The following is an excerpted chapter from the author’s book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project. Now available as an audiobook.
“Global warming is about politics and power rather than science. In science, there is an attempt to clarify; in global warming, language is misused in order to confuse and mislead the public.” – Richard S. Lindzen, former professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
Today’s geoengineers say that because of man-made global warming and/or climate change, it is a good idea that we might be sprayed with tens of thousands of megatons of toxic materials from aircraft annually. On its face that is a psychotic assertion. Their assertion presumes the death of probably hundreds of thousands of people, wholesale destruction of our environment, and untold losses of plants, animals, insects, and all other forms of life on this planet. But, not only is their suggestion horrible almost beyond comprehension, in fact, the premise of their assertion is incorrect as well.
The theory of man-made global warming and climate change is a lie. It is so incredibly false that many people promoting it must know better. The science supporting it is patently and provably false, but the establishment continues to use it as a battering ram in attempts to legitimize the New Manhattan Project and accomplish myriad socio-economic agendas. The global warming/climate change lie is so often repeated because there is a mountain of money and power behind it, not because of an organic social movement. The theory came from the top down, not the bottom up. As we will learn here, today’s prevalence of the theory of man-made climate change is the product of a power-hungry elite, a political ideology, the military/industrial complex, and a corrupted scientific establishment. Calling the theory of man-made global warming ‘an inconvenient truth’ is an inversion of reality. It is a convenient lie. This chapter exposes the incorrect and unscientific nature of the theory of man-made climate change, its true history, and the corrupted scientific establishment behind it.
The theory of man-made global warming and climate change rests upon the notion that man’s contributions of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) are having a significant effect upon the Earth’s climate. Man’s burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which produces atmospheric CO2, is specified as the main contributing factor. So let’s take a look at atmospheric carbon dioxide, shall we?
Atmospheric carbon dioxide comprises a minuscule .038% of Earth’s atmosphere. Of that .038%, only 3% is from the burning of carbon-based fuels. 97% of atmospheric carbon dioxide comes from natural sources such as: the oceans, volcanoes, dead and dying vegetation, people and animals exhaling, forest fires, etc. 3% in any context is usually considered statistically insignificant. So how is it that a statistically insignificant 3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide has a significant effect upon climate? The fact of the matter is that it doesn’t.
In fact, as evidenced in ice core samples, current levels of atmospheric CO2 are the lowest in 600 million years. Although proponents of the theory assert that man’s industrial activity is to blame, current levels of atmospheric CO2 are lower than before the Industrial Revolution and nowhere near all-time highs.
The best data (satellite data) shows that the Earth’s average temperature is not rising. In fact, for about the last 15 years, the Earth’s average temperature has gone down slightly. The much ballyhooed long-range atmospheric models predicting warming are based on faulty data and are the product of a collaboration of scientists and computer modelers working for lobbyists, bureaucrats, and politicians. Al Gore and Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ chart showing a huge upswing in average global temperature has been scientifically and systematically proven to be false. While levels of CO2 have risen over the last 20 years, Earth’s average temperature has not.
In fact, the entire notion that increases in atmospheric CO2 cause an increase in average global temperature, which is what today’s global warming alarmists assert, is completely backwards. In his book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball, PhD writes that ice core samples show that an increase in the Earth’s average global temperature is ALWAYS FOLLOWED by an increase in atmospheric CO2 – not the other way around. Dr. Ball writes, “Every record for any period shows that temperature increases before CO2. The only place a CO2 increase precedes a temperature increase is in IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] computer models.”
Although climate alarmists consistently assert otherwise, sea levels are currently not rising significantly and don’t look to do so anytime soon. Sea levels have historically been rising for the past 700 years, but lately the rate of sea level rise has slowed to almost negligible amounts. The glaciers have been melting since long before man started burning large amounts of hydrocarbon-based fuels as well. This is because we are in what is known as an ‘interglacial’ period.
The history of Earth’s climate is interspersed by interglacial periods and ice ages. It is much more probable that a new ice age is coming rather than some sort of anomalous warming period. In fact, in the case of global warming, periods of increased global temperatures are associated with more life on this planet, not less. More sun, increased temperatures, and more CO2 = more life. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is good. It makes plants grow. They breathe it like we breathe oxygen. With more CO2, foliage grows bigger and, in turn, provides us with what we need to grow: oxygen.
Being that Earth’s average temperature has been rising since long before the Industrial Revolution, it is logical to assert that other factors, besides man’s burning of hydrocarbon fuels, are responsible. An obvious choice is solar activity. Although, among many other deficiencies, the leading climate models assume a constant amount of energy coming from the sun (they assume that the Earth is a flattened sphere with the sun’s energy distributed evenly across the surface), this is not the case. The sun goes through cycles where it produces more or less energy, thus having a warming or cooling effect upon the Earth.
The leading climate models also assume a constant amount of energy coming from the Earth. This too is not the case. Nuclear geophysicist Dr. Marvin Herndon, PhD asserted a long time ago that observed fluctuations in the heat energy produced by the Earth itself are a product of changes in the activity of a natural nuclear reactor which exists in the center of our planet. In fact, he asserts that most if not all planets have a similar reactor at their cores. For these observations and assertions, the good Dr. Herndon was excommunicated from the scientific establishment. You see, Dr. Herndon’s discoveries did not fit in with the establishment’s theory of man-made global warming and so, they had no use for him.
