Is global warming a hoax to further the New World Order?

An open letter to Hon Paul Hellyer

By Desmond McGrath

Dear Sir;

I have been an aficionado of your writings for longer than I remember and met you briefly in person on two occasions where you were speaking in the 80s and early 90s and on one occasion corresponded with you when I discovered that one of your just published books, "Evil Empire: globalization's Darker Side" was listed as sold out by a major Canadian book distributor despite the opposite being true. That being said I take great exception to your claims on 'global warming' now coded in the Orwellian doublespeak of 'climate change' especially the context and direction that your book "Light at the End of the Tunnel" takes on that matter and in particular your interview with Bill Ryan from Project Avalon, Tuesday July20th, 2010.:

I set out several things that I think are absolutely essential if we're going to keep planet Earth as a hospitable habitat for the human species, for our grandchildren and their children. They are, one that we have to do something about global warming. Two, that we have to change the banking system that controls the destiny of the world at the present time, and, three, that people of different religions who have been fighting each other for millennia stop doing that, stop thinking that they're exclusive and the only way to heaven, and start working together to build a planet where every person would have enough to eat, clean water to drink and a roof over their head and some clothing and a little educational opportunity. These things are all tied in together... (bold emphasis mine)

I think that that you hit the nail on the head when you said all these things are tied together but as I will discuss in this letter for far different reasons, I would go further to say that up until you got aboard the 'global warming' bandwagon, I have been in total agreement with more than 98% of your various writings and talks, including the question of UFO's; having seen Unidentified Flying Objects on several occasions that defied the currently known laws of physics and natural sciences (unless there is an unknown pair of interstellar Wright brothers who have yet to go public from their barn in Montana). The reason I take such great umbrage to your latest direction regarding global warming is that it goes against the grain of all your previous good works exposing the Rothschildian magic show of manufacturing money and controlling people via their governments through never ending debit for the reasons I shall discuss here; as I am of the firm belief that the global warming scare has been concocted by the very banking system you love to hate and that much of the sectarian and religious violence has been fomented by the same moneyed interests for profit.

U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres spoke during an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 22, 2014, as reported in the Investors Business Daily:

{Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."}

In previous writings Here I have described, a chance meeting with Sir Edmund De Rothschild via my late father Brian Cron McGrath who was then President of Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation (CFLCo), where Sir Edmund talked about a carbon tax several years before CO2 was danced across the world stage by his interests at the 4th World Wilderness Congress in 1987, as the culprit behind global warming and previously discussed connections between Sir Edmund, Maurice Strong and George Soros. It is my contention that these two different statements/events some 30 plus years apart are inextricably linked and have nothing to do with global warming; I enjoin you to read this letter in its entirety, including the hyperlinked documents to reevaluate your position on global warming being our biggest problem.

I would like to use the comparison you made in one of your interviews of how you finally accepted the reality of UFO's and Extra Terrestrials that you had to absorb the information gradually or else you would not believe it, so I would suggest reading this a page at a time including the links.

Mark Twain famously quoted:

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

Joseph Goebbels also said:

"Follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous"

The propaganda regarding 'global warming' is so all pervasive that writers interject it onto every commentary. The most ridiculous recent example being in the Scientific American:

After 400 Million Years, Coelacanth at Risk of Extinction

By John R. Platt | March 4, 2015


Quote:

It may have hidden in the ocean for millions of years, but life today poses numerous challenges for the West Indian Ocean coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae), the "living fossil" fish that was famously rediscovered off the coast of South Africa in 1938. The few areas in which the fish still swim face destruction from new port construction while the coelacanths themselves risk being caught up in fishing nets intended for sharks. Even climate change poses a new risk for the species. (bold emphasis mine)

Just to show the sheer lunacy of that emphasized statement look at the following temperature and CO2 extremes for the earth over the past 400 Million Years the coelacanth has survived through, not to mention the geological and oceanic upheaval associated with the breakup of Pangea. Clearly the writer of the article has no concept of the Earths climatological history as it relates to the coelacanths 400 million year stay on the planet and merely inserted a 'climate change' threat either because editorial staff requested this slant or he is still high on Hopium or has been drinking global warming Kool-Aid; any combination of the above is not valid journalism but rather using the shotgun approach and blame everything on global warming.


Claiming rising temperatures are caused by rising CO2 concentrations solely from anthropogenic activity is like blaming high taxation levels solely on government program spending and failing to analyze and expose the root cause of the government debt as being the compounding of accumulated interest due to the Rothschild's almost total control of the world's banking systems, manufacturing money at the stroke of a pen. Since the Cambrian explosion of life on this planet there has been a symbiotic relationship between the plant and animal kingdom called the carbon cycle, we animals exhale CO2 and the plants thrive on it, so much so that greenhouse operators can boost production by pumping extra C02 into them. Note on the previous graph the low temperature and CO2 of 300 million years (+= 20 million years) ago when most of the high quality coal in the world was deposited; carbon and hydrogen locked under silts and muds during approaching glaciation. The connection between coal, oil and natural gas deposition and glaciation has been investigated by many researchers for example Le Heron et al 2009 Ancient glaciations and hydrocarbon accumulations in North Africa and the Middle East. It should also be noted that the earth has only had a permanent ice cap for less than 35% of the time since the Cambrian explosion of life and the lack of polar ice was never caused Anthropogenically.

