Anti-Global Warming Propaganda Goes Here

If this is as true as the manmade GW crowd would like people to believe, then why do the globalists and big-name oilmen promote the theory that supposedly hurts them so much?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/280307globalistslove.htm


Globalists Love Global Warming
Trilateral Commission, chairman of British Petroleum, CFR, Club of Rome fan hysteria to achieve world government

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, March 28, 2007

A common charge leveled against those who question the official orthodoxy of the global warming religion is that they are acting as stooges for the western establishment and big business interests. If this is the case, then why do the high priests of the elite and kingpin oil men continue to fan the flames of global warming hysteria?

The Trilateral Commission, one of the three pillars of the New World Order in alliance with Bilderberg and the CFR, met last week in near secrecy to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how westerners live their lives.

At the confab, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger and chairman of British Petroleum Peter Sutherland (pictured top), gave a speech to his elitist cohorts in which he issued a "Universal battle cry arose for the world to address “global warming” with a single voice."

Echoing this sentiment was General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defense Staff in London, who urged the Trilateral power-brokers to "Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide."

Allegations that skeptics of the man-made explanation behind global warming are somehow doing the bidding of the elite are laughable in the face of the fact that Rothschild operatives and the very chairman of British Petroleum are the ones orchestrating an elitist plan to push global warming fears in order to achieve political objectives.

We have a similar situation to the Peak Oil scam, which was created by the oil industry as a profit boon to promote artificial scarcity, and yet is parroted by environmentalists who grandstand as if they are in opposition to the oil companies.

In his excellent article, Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government, Daniel Taylor outlines how the exploitation of the natural phenomenon of "global warming" was a pet project of the Club of Rome and the CFR.

"In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."​

​

"Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."​

Taylor also points out future British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's admonishment that only a "new world order" (world government) can help fight global warming.

Other attendees at the recent Trilateral meeting raised the specter of climate change as a tool to force through tax hikes.

Calling on the United States government to adopt a "carbon monoxide control policy," former CIA boss and long term champion of creating a domestic intelligence agency to spy on Americans John Deutch, argued that America should impose a $1-pergallon increase in the gasoline tax under the pretext of fighting pollution.

The lapdog media have proven adept in the past at taking their orders from the elitists in pushing higher taxes in the name of saving the environment.

"When the TC called on the United States to increase gas taxes by 10 cents at a meeting in Tokyo in 1991, The Washington Post, which is always represented at TC and Bilderberg meetings, called for such an increase in an editorial the following day," reports Jim Tucker.

Tucker writes that an essential means of achieving global government by consent over conquest, as has long been the ultimate goal of the elite, is by "fanning public hysteria" over climate change, encouraging further integration by forcing countries to adhere to international law on global warming. Such restrictions have prevented the development of third world nations and directly contributed to poverty, disease and squalor by essentially keeping them at a stone age level of progress, as is documented in The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.

People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life, cough up more tax money, and get on board with the global warming religion save being linked with Holocaust denial, are as deluded and enslaved as the tribes of Mesoamerica who, unaware of the natural phenomenon of a solar eclipse, thought their high priests could make the sky snake eat the Sun, and therefore obeyed their every demand.

Globalists love global warming! Oil industry kingpins, Bilderbergers and Rothschild minions have all put their weight behind it. This is a fraud conceived, nurtured and promulgated by elite, and to castigate individuals for merely questioning the motives behind climate change fearmongering by accusing them of being mouthpieces for the establishment is a complete reversal of the truth.

 

That certain political and business figures make statements recognising what the science tells them is not exactly evidence that they have fabricated that science. If you really wanted to make such a claim you would need to produce a smidgeon of supporting evidence.

This really seems to be the entire basis of PR's ideas on anthropogenic climate change - it is being accepted by the political establishment (for many years it wasn't - he has a short memory) and therefore it has been created by them for their own purposes. Without a shred of evidence aside from circumstantial speculation such as in this article, this is the conclusion he takes as given.

No engagement with the actual data, no engagement with the science, no attempt to understand what thousands of climatologists are saying (all in the pay of the new world order, no doubt), just this fatuous unfounded speculation.

I realise some people like to just beat their chests and make noise in furtherance of their particular agenda but I think we can safely say that the likes of pressed_rat have not an iota of evidence to back up their absurd claims, consistently fail to engage with the actual content of the debate and in terms of intelligible, testable, rational evidential support for the claims they make have not a leg to stand on.

