossly mis­man­aged and present fire dan­gers. The fed­eral gov­ern­ment is $3.7 bil­lion in arrears for main­te­nance of the fed­er­ally man­aged lands.

US Depart­ment of Agri­cul­ture Sec­re­tary Tom Vil­sack, by way of the US Forestry Ser­vice and US Fish & Wildlife Ser­vice, has been com­plicit in the decline of our country’s food inde­pen­dence. For example, US Fish & Wildlife (along with the Depart­ment of Com­merce) shut the water off in Cal­i­fornia using Endan­gered Species Act; it was later proven that par­tially treated sewage was the pri­mary cul­prit in killing the salmon and delta smelt that was pre­vi­ously blamed on farmers. This is phony envi­ron­men­talism. The US Forestry Ser­vice has also mis­used the Endan­gered Species Act to limit farmers and ranchers. Remember that the USDA co-owns the Ter­mi­nator Gene patent with Mon­santo that makes seeds sterile.

Lisa Jackson is the EPA admin­is­trator who has threat­ened to impose 18,000 pages of new reg­u­la­tions to curb global warming which is based on lies, claiming that carbon dioxide is a danger to human health.

Depart­ment of Defense Sec­re­tary Robert Gates and Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity Sec­re­tary Janet Napoli­tano: it is unclear how these two fed­eral appointees will enhance envi­ron­mental ‘sus­tain­ability’ over oceans and coasts. Tra­di­tion­ally, national secu­rity threats (like the War on Terror) have been used by the fed­eral gov­ern­ment to take con­trol of resources. For example, many years ago when the inter­state highway sys­tems were first being built, the Feds got in on the action by claiming that they were building a defense highway system, and they encroached into an area that belonged to the states. Inter­est­ingly, there were no over­head struc­tures on high­ways orig­i­nally because of the Feds’ claim that large mis­siles would be trans­ported on these “defense” highway systems.

Sec­re­tary of State Hilary Clinton, a leading glob­alist, is likely to plunge our country into inter­na­tional entan­gle­ments and sub­ju­ga­tion, based on her past per­for­mance; an example is her sup­port of the UN Small Arms Treaty, which is con­trary to the Constitution.

Depart­ment of Energy Sec­re­tary Steven Chu and Depart­ment of Com­merce Sec­re­tary Gary Locke are log­ical choices for this destruc­tive council as some of the planned funding for this pro­gram will come from per­mits and leases (oil drilling leases, for example). These agen­cies will limit America’s energy independence.

Click here to see the full list of the 24 member council.


Agenda 21 Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment is the over­ar­ching blue­print for depop­u­la­tion and total con­trol, and the National Ocean Council is clearly an Agenda 21 program:

The National Ocean Council is headed by John Hol­dren, an avowed eugeni­cist which is selec­tive breeding through brutal means like forced abortion.

The National Ocean Counci’s own report (Coastal and Marine Spa­tial Plan­ning, pg. 8) incor­po­rates a sec­tion of the 1992 Rio Dec­la­ra­tion which is an orig­inal UN Agenda 21 document!

In fact, the report says that it will be guided by the Rio Dec­la­ra­tion in cases “Where there are threats of serious or irre­versible damage, lack of full sci­en­tific cer­tainty shall not be used as a reason for post­poning cost-effective mea­sures to pre­vent envi­ron­mental degra­da­tion.” (pg. 8) This means that reg­u­la­tions will be imposed even if the sci­ence is not under­stood or if the sci­ence is based on global warming manip­u­lated data.

The 3 pri­mary tools of Agenda 21’s phony envi­ron­men­talism are global warming, water short­ages and the Endan­gered Species Act; the National Ocean Council intends to exploit all of these tools to their full extent.

