Start A Petition

Global Warming - the Beautiful Hoax!

Environment  (tags: climate change, conservation, consumerism, disease, environment, extinction, food shortages, fuel efficiency, global warming, green energy, green fuel, recycle, recycling, rising sea levels, sustainability )

- 3693 days ago -
Is global warming the most beautiful hoax of all time? The evidence for it has never been conclusive, and fresh evidence now suggests we're panicking over nothing! Is global warming just a crock!?

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Past Member (0)
Thursday April 10, 2008, 12:48 pm

Past Member (0)
Thursday April 10, 2008, 12:57 pm
Global warming is NOT a hoax. It is so sad to have this picture of polar bears having a great time. The ice is melting at an incredible rate, so much so that polar bears are DROWNING trying to reach the distances between icebergs and glaciers! The distance is becoming too far for them to swim. There may be more sightings of polar bears now because thier wilderness is becoming less and they move closer to human communities. HOWEVER, this does not mean there are more of them because there are more sightings. There are more sightings because there is LESS of thier own natural habitat.

Hans L (958)
Thursday April 10, 2008, 1:25 pm
Dear Nyack!

There is a ? I dont know if global warming is a Haux or if its a global warming swindle! I have seen the Glaciers in the Alps that have decreased and i hear from my Friend that the water around Spitsbergen Svalbard is warming and its true that the north pole is warming up but the south pole is cooler than ever! As you can see the Polar bears in the picture eat Pinguins that is because we will bring them to the south Pole if the north Pole is realy warming up but lets wait and see! lets protect them and
stop the pollution nobody tells you that the Polar bears suffer from poisening much more than from global warming! Polar bears are at the end of a food chain! And all the poison in the oceans is collected by the whales and polar bears! They will die because we poison them!

We need to protect polar bears and need to stop POLAR BEAR TROPHY HUNTING!

Do what you think that you must do reduce your footprint like AL Gore does!

Great and interesting story Steve! I hope that we can all focus on the largest problems... peace, hunger, clean water and air! health! Education! has realy good sollutions for the biggest problems!

How Long? Check your footprint and stop global warming! COOL IT!


Marian E (152)
Thursday April 10, 2008, 1:45 pm

Ahh, you wanted to spark some discussion? Looks like you're succeeding!!!

Good post, thank you Steve.

Scott Shaubel (816)
Thursday April 10, 2008, 3:37 pm

Excellent work Steve, right on the nose.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Thursday April 10, 2008, 3:42 pm

Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention. I, too, have read articles for each side and am weighing the information. The arguments for both are well-thought-out and backed by "statistics" (which can also be manipulated -- depending on which points are emphasized).
Good work!

Scott Shaubel (816)
Thursday April 10, 2008, 3:45 pm

hey Steve..Here's another 2 blogs..from me, :O)

maybe we can ..spark some more discussion? have fun
- they have had space weaponized for decades,(tesla)

- there is a base on the moon :o)

- the flying saucers, are USA military, driven by American's :o)

- you are seing a lot of holograms

- we have light driven(photons) computers, so small, that a 1 inch

piece .of hair,could hold thousands of computers,

- these can be programmed from any-where, without satelites.

- Photons can move matter, as in teleport.

- light(photons) are much cheaper(sun), and light years faster than



More boring Facts; photsynthesis, co2, uv, diatoms, Global Warming

Suns uv rays, + Co2( carbon dioxide)+ H2o = algae=diatoms

.. oceans+carbon dioxide+sun(uv)=diatoms, look up diatoms

.. the cycle is, sun uses earths excess co2, to make diatoms, for (billions of years)

.. the more the uv rays that hit the ocean, the more

carbon dioxide is eaten by the ocean. (unlimited)

.. so.. they are lying when they tell you that the sun has gotten hotter, with more uv rays(in 50 years), and that we have a co2 problem.

.. more uv = less co2,.. this is a fact

they are in fact, putting tons of "particles", in the air and atmosphere

to reflect uv rays away from the earth to make the oceans use less

.. they are deforesting the earth = more co2,.. less oxygen

Diatoms hold 150 times their weight in water,.. the oceans,

store water in Diatoms(fossilized diatoms.. diatomaceous earth)

The worlds water is held in reserve, on ocean, and lake bottoms,

via diatoms,(freshwater,+ saltwater)

- They are especially important in oceans, where they are estimated to contribute up to 45% of the total oceanic primary production.

bla bla bla, I've been wrong before, whatever, just a thought.

Heres what we're doing for the earth

Our organic ferilizer, and pest control product, will save us from pesticides, once we get past the Pat Woertz owned Environmental Protection Agency. The rest of the world has accepted it, but since its not poison chemicals, its no good to her, or Americans

Diatoms: are silica(we are silica)- They are especially important in oceans, where they are estimated to contribute up to 45% of the total oceanic primary production.

Biogenic silica (BSi) is essential to many plants and animals. Chemically, BSi is hydrated silica (SiO2•nH2O).

Diatoms in both fresh and salt water extract silica from the water to use as a component of their cell walls. Likewise, some holoplanktonic protozoa (Radiolaria), some sponges, and some plants (leaf phytoliths) use silicon as a structural material.

Silicon is known to be required by chicks and rats for growth and skeletal development.

Silicon is in human connective tissues, bones, teeth, skin, eyes, glands and organs. It is a major constituent of collagen which helps keep our skin elastic, and it helps calcium in maintaining bone strength.

BSi is silica that originates from the production out of dissolved silica. BSi can either be accumulated "directly" in marine sediments (via export) or be transferred back into dissolved silica in the water column.

Diatomite Canada


Mark F (300)
Thursday April 10, 2008, 6:43 pm
Wait and See is what has gotten us into this mess. One cold winter doesn't mean squat. Todays weather, or one seasons weather has very little to nothing to do with global warming.

. (0)
Thursday April 10, 2008, 8:33 pm
Okay, Mark F. I’ll give you the one winter don’t mean squat, but tell me how 10 years with no increase in global temperatures followed by the coldest winter in 20 years and a prediction for the entire year of 2008 to be cooler doesn’t mean squat. Solar cycle 23 is still hanging on as evidenced by the three flares last week and that means the sun will continue to be in a low activity state until it makes the transition to SC24. For those of us that accept the science of the sun being the dominant force in earth climate this means the cooling trend will continue into 2009 and will most likely extend into 2010 before SC24 increases solar activity and brings temperatures back up to a more normal level. Scientist who study the sun believe SC24 will not be nearly as intense as SC23 was at its peak which makes them believe temperatures will rise only slightly if at all and they may even continue to decrease. One Russian team is predicting that by 2050 earth will be in a mini ice age and there are several other groups of scientists that have reviewed the Russian data and agree that is a possibility. Since I do not believe man is responsible nor can he do anything about climate change the only thing we can do is wait and see.