Not only is the theory of man-made climate change incorrect, as it is promoted, it is unscientific. We the general public have heard from politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen, pundits, movie stars, athletes, and many other unknowledgeable people ad nauseam about how the science regarding man-made climate change is ‘settled.’ All this, while the most rudimentary understanding of the scientific method allows for the fact that true science is never settled. The notion that the science is settled is, in itself, unscientific. When someone asserts that the science regarding the theory of man-made climate change is settled, it only proves that they have been indoctrinated into a certain belief – and nothing else. The scientific thing to do is to attempt to disprove a thesis rather than prove it.
The popular talking point about 95% of scientists espousing the theory of man-made global warming is untrue. The Heidelberg Appeal of 1992 called the theory of man-made global warming into question and garnered the signatures of about 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners. Secondly, 31,487 U.S. scientists (including 9,029 with PhDs), as part of something called the Global Warming Petition Project, have publicly signed a statement declaring that they consider the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis to be inconsistent with the evidence. These are just the scientists who have gone public. There are probably many more who don’t want the public persecution associated with such viewpoints, and therefore keep their views private. We’re talking here about a very significant portion of the scientific community bucking the theory of man-made global warming – possibly a majority. Even if 95% of scientists did agree with the theory of man-made global warming, that still proves nothing. As Dr. Herndon writes, “Popularity only measures popularity, not scientific correctness; science is a logical process, not a democratic process. In science, consensus is nonsense.”
This example of media inaccuracies about the theory of man made global warming is the most prevalent, but there are many more. In fact, there is so much misreporting about man-made climate change that it is well beyond the scope of this book to cover it all. It suffices to say that just about everything reported in the media about man-made climate change is incorrect. But, since this myth about 95% of all scientists agreeing upon the theory of man-made global warming so strongly persists, let us continue to expose the truth. Author Mark Steyn produced a 2015 book titled A Disgrace to the Profession in which scores of reputable and/or famous scientists from around the world, in their own words, refute the work of leading climate scientist Michael Mann with many refuting the theory of man-made global warming entirely. The CO2 Coalition is comprised of many knowledgeable people, including many prominent scientists, who refute the theory of man-made global warming. The ‘About’ page from their website says it all:
“The CO2 Coalition was established in 2015 as a 501(c)(3) for the purpose of educating thought leaders, policy makers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy. The Coalition seeks to engage in an informed and dispassionate discussion of climate change, humans’ role in the climate system, the limitations of climate models, and the consequences of mandated reductions in CO2 emissions.
“In carrying out our mission, we seek to strengthen the understanding of the role of science and the scientific process in addressing complex public policy issues like climate change. Science produces empirical, measurable, objective facts and provides a means for testing hypotheses that can be replicated and potentially disproven. Approaches to policy that do not adhere to the scientific process risk grave damage to the economy and to science.”
Lastly, in a 2019 interview, Greenpeace co-founder and former president of Greenpeace Canada, Dr. Patrick Moore, PhD described the cynical and corrupt machinations fueling the narrative of anthropocentric global warming and climate change. Did you hear about that on CNN?
The true history
The theory of man-made global warming originated with a Swedish scientist by the name of Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927). During his time with something called the Stockholm Physics Society (which he founded), Arrhenius began his work on the subject on Christmas Eve of 1894, and his first paper on the subject was published exactly one year later. So the public had their first opportunity to know about his theory of man-made global warming around the beginning of 1896. Exactly one hundred years later, in 1996, large-scale, American domestic spraying operations began. Also in 1996, the most well-known English biography of Arrhenius was published. These are not the only uncanny connections between the theory of man-made global warming, its originator, and the New Manhattan Project.
Arrhenius worked on the theory of man-made global warming with his friend and colleague Vilhelm Bjerknes (1862-1951), the father of atmospheric modeling. In fact, many of Arrhenius’ friends and colleagues worked in the atmospheric sciences, some even dabbled in the fledgling field of weather modification. Arrhenius himself worked extensively in other areas of the atmospheric sciences including atmospheric electricity (ch 3) and he produced at least one paper published in the local media which hypothesized about the means to artificially produce rainfall.
Arrhenius’ man-made global warming investigation pertained to atmospheric carbon dioxide’s influence upon the coming and passing of ice ages. Arrhenius warned that our present existence may be, “nothing but a short flourishing of civilization between two Ice Ages.” So, according to Arrhenius, man-made global warming may have been happening, but it was a good thing. Although Arrhenius is not referenced, it is interesting to note that in 1997 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists Edward Teller, Lowell Wood, and Roderick Hyde released the aforementioned research paper titled “Global Warming and Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Change” wherein the authors suggest that saturating the upper atmosphere with small aluminum particles could avert the next ice age.