1-lostThe National Ocean Council’s main objec­tive is to sink Amer­ican sov­er­eignty through the United Nations Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST) with the intended result of dom­i­na­tion by the UN over our coasts and the Great Lakes. LOST orig­i­nated in the 1970s as a wealth redis­tri­b­u­tion plan to ben­efit Third World coun­tries. LOST sets rules for com­mer­cial activity beneath the high seas and estab­lishes new inter­na­tional bureau­cra­cies and a tri­bunal to inter­pret and apply rules to sea activity. And LOST can pro­ceed with those rules, even against US objec­tions! LOST threatens to com­pli­cate deep sea mining. LOST sets a prece­dent that US rights are depen­dent upon the approval of inter­na­tional enti­ties. LOST also extends to ocean flowing rivers.


Michael Shaw pointed out that non-elected coun­cils are increas­ingly expanding their juris­dic­tion through air quality boards, water quality boards, sewer sys­tems, trans­porta­tion dis­tricts, met­ro­pol­itan plan­ning, etc. to gain con­trol over resources. Often, large cor­po­ra­tions and finan­cial inter­ests form Public– Pri­vate Part­ner­ships with the gov­ern­ment within these councils.

Breaking areas into regions and placing authority with non-elected coun­cils is a Com­mu­nist trick used to hijack resources, thereby usurping local and state power by re-zoning the areas that do have Con­sti­tu­tional authority. Appointed bureau­crats are untouch­able because their jobs are not depen­dent upon serving the voting pop­u­la­tion. And they are usu­ally inac­ces­sible to the public and do not have to face those who are affected by their “insider” deci­sions. When state and local gov­ern­ments become cor­rupt, the public is able to con­front them eye to eye, but dis­tant bureau­crats can avoid account­ability. Region­alism is used as a psy­cho­log­ical tactic to intim­i­date state leg­is­la­tures into cre­ating the system for a new polit­ical and eco­nomic order.

Obama’s Exec­u­tive Order that has cre­ated the 9 new regions amounts to re-zoning, and his appointed bureau­crats are answer­able only to him. In David Horton’s tes­ti­mony in 1978 on region­alism, he said that the State of Indiana made this dec­la­ra­tion, “Nei­ther the states nor Con­gress have ever granted authority to any branch or agency of the fed­eral gov­ern­ment to exer­cise regional con­trol over the states.” Horton fur­ther stated that Con­gress holds all leg­isla­tive power that is granted in the Con­sti­tu­tion, as opposed to Exec­u­tive Orders that are not leg­isla­tive. There­fore, Obama’s Exec­u­tive Order for re-zoning and appointing a gov­erning body to usurp state and local power is Con­sti­tu­tion­ally invalid.

The public must become aware of state sov­er­eignty and the Tenth Amend­ment to demand that state and local gov­ern­ments assert these Con­sti­tu­tional laws and principles.


This is a gen­eral overview of the new National Ocean Council’s goals based on its 32-page report that uses indi­rect lan­guage and acronyms in order to con­fuse the public and local law­makers. Depop­u­la­tion advo­cates, glob­al­ists and col­lec­tivists, like John Hol­dren, faced oppo­si­tion a few decades ago when they clearly expressed their objec­tives, so now doc­u­ments are written in com­pli­cated and clouded lan­guage to fool those they wish to control.

This report states that the Council’s juris­dic­tion will extend from the con­ti­nental shelf to the coast AND addi­tional inland areas will be involved. The National Ocean Council iden­ti­fies “part­ners” as mem­bers of each regional plan­ning body that will include fed­eral, state, local and tribal author­i­ties, with a top-down hier­archy of control.

The inten­tions of the Council are stated on page 8 of the report that include imple­menting LOST and other inter­na­tional treaties.  The report also states that the Counci’s plans shall be imple­mented by Exec­u­tive Orders, in addi­tion to fed­eral and state laws.  This sec­tion men­tions ‘global cli­mate change’ which is a new term used as a sub­sti­tute for ‘man made global warming’ after manip­u­lated data and lies were exposed in numerous global warming scan­dals.  ‘Cli­mate change’ is blamed for sea level rise and acid­i­fi­ca­tion of oceans; evi­dence exists that these are more global warming deceptions.