Chris Otahal (507)
Thursday April 10, 2008, 9:47 pm
In 2007 we were at a solar minimum - yet the temprature INCREASED

Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.

yes, 2008 was a cold year - and the early part of this year is predicted to be low too (a continuing La Ninia condition) - this is called weather (short term) - look at the long term data to see what climate is doing - see this page for example:


Lori S (16)
Thursday April 10, 2008, 9:55 pm
While everybody may have differing opinions on global warming, so many professionals, scientists and experts - with their statistics, charts, and graphs - which as another pointed out can easily be manipulated.
Well, I will personally rely on my own ability to know that with every action, there is definately a reaction. I can't say what that is, but I will try to tread lightly and try to live reasonably but most importantly, when it's time for me to leave this earth, leave it the way I found it.

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 1:05 am
Very well written and much food for thought - thank you!

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 2:33 am
Great story! Steve! Thank you for balancing the problems that this world is facing!

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 3:14 am
Steve! I thank you for this great story! And for a wider view of the climate change picture and the problems on this earth!
That is exactly what we need to solve the problems!
You know that billions will be wasted to fight the war on climate change!
You know how you could make this world a better place with that money!
I hope that your story will make people think about this question!
The inconvenient truth or the global warming swindle what will it be....?
I see that temperatures are rising in the ALPS! But i also see that Tyrol had it best winter season ever! A growth of 10% would this be possible with a real climate change? I invite all the people to discuss this kind of questions in our how long group!

Alf I (246)
Friday April 11, 2008, 3:31 am
Yes there are a lot of unanswered questions like;
Why do global warming advocates ignore the biggest polluters on the planet- The meat industries?
Why was the inventor of the water-driven car murdered and his research destroyed?
A lot of polar bears are dying because of starvation through OVERFISHING!!
One of their sources of food is seals which humans are also killing in their millions.
I noticed too you advocate donating more millions to the coffers of cancer research! Hmmm yet another huge scam which you need to look into more closely. See my group for info on that.
Global warming may not be all they make it out to be but the problems related to it are real. Deforestation, habitat loss, pollution all of which I will continue to fight but the global warming companies are fast becoming very rich on the fruits of global energy management and WE are paying as usual........

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 3:51 am
I agree with Lori S. -

with all the discussions examining whether or not "Global Warming" is occurring, whether we are in fact getting closer to a "Mini Ice Age" and the like - we are straying from the real issues.
Issues such as ever increasing destruction of our habitat!
The planet earth will survive and so will plant and animal life, maybe even human - till the sun dies that is - the history of our planet has shown us this. Of course there will be evolution! Evolution will bring forth mutations and extinction of some species, increase of others etc. There are no more dinosaurs roaming the earth and from what we know our today's planet could not sustain them either, but we do have an ever increasing number in microbes, bacteria and viruses. We might have landed as humans on the moon, yet our oceans still hold on tight to their mysteries.We still have to learn about organism metabolizing inorganic matter in depth and might have to re-examine our traditional definition of "life".

We humans will mutate. As everything has been and still is mutating. We might mutate someday into blind, short creatures, with oversized thumbs and built in USB slots - who knows? Are we one of the successful species or are we going to disappear just like our humanoid ancestors? Just as the mighty and fearsome T-Rex has disappeared, yet crocodiles, dragon flies and cockroaches are still around today.

So isn't rather the real issue and point of preserving our habitat? Why should we do worse, when we could do better? Why have cement desserts when we could have forests and lakes? Why deprive our selves of bio-diversity?
Point is - Why would you want to destroy the home you live in? Why would you want to dirty it and make it as ugly as possible? Why speed up mutations through DU pollution? I for one opt for the human with two eyes, rather the one in the middle of our forehead. I find them more attractive. Then again who cares, as I won’t be around.

But I will still be around, when our drinking water will be something of luxury. When pollution alerts will confine us to our homes and we will have to adorn ourselves with gas masks in order to go outside. When we don't see a blue sky with white clouds, because the dust in the air has blocked out the sky.
Our children and our grand children might not grow up with tigers and ice bears, wood peckers and whales - I ask myself will they miss them?
I ask myself is this the world I whish upon them or will they hold me accountable one day soon for the waste of habitat that I created for pure selfish reasons?

Maybe someday soon - some of the multi rich people who still think they can escape the effects of their doing - will realize that there is nowhere for them to go except into their own prison as beyond their backyard starts the garbage dump.

AWAY AWHILE Cal M (1067)
Friday April 11, 2008, 4:32 am
Certainly intersting and different, and its important to be a bit skeptical on everything. If Steve is closer to right than wrong, then we've probably cleaned up our act a bit for nothing. Let's keep polluting ourselves into extinction and invite all our newly upwardly mobile friends in the third World to do so also, because after all, what happens over there doesn't really affect us here, right? This piece reminds me a bit of the Communist Manifesto, where Marx criticized the existing order and its sheepish knee-jerk capitalism with the promise that staying the course led to an inevitable downfall. Nonsense, and global warming is not taking place in a day or a wek, but in terms of geologic time, the measured changes are significant and being oblivious is not the right answer (unless you're running a war in Iraq of course!). Will any of usbe around when New york and Boston disappear under the surf--probbly not, but maybe our grandchildren will ande ven so, there;s a responsibility to leave a better planet if possible that his article really soft pedals.Becoming more responsible is not an overblown goal, but Steve's article soft pedals it--a real cop-out, since there really is no defense to not paying attention to environmental changes whether caused by bovine gas or melting ice caps. I would have been more amenable to his ideas if Steve presented good alternativestat took what's going on in the environment more in account. Let's leave satire to The Onion and other blogs and start finding solutions to real problems--pollution, mass species extincton, changes in weather patterns that are producing mass starvation and rising food prices worldwide. Like Marx, Steve thinks people can't and won't ever change--I do and that's why I'm here at Care2 (at least in part).

Hans L (958)
Friday April 11, 2008, 4:47 am
Steve does not think that people will not least i hope so...
we all can change our footprint! But we need to follow the rules of nature and not the rules of the industry with the 300 million campaign to promote global warming! Does Al Gore respect nature? I cannot tell but i would wish that he would either stop preaching water or stop drinking whine! I hate people who preach water and drink whine! Dont be fooled by the people who want you to compensate your CO2 that is the most stupid thing to do! Reduce your impact dont compensate it! I love the idea of planting trees we should plant forests all over the world! And we should start outdoor conservation all over the world! Protect nature respect nature

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 5:27 am
Right on the nose Hans L. - not compensation = more consumption, new markets etc - but REDUCTION!
I wonder when people will realise that we can not increase unlimited.

Carol W (119)
Friday April 11, 2008, 6:38 am

Refreshing to see minds at work.

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 9:10 am
I love this Steve!!! What a great way to get to those who think it really is a hoax.

Judy Cross (83)
Friday April 11, 2008, 9:31 am
Mary, all of the stories attached to the article are either exagerations or lies by omission.Bosh, Poppycock and Twaddle!
19 hours ago

All of the stories embedded above are great examples of spin, left out facts(like ice shelves are expected to break off, just like icicles) and blaming the victim as in "Global warming would lead to worldwide food shortages." It already has..not the warming BUT THE IDEA OF WARMING" as food get turned to fuel. There is no need to do that. Ethanol production uses more energy than the ethanol gives back. CO2 isn't a pollutant, it is the basis of all life. Plants need it. ther is no reason to restrict it.