In all honesty, there was one other scientist who had previously postulated that levels of atmospheric CO2 could have an effect upon climate. In 1861 England’s John Tyndall (1820-1893) suggested as much. But Arrhenius is more notable here because he produced a model in attempts to prove it and he popularized the theory with multiple media publications and speeches. Also, Arrhenius’ assertions about atmospheric CO2 having a warming effect upon Earth’s climate were based upon the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ of atmospheric vapors first postulated by Joseph Fourier (1768-1830) in 1824. The major difference here is that Fourier did not specify CO2. Although the term ‘greenhouse effect’ did not come into use until much later, it was probably Arrhenius who first used the hothouse metaphor. In America, Arrhenius’ theories about atmospheric carbon dioxide were further investigated by geologist Thomas Chamberlin (1843-1928) at the Rockefeller founded and funded University of Chicago.
Following Arrhenius’ early significant work on the subject, the next major development in the saga of the theory of man-made climate change really didn’t come until 1955 when Fortune magazine published the aforementioned (ch 11) article written by John von Neumann titled “Can We Survive Technology?”
Although Arrhenius is the putative originator of the theory of man-made global warming, pertaining to this, he really originated nothing. Arrhenius’ work here was unscientific from the beginning. He first had the idea that changes in amounts of atmospheric CO2 had an effect upon climate, then he created a model to prove it. The proper way to conduct science is to simply conduct experiments and see what happens. Arrhenius’ work here was contrary to the scientific method and mathematical models are inherently of seriously questionable scientific validity – or as the British statistician George E.P. Box (1919-2013) stated, “Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.” For more about the philosophies behind proper scientific methods and practices, please refer to Marvin Herndon’s excellent books Maverick’s Earth and Universe as well as Herndon’s Earth and the Dark Side of Science.
Arrhenius’ models were based on what amounts to wild speculation. He did not have access to the vast amounts of accurate data needed to confirm his grand assertions. Networks for the collection of the necessary data did not exist at the time. His work in this area relied simply upon guesstimates and contributions from his peers – not any real empirical data. He was in way over his head and for these reasons, his work in this area holds no validity whatsoever.
It is interesting and vital to our investigation to note that members of Arrhenius’ Stockholm Physics Society were, to a person, political progressives. Conversely, members of the progressive political parties of the time were also scientists. With the influence of these predominant political views surrounding him, Arrhenius became a progressive himself. Crawford, the author of Arrhenius: From Ionic Theory to the Greenhouse Effect writes:
“While the passion for science was the primary bond between members of the society, they also shared progressive political opinions. Several of them – Nils Ekholm, Hugo Hamberg, Arvid Högbom – had been radicalized as students at Uppsala in the 1880s and one of them, Arvid Högbom, could claim to have been the first dues-paying member of the radical student association Verdandi, founded in 1882. The political circles in the capital with which they were most likely to sympathize were liberal reformist ones. The Liberals favored extending voting rights, limited at the time to about six percent of the adult population (women did not have the right to vote), and improving social welfare. In these and other issues, they often made common front with the Social Democrats. There were scientists among the supporters of both parties; in fact, the Social democratic leader, Hjalmar Branting, had worked as an astronomer before becoming engaged full-time in politics and political journalism. It was a new experience for Arrhenius to consort with colleagues whose political beliefs were translated into action. He had probably not given politics much thought before leaving Sweden. Although he never was much interested in politics, he nevertheless acquired the liberal reformist views that he would hold for the rest of his life.”
“The members of the Physics Society and the broader scientific circles in which Arrhenius moved shared a distinctive conception of the role of science in society. Having first-hand knowledge of the many ways in which science had improved living conditions – electric lights at home and in the streets and better sanitary standards, for instance – they firmly believed that science fostered progress. In this they came closest to the ‘optimistic evolutionism’ that was an important part of late nineteenth century philosophies of progress.”
This over-arching theme of political progressivism is of note to our discussion because, as previously stated, it was during this period of his work with the politically progressive scientists of the Stockholm Physics Society, that Arrhenius first developed the theory of man-made global warming. A theory which, to this day, is marked by political progressivism.
As previously noted, since the days of Arrhenius, the next major development for the theory of man-made global warming came in 1955 with the publication of John von Neumann’s “Can We Survive Technology?” As detailed in previous chapters, von Neumann’s article was followed by an avalanche of similar pieces expounding upon the problem, and the physics-based, engineering solutions. Tremendous expansions of military spending on weather modification and the atmospheric sciences subsequently occurred. Meanwhile, beginning in the late 1960s, the socio-economic solutions to the purported problem of man-made global warming were being formed at the Club of Rome and the United Nations (UN).
The Club of Rome was formed in 1968 and has been instrumental in promulgating the theory of man-made global warming and climate change. They describe themselves as, “an informal organization that has been aptly described as an ‘invisible college.’ Its purposes are to foster understanding of the varied but interdependent components – economic, political, natural, and social – that make up the global system in which we all live; to bring that new understanding to the attention of policy-makers and the public worldwide; and in this way to promote new policy initiatives and action.” The Club of Rome has interlocking memberships with the Committee of 300 and the Bilderberg Group. The founding meeting of the Club of Rome occurred at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy.