 

Why is Al Gore attacked so much? Because that is the game the media plays. Can you think of any high-profile politician that isn't "attacked" by the media? But of course this is all just a dog and pony show for the public. The media pretends to give the public "both" sides -- which is really one side -- of the false Left/Right debate, thus keeping the people focused only on the arguments they're given as they supply the talking points for both sides. This is how they control the public and prevent them from thinking outside of the parameters instilled by the media. As it is, the word "media" derives from median, or middle, and the media are merely the middle men between the establishment and the people. The general public is unaware of the third side that exists outside of this bogus two-side/one-side debate that's fed to them, which they parrot as if it's their own opinion.

I honestly don't know the extent of which Gore has been "attacked" because I do not follow the establishment media, and frankly I do not care. This is all tabloid-type nonsense as far as I am concerned. What I do know is that the media has been promoting manmade global warming incessantly, along with their doomsday scenarios and images of polar bears stranded on icebergs (as if polar bears cannot swim hundreds of miles) to pull at the heartstrings of the naive. Of course they give you the "other side" as well, because like anything else, the theory of manmade global warming cannot survive without opposition (or what appears to be opposition), and it actually really does a lot to legitimize those pushing the manmade ruse. At the same time this "other side" will not give the truth about the real agenda behind global warming and how it's being used to promote global governance. They instead rely on the usual reactionary tactics of one side versus the other, creating a polarized team-like mentality of us vs. them.

Obviously a lot of people know about Gore's movie, and it is now mandatory viewing in state indoctrination centers (ie. schools) all across the country. Al Gore's movie would have never received the attention it did if it wasn't for the media. If Gore was really the threat to the establishment you seem to think he is (when he is totally part of it), he would be ignored and/or marginalized as are most people who genuinely challenge the established order.

Why did the media pan Live Earth? I don't know, but I know a lot of people who panned it because they can see through the blatant hypocrisy of egomaniacal rockstars, politicians and celebrities, who care more about placating their egos and being in the spotlight than actually being behind the cause they pretend to advocate. This can be seen just by looking at the lifestyles and personal habits of some of these people. I doubt Madonna is going to give up any of her sports cars or SUV's anytime soon to save the environment. I doubt she is going to curb her extravangant lifestyle.

Why should washed up has-beens like Madonna be telling people like ME how to live, when compared to her (and Al Gore) I live like a caveman?

(As it is, I live like a caveman compared to even the average person.)

As far as who I trust... it would be easier for me to answer who I DON'T trust, and that is pretty much any politician who pretends to be looking out for me, or anyone who is promoted endlessly by the establishment media (favorably or unfavorably). I don't care what side of the phony two-sided spectrum they represent.

 

But of course you would resort to the diversionary tactic of IGNORING what you cannot refute, which is that for decades think tanks have been talking about using the environment (particularly global warming) to push a political agenda.

Again:

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." -- The First Global Revolution (1991, Club of Rome)

The reason the corporations wern't openly pushing global warming back then is the same reason the governments weren't pushing it. That's because the agenda was not at full-throttle like it is now.

But what I will tell you is that if you actually do the research and look back through the history of the modern environmental movement, you will see that it is a multi-billion dollar industry that was financed from its inception, and has received funding ever since from people and corporations alike, which the average environmentalist would never think would be behind such a thing that would seem so "damaging" to their profits.

 

But it's not when you realize this is THEIR system, and when the people allow a few elitists to control the money supply, tax the people's wealth, and enact laws that benefit only them, those people control virtually everything within that system. They control even the culture, which is and has always been promoted by the media.... even before the existence of television.

An infinite number of smaller conspiracies? I am sure if you followed these conspiracies (aside from the ones committed by the average person), they would all lead to the same few at the top.

Evolving under whose hands? Has humanity been allowed to "evolve" on its own, or has someone or something been guiding us to where we are today, where the people only THINK they have evolved on their own?

How DON'T they control it completely? Those who own the printing presses that print the money have virtually unlimited control over governments and people alike. They literally OWN the government and all the big guns that go along with it! What they want is full open control over humanity as a whole, and they have openly admitted this in their books and publications going back decades (and even much further than that).

But there really are no sovereign states when you consider the various trade agreements, international laws, global bodies such as the UN, etc.. We still might have sovereign states IN NAME, but that's really the extent of it. We are already living under a world government, it's just not in the open yet where the average person realizes it.

If Venezuela is truly outside of the system and Chavez isn't simply one of their puppets playing the "bad guy," then they represent a small minority. They can easily be taken over by the big military powers, and if the rhetoric proves to be true, this just might happen sooner or later.

Humanity has never been free, but has always been made to believe they are free. No people can be free when they live under a system of debt creation, where they are forced to pay a good amount of what they earn back to the state in taxes.... who then use this money to build a bigger and better system for controlling the people.