Malaria exists in Siberia and used to be endemic in parts of the balmy Michigan.
More Global Warming Nonsense
April 10, 2008

Today, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee will hold a hearing on the implications of climate change for human health. Malaria will top the menu, but so will ignorance and disinformation.

The lead witness will be Dr. Jonathan Patz of the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He has suggested that U.S. energy policy may be "indirectly exporting diseases to other parts of the world." Dr. Patz, the World Health Organization (WHO) and others claim that global warming is now spreading disease and may be the cause of some 160,000 deaths a year.

In 2007, for example, WHO pointed to rising temperatures in an outbreak of a mosquito-borne virus, Chikungunya, in Italy. Yet WHO misdiagnosed the problem. Modern transportation, not climate change, caused the outbreak.

In that case, the transmitter of the disease, or vector, was the Asian Tiger mosquito. It is native to Asia, but exported world-wide in shipments of used tires. It is now abundant in parts of U.S. and in 12 countries in Europe. In cities, it breeds in man-made containers of water, such as saucers under flower-pots, water barrels, blocked gutters and so on. The virus was carried to Italy by an infected Indian who flew from Delhi, where an epidemic of the disease was then raging.

So the real technological villain in that case was the jet airplane. It was irresponsible, then, for WHO to state "although it is not possible to say whether the outbreak was caused by climate change . . . conditions in Italy are now suitable for the Tiger mosquito." And it was absurd for environmental alarmists to chime in with apocalyptic pronouncements.

The globalization of vectors and pathogens is a serious problem. But it is not new. The Yellow Fever mosquito and virus were imported into North America from Africa during the slave trade. The dengue virus is distributed throughout the tropics and regularly jumps continents inside air passengers. West Nile virus likely arrived in the U.S. in shipments of wild birds. These diseases are spread by mosquitoes and therefore difficult to quarantine.

It may come as a surprise that malaria was once common in most of Europe and North America. In parts of England, mortality from "the ague" was comparable to that in sub-Saharan Africa today. William Shakespeare was born at the start of the especially cold period that climatologists call the "Little Ice Age," yet he was aware enough of the ravages of the disease to mention it in eight of his plays.

Malaria disappeared from much of Western Europe during the second half of the 19th century. Changes in agriculture, living conditions and a drop in the price of quinine, a cure still used today, all helped eradicate it. However, in some regions it persisted until the insecticide DDT wiped it out. Temperate Holland was not certified malaria-free by the WHO until 1970.

The concept of malaria as a "tropical" infection is nonsense. It is a disease of the poor. Alarmists in the richest countries peddle the notion that the increase in malaria in poor countries is due to global warming and that this will eventually cause malaria to spread to areas that were "previously malaria free." That's a misrepresentation of the facts and disingenuous when packaged with opposition to the cheapest and best insecticide to combat malaria – DDT.

It is true that malaria has been increasing at an alarming rate in parts of Africa and elsewhere in the world. Scientists ascribe this increase to many factors, including population growth, deforestation, rice cultivation in previously uncultivated upland marshes, clustering of populations around these marshes, and large numbers of people who have fled their homes because of civil strife. The evolution of drug-resistant parasites and insecticide-resistant mosquitoes, and the cessation of mosquito-control operations are also factors.

Of course, temperature is a factor in the transmission of mosquito-borne diseases, and future incidence may be affected if the world's climate continues to warm. But throughout history the most critical factors in the spread or eradication of disease has been human behavior (shifting population centers, changing farming methods and the like) and living standards. Poverty has been and remains the world's greatest killer.

Serious scientists rarely engage in public quarrels. Alarmists are therefore often unopposed in offering simplicity in place of complexity, ideology in place of scientific dialogue, and emotion in place of dry perspective. The alarmists will likely steal the show on Capitol Hill today. But anyone truly worried about malaria in impoverished countries would do well to focus on improving human living conditions, not the weather.

Mr. Reiter is director of the Insects and Infectious Diseases Unit of the Institut Pasteur, Paris. Mr. Ba
Not a day goes by where we are not all bombarded with angst over global warming and climate change caused, apparently, by our over use of fossil fuels.

We are told how oceans will rise, crops will fail, the Arctic will melt, polar bears will die, droughts will happen, and a whole slew of other awful things.

I don't buy it, and would venture that the whole movement is another manifestation of man's inherent need to get power and control over others by any means necessary. The claim is out that the science is unequivocal and beyond doubt, but a cursory examination of the evidence with a skeptical mind suggests that nothing is a simple as we are told.

The prophets of doom such as Al Gore and David Suzuki are masters at controlling the agenda sold to the masses while they accumulate wealth and power while generally disregarding the changes in their own behaviour that they advocate against for all the regular less important folk out there.

Who amongst us is not familiar with Gore's excessively sized house and utility consumption? Suzuki is busy with tour buses and jet setting around the world, and in Toronto; Mayor David Miller left Earth Hour to shop and attend a party after extolling the rest to turn off the lights, not at all dissimilar to the communist cadres of the Soviet Union who sold communism to the masses while accumulating their own power, wealth, and privilege.

Have a look at Gore's balance sheet pre and post An Inconvenient Truth.

So how about a little bit of old-fashioned common sense to the whole premise of climate change?

Could the climate be changing? Absolutely! It has changed significantly one way or another since the dawn of time. Did man cause any of the previous climate changes? Well, Alberta is known to once have been a tropical sea, and no, we had nothing to do with it disappearing.

Is carbon dioxide increasing? Yes, but nowhere near as much as it did during other geologic ages such as the Jurassic period (dinosaurs) and others. Is there a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature change? No, but studies have shown it correlates highly with solar cycles.

What has the most effect on temperature and climate cycles? Unequivocally, it is the natural cycles of the sun. Has the temperature actually increased? It depends on whom you read and who funded the study. For the ambitious reader, take some time to study Dr. Theodr Landscheit from Germany and his studies into CO2 levels, and solar cycles. Some of those in these fields are more worried about a potential cooling than warming.

If one studies the human record for the last 10,000 years the climate has varied hugely, and the periods of prosperity are generally the warm periods. One must ask whether they would rather cope with warming or cooling. I think I know which I would fear more.

The world is a complex equilibrium and our creator, if that was the case, installed a lot of checks and balances. The carbon cycle is inherently balanced as an increase in carbon production in the atmosphere is followed by an increase in carbon storage and consumption by plants and algae. It is a generally accepted fact that North America is covered with more trees now than at the turn of the century.

And in global terms, 70 per cent of the world is covered by water and correspondingly 70 per cent of the climate is set by the sea regardless of what we do on land. If the world gets warmer, more cloud forms over the sea, reflects sunlight, and cools the world.

If you want to at least open your mind to being skeptical of global warming, you might start with Ask yourself how a politician who failed at the presidency and an amphibian biologist became experts at an incredibly complicated science such as the climate. Ask yourself who and what companies gain in the race to trade and control the consumption/production of carbon.