The stated goals of the Council include reg­u­lating invest­ments, col­lab­o­rating with uniden­ti­fied inter­na­tional agen­cies, con­trol­ling public access to oceans and “pro­tecting” ecosys­tems. This means that com­merce and trade will be con­trolled by the Council, the UN will gain power over Amer­ican oceans and the Great Lakes through UN sub­agen­cies, public access will be lim­ited and the Endan­gered Species Act will be unleashed, with heavy reg­u­la­tions. Inci­den­tally, the Endan­gered Species Act is based on 5 inter­na­tional treaties. It has never had a suc­cessful result: of the 60 species that have been de-listed, not a single species was saved as a result of any restric­tions stem­ming from the Endan­gered Species Act!

The tar­geted areas for Endan­gered Species Act reg­u­la­tions are the the Great Lakes, the Gulf Coast, Chesa­peake Bay, Puget Sound, South Florida and the San Fran­cisco Bay (the Bay Delta is where the irri­ga­tion water for farmers was was cut off using the Endan­gered Species Act, causing food short­ages, an increase in food imports and mas­sive eco­nomic devastation).

While this report does not clearly out­line how the National Ocean Council’s schemes will be financed, reg­u­la­tory per­mits for all activity on the water and mining (oil) leases will play a part, along with tax increases. The report does indi­cate that grants and assis­tance pro­grams will be avail­able so that state, local and tribal author­i­ties will sup­port the Council’s “efforts”. In other words, the Council will try to buy off the state and local gov­ern­ments to “col­lec­tively use” them for a base of sup­port and influ­ence. (pg. 28) Strings are always attached to fed­eral money. The fed­eral gov­ern­ment and the Council are reliant on state and local gov­ern­ments for imple­men­ta­tion through state and local legal authority, which means that state and local author­i­ties hold the power to imple­ment or refuse the Council’s direc­tives, espe­cially under the Tenth Amendment.

How­ever, the report does state that dis­putes will be set­tled by con­sensus, if con­sensus fails, then the deci­sions will ulti­mately be made by the Pres­i­dent. He is Com­mander in Chief of the Navy and has the power of the mil­i­tary behind him. Fur­ther, the report indi­cates that leg­isla­tive changes and more Exec­u­tive Orders may be nec­es­sary to achieve control.

An impor­tant point is made on page 5, which states, “Strong part­ner­ships among Fed­eral, State, tribal and local author­i­ties, and regional gov­er­nance struc­tures would be essen­tial to a truly forward-looking, com­pre­hen­sive CMSP effort.” This means that the states, local gov­ern­ments and tribes have power. Our col­lec­tivist gov­ern­ment needs the con­sent of the state, local and tribal author­i­ties, to imple­ment this scheme, oth­er­wise, the feds wouldn’t bother to include these Con­sti­tu­tional author­i­ties. If the state, local and tribal author­i­ties are aware of, and willing to act on their Con­sti­tu­tional authority, then they can limit this fed­eral power grab through the Tenth Amendment.

The report fur­ther states that signing onto the Council’s plan would be an “express com­mit­ment by the part­ners to act in accor­dance with the plan…” (pg. 20) There­fore, it is imper­a­tive that all of the states be aware of the Council’s intended usurpa­tion and care­fully pro­tect their Con­sti­tu­tional juris­dic­tions and sov­er­eignty. There are 30 states that will be affected by this new council. (pg. 12)

The Council’s strategy plan will go into effect imme­di­ately, fully devel­oping Agenda 21 objec­tives and undue UN influ­ence within 5 years. Inter­est­ingly, one article said that if state, local and tribal author­i­ties choose not to par­tic­i­pate in in writing the plans, the plans would be written without them. There­fore, it bears repeating that state and local gov­ern­ments must pro­tect their Con­sti­tu­tional authority when dealing with the Council. The Con­sti­tu­tional authority that states and local gov­ern­ments have can only be taken if the power is given away.


Cas­sandra Anderson is editor of MORPHcity.com and news con­trib­utor to G. Edward Griffin’s “Unfil­tered News

Fur­ther Resources on The August Review:

Bush’s New World Order Legacy 

The Glob­alist Rule of Law 

The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion: Usurping Sovereignty

Sen­ator Vitter Leads Assault On UN’s Sea Treaty 

Senate Repub­li­cans May Sink Bush’s Law of the Sea Treaty

Bush Sells Out America at U.N. Conference

The North Amer­ican Union and the Larger Plan

Obama and McCain: Pawns of the Global Elite? 