As glaciation caused the super forests of the carboniferous period to die off, the world's CO2 concentration increased due to the declining sequestration in the dwindling biomass and dinosaurs exhaling CO2 in increasing quantities. Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier's theory 'conservation of mass' dictates that all the base elements of carbon and oxygen (with the exception of that created as a byproduct of the earths internal fission) have existed since time immemorial; the carbon of carbon dioxide gets striped from oxygen via photosynthesis and stored in biomass, linked with other compounds, predominantly hydrogen, while the O2 gets released to oxidizing processes such as supporting combustion (fire) and allowing us to breathe. The only annual caveats to this conservation of mass on earth are 40,000 tons of space dust we collect, 97,000 tonnes of hydrogen and helium that escape gravity and 16 or so tons of material that is consumed by fission heating the earth's core thanks to Einstein's E=MC^2

Hydrocarbon resources are Energy Banks:

The world's hydrocarbon resources are little more than an energy storage bank that has been storing the suns energy in photosynthesized form for millions of years and being a bank of energy and profit it is but another takeover target by the rapacious Rothschildian entities intent on controlling the world socio-economically. All the carbon thus stored in these energy banks existed in other forms such as CO2 before they were created and deposited long before the rise of humans.

Putting the previous graph into final perspective here are some vital questions:

1. Were any of the previous CO2 and temperature excursions anthropogenic (manmade)?
   
   
2. With mankind's current level of technological development could mankind have even delayed or altered any of the previous events?
   
   
   • IEEE Spectrum "What It Would Really Take to Reverse climate change" Today's renewable energy technologies won't save us. So what will? By Ross Koningstein & David Fork Posted 18 Nov 2014
     
     
   Any person with a modicum of common sense would respond no to the previous two, so where is the sheer lunacy of carbon sequestration coming from proposing to store CO2 underground considering that two thirds of the gas molecule thus sequestered is life sustaining oxygen?
   
   
3. If there is a genuine correlation that increasing CO2 causes increasing temperature and vice versa, then how can one explain that for nearly 100 million years in the middle of the age of the dinosaurs global temperatures dropped while CO2 levels increased? Now that 'global warming' has become in Orwellian doublespeak 'climate change' a climate theologian quoting from the gospel of Gaia according to Gore, could argue that CO2 is an "icehouse gas" and we will now have a new ice age such as Walter Cronkite announced in 1972. See reference to article by Dr. Tim Ball below, Item 3 of seven interesting points, suggests that CO2 lags temperature and not drives it as the CO2 lobby would have you believe.
   

The role of energy in Socio Economic Development;

In a previous article published in Canada Free Press entitled "Flea circuses, energy starvation & declining quality of life." I noted the following:

Americans are being trained like fleas for a circus and every passing year the glass ceiling is being lowered with a diabolical precision reminiscent of Edgar Allen Poe's the "Pit and The Pendulum." election cycles are like trans-generational chess matches with each election merely repositioning pieces in a long term strategy to checkmate the US Constitution and subjugate the American people to global governance sometimes referred to as "The New World Order." One of the key elements of such an agenda is the curtailing and pricing out of reach the most essential commodity to socio economic wellbeing; Energy. It's a statistical fact that countries with higher per capita energy consumption have generally better quality of life, better roads, better hospitals, and better schools. The following graph shows the correlation between per capita energy usage versus one of the UN's own measures of a country's development, called the Human Development Index or HDI.

Air Quality and Increasing Energy Consumption:

In my article "Obama fiddling his climate change tune, while Rome burns" I expanded on the connection between Energy usages, the attendant increase in the quality of life and correlated it with overall air quality:

One would think that the increased use in energy would cause a corresponding reduction in air quality. It should be noted that America has the most sampled air in the world and in terms of particulate count per cubic meter is #5 in terms of the country with the cleanest air. I took the air quality readings from the World Health Organization report on air quality in terms of particulate matter and graphed it with the energy consumption per capita from my HDI graph and achieved surprising results.

The energy consumption scale is on the left and the particulate count in the air on the right with the large red square the particle count in America and the large blue square the energy consumption per capita per annum; the lower the particle count the better the air quality. The surprising thing is that with notable exceptions due to local non energy related environmental conditions such as desert dust, the Higher the HDI of a country due to higher energy use; the better the air quality in terms of lower particulate matter. This means that more developed nations may consume more energy, but the technology with which the energy is produced and consumed is much more advanced thus contributing to less pollution per kilowatt hour of energy production.