Ask yourself if the climate can be predicted two weeks ahead let alone for two years. Ask yourself why the last great scare over the Ozone hole proved to be a non-event. We were told that it would take generations to repair the hole then it closed in two years, and then reopened partially indicating that it has a cycle of its own having little to do with hydrofluorocarbons.

Perhaps the whole debate should be reframed in terms of conserving energy, using it more efficiently, and wasting it less, because in the form of fossil fuels, energy is a somewhat finite resource. Energy breakthroughs are good for the economy and can make us more prosperous. In the bigger picture the world is awash in energy thanks to the limitless supply from the sun.

So instead of wasting our resources chasing our tails with carbon taxes and empowering the prophets of doom, unleash the creativity and power of humanity moving the production and use of energy up the chain closer to where it all comes from which is the sun. The market will help take care of this as traditional fossil fuels get pricier due to a higher level of scarcity.

Choose to be an optimist and relax a bit while tuning out the nihilistic Gore and Suzuki who really are more concerned with the vestiges of power and wealth than about what common sense dictates is best for us all. These people have just enough knowledge and conviction to be dangerous and have no place setting the agendas of large-scale policy that can affect us all so much.

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 9:35 am
IPCC says it is Bunk

OFFICIAL: CO2 induced global warming is bunkum
Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Ground-breaking admission by member of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change: major contributing factor to the balance of the climate not taken into account.

It would appear that, as many of us right-thinking people have known for some time, global warming caused by CO2 output is, at best, sensationalist fantasy.

Several facts have now come to light that debunk the idea that we're killing the environment with CO2 emissions:

The predicted tropospheric hotspots that had been predicted by the IPCC failed to appear. When climatologist Dr David Evans and Christopher Monckton found an error in the way that the IPCC had interpreted the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and applied a revised (corrected) factor to the workings, they discovered that the temperature rise was as little as a third of what the World's government think tank had predicted.

(Article continues below)

The IPCC's computer models, used to predict the effects of global warming have, it appears, failed to accurately predict the affect that water vapour has on the temperature of the earth, or indeed ignored it all together. At the global climate change summit in Bali late last year, Dr Roy Spencer presented a paper to the IPCC, saying that rather than CO2 driving the formation of water vapour, which then drives up temperatures as a greenhouse gas, water vapour actually washes excess CO2 out of the atmosphere, dampening and balancing its affect as a greenhouse gas. This discovery was made thanks to weather satellites that showed water vapour forms a lot lower in the atmosphere than was initially suggested. Shock horror, the finely balanced system that is the global ecosystem is able to keep itself in balance... who'd have thought it?!


Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 9:36 am
Data contradicts global warming

Joe H. Heater
Daily Herald
Wednesday, April 9, 2008

At least once a week, the Herald publishes a letter from someone who has taken up the Al Gore line that global warming is a cataclysmic planetary emergency and we must take extraordinary steps before we meet our demise.

I would urge those who write these letters to look at the facts on the ground.

According to all five scientific agencies in the U.S. and Great Britain that track and publish global surface temperatures, NASA and NOAA among them, since 1998 there has been no statistically significant increase in the surface temperature.

The same data show that in the seven years since 2001, the surface temperature has been trending downward at a rate of 0.4 degrees per decade.

(Article continues below)

Despite the very unconvincing evidence that the planet is on its last legs, far too many people want to legislate CO2 caps that would have taxpayers spending over $1.2 trillion to fix a problem that might just be an illusion.

This is not a brief to willy-nilly dump all of the CO2 we want into the atmosphere, but a plea to look at the data before it is too late and not take actions we will regret.

Remember the law of unintended consequences. It's at work now causing food prices to skyrocket because we decided to use corn to create transportation fuel.

The legislation pending in the Congress to cap CO2 emissions will make those increases look modest indeed. Should you have any doubt about what you read here, look at Senate Bill S. 2191, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, which will limit U.S. emissions to 1,560 thousand tons per year by 2050 or 81 percent lower than current U.S. green house gas emissions.


Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 9:37 am
Global Warming gets the Cold Freeze

F. William Engdahl
Global Research
Tuesday, April 8, 2008

The media and governmental hype over a danger from global warming that already is allegedly causing the polar icecaps to melt and threaten a global climate catastrophe, looks more and more like the political hype it is. This year to date, snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

According to the US National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) many American cities and towns have suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was - 0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 average."

China is surviving its most brutal winter in one hundred years. Temperatures in the normally mild south were low for so long that some middle-sized cities went weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.

(Article continues below)

There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has been hurt as home buyers have stayed home. In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, breaking the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in 1950.

Arctic Ice Melt has Reversed

One of the most dramatic results of the record cold over much of the planet is the reversal of the much-reported melt of the icebergs in the Arctic Ocean. Last autumn the world was alarmed to hear from certain climatologists that the ice in the Arctic had melted to its "lowest levels on record.” What was carefully omitted from those scare stories was the fact that those records only date back as far as 1972, and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

Now, as a result of the recent record cold weather, the ice is back. According to Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

What few people know and what the Global Warming lobby seems at pains to keep known is the fact that there is considerable seasonal variation in how much pack ice of the Arctic ice pack covers the Arctic Ocean. Much of the ocean is also covered in snow for about 10 months of the year. The maximum snow cover is in March or April — about 20 to 50 centimeters over the frozen ocean. The thickness is not one of the universal constants, never was.

Admit flawed Climate Model

There is also admission by several intellectually honest climatologists that their predictive models are flawed. Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona, two very prominent climate modellers, recently admitted that the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (as in the fictional movie The Day After Tomorrow) are wrong. In a recent interview Russell said, “It's not ice melt, but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of man-made warming on polar ice melt.” Now that’s very interesting.

When professors Toggweiler and Russell reprogrammed their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator, then back towards it again, the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the recent Arctic warming.

Russian climatologists believe recent weather changes around the globe are results of solar activity and not man-made emissions. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, calls the argument for man-made climate change "a drop in the bucket." His research shows that now the recent very active solar activity has entered an inactive phase. He advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

Kenneth Tapping of Canada’s National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon. The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

The Global Warming Geopolitics

The recent Global Warming hysteria is in reality a geopolitical push by leading global elite circles to find a way to get the broader populations to willingly accept drastic cuts in their living standards, something that were it demanded without clear reason by politicians, would spark strikes and protest. The UN’s latest IPCC report on Global Warming calls for diverting a huge 12% of global GDP to “prevent the harmful effects of climate change.” The UN report, for example, estimated that its recommendations to reduce certain manmade emissions would cost about $2,750 per family per year in the price of energy.

Today there are two principal policy options of the Anglo-American power establishment to impose their further control over a world that is rapidly slipping out from under them. We might call them Plan A and Plan B for short.

The first, Plan A, was the option represented by Bush-Cheney and the big oil and military industrial complex behind them. Cheney and his close Houston friend, Matt Simmons, propagated the myth of Peak Oil to lull populations into accepting the inevitability of $100 a barrel or even higher oil prices. In the meantime, the relative strength of the Big Oil and the related US military establishment grew with higher oil prices.