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Exposing the Global Warming Lie

Tags: , , , ,

By Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D.

Thou­sands of highly com­pro­mising emails and doc­u­ments, some shocking, were hacked or leaked in late November from the British Cli­matic Research Unit Uni­ver­sity of East Anglia (CRU). The CRU is one of the world’s leading research cen­ters on cli­mate change as well as the repos­i­tory of all sur­face tem­per­a­ture data world­wide. It played a key role in the IPCC’s fourth Assess­ment Report in 2007. The IPCC Assess­ment pro­vided the sci­en­tific basis of policy nego­ti­a­tions at the Copen­hagen Cli­mate Con­fer­ence last December and the cur­rent cap and trade leg­is­la­tion in the U.S. Senate. The gen­eral pic­ture of the series of emails is one of col­lu­sion, exag­ger­a­tion of warming data, manip­u­la­tion of data, con­spiracy, pos­sible illegal destruc­tion of data and embar­rassing infor­ma­tion, and orga­nized resis­tance to anyone who defies them.

Skep­tics of man-caused global warming have long sus­pected that top-level alarmist sci­en­tists were cooking the books to pro­vide the “proof” man was causing global warming. The only way that the integrity of the data could be ver­i­fied is to use the raw data and dupli­cate the sum­ma­riza­tion process. That data is only housed in Britain’s Cli­mate Research Unit (CRU). For years, dozens of requests by well qual­i­fied sci­en­tists to obtain a copy of the data have been refused by the CRU because of alleged con­fi­den­tiality agree­ments. The only data the CRU gave the sci­en­tific world was sum­ma­rized, har­mo­nized for con­ti­nuity and cleaned of out­lier data (data out­side normal error limits). The shocking rev­e­la­tions of these emails and doc­u­ments written by sci­en­tists asso­ci­ated with gave proof that skep­tical sci­en­tists were par­tially, if not totally cor­rect in their suspicions

Allegedly Inde­pen­dent Data Sources Use Same Source

Data to “prove” that major global warming has occurred over the last half of the twen­tieth cen­tury came from four sources, the British CRU (including the Hadley Center),  the U.S.’s NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmos­pheric Agency) and NASA (National Air and Space Admin­is­tra­tion), and Japan’s JMA (Japan Mete­o­ro­log­ical Agency).

There is good agree­ment (Figure 1) between the four data sources. Alarmists and main­stream media have repeat­edly assured us that even if the CRU data has been cor­rupted, the other three data sources have not and there­fore can be used as sub­sti­tutes. Since they show the same dra­matic rise in tem­per­a­ture starting in the 1970s, what hap­pened to the CRU data is irrelevant.

Therein lays the first major decep­tion. Dr. Roger Pielke, one the leading cli­ma­tol­o­gists in the U.S., pro­vides strong evi­dence that 90 to 95 per­cent of the NOAA, NASA, and JMA data sets are derived from the same CRU sum­ma­rized data set. If the sum­ma­rized CRU data is cor­rupted, all data sources are cor­rupted in exactly the same way. This also explains why there is such tight agree­ment between the four sources, and why skep­tical sci­en­tists repeat­edly requested only the CRU raw data and not the others.

Stonewalling FOI Requests for Data

For years the CRU stonewalled any request by skep­tics to obtain the CRU raw data to val­i­date its sum­ma­rized data set. This is one of the foun­da­tions of sci­ence. Other sci­en­tists, espe­cially skep­tical sci­en­tists, must be able to dupli­cate results using the same data. That the man-caused global warming hypoth­esis was accepted as accepted theory without this val­i­da­tion is highly unusual.