Books worth reading on global warming:

Here are five books that deal with the issue of global warming with the same level of due diligence that you apply to your books on economics and money, they are:

climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the global warming Scam Hardcover – April 22, 2010 by Brian Sussman

Eco-Tyranny: How the Left's Green Agenda will Dismantle America Hardcover – April 17, 2012 by Brian Sussman

Energy and climate Wars: How naive politicians, green ideologues, and media elites are undermining the truth about energy and climate Hardcover – September 16, 2010 by Peter C. Glover (Author), Michael J. Economides

Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future Paperback – 16 Feb 2012 by James Delingpole

Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory Paperback – January 18, 2011

by John O'Sullivan (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), & 5 more

Was President Barack Hussein Obama's State of the Union Address based on falsehoods?

"No challenge – no challenge – poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change," President Obama declared in his State of the Union Address on January 20, 2015. Obama: climate change is the Greatest Threat January 21, 2015–12:26 AM By Terence P. Jeffrey

Quote:

Although he referred to it as "climate change" and not "global warming," the president immediately followed his declaration that this was the greatest threat to future generations by stating that fourteen of the hottest fifteen years "on record" have occurred since 2000.

"2014 was the planet's warmest year on record," said Obama. "Now, one year doesn't make a trend, but this does: 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century."

"I've heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they're not scientists; that we don't have enough information to act," said Obama. "Well, I'm not a scientist, either. But, you know what, I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we'll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe."

Not only are these statements blatant fear mongering, but it completely ignores the fact that under the 6+ years of Obama's watch America has accumulated more Rothschildian style debt than every President who preceded him right back to George Washington, a far more serious issue. Plus the US supported removal of Mubarak in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, the invasion of Libya and murder of Kaddafi despite Libya having the highest HDI in all of Africa such that the oil and monetary wealth could be divided up and a Rothschild's influenced bank started, the rise of ISIS(L), the loss of Crimea and fighting in the Ukraine all were under the watch and assistance of Barack Hussein Obama at the helm of the SS Hope and Change; all causing 'massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger'

Would the Obama Administration deliberately lie to sell the public on a policy initiative? Well one has only to look at the sales job for Obamacare and I rest my case.

Here are seven interesting points to consider:

1. The current temperature is in the lowest 3% of the values since the end of the last Ice age 10,000 years ago and that researchers are finding temperature records have been deliberately altered to show warming when either none existed or to hide a decline. climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming Christopher Booker the Telegraph 24 Jan 2015.
   
   
2. Dueling Datasets: Satellite Temperatures Reveal the 'global warming Pause' Lengthens to 18 years 2 months – (218 Months) By: Marc Morano – climate Depot December 4, 2014 The article also quotes 66 excuses for the temperature anomaly. THE HOCKEY SCHTICK "If you can't explain the 'pause,' you can't explain the cause..." Wednesday, November 19, 2014
   
   
   
3. The current statements regarding the warming being driven by increasing CO2 appear to be false according to research by fellow Canadian Dr. Tim Ball (Contributor to Slaying the Sky Dragon)
   
   
   1. The carbon and climate cycles are coupled in a consistent manner from the Early Holocene to the present day.
      
      
   2. The carbon cycle lags behind the climate cycle and thus does not drive the climate cycle.
      
      
   3. The lag time is consistent with the hypothesis of a temperature-driven carbon cycle. (opposite to the global warming fanaticism claims, comment mine)
      
      
4. "Scientists" who point to the Arctic ice loss and the attendant increase in ocean levels blame it on global warming and conveniently ignore the discovery of subsea volcanoes under the arctic icecap that erupted in 1999. American Thinker June 26, 2008 Arctic ice melt may be due to undersea volcanoes By Thomas Lifson They quibble about a few millimeters of sea level change per year and never discuss the total magnitude of change (approximately 130,000 millimeters) that has occurred since the last ice age.
   
   
   
5. Alarmists claim that because a huge chunk of ice broke free of Antarctica it's due to global warming and ignore the fact that Antarctica has been growing more ice Record Antarctic Ice Extent Throws Cold Water On global warming Scare. Forbes by James Taylor 5/16/2014
   
   
6. The heat input from the earth's internal fission is never properly accounted for in the models that created the travesty of the Mann Hockey Stick Graph. Nuclear Fission Confirmed as Source of More than Half of Earth's Heat, Scientific American By David Biello | July 18, 2011
   
   
7. In the push to prove that human activity and the subsequent addition of a few extra parts per million of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause the earth to go into a thermal runaway the likes of which has not been seen since Chernobyl; the creators of the Mann Hockey Stick Graph and others like the IPCC conveniently ignore the variation in solar output and the effects of sunspots on the yearly average surface temperatures here on earth. Yes, the sun (was) driving global warming, THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Tuesday, February 24, 2015 This is of prime importance considering that the Sun is entering a period of declining activity "The sun has gone quiet again during the weakest solar cycle in more than a century" Feb 17 2015 Vencoreweather.com
   

Is Al Gore a Rothschild's Agent?