Shortly after the formation of the Club of Rome, in 1969 the UN General Assembly decided to convene the first major inter-governmental conference on environmental issues called the UN Conference on the Human Environment. It was funded by the Rockefellers. UN Secretary-General, U Thant invited a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, Maurice Frederick Strong (1929-2015) to lead it as Secretary-General of the Conference and as Undersecretary General of the UN responsible for environmental affairs. The resulting 1972 meeting, known as the Stockholm Conference, adopted a declaration of principles and an action plan to deal with global environmental issues. The aforementioned Thomas Malone of The Travelers insurance company (ch 8) was in attendance. It was the kick-off of the establishment’s phony environmental movement. Being that the theory of man-made global warming originated at the Stockholm Physics Society, it is interesting that this landmark conference was held in Stockholm, Sweden. Have you heard of Stockholm syndrome? Anyway, during this UN Conference on the Human Environment, the global management of natural resources was promoted. This was to be accomplished through a new global bureaucracy called the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). Subsequently, in December of 1972, the UN General Assembly established the UNEP and elected Strong to head it. The UNEP promptly began issuing a steady stream of news releases about, among other things, the pollution of the air by carbon emissions.
Also in 1972, in association with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Club of Rome issued a report titled “The Limits to Growth.” As one might guess from the title, this report outlines the scenario of an overpopulated world and suggests a reduction of the Earth’s population. As noted in chapter 10, population reduction is an agenda inextricably linked to the theory of man-made global warming as well as to the New Manhattan Project. More pertinently to our discussion, “The Limits to Growth” characterizes man’s emissions of atmospheric carbon dioxide as problematic because they say that such emissions could cause Earth’s climate to change.
While all this was going on, the Rockefellers were cranking up the public relations machine. In order to better brainwash inform the public, the Rockefellers planned, promoted, and funded the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. Among similar actions taken by other politicians, and in accordance with the event, Nelson Rockefeller, as the Governor of New York, established a state Environment Department. Earth Day participants were provided with a booklet called the Environmental Handbook. The Environmental Handbook advocated for population reduction. Paul Ehrlich, the famous population reduction advocate and author of The Population Bomb contributed to this booklet; writing that by 1979 all important animal life in the sea would be extinct. He wrote that the cause of the problem was, “too many cars, too many factories, too much detergent, too much pesticide, multiplying contrails [author’s emphasis], inadequate sewage treatment plants, too little water, too much carbon dioxide – all can be traced easily to too many people.” Less than three months after Earth Day, under the guidance of Henry Kissinger, President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with an executive order.
In 1976, Laurence Rockefeller, president of the American Conservation Association, warned in a Reader’s Digest article of grave consequences to ‘the climate change.’ He wrote that if people kept on burning carbon-based fuels at will, then ‘authoritative controls’ would need to be imposed.
The large-scale global warming scam was launched in America at a 1988 Senate committee hearing arranged by U.S. Senator Tim Wirth (D-CO) and featuring testimony by NASA’s James Hansen who swore that he was certain that man’s emissions of atmospheric CO2 were causing the Earth to warm. Years earlier, Hansen was warning of all the impending doom sure to happen from global cooling, but never mind that. Since 1971 the Earth had warmed – not cooled, so Hansen had changed his theories and now we were supposed to listen to him again, you see. In preparation for this hearing designed to alert the public to the dangers of global warming, Wirth and others called the Weather Bureau and found out what was most commonly the hottest day of the year for Washington and scheduled the hearing for that day. Not only that, but the night before, people went in and opened all the windows and made sure that the air conditioning was not working in order to make the hearing as hot and sticky as possible.
The senator who arranged these hearings, Tim Wirth was later interviewed by PBS and he said, “We knew there was this scientist at NASA, you know, who really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So we called him up and asked him if he would testify.” Former Senator Wirth has also been quoted as saying, “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing…”
The NASA ‘scientist’ whose testimony was featured at these hearings, James Hansen was plucked from obscurity at NASA to be the director of their Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) where he served in that position from 1981-2013. As part of his duties at the GISS, instead of relying upon an already-established method of recording Earth’s tropospheric temperatures using satellites and radiosondes, Hansen chose instead to use the wonky networks of land and ocean-based sensors. James Hansen has a long public record as a global warming activist.
Also in the same year these congressional hearings commenced, 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created. The IPCC was created as an ostensibly scientific organization used to promote the theory of man-made global warming and they have produced a series of reports that deceive and spin in favor of their chosen hypothesis. The aforementioned creator of the UNEP, Maurice Strong set up the IPCC through the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization (WMO). This allowed the IPCC to receive national funding. IPCC members were chosen from national weather organizations through the WMO with the caveat that they would identify human activities as the cause of global warming. In America, the national weather organization chosen to feed the WMO and the IPCC with both money and personnel was the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The IPCC was to consider only man-made sources of atmospheric carbon emissions. Natural sources were to be ignored. As once again so succinctly put by Dr. Richard Lindzen, “The consensus was reached before the research even began.” Insider meteorologist Roy Spencer wrote, “Politicians formed the IPCC over 20 years ago with an endgame in mind: to regulate CO2 emissions. I know, because I witnessed some of the behind-the-scenes planning. It is not a scientific organization. It was organized to use the government-funded scientific research establishment to achieve a policy goal.”