I am not pointing the finger at anyone, because I realize that above all else, the people have allowed for this to happen. My goal is to help wake people up so they don't continue allowing this to happen. Unfortunately, the time is running out fast.

Exactly! So you can either continue living the illusion and following the heroes that have been given to the public to follow, or you can awaken from that illusion and start to inform others who will also hopefully start to wake up.

This isn't necessarily true. Some people are born with the ability to see through the smoke and mirrors. Many people have to be taught. But just because someone is indoctrinated into the system, doesn't mean they can't be woken up either.

 

global warming... wwaaaaaaahhhhh.... cry babies

 

I don't think PR was denying the existence of Global Warming, just pointing out that its cause might be more natural than we thought.

I think that it's really quite narrow-minded not to include both sides of the debate in the same forum, which is part of a disheartening trend happening right here on these forums as of late.

I for one think that you really can't deny that the whole story is sensational enough to keep people watching TV and buying magazines-- and when you look at how sensational the media has become over the past ten years or so, the emphasis itself is part of a definite trend.

 

I found this to be a VERY interesting and revealing article. Skip has made it clear that he does not approve of anything that goes against the official theory of manmade global warming being posted in this forum. However, this is clear proof that, despite what the bureaucrats, politicians and IPCC says, the majority of scientists DO NOT support the theory of manmade global warming.


http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while IPCC claim majority endorse the theory.

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, August 30, 2007

A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

In direct conflict with assertions by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a scientific consensus agrees it is 90% likely that man is responsible for warming, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's survey contends that only 45% support the theory and that is only if you include papers that merely lean towards endorsement.

Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, and science blog DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy which states:​

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."


The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
​

​

Man made warming proponents have often pointed to a similar survey that was conducted by history professor Naomi Oreskes on peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003 which found that a majority of scientists supported the theory.

​

​

Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte sought to update the research and according to DailyTech, used the same database and search terms as Oreskes but reached a radically different conclusion. ​

The introduction and the summary of the IPCC's report was written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the input of actual scientists was minimal. In addition, all sections that were written by selected scientists were edited to comply with the report summary.

Some of the scientists involved even admitted that the IPCC models failed to accurately predict climate change and that "none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate".

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world and is not directly influenced by any governmental body.

Schulte's survey confirms the claim that the climate change momentum has shifted among prominent scientists who are now benefiting from a greater depth of research. A spate of new research papers has significantly chilled fears of global warming.

The new survey provides undeniable proof that the world is being sold a lie on climate change by a group of politicians and elite lobbyists who wish to seize on the opportunity to hype the global warming threat and use it as a means of social manipulation for political and corporate gain. ​

As we have extensively reported, it is the elites, the establishment and big business interests that are pushing these fears, not the scientific community.

People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life, cough up more tax money, and get on board with the global warming religion save being linked with Holocaust denial, are as deluded and enslaved as the tribes of Mesoamerica who, unaware of the natural phenomenon of a solar eclipse, thought their high priests could make the sky snake eat the Sun, and therefore obeyed their every demand.

Politicians are professional liars, they make careers out of deceiving people and twisting reality to fit pre-conceived agendas, yet a cascade of otherwise rationally minded people are eager to blindly trust everything they have to say about climate change, no matter how delusional it sounds.

They are also willing to comply with the ridiculous overbearing "solutions" to climate change that will just coincidentally restrict mobility and freedom of travel, regulate personal behavior, empower and expand global government and reinvigorate the surveillance state - everything Big Brother ever wanted - but surely they wouldn't lie to us about global warming to achieve it, would they?

For a wealth of information on the man made global warming hoax check our archive which has scores of articles and multimedia files relating to the science of global warming as well as the agenda behind the hype.

 

I definitely think that mankind is contributing to global warming, but to tell the truth I don't think it's to the level that everyone is making it out to be.

That doesn't mean it's not happening, or that conserving resources and cutting emissions isn't a good idea... just that when people are afraid of something, it's easier to manipulate them into acting without thinking anything through.

 

Wow, Uncle Sam will really be happy to learn that...

 

can't ignore evidence just because it makes an asshole happy.

 

yeah, really. we should be able to post opinions from BOTH sides of every argument. That is crazy. But yes I agree, the degree of global warming contributed by man is not as large as environmental extremists are making it out to be. We should respect our Earth anyway...not just because this is the new craze.