Al Gore's recent talk in Austin Texas suggests that he is nothing more than a shill, huckster and profiteer "Al Gore at SXSW: We Need to 'Punish climate-change Deniers' and 'Put a Price on carbon'" Ecowatch by Cole Mellino March 16, 2015

Quote:

"Gore said forward-thinking investors are moving away from companies that invest in fossil fuels and towards companies investing in renewable energy. "We need to put a price on carbon to accelerate these market trends," Gore told the Chicago Tribune, referring to a proposed federal cap-and-trade system that would penalize companies that exceeded their carbon-emission limits. "And in order to do that, we need to put a price on denial in politics."

Of course if you read "Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-carbon Investment Hype" Forbes by Larry Bell 11/03/2013, Al Gore's motives become abundantly clear.

Al Gore is not alone in the desire to profit from the global warming carbon credit craze. "Obama's involvement in Chicago climate Exchange – the rest of the story" Canada Free Press, by Judi McLeod March 25, 2009 discusses Obama's, Al Gore's and Maurice Strong's involvement in the creation and operation of the private entity called the Chicago climate Exchange. Hence... Barack Obama: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (January 2008) the question becomes to whom will the profits of these skyrocketing energy costs accrue?

Is Cap and Trade another Rothschildian tax or monetary scheme?

Cap and trade or any other version of carbon credit trading is a currency exchange or tax from which the few will profit and the multitudes suffer. Is this the latest in a long line of Rothschildian hatched schemes like Income tax (in many countries sold as a temporary measure to pay for WWI) and goods & services tax (GST) designed to take money out of circulation to service the compounded interest of governmental debt and fund a myriad of social engineering scheme's using the alleged "spending power" of federal governments enslaved by this corrupt international banking scheme? To use a statement attributed to the Rothschild's and change the word 'capital' to 'cap and trade':

"The few who can understand the system will be either so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while, on the other hand, that great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that cap and trade derives from the system, will bear its burden without complaint and, perhaps, without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests."

Now by proposing a tax on carbon and/or a carbon credit system; have they moved to taxing life itself!?

The use of Orwellian doublespeak to con the masses:

In a recent Renew America article 'Orwellian doublethink and controlled insanity' By Ronald R. Cherry. MD March 16, 2015 he aptly notes the Orwellian aspects of renaming 'global warming' to 'climate change' Quote:

Another politician is an advocate of "climate change" – Orwellian doublespeak for belief in man-caused global warming – and a denial of solar-driven climate change which results in both global warming and global cooling. In the mind of a co-believer the words "climate change" evoke an image of man-made global warming. In the mind of a naive man the words "climate change" evoke an image of the natural changes that occur in weather – both warming and cooling. Mission accomplished – simply by uttering the incantation "climate change" the politician may win the approval of both – each with opposite mental images – one false and one true – hopefully gaining the vote of both.

Even National Geographic has weighed in in the need to convince the masses in a recent article "Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?" by Joel Achenbach March 2015.

Quote:

We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge – from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change – faces organized and often furious opposition. Empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts.

...

Meanwhile the Internet makes it easier than ever for climate skeptics and doubters of all kinds to find their own information and experts. Gone are the days when a small number of powerful institutions – elite universities, encyclopedias, major news organizations, even National Geographic – served as gatekeepers of scientific information. The Internet has democratized information, which is a good thing. But along with cable TV, it has made it possible to live in a "filter bubble" that lets in only the information with which you already agree.

How to penetrate the bubble? How to convert climate skeptics? Throwing more facts at them doesn't help. Liz Neeley, who helps train scientists to be better communicators at an organization called Compass, says that people need to hear from believers they can trust, who share their fundamental values. She has personal experience with this. Her father is a climate change skeptic and gets most of his information on the issue from conservative media.

(Bolding emphasis mine)

It seems as if the author in the previous article almost deifies the day when information was tightly controlled just like it was before Galileo's time and suggests that somehow the conservative media is the leading source of skepticism; or is it that conservative media has not been coerced into only telling the warmist point of view like the BBC as discussed later? It must be remembered that it was Guttenberg's invention of the printing press that opened up the floodgates of information formerly held by the gatekeepers of that era. To quote Wikipedia:

(T)he Printing Revolution and is widely regarded as the most important event of the modern period.[1] It played a key role in the development of the Renaissance, Reformation, the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific revolution and laid the material basis for the modern knowledge-based economy and the spread of learning to the masses.[2]

...

In Renaissance Europe, the arrival of mechanical movable type printing introduced the era of mass communication which permanently altered the structure of society. The relatively unrestricted circulation of information – including revolutionary ideas – transcended borders, captured the masses in the Reformation and threatened the power of political and religious authorities; the sharp increase in literacy broke the monopoly of the literate elite on education and learning and bolstered the emerging middle class. Across Europe, the increasing cultural self-awareness of its people led to the rise of proto-nationalism, accelerated by the flowering of the European vernacular languages to the detriment of Latin's status as lingua franca.

It is any wonder that there is such a push by the elite and the Obama administration to control the internet using the Orwellian doublespeak of net neutrality?