Describing the experience of an honest scientist with the IPCC, German meteorologist and physicist Dr. Klaus-Eckert Puls writes:
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first, I started with a sense of doubt, but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
In anticipation of a big meeting planned for the next year, President of the Club of Rome, Alexander King (1909-2007) and Assistant Secretary Bertrand Schneider more specifically outlined the global warming socio-economic agenda in their 1991 book The First Global Revolution. In The First Global Revolution, the authors King and Schneider write:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming [author’s emphasis], water shortages, famine, and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interaction these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
The founder of both the UNEP and the IPCC, Maurice Strong, was the mastermind behind the global warming deception, and in June of 1992, Strong rolled out the last pieces of the puzzle as Secretary General of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, known as the Earth Summit, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Thomas Malone of The Travelers insurance company was in attendance here, too. The last pieces of the puzzle were The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Agenda 21. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change defined the problem while Agenda 21 provided the solutions. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) provided the definition of man-made global warming which the IPCC used to guide their research. This allowed the IPCC to establish man’s emission of atmospheric carbon dioxide as the demonic gas that was destroying the planet. The Agenda 21 documents finally provided directives and guidelines presented as socio-economic solutions to the purported problem of man-made global warming. This way, policymakers, the media, and misguided environmentalists had their marching orders. We see the legacy of Agenda 21 today in all the government policy and law that is geared towards the reduction of carbon emissions. The IPCC provided support for the science while Agenda 21 provided support for the policymakers. If the IPCC science was ever found to be inadequate, policymakers were encouraged to employ the precautionary principle and go ahead with carbon mitigation measures anyway. Something called the Conference of the Parties (COP) was also created as a forum for political leaders to make socio-economic decisions based on IPCC science. The first COP was held in Berlin in 1995 and the first meetings produced the Kyoto Protocol. The Earth Charter, touted by Maurice Strong at the 1992 Earth Summit, was written by Steven Rockefeller.
In 1992, the same year that he chaired the UNEP meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Maurice Strong became the chairman of Ontario Hydro, the public utility that controls all energy production for the province. He then implemented a green energy program for Ontario Province which quickly reduced the availability of energy and substantially increased the price. Other green energy initiatives throughout Europe have since been disasters as well. Following the 1992 Earth Summit, Strong participated in a slew of big environmental organizations, worked for the World Bank and the World Economic Forum, and began promoting slogans like ‘think globally, act locally’ and ‘sustainable development.’ From 1989 to 2009, the U.S. government spent $79B on climate research, while scientists who challenged it all were denied funding and marginalized.
The media operations regarding the theory of man-made global warming have thundered right along. Prominent IPCC member Stephen Schneider revealed the method when he said in Discover magazine, “Scientists need to get some broader based support, to capture the public’s imagination … that, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have … each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” After 1998, when global temperatures began to move sideways rather than up, the rhetoric changed from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change.’ Apparently in attempts to muddy the waters and move the goal posts, Obama’s science czar John Holdren (ch 10) subsequently introduced terms like ‘climate disruption’ and the ‘polar vortex.’
Although he had experience with the issue going back to at least the mid-1980s (ch 7), former vice president Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. really began making a lot of noise about global warming in the mid-2000s. His Oscar winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth premiered in 2006.
It was also in the 2000s that energy hog Gore along with a slew of investment bankers and other financial establishment-type people and organizations began creating a market for the trading of carbon credits. This effort was commonly known as ‘cap-and-trade.’ Cap-and-trade refers to the official limiting of industrial carbon dioxide emissions and the trading of carbon credits which can allow for the emissions of said carbon. In other words, under a cap-and-trade scenario, companies would be limited in the amount of carbon dioxide they would be allowed to emit and any carbon dioxide they do emit would only be allowed with their acquisition and spending of carbon credits. It’s effectively the ‘carbon tax’ that Gore’s cohort Gordon J.F. ‘How to Wreck the Environment’ MacDonald testified about in 1987 before the Senate Energy Committee (ch 7). MacDonald’s employer, the MITRE Corporation has also been deeply involved in promoting carbon taxes. The aforementioned Enron (ch 8) was also a key proponent of cap-and-trade. In August of 1997, Enron CEO Ken Lay met with Gore and President Clinton to develop positions for the upcoming Kyoto Protocol negotiations. That same year, the U.S. Senate voted 95 to 0 against ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. But that didn’t stop Gore. Al Gore continued on with the promotion of his business activities pertaining to the firm he founded and chaired called Generation Investment Management (GIM). The London-based firm invested in green businesses – the type of businesses that would thrive under a cap-and-trade scenario. David Blood, the CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, was Gore’s business partner. As of 1997, the only firm to trade carbon credits in the United States was the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). The CCX was set up so that when any of its corporate members such as Ford, DuPont, Dow, or others bought carbon credits, they were effectively investing in green energy firms. Gore’s close associate Maurice Strong was a CCX board member. Enron (ch 8) was the largest trader of carbon credits. Al Gore was actively using his office as vice president in attempts to create a situation whereby American businesses would be forced to buy carbon credits on Maurice Strong’s exchange. These purchases would, in turn, most likely fund businesses in which Gore was invested. Genius. Never let a good crisis go to waste. There are many more details to this story involving organizations such as Goldman Sachs, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. For a more in-depth discussion, please refer to a 2007 Human Events article by Corey Barnes titled “The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade.”