Their global War on Terror provided a cover or pretext to justify military control over the major oil reserves and oil transit passages of the world. From Iraq to Afghanistan to Kosovo, the US and NATO agenda was aimed at future control of the extraordinary economic powers emerging from Russia to China to India to Brazil and Venezuela and beyond. Through China’s effective diplomacy in Africa, many African countries are on the brink of slipping out from under the US or British control into Chinese or more independent status.

If John McCain becomes the next choice of the US power elites to be President, that will signal that that military and oil agenda will escalate, especially as the USA sinks into a severe economic depression in coming months.

The second broad faction of maintaining their control over the greater part of the world economy, Plan B, sees Global Warming and “soft power” as embodied in the organs of the United Nations and IMF and World Bank as the more suitable vehicle to convince people to willingly accept drastic reduction in living standards.

Barack Obama, the apparent choice of the same elites as a “breath of change” to allow them to regroup after the debacle of the Bush-Cheney years, would likely opt for the second faction of the global elite—the Global Warming option to lowering general living standards, ‘Plan B’ of the Anglo-American establishment. In a recent campaign speech in Wallingford Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama replied to a question about Al Gore, the hero of Global Warming. As President, Obama said he would consider putting Al Gore in a Cabinet-level position—or higher. He stated, “I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem. He's somebody I talk to on a regular basis. I'm already consulting with him in terms of these issues but climate change is real."

The two major global factions

Today there are two major factions within the Western political power establishment internationally. They cooperate and share broad elitist goals, but differ fundamentally on how to reach these goals. Foremost is their goal of sharply controlling global economic growth and population growth. The first faction is best described as the Rockefeller Faction. It has a global power base and is today best represented by the Bush family faction which got their start, as I document in my book, as hired hands for the powerful Rockefeller machine. The Rockefeller faction has for more than a century based its power and influence on control of oil and on use of the military to secure that control. It is personified in the man who is since 2001 de facto President in terms of decision-making—Dick Cheney. Cheney was former CEO of Halliburton Corp., which is both the world’s largest oilfield services company (now based in Dubai for tax reasons), and the world’s largest military base constructor.

The second faction might be called the Soft Power Faction. Their philosophy might be summed up that they think its “possible to kill more flies with honey than with vinegar.” Their preferred path to global population control and lowering of the growth rates in China and elsewhere is through promoting the fraud of global warming and imminent climate catastrophe. Al Gore is linked to this faction. So is British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. They see globalist institutions, especially the United Nations, as the best vehicle to advance their agenda of global austerity.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by the United Nations Environment Programme. Its reports have been demonstrated to be fundamentally flawed in scientific methodology, yet they are aggressively being promoted as revealed truth by the powerful media behind this faction. Others in the circle include billionaire speculator George Soros, parts of the British Royal family and representatives of European “old money.”

With the meteorological evidence of their claims for global warming dissolving as the ice forms anew, it is not surprising that news of the Arctic refreeze and other contrary evidence to their doomsday thesis are kept from mainline international media.

F. William Engdahl is a Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization and author of the recently-released book, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation ( He also author of ‘A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics,’ Pluto Press Ltd. He may be contacted at his website,


King Jones (149)
Friday April 11, 2008, 9:39 am
we have to look at the people and corporations that are writing books and making movies about this topic, they are the ones that are benefiting and making lots of money from this so called global warming. So the question should be, why isn't more being done to fix this problem? instead of trying to prfit from it.

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 9:40 am
Even those I posted those articles I truely beleive in global warming and I feel the Rep In oklahoma has made the best case yet and I beleive her

"Gays cause global warming"

Steve N (567)
Friday April 11, 2008, 10:06 am
Hi everyone,

Thanks for all your comments, but putting them on Care2 really is preaching to the converted in a lot of ways, despite the differing opinions. Most people are nowhere near as informed as you all are, so it's doing a disservice to keep them here instead of educating the masses!

Let your comments loose upon the world - please post them on the actual blog! :-)


Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 11:19 am
Do you mind copy and paste Steve?

Ana Cruz (22)
Friday April 11, 2008, 12:31 pm
Global warming is NOT a hoax, and this phonied-up photo of the polar bears is just sad!

Sissie Forget (4)
Friday April 11, 2008, 1:02 pm
Just wondering...
does dropping bombs on foreign countries increase the C02 levels and add to global warming problem or is it just merely considered pollution?

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 1:10 pm
Great comment Sissie Forget!

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 1:18 pm
Judy will you sign my petition to ban H2O it is killing the enviroment and causing all kinds of Havoc. We must all ban together to get rid of this ugly toxin known as H20

Please sign the petition today

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 1:27 pm

Isa Kocher (8)
Friday April 11, 2008, 1:28 pm
"The evidence for it has never been conclusive," well the evidence for death isn't exactly conclusive either. All I know is that everything that ever lived died, but there are still people who can be counted alive. Not conclusive, but I would not bet against being dead eventually. Of course, you can't lose that bet. The fact is that the science is as proven as science gets: 100% of all scientific bodies have concluded it is happening and much sooner than expected and as certainly as it is possible, caused by human activity. Apparently Jesus, Ezechiel and Hizer have not yet died, and who knows any one of us might be the last person left.

Linda G (30)
Friday April 11, 2008, 1:30 pm

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 2:02 pm
What are you talking bout Binki? H2O? Water?????
Seems you are a hoax to me ....??

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 2:04 pm
To Judy

Sorry, but I must be getting old - but do you agree we should be cutting back in emissions and pollution or not? You think we are ok as we are today and where we are heading?

Scott Shaubel (816)
Friday April 11, 2008, 2:29 pm

1935 was the hottest year on record. the records have been altered, but if you check the newspapers from that time, 1925 to 1935, there are pictures of melting ice , etc. same thing.
its a 40 year cycle, and the hottest year will be in about 2010 to 2015,
then it will cool down again.

.over and over and over,... do some real research

Isa Kocher (8)
Friday April 11, 2008, 2:37 pm
"1935 was the hottest year on record. the records have been altered" you went and read all the newspapers in all the cities all over the world, and all the records were changed? I would love to see that research. In the meantime, every scientist studying this issue and every scientific body studying this issue, and every international body studying the research on this issue by responsible scientists, all agree, except you. They did not base their research on some newspapers somewhere. Anyone who does is some sort of nut. NASA is not conspiring with the People's Republic of China to hoodwink you about the human cause of global warming. I have done the research and the research is proven. But enjoy. Maybe you'll be right and survive the Rapture too.

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 2:39 pm
Scott same question to you: "Are you content with how things are? Or do you think we should strive for more enviromental care?"

Ariel H (46)
Friday April 11, 2008, 2:52 pm
What stories like this that have been popping up really say is "The only reason to be environmentally conscious is it there is imminent danger of self-destructing." That mentallity in itself is completly complacent and so self centered - that you can't be bothered about doing the right thing for your global home is it isn't going to kill you in the next few years!!!???