In addition to the polling done by the myriad organizations such as Gallup, Pew & Rasmussen gauging public support/belief in global warming; there is an even more insidious method of measuring the effectiveness of climate change 'double speak' and in my opinion that is monitoring the 'voluntary' purchase of carbon offsets. Most interestingly the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) still calls 'climate change' 'global warming':

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/offsets.asp

Quote:

• Voluntary offsets allow individuals and businesses to counteract unavoidable carbon emissions by paying for reductions at projects that avoid or capture GHG emissions somewhere else.
  

We will probably never truly know if the voluntary purchases of carbon offsets are statistically monitored to measure the public's acceptance of the Orwellian double speak on 'global warming,' but NRDC is not alone and there are other such organizations for example: www.terrapass.com. Regardless these organizations are making money off the process like carbon parasites.

I would further suggest that you read the Huffington Post article "A climate Plan for the New Administration" by Richard Ayres Co-Founder, NRDC Posted: 01/17/2009 Updated: 05/25/2011 and you can see not only the blueprint the Obama administration has been following since announcing "Energy Prices will necessarily skyrocket" in 2008 to "climate change is the greatest threat" January 21, 2015. Note what the Huffington Post says about the aforementioned article. (The Op-Ed below summarizes a longer paper written by Mr. Ayres and others under the pen name 'Justinian,' which can be found on the web at http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqm4999_1f7h4xjgm&hl=en.) Interestingly enough you need to have permission to read the original document.

The Left and the Environmental Movement:

Van Jones, former Whitehouse Czar and self-avowed communist, served on the board of NRDC and is now the poster child for Demand Clean Power: http://www.demandcleanpower.org/van-jones/. The link between the left/Marxism/communism and the environmental movement is well documented in several of the previous 5 books listed, hence the term 'Watermelon.' People are often very skeptical about any links between bankers or industrialists and communism perhaps one should read "Who Financed Lenin and Trotsky", even Dr. Bella Dodd's book "School of Darkness"

One interesting quote from Dodd's book:

"What now became clear to me was the collusion of these two forces: the Communists with their timetable for world control, and certain mercenary forces in the free world bent on making profits from blood." (Page 229)

Also

Censorship is crucial to Communists, Dodd says. "I have often seen leaders pull books from shelves in homes and warn members to destroy them."(Page 223)

Double speak and the suppression of those dissenting points of view on global warming:

In order for what Goebbels said: "one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous" to work effectively, a secondary influence has to come into play and that involves the suppression of opposing points of view as being counter revolutionary. In the recent article 'BBC's climate change stance in brazen defiance of the law', When it comes to climate change, the BBC's coverage is quite deliberately one-sided, argues Christopher Booker in the Telegraph 07 Mar 2015. Quote:

"Next January will see the 10th anniversary of one of the most curious episodes in the history of the BBC. At a "secret seminar," many of its most senior executives met with a roomful of invited outsiders to agree on a new policy that was in flagrant breach of its Charter. They agreed that, when it came to climate change, the BBC's coverage should now be quite deliberately one-sided, in direct contravention of its statutory obligation that "controversial subjects" must be "treated with due accuracy and impartiality." Anything that contradicted the party line, from climate science to wind farms, could be ignored."

Even the LA times is in on the act in their op ed "On letters from climate-change deniers" by Jon Healey

Quote:

'And those scientists have provided ample evidence that human activity is indeed linked to climate change. Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change – a body made up of the world's top climate scientists – said it was 95% certain that we fossil-fuel-burning humans are driving global warming. The debate right now isn't whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us.

Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy.'

Just like Al Gore saying that climate denial needs to be punished, this is not freedom of the press and merely parroting what the IPCC has said as gospel with a 95% certainty is classic Orwellian doublespeak.

Is there a genuine consensus amongst scientists on anthropogenic global warming?

This question could only be considered if there were genuine and open debate on the subject, given the fact that BBC has suppressed dissenting points of view for over 9 years and statements out of the LA Times shows it parroting the party line and we don't know what other main stream media outlets are filtering out the legitimate climate skeptics; therefore I highly doubt it. Given the vehement public rhetoric like Al Gore, and many others, boldly and brazenly saying "we need to put a price on denial in politics" and "We'll be calling out the climate deniers who are standing in the way of progress in Washington"; what price has been paid in private by those who have valid arguments against the propaganda of "Inconvenient Truth" and anthropogenic global warming in general? Have those with valid research showing that global warming is a natural event and the human contribution is negligible compared to the natural forces at play, been denied funding for research or attacked, marginalized and criticized like Harvard astrophysicist and climate scientist professor Wei-Hock ("Willie") Soon for his peer reviewed research Paper into the Solar Aspect of global warming for example via this article in the Washington (com)Post "No, the sun isn't driving global warming" by Chris Mooney Feb 23rd 2015? Perhaps the question on consensus and suppression of divergent views can be best summed up by the question "Why Won't Al Gore Debate?" by Joseph Bast of the Heartland Institute, June 27, 2007.

There is seldom any mainstream media attention when a high profile former "warmist" converts to climate skepticism like "Leading climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the 'Consensus'" by James Delingpole, 8 May 2014 on Breitbart News.