The Rockefellers have provided massive funding for just about all of the biggest NGOs (non-government organizations) involved in the environmental movement. The Energy Foundation was created by the Rockefellers as a way to funnel funds to organizations that fund political campaigns and lobby for public policy pertaining to issues of climate. At universities and colleges throughout the country that rely on Rockefeller funding, environmental courses have become mandatory. George Soros’ Open Societies Foundations have also funneled billions of dollars to environmental activist foundations pushing the climate change agenda such as: the Aspen Institute, the Tides Foundation, Earthjustice, the Presidential Climate Action Project, the ClimateWorks Foundation, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
In late 2009 a treasure trove of emails, leaked from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University, made their way onto the Internet – in full view of everybody. This was not a good look for the climate alarmists at the CRU because the emails showed a pattern of highly unscientific behavior designed to support the theory of man-made climate change and squash any opposition. The New Media covered it immediately, but it took the frauds in the old, mainstream media a week to get around to mentioning it. When CNN, NBC, CBS and the rest finally got around to covering it, they all in unison decreed that, yes the emails were authentic, but the general public is too stupid and ignorant to understand what these super-intelligent scientists are talking about. The story was then promptly swept under the rug and has not been heard about in the Old Media since. But we in the New Media remember what happened very well.
First of all, it is important to understand what the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is. The CRU was founded by Hubert Horace Lamb (1913-1997) in 1972 – the same year of the Stockholm Conference. Lamb is generally considered the father of modern climate studies.
In the 1980s, Lamb turned management of the CRU over to his colleague Tom Wigley. During this time frame, the Rockefeller Foundation provided the CRU with funding.
The CRU was the main source of the scientific climate data used in the IPCC reports and that data was controlled by a small group of scientists within the CRU. At the time of the Climategate scandal, most, if not all of the CRU’s management were members of the IPCC. The modern version of the CRU evolved in symbiosis with the IPCC. In fact, the IPCC and today’s CRU are essentially the same organization.
When the Climategate emails were leaked, the director of the CRU, Phil Jones believed that the emails were stolen and reported the theft to the police. This is how we originally knew that the emails were authentic. Jones later tried to downplay the significance of the emails – claiming that they portrayed nothing but the usual, banal banter between scientists. If that was the case, then why was he so concerned about their dissemination that he called the police? If one reads the emails, it quickly becomes apparent as to why Jones was so concerned.
The Climategate emails from the CRU clearly show time and time again concerted efforts to: fudge the data, squash and sabotage the opposition, propagate lies, hide data, strategically delete data, corrupt the peer-review process, threaten journal editors, and more. All of this, of course, was done in efforts to promote the theory of man-made global warming and climate change. These activities were unscientific to say the least.
Of particular interest to our discussion, a 2009 Climategate email from Kevin Trenberth to Tom Wigley mentions geoengineering. His message suggests that activities at the CRU are designed to promote geoengineering. The email reads:
“How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter? We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we cannot account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”
Most people are completely unaware of the fact that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has anything to do with the theory of man-made global warming. That’s probably by design. Evidence shows that they have been behind it this whole time. Although they apparently don’t want you to know about it, here we will examine the CIA’s pervasive involvement with and their promotion of the theory of man-made global warming and climate change.
John von Neumann, the original promoter of the modern theory of man-made global warming (ch 11), was a CIA agent. Our good friend Gordon J.F. ‘How to Wreck the Environment’ MacDonald was a CIA agent, worked extensively with the Agency, and was a proponent of the theory of man-made global warming. Al Gore worked with the Agency on the Measurements of Earth Data for Environmental Analysis (MEDEA) project (ch 7).
In the previous chapter, we learned how the CIA controls much of our modern mass media. We also have direct evidence of their involvement in the creation of propaganda regarding the Earth’s average temperature. The 1974, CIA-produced report titled “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems” fear mongers incessantly about climate fluctuations and weather. They report on recent examples of extreme weather and the resultant death and destruction as evidence for a long-term shift in Earth’s climate which they call ‘the climate change.’ Maybe they should have made a horror movie by that title. The authors of “A Study of Climatological Research” go on to state that the combination of ‘the climate change’ and Earth’s growing Human population is a recipe for disaster. They write that the crop failures due to ‘the climate change’ are destabilizing governments all over the world. As they touch on climate modification, they write that this destabilization of governments can cause war. The authors write:
“Timely forecasting of climate and its impact on any nation is vital to the planning and execution of U.S. policy on social, economic, and political issues. The new climatic era brings a promise of famine and starvation to many areas of the world. The resultant unrest caused by the mass movement of peoples across borders as well as the attendant intelligence questions cannot be met with existing analytical tools. In addition, the Agency will be faced with tracing and anticipating climate modification undertaken by a country to relieve its own situation at the detriment of the United States. The implication of such a modification must be carefully assessed.”
You guessed it. They needed more funding. Considering the CIA’s commanding presence over our mass media, this report appears to be a big part of the wildly reaching assumptions pervasive among global warming alarmists today claiming famine, disease, mass-migrations, war, and Humanity’s extinction all due to the climate change. A small problem for today’s global warming cult members, though, is the fact that this early example of climate change delusion concerned itself with global cooling, not global warming. If one tries hard enough, anything can be made to appear as a problem; especially when lots of money and power hang in the balance.