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 3:00 pm
the gif on the link is too funny:)))

other than that I think I may start to believe global warming is a hoax if if I hear it let's say about 97 more times... 100 - 3 = uhmmmn yes 97 more global warming is not real news will do it.

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 3:14 pm
Ariel I agree with you - like having to tel people to clean up after themselves ..... shouldn't be necessary, but I guess it is.

Scott Shaubel (816)
Friday April 11, 2008, 3:30 pm

Isabel, we should strive for more enviromental care, of course,

you would have to be an Idiot, to continue on this path of desruction.

just because I don't believe their crap about global warming,

doesn't mean I don't care about the environment.the opposite.

I would just like everyone to realize, that the multi-national

corporations are destroying the earth.

Every-one has to do their part,.. be a responsible citizen of Earth.

As Bette always says, Plant Tree's for the future generation.

but more important, people need to wake up, you need to plant

about a zillion tree's an hour to keep up with..

Patricia Woertz's Global deforestation, and destruction program.

via, ADM, Cargill, Monsanto,.. etc.

Daniel Barker (35)
Friday April 11, 2008, 3:38 pm
Alf, you are right about meat. My goal is to live on six pounds a year. Cattle are fed grain, which consumes massive petroleum and other resources.

The ice has been receding for millennia - the Vikings knew about this a long time ago.

If you believe humans are responsible, it will change you life - you will look at the world with a different viewpoint. You will begin to wonder when you see your town designed for vehicles and not other means of transportation (courtesy NRDC). You will wonder about celebrities who travel by private jet. You will wonder about county commssioners who promise growth and development.

We certainly have the means to supply all our needs without fossil. Wind, solar, tidal and geothermal each have enough for the U.S. and beyond.


Scott Shaubel (816)
Friday April 11, 2008, 3:46 pm

I agree totally, Daniel.especially the part about the meat,

could you imagine how much land and food we would have, if we stopped using all that land to grow food for animals, that people eat, besides the fact that its not good for you.

Isa Kocher (8)
Friday April 11, 2008, 3:58 pm
"doesn't mean I don't care about the environment.the opposite. " that really is not the issue. You have a right to believe the world is flat. That heat is a fluid. That the suns revolves around the Earth. However, the rest of us have to live in the real world. There are no scientists anywhere who have actually done the research who say it isn't happening. The most virulent anti-global warming practicing scientist everywhere have agreed, and all the objections about cycles and such have all been proven wrong. Humans are changing the climate. Fact. An intelligent person uses facts. There is no rational, objective, reasonable doubt about it: we have very little time left to make the changes which will prevent a global disaster. Calling the whole profession of science liars is insane.

Sharon Ross (216)
Friday April 11, 2008, 5:13 pm
Noted, thank you Steve.

Judy Cross (83)
Friday April 11, 2008, 6:28 pm
Isa, there is no longer valid evidence to support the hypothesis that CO2 is responsible for the Earth warming or the climate changing. What there was has been shown to have been faked.

The cyclical nature of climate change is there written in the rocks. Trees left behind from the last time Greenland melted which was only in 1920-1940, have been discovered as a glacier there retreated.

1934 was thewarmest year of the 20th century, 1998 second warmest. 5 of the 10 warmest years of the 20th century were before 1942. All of this is provable from reliable sources.

You have been lied to by a big green publicity machine. The scam has been a long time in the making. check out the link below.

Real pollution is something else entirely different from carbon dioxide CO2 is the basis of life itself. Plants take it out of the air and make us food and forests We are a carbon based life form.

Chris Otahal (507)
Friday April 11, 2008, 6:40 pm
Please do a search on "carbon dioxide climate change" - sonn you can see who is "faking" information...

Chris Otahal (507)
Friday April 11, 2008, 6:52 pm
Here are a few "Myth Buster" sites you may want to check out:

TEN POPULAR MYTHS About Global Climate Change

Climate change myths

Global Warming Myths and Facts

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic

mate change: A guide for the perplexed

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 6:58 pm
Gore’s 10 Errors: Old and New. Scientific Mistakes and Exaggerations in an Interview in India Today

Christopher Monckton
Ice Cap
Friday, March 21, 2008

Al Gore no longer gives interviews to the Press except where the interviewer has been carefully pre-selected for his sycophancy and for his lack of elementary knowledge of climate science. Likewise, Gore no longer takes questions from the audience at any public meeting unless he is sure that no one in the audience knows anything of climatology. The interview from which the following list of Gore’s latest scientific errors and exaggerations was compiled appeared in India Today on 17 March 2008.

Error 1: “‘Global warming’ is a planetary emergency. It is a crisis and we have to find ways to come to an agreement to reduce the carbon dioxide.”

The facts: There is no “planetary emergency”. Nor is there a “crisis”. If there is an “emergency” or a “crisis”, it is certainly not caused by “global warming”. The increase in global temperatures between 1980 and 1998, when “global warming” stopped, was only half of the small increase shown in the official temperature records (McKitrick, 2006, 2007 in press). In the decade since 1998 there has been no statistically-significant increase in global temperature (HadCRUt3, 2008; US NCDC, 2008; RSS,2008; UAH MSU, 2008; etc.). In the seven years since early 2001, the trend of global temperature has been downward at a rate equivalent to more than 0.4degrees Celsius (0.75 F) per decade:

Error 2: “Today we the people of this planet would put another 70m tons of global warmingpollution into the earth’s atmosphere.”

(Article continues below)

The facts: “Global warming pollution” is Gore’s favorite phrase for “carbon dioxide.” However, CO2 is not a pollutant, but a naturally-occurring gas. Together with chlorophyll and sunlight, it is an essential ingredient in photosynthesis and is, accordingly, plant food. The reconstruction of palaeoclimatological CO2 concentrations below, taken from Berner (2001), demonstrates that carbon dioxide concentration today is almost at its lowest level since the Cambrian era 550 million years ago, when there was almost 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today, without any threat to animal or plant life, and without causing the “runaway greenhouse effect” that Gore likes to mention:

See larger image here. See all ten errors here

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 7:00 pm
The deceit behind global warming

Christopher Booker and Richard North
London Telegraph
Sunday November 4, 2007

No one can deny that in recent years the need to "save the planet" from global warming has become one of the most pervasive issues of our time. As Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, claimed in 2004, it poses "a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism", warning that by the end of this century the only habitable continent left will be Antarctica.

Inevitably, many people have been bemused by this somewhat one-sided debate, imagining that if so many experts are agreed, then there must be something in it. But if we set the story of how this fear was promoted in the context of other scares before it, the parallels which emerge might leave any honest believer in global warming feeling uncomfortable.

The story of how the panic over climate change was pushed to the top of the international agenda falls into five main stages. Stage one came in the 1970s when many scientists expressed alarm over what they saw as a disastrous change in the earth's climate. Their fear was not of warming but global cooling, of "a new Ice Age".