In 2000 the British Par­lia­ment passed a freedom of infor­ma­tion act that took effect in 2005. This caused all kinds of panic within the CRU group as evi­denced in this Feb­ruary 2, 2005 email from Phil Jones, the head of CRU and Michael Mann, prin­ciple author of the totally dis­cred­ited hockey stick curve:

“Just sent loads of sta­tion data to Scott. Make sure he doc­u­ments every­thing better this time! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites — you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [Stephen McIn­tyre and Ross McK­itrick, who proved Michael Mann’s hockey stick curve was bogus] have been after the CRU sta­tion data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Infor­ma­tion Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your sim­ilar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? — our does ! The UK works on prece­dents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data pro­tec­tion act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a wor­ried email when he heard about it — thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired offi­cially from UEA so he can hide behind that….”

Phil Jones’ email to Michael Mann clearly shows a pat­tern of delib­erate stonewalling. If Jones did delib­er­ately delete the raw data, it would be a crim­inal act. The CRU’s fears were real­ized in sub­se­quent years when Stephen McIn­tyre and others repeat­edly tried to use the freedom of infor­ma­tion act to obtain the raw data. Their attempts proved fruit­less, how­ever, when Jones stonewalled them. Finally, in 2009 Jones noti­fied McIn­tyre that the raw data was somehow “accidently deleted.” When that cre­ated a firestorm of con­tro­versy, Jones changed the story, now claiming the dele­tion of the raw data was nec­es­sary because they “needed the com­puter space.” Again, after a firestorm of con­tro­versy, Jones said that they found it wasn’t all deleted. The CRU, he said, would shortly release the data that still existed. As of this writing, mas­sive con­fu­sion still reigns. All these machi­na­tions sug­gest that Phil Jones may have deleted that part of the raw data that blows their man-caused theory apart, just like he said he would do in his 2005 email to Michael Mann.

This is extremely serious. Raw data is never deleted in sci­ence because it would pre­vent research results from ever being ver­i­fied and dupli­cated using the orig­inal data. This is at the core of the sci­en­tific method. This entire affair tends to dis­credit every research study that used the CRU sum­ma­rized data. It may mean that there is no longer any orig­inal empir­ical sci­en­tific data that even sug­gests that man is respon­sible for the twen­tieth cen­tury warming. Even the com­puter models used to prove man-caused global warming are made invalid because they all use CRU data in their models.

Jones may be facing crim­inal charges if it is shown he did delete the data. Amaz­ingly, rather than resigning to pro­tect the CRU from being dragged through a polit­ical and legal night­mare, Jones has refused guilt in doing any­thing wrong and has pro­claimed his inno­cence by yet another email. He was finally forced to step down the first of December pending an investigation.

There are over 50 emails dating back to the 1990s that clearly show a con­tin­uing pat­tern of col­lu­sion, con­spiracy, vicious attackson promi­nent skep­tical sci­en­tists. Any sci­ence that dis­agrees with their man-caused dogma was auto­mat­i­cally declared as “crap” and “junk science.” This is laugh­able. It was this same CRU group, lead by Michael Mann, who pub­lished the infa­mous Hockey Stick paper.

The Hockey Stick curve became the cen­ter­piece of the 2001 IPCC report. The paper and its respec­tive curve derived from tree rings were later exposed as fraud­u­lent because inap­pro­priate sta­tis­tics were applied. Then, after years of stonewalling, the Hockey Stick authors were forced to release the raw data they used to con­struct the curve. Just like their emails implied, key data were delib­er­ately left out and CRU sur­face tem­per­a­ture data sub­sti­tuted when the tree ring data did not show warming after 1960. When the missing tree ring data was included in the curve com­pu­ta­tion, the late 20th cen­tury tem­per­a­ture spike dis­ap­peared (Figure 2).

The CRU group even attack peer-reviewed sci­ence pub­li­ca­tions that pub­lish a skeptic’s article. In another series of emails they dis­cussed the need to get rid of an editor they didn’t like from Geo­phys­ical Research Let­ters, one of the pre­mier pub­li­ca­tions pub­lishing sci­en­tific papers on global warming. They even­tu­ally suc­ceeded. In another email an editor asked for sug­ges­tions as to which reviewers to send a skep­tics paper to in order to get it rejected. Jones responded with a list of reviewers saying “All of them know the sorts of things to say…without any prompting.”