Quote:

One of the world's most eminent climate scientists – for several decades a warmist – has defected to the climate sceptic camp.

Lennart Bengtsson – a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction – is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.

Perhaps Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D., professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, summed the whole global warming situation in Vol 18, No. 3 of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, "Science in the Public Square: global climate Alarmism and Historical Precedents" Quote:

A profound dumbing down of the discussion
(including the abdication of logic) interacts with the ascendancy
of incompetents.

...

A primary point of the above discussion has been to note
the richness of climate phenomena, and the fact that placing
this subject into the public sphere because of policy objectives
has forced a highly oversimplified definition of the terms of
reference, which largely exclude the most interesting examples
of historical climate change. The heavy intellectual price of the
politicization of science is rarely addressed.

global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and
it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been
damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even
theory to accommodate politically correct positions.

How can one escape from the Iron Triangle when it produces flawed
science that is immensely influential and is forcing catastrophic
public policy?

...

However, the cracks in the scientific
claims for catastrophic warming are, I think, becoming
much harder for the supporters to defend. Despite
official whitewashes, the climategate scandal was a clear
manifestation of pathology.....The scientific community
is clearly becoming less ambiguous in separating views on
warming from totally unreasonable fears for both the planet
and mankind. Environmental advocates are responding
by making increasingly extreme claims. Politicians are
recognizing that these claims are implausible, and are
backing away from both the issue and support for climate
science. The incentive is then for scientists to look
elsewhere for support. Regardless of whether this will be
sufficient, one can only hope that some path will emerge
that will end the present irrational obsession with climate
and carbon footprints.

Alternative energy and Green Jobs and global warming:

Hon Paul Hellyer, I do laud your devotion to the main goal of exposing the truth about the manufacturing of money; likewise your desire to find new alternate energy sources, even from alien origin if they already exist on earth as you suggest, however since necessity is the mother of invention I am a firm believer that the natural scientific process and the pure free market system should provide those answers. Things do not appear magically and the timeline of mankind's expanding knowledge grew as scientists, inventors and quite ordinary people expanded on the discoveries of those who came before them, to use your words "absorb the information gradually." I am sure that whatever alien technology may exist progressed over hundreds if not thousands of millennia before mankind's first footsteps on this planet.

It's my opinion that governmental intervention in the process allows unelected bureaucrats and politically motivated politicians to pick the winners and losers. When picked via governmental intervention it is not a complete secret and there are always individuals who reap monetary rewards from the governmental intervention via inside knowledge. One has only to look at the German or Spanish (Click for Links) Green Energy failures to see that forcing green jobs via Governmental intervention does not work "Spain's Green Disaster a Lesson for America" CBN News by Dale Hurd December 26, 2011:

"Politicians told us some years ago that they found a new way of investing or doing public investing in a new sector, in the renewable energies, that would create a sort of new economy with new jobs, green jobs, so called green jobs," Dr. Gabriel Calzada Álvarez, with King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said.

But what the Spanish got was a big helping of a Solyndra style business debacle: a lot of taxpayer money down the drain and jobs that cost a fortune to create.

A Job Killer

Calzada, an economist, studied Spain's green technology program and found that each green job created in Spain cost Spanish taxpayers $770,000. Each Wind Industry job cost $1.3 million to create.

"President Zapatero, for example, when he came in to power, said he knew, 'he knew' that solar energy was the future," Calzada said. "He 'knew' this, so he put all the public money and investment into this model."

But Calzada's study found that for every four jobs created by Spain's expensive green technology program, nine jobs were lost.

Electricity generated was so expensive that each "green" megawatt installed in the power grid destroyed five jobs elsewhere in the economy by raising business costs.

IEEE Spectrum "What It Would Really Take to Reverse climate change" Today's renewable energy technologies won't save us. So what will? By Ross Koningstein & David Fork Posted 18 Nov 2014.

While still buying into the dubious argument that CO2 drives the temperature and not the other way around QUOTE:

Similarly, we need competitive energy sources to power industrial facilities, such as fertilizer plants and cement manufacturers. A cement company simply won't try some new technology to heat its kilns unless it's going to save money and boost profits. Across the board, we need solutions that don't require subsidies or government regulations that penalize fossil fuel usage. Of course, anything that makes fossil fuels more expensive, whether it's pollution limits or an outright tax on carbon emissions, helps competing energy technologies locally. But industry can simply move manufacturing (and emissions) somewhere else. So rather than depend on politicians' high ideals to drive change, it's a safer bet to rely on businesses' self interest: in other words, the bottom line. (Bold Emphasis mine)

As an aside to the above statement American Industry has been almost completely destroyed by the EPA's rabid destruction of the coal industry while China is building coal fired power plants at an unprecedented rate creating a huge trade imbalance and debt in the USA and unprecedented pollution in China. So why is Maurice Strong so in love with China? I would suggest it's the totalitarian aspects and not the clean air or environmental practices if you read Maurice Strong Lauds Chinese Model At 2012 Earth Summit: "People's Movement Guided By The People's Government" Jurriaan Maessen ExplosiveReports.Com June 26, 2012

CO2 is not the villain:

CO2 is not a pollutant, but has been in a symbiotic relationship between the plant and animal since the Cambrian explosion of life on this planet. As even the IEEE Spectrum article is in agreement with you "Today's renewable energy technologies won't save us," then why has CO2 been singled out as the villain? I would suggest that this was a carefully planned strategy hatched well before my chance meeting with Major Edmund Leopold de Rothschild, CBE, 30+ plus years ago, it has been poured into our collective consciousness like a phial of Typhoid or Cholera, to use Sir Winston Churchill's analogy on Lenin, to create a virus and antidote in the same laboratory in the lead up to a final subjugation to the New World Order such as what is proposed at the conference in Paris this coming December.