(Article continues below)

For three decades, after a sharp rise in the interwar years up to 1940, global temperatures had been falling. The one thing certain about climate is that it is always changing. Since we began to emerge from the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago, temperatures have been through significant swings several times. The hottest period occurred around 8,000 years ago and was followed by a long cooling. Then came what is known as the "Roman Warming", coinciding with the Roman empire. Three centuries of cooling in the Dark Ages were followed by the "Mediaeval Warming", when the evidence agrees the world was hotter than today.

Around 1300 began "the Little Ice Age", that did not end until 200 years ago, when we entered what is known as the "Modern Warming". But even this has been chequered by colder periods, such as the "Little Cooling" between 1940 and 1975. Then, in the late 1970s, the world began warming again.

A scare is often set off — as we show in our book with other examples — when two things are observed together and scientists suggest one must have been caused by the other. In this case, thanks to readings commissioned by Dr Roger Revelle, a distinguished American oceanographer, it was observed that since the late 1950s levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere had been rising. Perhaps it was this increase that was causing the new warming in the 1980s?

Stage two of the story began in 1988 when, with remarkable speed, the global warming story was elevated into a ruling orthodoxy, partly due to hearings in Washington chaired by a youngish senator, Al Gore, who had studied under Dr Revelle in the 1960s.

But more importantly global warming hit centre stage because in 1988 the UN set up its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). Through a series of reports, the IPCC was to advance its cause in a rather unusual fashion. First it would commission as many as 1,500 experts to produce a huge scientific report, which might include all sorts of doubts and reservations. But this was to be prefaced by a Summary for Policymakers, drafted in con-sult-ation with governments and officials — essentially a political document — in which most of the caveats contained in the experts' report would not appear.

This contradiction was obvious in the first report in 1991, which led to the Rio conference on climate change in 1992. The second report in 1996 gave particular prominence to a study by an obscure US government scientist claiming that the evidence for a connection between global warming and rising CO2 levels was now firmly established. This study came under heavy fire from various leading climate experts for the way it manipulated the evidence. But this was not allowed to stand in the way of the claim that there was now complete scientific consensus behind the CO2 thesis, and the Summary for Policy-makers, heavily influenced from behind the scenes by Al Gore, by this time US Vice-President, paved the way in 1997 for the famous Kyoto Protocol.

Kyoto initiated stage three of the story, by formally committing governments to drastic reductions in their CO2 emissions. But the treaty still had to be ratified and this seemed a good way off, not least thanks to its rejection in 1997 by the US Senate, despite the best attempts of Mr Gore.

Not the least of his efforts was his bid to suppress an article co-authored by Dr Revelle just before his death. Gore didn't want it to be known that his guru had urged that the global warming thesis should be viewed with more caution.

One of the greatest problems Gore and his allies faced at this time was the mass of evidence showing that in the past, global temperatures had been higher than in the late 20th century. In 1998 came the answer they were looking for: a new temperature chart, devised by a young American physicist, Michael Mann. This became known as the "hockey stick" because it showed historic temperatures running in an almost flat line over the past 1,000 years, then suddenly flicking up at the end to record levels.

Mann's hockey stick was just what the IPCC wanted. When its 2001 report came out it was given pride of place at the top of page 1. The Mediaeval Warming, the Little Ice Age, the 20th century Little Cooling, when CO2 had already been rising, all had been wiped away.

But then a growing number of academics began to raise doubts about Mann and his graph. This culminated in 2003 with a devastating study by two Canadians showing how Mann had not only ignored most of the evidence before him but had used an algorithm that would produce a hockey stick graph whatever evidence was fed into the computer. When this was removed, the graph re-emerged just as it had looked before, showing the Middle Ages as hotter than today.

It is hard to recall any scientific thesis ever being so comprehensively discredited as the "hockey stick". Yet the global warming juggernaut rolled on regardless, now led by the European Union. In 2004, thanks to a highly dubious deal between the EU and Putin's Russia, stage four of the story began when the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified.

In the past three years, we have seen the EU announcing every kind of measure geared to fighting climate change, from building ever more highly-subsidised wind turbines, to a commitment that by 2050 it will have reduced carbon emissions by 60 per cent. This is a pledge that could only be met by such a massive reduction in living standards that it is impossible to see the peoples of Europe accepting it.

All this frenzy has rested on the assumption that global temperatures will continue to rise in tandem with CO2 and that, unless mankind takes drastic action, our planet is faced with the apocalypse so vividly described by Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth.

Yet recently, stage five of the story has seen all sorts of question marks being raised over Gore's alleged consensus. For instance, he claimed that by the end of this century world sea levels will have risen by 20 ft when even the IPCC in its latest report, only predicts a rise of between four and 17 inches.There is also of course the harsh reality that, wholly unaffected by Kyoto, the economies of China and India are now expanding at nearly 10 per cent a year, with China likely to be emitting more CO2 than the US within two years.

More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.

It was a telling moment when, in August, Gore's closest scientific ally, James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was forced to revise his influential record of US surface temperatures showing that the past decade has seen the hottest years on record. His graph now concedes that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934, and that four of the 10 warmest years in the past 100 were in the 1930s.

Furthermore, scientists and academics have recently been queuing up to point out that fluctuations in global temperatures correlate more consistently with patterns of radiation from the sun than with any rise in CO2 levels, and that after a century of high solar activity, the sun's effect is now weakening, presaging a likely drop in temperatures.

If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from reality as history has ever recorded. The evidence of the next 10 years will be very interesting.

• Scared to Death: From BSE To Global Warming — How Scares Are Costing Us The Earth by Christopher Booker and Richard North (Continuum, £16.99) is available for £14.99 + £1.25 p&p. To order call Telegraph Books on 0870 428 4115 or go to

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 7:03 pm
I just wish one pro global warmer would answer the question How much heat does the Iraq war contribute toward global warming? setting off depleted uranium and such?

Chris Otahal (507)
Friday April 11, 2008, 7:04 pm
prision planet is a joke site and as is Christopher Monckton. Here is background on Christopher Monckton

Chris Otahal (507)
Friday April 11, 2008, 7:07 pm
Depleated uranium does NOTHING reguarding climate change (though it does pose health risks) - the war itself isw only one SMALL component od the BILLIONS of tons of CO2 we produce each year - practically meaningless in the bigger picture - this is nothing more than blowing smoke

Darlene K (356)
Friday April 11, 2008, 7:19 pm
My goodness. It is a fact, that global warming is a natural process of this planet's evolution, so there is NO disputing, if global warming exist..............(anyone who says global warming is a hoax..., is not educated in such).
Now, many, many things have and are affecting our climate change, ozone layer, and contributing to the exceleration of this "natural process of" global warming. In my opinion, we are beyond the point of fixing the global warming problem. However, I agree with Ariel, Chris and so many that there is much that we can do to tend to our environment.

We can stop using fossil fuels and bio-fuels, since we do have the ability to use Wind, Solar and geothermal.