In one case Michael Man and Phil Jones threat­ened to actu­ally dis­credit Cli­mate Research, a sci­ence pub­li­ca­tion that pub­lished sev­eral of the skeptic’s papers. In another, Jones told Michael Mann that he was going to make sure none of the skep­tics peer reviewed papers were used in the 2007 IPCC Assess­ment Report (AR-4). True to his word, the arti­cles were not used and Jones requested that all emails con­cerning this effort be deleted from the com­puter of everyone who was involved. Again, this is against the law. In yet another email, Jones admitted using Michael Mann’s approach of using CRU tem­per­a­ture data after 1960 “to hide the decline” of global tem­per­a­ture shown by tree ring data.

In an October 2009 email by Kevin Tren­berth, the CRU group even admits to itself that, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a trav­esty that we can’t.” But how can they when Tren­berth also admits that “we are not close to bal­ancing the energy budget…and whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter.” Yet, the same group of sci­en­tists con­tinues to insist that It was com­monly under­stood within the sci­en­tific com­mu­nity for the past 50 years that as cities grew and expanded that the city’s sur­face tem­per­a­ture would increase. As grass­land and forests were replaced by asphalt roofs and streets, more of the sun’s energy is absorbed and released in urban areas. This is called the urban heat island effect and can raise tem­per­a­tures by 8oC. The heat island effect is highly local­ized and has nothing to do with the ambient tem­per­a­ture of the region.  warming will resume with a vengeance. This same email also sug­gests putting pres­sure on the BBC not to print sto­ries that even hint that this is not a set­tled science.

The Urban Heat Island Effect

Sus­pi­cions by skep­tical scientist’s go back to the very first days of the global warming con­tro­versy in the late 1980s. This is a crit­ical issue as pas­sage of cap and trade leg­is­la­tion in Con­gress or the rat­i­fi­ca­tion of any inter­na­tional treaty will pro­foundly affect every person in a very neg­a­tive way.

It was com­monly under­stood within the sci­en­tific com­mu­nity for the past 50 years that as cities grew and expanded that the city’s sur­face tem­per­a­ture would increase. As grass­land and forests were replaced by asphalt roofs and streets, more of the sun’s energy is absorbed and released in urban areas. This is called the urban heat island effect and can raise tem­per­a­tures by 8oC. The heat island effect is highly local­ized and has nothing to do with the ambient tem­per­a­ture of the region.

Four global sur­face tem­per­a­ture data­bases exist at the All show very steep global tem­per­a­ture increases in the last half of the twen­tieth cen­tury, which allegedly “proves” man is causing global warming. Skep­tics sus­pect that all four tem­per­a­ture data sources (CRU, NOAA, NASA, and the JMA) likely con­tain sig­nif­i­cant cor­rup­tion from the heat island effect. Yet, most of this data has not had the heat island effect removed. Why? Because a series of ques­tion­able research studies allegedly showed the heat island effect was not sig­nif­i­cant. This led the IPCC to say in their 2007 report; “Thus, the global land warming trend dis­cussed is very unlikely to be influ­enced sig­nif­i­cantly by increasing urbanization.” It was this report that the IPCC claimed a 90 per­cent cer­tainty that man is causing global warming.

Dis­counting urban heat island effect so totally has never passed the smell test to skep­tical sci­en­tists. Although some attempts have been made to remove this source of error from the global tem­per­a­ture record; most of it has been in the United States’ NOAA and NASA data sets. When the cor­rected NOAA and NASA U.S. sur­face tem­per­a­ture data are used, the resulting graph (Figure 3) does not show the same late twen­tieth cen­tury record-breaking increase in tem­per­a­tures as found in the global tem­per­a­tures. In com­plete con­trast to the global tem­per­a­ture data, the cor­rected U.S. data show the 1930s and 40s to be warmer than the 1980s to 2000s. It is very unlikely the U.S. data could be so strik­ingly dif­ferent than the global data, espe­cially since the U.S. data is admit­tedly much more accu­rate than the global temperatures.