 

We had a course about this last year.
And I was really chocked by how stupid they are, yu know that's not true.
God send us to this world to make it better, and if we don't scew things up, nothing bad will happen.
we are responsible of this, this is their excuse and we shouldn't listen to them , they are probably saying this fo fear that people will accuse them of polluting the earth, as we know that scientists make lots of...

 

Oh yeah, I'm convinced...*insert sarcastic eye-roll here*


Reading between the lines a bit this blog says:

"Ok, so we are claiming to have data that suggests that climate scientists now do not believe that human activities are causing global warming. We won't show you the data, but just trust us, we have it...it's really good to...there's no need for you to actually see the data, you should just believe that what we're telling you is the truth.

Yes, our report suggests that the world's climate experts completely changed their minds about the causes of global warming in the last 5 years--yes, many thousands of people decided to take the opposite position of the one that they've held for years, and all at the same time.

Yes, other reports that have been rigorously scrutinized and stood up to the scrutiny have shown that the world's climatologists agree on the causes of global warming and agree that human activities are primarily to blame. Our report has had no peer review whatsoever and there's no reason to think that it is at all credible (except we say so), but we still think it's just as good.

We submitted our report to a journal that has been widely and openly criticized for publishing articles that have not been adequately peer reviewed that almost no one on the planet even reads, and on top of that they haven't even accepted if for publication, but we don't think any of that matters because we say we have the data and you should just believe what we tell you."

This is what that blog is telling us. The report, I'm quite certain, is utter nonsense that would crumble under peer-review.

Chris

 

Hey Skip.

This isn't anti-global warming propaganda, per se, but just to be on the safe side I'll
post it here.

Sure, human-caused global warming is a reality.

But it is such a _small_ part of the damage that we are doing to this planet.

It's a _small_ part of the damage that:

mining/refining/manufacturing/processing/building/

the minerals and fuel and roads and parking lots and parts store
and dealerships and gas stations (etc.) for cars is doing to this planet.

Yet to listen to the Media and the Environmental Groups, you'd think that
emissions were not only the only environmental damage caused by cars,
but the only damage we are doing to this planet.

The "Inconvenient Truth" has become a 'convenient obsession' for the
Corporations that are trying to keep us ignorant and complacent about
the state of the world.

We are in BIG trouble, people! China and India and Brazil and Russia
are working like crazy to live like most of us Americans live, and there
is no way the Earth can handle this.

Resources are dwindling at the same time that demand is escalating.

I can't see how this is going to result in anything but a lot of wars and
depressions across the globe.

Littlefoot

'Peace, like a river flows.'

 

The only climatologists that do not believe that global warming is induced largely by human activities are a few nuts that refuse to accept information when it is obvious and layed out in front of them.

Not a single professional organization that deals with climate endorses globabl warming as a natural phenomenon.

None of the world's leading climatologists--none--believe that global warming is caused principally by natural phenomenon, they all recognize what is blatently obvious to anyone that looks at the data: global warming can ONLY be explained when considering man-made effects.

If you really want to attack the credibitlity or scientific merit of Dr. Hansen, I can't help you. His work has been more rigorously scrutinized than probably any other scientist on the planet. To suggest that he could possibly be hiding anything or not giving fully accurate information is nieve at best and incredibly foolish at worst.

Chris

 

THESE are the people you are citing as leading climate scientists? Really, you're not joking about this?

Ok, let's have a brief looksy:

Fred Singer is the founder of SEPP which you link. Until 2003 he argued that the climate had not warmed at all. Let me repeat that, until 2003, following some of the warmest years on record, he argued that the climate had not warmed...

Besides arguing that humans are not the major cause of global warming (and arguing it wasn't even happening until recently) he has also been a leading voice arguing:

1. CFCs do not deplete ozone (actually, we had an idea that they would in the 50's and had proof positive that they do in the 70's)

2. there is no connection between UVB and melanoma (need I say anything)

3. there is no connection between second-hand smoke and lung cancer...this is the guy you're getting behind???

As I said, there are no leading climatologists that do not support the idea that global warming is driven primarily by human causes. The folks you mention are among the least published authors in high-impact journals and their work has been largely and highly discredited by the scientific community for numerous and serious flaws.

I'll say it again, there aren't any leading climatologists that do not endorse climate change as caused primarily by human influence.

During the Clinton administration Jim Hansen got in hot water with the administration for not inflating or overstating impacts of climate change or what was known at the time. He stuck by the science and refused to get caught up in sensationalism. This administration has demanded that the consequences and our knowlege be underplayed. Similarly, he has refused to participate in that and has stuck by the science.

If you think he's been involved in any sort of scientific misconduct, please provide evidence, otherwise please stop making baseless accusations.

Chris