Later, in 2008, the CIA contributed to a standard global warming scare-fest titled “National Intelligence Assessment on the National Security Implications of Global Climate Change to 2030.” At least this time the authors of the report didn’t foresee state failure. We have something to be thankful for. Lastly, in 2015, CNS News and Mother Jones reported that CIA director John Brennan was regurgitating nonsense about all the impending doom sure to come from Earth’s temperature fluctuations and how he is so deeply concerned about it.
The overt agenda
It is undeniable that gigantic socio-economic agendas are attached to the theory of man-made global climate change. This fact is exemplified by the Green New Deal as well as the aforementioned Agenda 21. From the proposed legislation presented on congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) website, we see that, because of catastrophic man-made global warming, we are supposed to: transition to alternative forms of energy, upgrade all existing buildings, eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, overhaul transportation systems, reconstruct labor laws, and oh so much more. James Corbett of The Corbett Report says that we’re looking at: $90 trillion in energy infrastructure investments, a $1 trillion green bond market, a multi-trillion dollar carbon trading market, a $391 billion climate finance industry, and more.
As we have seen from the evidence presented in this chapter, the theory of man-made global warming was concocted and promoted by the elites who own big businesses and big governments. So it’s not about environmentalism or shutting down big business. In fact, only well-funded big businesses could easily make the transition to a world dominated by the Green New Deal and Agenda 21. You see, the overt, socio-economic agenda of the theory of man-made global climate change is about shutting down the smaller competition to big business, consolidating political and financial power, and firmly placing a boot on the neck of Humanity. That’s what the Green New Deal does and they’re doing it openly.
The covert agenda
What this book details is the covert man-made climate change agenda – the New Manhattan Project. As we learned in the previous chapter, the modern theory of man-made global warming has been perpetuated not only as a way to propel the theory’s overt socio-economic objectives. It has also been used as a way to propel the covert New Manhattan Project. In 1965, when traitorous and illegitimate elements of our federal government released the document titled “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment,” simultaneously establishing both the theory of man-made climate change and the SRM geoengineering theses, that was the official beginning of this aspect of the big lie. This lie about global warming served and serves as the justification for spraying tens of thousands of megatons of toxic garbage over Humanity and the rest of Earth’s biota. This lie was, in part, needed as justification for the visible aspects of the planned New Manhattan Project. Let us not forget that “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment” came out of the executive branch of the federal government and that the CIA is designed to serve the executive branch. Throughout the pages of this book, we have seen the CIA’s pervasive involvement – including their promotion of the theory of man-made global warming.
Consider the implications of this. Consider how almost all of the environmental movements and organizations in the Western world have been folded into this grand deception. Consider the countless millions of people who have marched in the street, in a satanic orgy, demanding the Earth’s (and their own) destruction. Consider all the money that has been donated to perpetuate this treachery. Consider all the fools who have forsaken and attacked their fellow man because he did not want to be destroyed. The establishment has had all these people thinking that they are doing a good turn, all the while these people have been supporting everybody’s and everything’s utter destruction. In the church of global warming, there is an altar beneath the pulpit.
If you still espouse the theory of man-made global warming, and are not completely nihilistic and selfish, please relinquish your dogma. If you’ve read this chapter, then you now know the true facts of the matter. We’re all being murdered and most of us really don’t want to be killed. Heck, most of us don’t even want a reduction in our quality of life. It’s not necessary. This is what happens when we let a vampire into our house. Death is what happens when enough people believe the big global warming lie.
The corruption of science
What we have seen so far in this chapter and in this book demonstrates a fundamental corruption of the global scientific establishment. All this begs the question: How did things get so screwed up? As suggested in chapter 2, it all began during World War II. Here in America, it began with Vannevar Bush and his National Science Foundation and that’s where it continues.
Before WWII, there was very little government funding of science. The National Science Foundation (NSF) was established in 1951 to provide support for post-World War II civilian scientific research. The process for funding civilian scientific activities developed by the NSF has since been adopted by virtually all other U.S. government science-funding agencies. The problem is that the science-funding process developed by the NSF is fundamentally flawed. Dr. J. Marvin Herndon, who we will soon recognize as a victim of this scientific establishment, enumerates four flaws in the NSF process of government science-funding.
The first flaw enumerated by Dr. Herndon pertains to today’s peer-review process. Believe it or not, the peer-review process of today allows for anonymous peer-reviewers. The NSF came up with the idea that peer-reviewers should be anonymous. Before this, the concept of scientific peer-review did not exist. This concept of anonymous peer-review was later adopted by virtually all government science-funding agencies and almost universally by scientific journal editors. Scientists hidden by the anonymous peer-review process often make untrue and/or pejorative statements about their competition’s work. Sometimes, in order to reject a paper, the editors of the journals themselves will make negative and untrue comments anonymously. Scientists have come to understand that the anonymous peer-review process makes it unlikely that work challenging the consensus viewpoint will be published, so they don’t bother to engage in groundbreaking work. They stick to work that has a better chance of being successfully funded. In this way, the anonymous peer-review process stifles the introduction of new ideas.