Even more alarming, when the allegedly “corrected” U.S. data since 1880 from urban weather sta­tions is com­pared to rural data
(Figure 4), the urban data still show much more warming than the rural data after 1950 when U.S. urban­iza­tion kicked into high gear. This strongly sug­gests that the heat island effect is still cor­rupting the “corrected” U.S. data.

This con­clu­sion is sup­ported by U.S. satel­lite tem­per­a­ture data (satel­lite tem­per­a­tures are not affected by heat island) which does not show extra urban warming when com­paring urban areas to rural areas. It is also sup­ported by com­paring 120 year ocean vs. land data sets. While the ocean data set is admit­tedly very sparse, it obvi­ously is not affected by the urban heat island effect. This tem­per­a­ture data shows the same widening tem­per­a­ture dis­parity since the late 1960s as Figure 4.

Another peer-reviewed global study in 2005 com­pared pop­u­la­tion growth, eco­nomic devel­op­ment, coal con­sump­tion and other socio-economic indi­ca­tors with the tem­per­a­ture trends for the respec­tive areas. If there were no urban heat island effect, there should be no dif­fer­ence between high growth and low growth areas around the world. Instead, they found a large and sig­nif­i­cantly cor­re­lated rela­tion­ship between pop­u­la­tion growth (i.e. land use) and tem­per­a­ture as mea­sured by sur­face sta­tions in the area. Like the U.S. urban vs. rural areas, there was no cor­re­la­tion when sur­face satel­lite tem­per­a­tures were used for the same areas. When the sur­face sta­tion data was cor­rected for the heat island effect they found, the warming since 1989 would be reduced by half

There is other evi­dence the global tem­per­a­ture data is badly con­t­a­m­i­nated with urban heat island effect. One study sup­porting the mantra that global tem­per­a­ture data is not con­t­a­m­i­nated was chal­lenged by Dr. Dou­glas Keenen in a scathing peer-reviewed paper pub­lished in Energy and Envi­ron­ment in 2007. Keenen even accused the work as fraud. While Phil Jones, the head of the CRU mocked Keenen’s work, the internal emails that were released by a whistle­blower or hacked in November 2009, clearly showed that Dr. Tim­othy Wigley (arguably the leader of the CRU alarmist group of CRU sci­en­tists) admitted Keenen’s attack was valid, “Seems to me that Keenan has a valid point…someone must have known at the time that they were incorrect.” Yet, Phil Jones still dis­counted this com­pelling evi­dence for the urban heat island effect in sub­se­quent reports.

This is not sci­ence; it is pos­sibly the greatest polit­ical fraud in the his­tory of the world; sup­ported by an extremely polit­ical IPCC claiming it is a sci­en­tific insti­tu­tion; and led by extremely biased sci­en­tists with a “take no pris­on­ers” men­tality. It is readily apparent their own arro­gance has blinded them to any con­clu­sion that dis­agrees with theirs.

The release of the CRU emails clearly show that most of CRU’s work and input into the IPCC process should be seri­ously ques­tioned. With NASA’s data also being seri­ously chal­lenged under the Freedom of Infor­ma­tion Act, there is suf­fi­cient cause not to ratify any Copen­hagen Agree­ment, nor pass any cap and trade legislation.

The cap and trade leg­is­la­tion (H. R. 2454) in the U.S. House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives was based entirely on the results from all the research done using CRU data. This even includes the com­puter cli­mate models. The same is true for the pending Senate cap and trade bill; S. 1733. Years of nego­ti­ating for the Copen­hagen Agree­ment were also based on this data. The entire house of cards sup­porting man-caused global warming is col­lapsing. Yet, this did not stop the scare­mon­gering coming out the December Copen­hagen Cli­mate Meeting. Other than some periph­eral skir­mishes, the agenda ground on as if these rev­e­la­tions never occurred. This meeting and the par­allel U.S. cap and trade leg­is­la­tion are too crit­ical to the cre­ation of world gov­ern­ment for it to fail.