Being a natural byproduct of hydrocarbon based combustion and given that the countries with the higher HDI and higher per capita Energy uses are wealthier and producing more CO2 per capita (despite lowering the overall real pollution via more advanced technology); it makes a convenient target to implement a global wealth redistribution scheme using any form of carbon based credits, taxes, cap and trade etc. This has led to an untold number of snake oil salesmen promoting the idea from Al Gore and partner Blood, Maurice Strong and possibly Barack Hussein Obama or his supporters; all lining themselves up to take profit from this venture like Ferengi from Star Trek.

If you really think about it, the doubling of the United States debt and the sale thereof to Communist China is a long term redistribution of American wealth.

This CO2 craze has precipitated fiascos like $535 million Solyndra theft of public funds, one of dozens of scandals, that have their attendant cast of unsavory characters all interconnected and profiting from the doubling of the national debt with Rothschildian manufactured money. "Investigator Who Cleared Obama In Solyndra Scandal A Top Donor" or "White House Ebola Czar Was 'Key Player' In Solyndra Scandal". The same corrupt one-sided media that promote CO2 based anthropogenic global warming and squelch alternate viewpoints conveniently call this "Crony Capitalism" dating back to the days of Alexander Hamilton, who temporarily foisted a Rothschildian style bank on the United States (until congress revoked its charter); when it should be more aptly called "Communistic Monopolism" not unlike those monopolists "Who Financed Lenin and Trotsky".

Sperm Whale Oil was not outlawed to pave the way for Edison's incandescent light:

While by many reports Thomas Edison was not the most savory of characters, he none the less was a self-educated man who labored away to create the first cost effective electric light. In the progress of lighting technology from the cottage industry of candle making through the industrial scale slaughtering of sperm whales for their oil to the use of coal gas, carbide and kerosene, one technology gave way to another as something newer more efficient and less costly came long. Edison's invention is now well into being legislatively phased out, which is signaling the start of a different economic development model than existed in Edison's time. It should be remembered that Edison's DC power transmission lost its famous battle with Tesla's AC purely on the technical and cost related merits, devoid of governmental intervention. Had the present administration been around at the time of the AC/DC battle, there is little doubt that based on General Electric's (formed after the AC/DC battle but to capitalize on Edison's work) favored status with the current administration that Edison's DC system would have been forced on the public through some sort of legislative or executive action chicanery; with an attendant increase in the final cost of electricity to the consumers. "Obama's favorite CEO gets GE out from paying any US taxes" March 25, 2011 by Ed Morrissey Hotair.com


Have we forgotten the lessons of Chicken Little (Henny Penny) or The Emperor's New Clothes?

I agree that non-CO2 pollution byproducts from hydrocarbon combustion need to be minimized (in the USA and Canada, this has been increasingly the case for decades) and that it is a terrible waste of coal and oil to be used purely for their heating energy value as there are so many products that can be made from them; however CO2 should be left completely out of the equation. The National Geographic Magazine article previously mentioned laments the fact that less than half of all Americans believe the earth is warming because humans are burning fossil fuels. We humans are skeptical by nature and historically many politicians have lied through their teeth to either get a piece of legislation passed or to get elected, or hidden disastrous pieces of legislation into larger bills and told people that "We Have to Pass the Bill to Find Out What's In It"; like a carnival barkers trying to get you spend your hard earned money to win the unknown contents of some grab bag that turns out to be Pandora's Box.

U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres certainly showed her hand with respect to the Paris climate change conference later this year in exposing the true goal "which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history." It's my opinion this has been the plan all along and it was hatched long before my chance meeting where a tax on hydrocarbons was mentioned in passing by a key architect and player 30+ years ago. There are other elements of the plan that have been growing like a mold or fungus through the grass roots of America, namely Agenda 21; it was spawned at the same Rio Conference chaired by Maurice Strong (Opening Statement Here and I encourage you to read it), yet few soundbites are ever heard on Agenda 21 above the constant buzz of the global warming drones stirring up hornets nests of watermelon environmental activists. This use of grass roots protest is classic Revolutionary Parliamentarianism (Article by Edward Griffin 1996) and the connections between Agenda 21 and global governance was discussed in great detail in the late Henry Lamb's book "The Rise of Global Governance, and Agenda 21". I am of the firm opinion that the great global warming scare and the filling of the human consciousness with dire consequences is nothing more than Chicken Littles "The Sky is Falling" or a chapter out of the Report from Iron Mountain; a ruse to divert people's attention from the real agenda as "scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions" quote by Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D., professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