Flaw number two enumerated by Dr. Herndon is that the NSF requires pre-planned results. This is akin to putting the cart before the horse because it is impossible to say what one will discover before one discovers it. This aspect of the funding process, too, was invented by the NSF and it has led today’s scientists away from true scientific discovery and towards trivial, heavily bureaucratic work.
Flaw number three is unaccountability. There is no direct legal responsibility or liability for NSF-funded individual scientists’ conduct. These responsibilities are usually deferred to a university or other large institution and this encourages unethical conduct amongst individuals.
Flaw number four pertains to how the publishers of scientific journals are paid by the government to publish journal articles and then those same publishers turn around and charge the public for access to these same journal articles. This amounts to double-dipping the taxpaying American citizen and stifles the free exchange of information in that, if it costs money to view an article, then less people will view it. Stifling the free exchange of this information results in less vital criticism of the scientific work in question – thereby rendering an overall lower quality of product. Not only all that, but the journal publishers get ownership of copyrights to the articles when the underlying scientific research was originally funded by the taxpayer! That’s more like triple-dipping!
Dr. Herndon makes note of a website called arXiv.org as being particularly problematic. He writes that this website, “has become the preeminent means of scientific communication in the areas of science and mathematics it hosts.” In a 2011 paper Dr. Herndon writes that the NSF has permitted arXiv.org, “to become an instrument for science-suppression, and for blacklisting and discrimination against competent, well-trained scientists worldwide.”
Dr. Herndon should know. He has experienced the active suppression of scientific discovery first-hand. In the late 1970s Dr. Herndon made major discoveries pertaining to the Earth’s inner core. As noted earlier in this chapter, Dr. Herndon found that there is a natural nuclear reactor at the center of our planet. This discovery overturned the apple carts of many an established man of science and surely did not fit with the emerging theories of man-made global climate change. But, if we had a highly functioning scientific establishment, Dr. Herndon’s discoveries would have been thoroughly examined and discussed in attempts to either prove or, more importantly, disprove his findings. Dr. Herndon was more than prepared to weather these storms. These types of discoveries have brought people directly into the world of the scientific elite. Instead… crickets. His discoveries were published in Naturwissenschaften as well as in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, but that was where it ended. Dr. Herndon writes:
“In 1979, I published an entirely different idea of the inner core’s composition. The scientific paper was communicated by Nobel Laureate Harold C. Urey to the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London and I received a complimentary letter from Inge Lehman [1888-1993]. But instead of debate, discussion, and experimental and/or theoretical verification/refutation, I received silence from the geophysics community, not only on that discovery, but on a host of discoveries that followed as a consequence.”
Since then, Dr. Herndon’s work has been stifled by the NSF and their peer-review process many times. Dr. Herndon’s thoughts on all of this are as follows:
“There is at work, I regret to say, an ongoing malevolent political agenda, potentially devastating to humanity and to our planet, and it is being driven by a scientific community that cannot be trusted to tell the truth, a scientific community comprised of fund-recipients of DOE, NASA, and NSF grants/contracts, and U.S. Government scientists and administrators, who have proven themselves inept, irresponsible, and incapable of rendering valid and truthful scientific knowledge.”
The New Manhattan Project and the theory of man-made global climate change are front and center in this malevolent agenda.
The NSF’s incestuous relationship with large universities and their anonymous peer-review process amounts to fraud upon the American taxpayer. By statute, the NSF is supposed to fund individuals outside of universities, but that hardly ever happens. The National Science Board is supposed to keep the NSF in line, instead, the NSF has been allowed to create a situation where the process has been corrupted and the ‘science-barbarians,’ as Dr. Herndon calls them, have been allowed to run wild. Again Dr. Herndon writes:
“Shielded, unaccountable, and protected by decades of institutionally-sanctioned secrecy, the barbarians, invited in by the National Science Foundation, have progressively changed science from an arena of new ideas and open debate into an intolerant religious practice, replete with the promulgation of singular points of view, where non-doctrinaire new ideas and debate are to be suppressed or buried, a real-life parallel to Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 fire department whose mission had changed to one of burning books.”
Many people apparently think that somehow scientists (and therefore science) are incorruptible. They say that they ‘believe in science.’ But, believe it or not, just like so many countless others have done, corrupt scientists will compromise themselves and their work for personal gain – be it financial, political, or social. Saying that one ‘believes in science’ is essentially the same as saying that one ‘believes in big business’ or that one ‘believes in government.’ It is much healthier to be critical of all of these things and to take them all on a case-by-case basis.
Your author has good news. As this chapter demonstrates, we don’t have to worry about rising sea levels. The frequency of extreme weather anomalies is not increasing. The polar bears are fine. Regardless of what the Old Media says, the world is not warmer than it ever has been. Current fluctuations in average global temperature are not unprecedented. The world has been warmer than it is today for the vast majority of the last 10,000 years. Rejoice! They’re just trying to browbeat us into submission like they always do.
The provably false theory of man-made global climate change is being propagated so furiously because the elites of this world want the absolute, centralized power that only a one world government can afford. It is being promoted as the global problem that requires global solutions which can only be most effectively administered by a global government. Of course, the New Manhattan Project is being promoted as one of the great solutions to this problem and the United Nations is the presumptive one world government just waiting for enough of us to submit.
References ….. read full article here