It is crit­ical that we all demand that our Sen­a­tors do not pass S. 1733, nor ratify any­thing coming out of Copen­hagen. Go to www.nocapandtrade.us and become edu­cated. Pass along the link (espe­cially the page having the YouTube videos) on to your email list. The United States will lose its free market system and free­doms that have made America the wealth­iest and most pow­erful nation on earth if either the cap and trade leg­is­la­tion or the treaty is signed into law.

Note: These and all 3000 emails can be found at www.eastangliaemails.com.  A growing sum­mary and links to the respec­tive email can be found at http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

Dr. Michael Coffman is Pres­i­dent of Envi­ron­mental Per­spec­tives, Inc. and CEO of Sov­er­eignty Inter­na­tional, a non-profit edu­ca­tion orga­ni­za­tion. He has led a mul­ti­mil­lion research effort in global warming and has authored sev­eral books. He has pro­duced two DVDs, Global Warming, Emerging Sci­ence and Under­standing (emergingscience.us) and Global warming or Global Gov­er­nance (warmingDVD.com)

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Premium Subscriber Access


Forgot Password

People want to know…


What is Globalization?

It is the col­lective effect of pur­poseful and amoral manip­u­la­tion that seeks to cen­tralize eco­nomic, polit­ical, tech­no­log­ical and soci­etal forces in order to accrue max­imum profit and polit­ical power to global banks, global cor­po­ra­tions and the elit­ists who run them. It is rapidly moving toward an full and final imple­men­ta­tion of Technocracy.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is the Tri­lat­eral Commission?

Founded in 1973 by David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski, the Com­mis­sion set out to create a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order”, namely, Tech­noc­racy. The orig­inal mem­ber­ship con­sisted of elit­ists (bankers, politi­cians, aca­d­e­mics, indus­tri­al­ists) from Japan, North America and Europe. Col­lec­tively, they have dom­i­nated and con­trolled trade and eco­nomic policy in their respec­tive coun­tries since at least 1974.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is Technocracy?

Tech­noc­racy is a move­ment started in the 1930’s by engi­neers, sci­en­tists and tech­ni­cians that pro­posed the replace­ment of cap­i­talism with an energy-based economy. Orig­i­nally envi­sioned for North America only, it is now being applied on a global basis. Authors Aldous Huxley and George Orwell believed that Tech­noc­racy would result in a Sci­en­tific Dic­ta­tor­ship, as reflected in their books, “Brave New World” and “1984″.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is Smart Grid?

Smart Grid is the national and global imple­men­ta­tion of dig­ital and Wi-fi enabled power meters that enable com­mu­ni­ca­tion between the appli­ances in your home or busi­ness, with the power provider. This pro­vides con­trol over your appli­ances and your usage of elec­tricity, gas and water.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Who is M. King Hubbert?

Hub­bert was a geo-physicist who co-founded Tech­noc­racy, Inc. in 1932 and authored its Tech­noc­racy Study Course. In 1954, he became the cre­ator of the “Peak Oil Theory”, or “Hubbert’s Peak” which the­o­rized that the world was rapidly run­ning out of carbon-based fuels. Hub­bert is widely con­sid­ered as a “founding father” of the global warming and green movements.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Who is R. Buck­min­ster Fuller?

A pio­neer in global eco­log­ical theory, Fuller (1895 – 1984) was the first to sug­gest the devel­op­ment of a Global Energy Grid that is today known as the Global Smart Grid. Fuller is widely con­sid­ered to be a “founding father” of the global green move­ment, including global warming, Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment, Agenda 21, etc.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Is the Venus Project like Technocracy?

The Venus Project, founded by Jacque Fresco, is a utopian, modern-day iter­a­tion of Tech­noc­racy. Like Tech­noc­racy, it scraps cap­i­talism and pro­poses that “a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common her­itage of all of Earth’s people, thus even­tu­ally out­growing the need for the arti­fi­cial bound­aries that sep­a­rate people.” The appli­ca­tion of tech­nology is the answer to all of the world’s prob­lems, including war, famine and poverty.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)