So if your public enemy #1 CO2/global warming and #3 religious/sectarian violence have been used by #2 the current banking system as a ruse "to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history"; how naïve must one be to think that they will give up their power to manufacture money? These people are not latter day Gandhi's weaving their own clothes or E.F. Schumacher's using intermediate technology or growing his own walnuts, but jet setting millionaires and billionaires, limousine liberals with carbon footprints bigger than the average suburban development, like a bunch of tailors standing in the shop window measuring each other up for new suits of clothes at our expense via a new tax and carbon trading system. Where Gandhi fought against British monopolies, these carbon exchange pirates have their monopoly structures already set up and like pied pipers are luring mankind to changing the economic development model which will benefit them and not the majority of humanity. Some of the previously discredited pied pipers like Michael E Mann of the discredited Hockey Stick graph are soldiering on conveniently delaying his lawsuit against Mark Steyn into its 3rd year, Where Steyn Goes, No Mann Goes by Mark Steyn, November 25, 2014, fortunately a judge in the UK had previously reviewed Al Gore's propaganda and ruled that the "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change. It is, he ruled, a "political film". Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths' Telegraph by Sally Peck, 11 Oct 2007


Like the thieves who made the Emperor's new clothes, those who have made global warming their stock and trade for profit and those who are using it as a cover to "to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history" will, as Dylan Thomas famously said "not go gentle into that good night...[but rather will]...Rage, rage against the dying of the light." Being in the second last year of his presidential term, expect Obama to redouble efforts to influence the outcome of this Decembers Paris climate change conference and possibly unconstitutionally engage in a treaty with his pen and phone; you only have to listen to his campaign speech 5 days before his first election "Fundamentally transforming the United States of America...we will change this country and we will change the world". If you doubt that Barack Hussein Obama was put into office to promote a globalist agenda under the guise of global warming, read this line from his nomination acceptance speech; "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal".

What's in the global warming crystal ball?

If a treaty is indeed passed I would predict that in the years following, the deliberate skewing of temperature records may be relaxed in an effort to show that the new draconian global climate treaty is working, or the declining solar output may do the same and possibly some in the warmist camp already have calculated this; while the mold spore of Agenda 21 finally metastasizes its communistic control over America and the world. With the real potential that the increasingly harsh winters are results of the declining sunspot activity and the Obama administration's war on coal and misguided promotion of solar may push the northeast into blackouts as it almost did over a year ago. "Dear Northeast, How's That Solar Working Out For Ya?" Heartland Institute by Marita Noon November 25, 2014

Quote:

Congress, following the near crisis, brought in utility executives to explain the situation. Regarding the nation's electrical output last winter, Nicholas Akins, the CEO of the biggest generator of coal-fueled electricity in the U.S., American Electric Power (AEP), told Congress: "This country did not just dodge a bullet – we dodged a cannon ball."

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." Mark Twain

After 6 years the addiction to Hopium has worn off all but the hard core, hard left of the Obama camp, many firmly entrenched and in control of agencies like the EPA, who like the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, use private and secret email addresses to hide their clandestine activity from public purview. The reality of the withdrawal symptoms has resulted in Republican majority control of both houses of government, but the burgeoning bureaucracy and President Obama still have the rudder of the ship of state, SS Hope and Change, hard left for a rendezvous in gay Paris in December using Agenda 21 to chart the voyage. The country that rescued the world from two world wars, first harnessed atomic energy and put mankind on the moon is in a downward spiral, the Rothschildean debt doubling under a single president's watch, eclipsing the 43 who have preceded him. Despite Barack Hussein Obama getting a Nobel Peace prize, it has been anything but peaceful since 2009 and scientific advancement like the Space Shuttles have been turned into museum displays 40 years after their first flight and half way through their design life while NASA embraces a 'Deeply Flawed' Muslim Outreach and the B52's whose first flight was in 1952 are been upgraded to bomb their way into the 2040's.

Moneys lost forever on high speed rail lines to nowhere, failed solar companies, getting the nation addicted to food stamps, giving amnesty to illegal aliens while hiding the true unemployment numbers, blaming America for all the worlds' ills and blaming the global warming that halted 18 years ago on human activities and CO2. There will be no new energy sources discovered by the illiterate and uneducated invaders at the southern border as the administration is not interested in having any Nikola Teslas amongst the impoverished hordes; they are just here as low wage slaves of the New World Order, a permanent left voting block to ensure the long term survival of the communist/Marxist/socialist infested Democratic Party and Progressive Republicans who fundamentally transformed America and the world's economic system for their own benefit using the great CO2 global warming hoax to achieve their goals, turning the world into some bastardized top down regulated combination of the Greek and Venezuelan economies.

Yours Truly

Desmond McGrath

Still expiring CO2 89 miles north of the Equator.

© Desmond McGrath