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 7:25 pm
Sick And Tired Of Being Lectured By Global Warming Hypocrites
Private jet flying, CO2 belching, bags made by slaves in China transported thousands of miles buying, bulb banning, Al Gore worshipping morons wagging their finger at me when I don't even drive a car get under my skin

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, April 27, 2007

I've had enough of it.

Ninnying fatuous self-important morons who demand that everyone else make sacrifices in the name of mother earth while they zoom around in CO2 belching private jets and lavish themselves in heated swimming pools are hypocrites but perhaps we should be grateful that their frothing absurdities are causing the man-made global warming cult to lose whatever credibility it has left.

Last week, singer Sheryl Crow demanded that we all use one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit to help save the planet. Shortly after these ridiculous comments, the Smoking Gun website uncovered documents showing Crow's touring requirements, which include three tractor trailers, four buses and six cars. I don't even drive a car, so to be lectured about what I can and can't do after I take a shit is a bit rich coming from someone whose "carbon footprint" is bigger than King Kong's treads.

At the British premiere of his movie Wild Hogs, actor John Travolta urged everyone to "do their bit" to fight global warming, warning that "We have to think about alternative methods of fuel."

I fly commercial perhaps once every two years for a brief holiday. Travolta has five private jets parked in his runway (pictured above), has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions, 100 times more than the average person in the last year, is a "serving ambassador" for the Australian airline Qantas and named his son Jett as a tribute to his love of flying. So when Travolta lectures me about "doing my bit" forgive me for taking it with a pinch of salt.

Al Gore is the messiah for the climate change fanatics and his error-strewn polemic An Inconvenient Truth, has been dispatched to every British school on orders of the Blair government, so that kids may be forcefully brainwashed into accepting that man-made global warming is as much a reality as the surveillance cameras, metal detectors and biometric scanning for lunches that they have to endure as part of their "education."

Gore's 20 room private mansion uses 20 times the national U.S. average of gas and electricity, as Gore lavishes himself in his heated swimming pool while poor people and the middle class await the onslaught of carbon taxes to eviscerate any disposable income they have left.

Gore is behind the spectacle of the Live-8 style Live Earth concerts that will take place in numerous cities around the world on July 7 to raise awareness about climate change. The performers who will be showcased at these concerts include people like Madonna, who owns at least 6 gas-guzzling cars including a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, Audi A8s and a Mini Cooper S.

According to a report, last year "Madonna flew as many as 100 technicians, dancers, backing singers, managers and family members on a 56-date world tour in private jets and commercial airliners." The singer's Confessions tour produced 440 tonnes of CO2 in four months of last year.

The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe! Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!

Other acts, including rock group Red Hot Chili Peppers, all use private jets yet are set to throw their stardom behind an effort to propagandize the notion that we are producing too many carbon emissions.

This will all be eagerly lapped up by the majority of Britons, who are zealously supportive of government programs that punish people who don't jump on the climate bandwagon. Fines for putting rubbish in the wrong colored trash can are now commonplace, as state spies roam around leafy suburbs searching through people's bins for evidence of dastardly "enviro-crimes" while tiny cameras are placed inside bean cans to catch potential villains.

The exact level of idiocy these morons embrace was underscored perfectly yesterday when throngs of them queued up outside a London supermarket from 3am to buy "eco-friendly" bags that have become the latest must-have fashion item and another ego trinket for them to grandstand and revel in the pomp that they are saving Mother Earth.

In reality, the bags were made by slaves in China and transported thousands of miles by CO2 belching jet planes. But let's not concern ourselves about that - as long as we can feel good about ourselves while wagging our finger in judgment at anyone who uses those dirty old plastic bags that's all that matters.

These kind of simpletons are also behind the move to completely criminalize the ownership of incandescent light bulbs, despite the fact that their precious "energy saving light bulbs" are loaded with toxic waste that's already banned under EU regulations. They also contain deadly Mercury which will end up in our land fills and our water supply once use of the new CFL bulbs becomes mandatory.

If you still believe in the notion of man-made global warming, then you should be very concerned about the fact that the leading proponents of the theory are all giant hypocrites espousing outlandish and radical measures to combat climate change while fearmongering about doomsday scenarios that will befall us unless we all drastically reduce our carbon footprints, while their own carbon footprints dwarf the average person's by a hundred times or more.

The result of this will be that the mantra of man-made global warming will begin to look increasingly inane and it will eventually lose steam. People with an ounce of common sense will see through the fact that a natural cycle of warming that occurs every few hundred years does not mean the end of the world, and that hysteria is deliberately being whipped up on behalf of governments in order to grease the skids for draconian taxation and control measures that won't even do anything to combat man-made global warming even if it was real, but will do everything to aid the construction of the prison planet that the elite have planned all along.

Meanwhile, real environmental issues like genetically modified garbage poisoning our very food supply, the disappearance of huge swathes of the bee populations across the world, deforestation and toxic waste dumping, all get buried while global warming monopolizes the attention of the phony environmental movement.

No doubt there'll be several responses to this article accusing me of denying that the planet is heating up and saying I'm on the payroll of the oil companies. For those people, I would like to remind you of the fact that it was none other than Peter Sutherland, the chairman of British Petroleum, who rallied his fellow elitists at the Trilateral Commission meeting last month, to exploit the hysteria of global warming in order to impose a standardized carbon tax, a measure that will create artificial scarcity and, just like peak oil, raise prices, reaping billions in profits for oil industry moguls at the very top of the ladder.



Globalists Love Global Warming

Global Warming On The Ropes

Global Warming Replaces 9/11 As Justification To Do Anything

Powerful Documentary Trounces Man-Made Warming Hoax

The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria

As Predicted: Global Warming Skeptics Linked With Holocaust Denial


Jillyanne Michelle Cape (718)
Friday April 11, 2008, 9:53 pm
We are polluting our environment and causing destruction of habitat, our own as well as that of other species which share our planet. Whether or not this leads to "global warming" in my opinion is irrelevant. We are creating problems for which there will be negative consequences and you would have to be fairly ignorant not to notice or acknowledge any of it. We need to clean up our act, period. Arguing about the whys and wherefores only derails and delays anybody taking any responsible action, of course. The main parties involved being on the corporate and governmental levels. What the rest of us thinks or does is trivial, by comparison.

Carol W (119)
Friday April 11, 2008, 9:56 pm

In '91 I bought a Chevy, nice 4 seater with leg room, that gave me 55 mpg.
It was a stick shift, 5 speed, 3 Cyl.
I drove w/o A/C over 100,000 in 5 yrs. I hated selling it when gas was still $1. a gallon.
Can't find that car any where now. Few know it or had it that year. (Thats another story, with a happy ending.)

The technology is here & beyond already for greatly reduced consumption

..Off topic
CNN did a study and found 85% of humaninity prefer living under a dictatorship. (Like has everyone already just given up all hope?)
thinking out loud.

Carol W (119)
Friday April 11, 2008, 10:25 pm
Gasoline prices tripled between 1998 and 2005. The increases occurred immediately after a wave of mergers and joint ventures involving the biggest players in the petroleum industry.

In May 2004, the federal government's General Accounting Office and the Federal Trade Commission both issued reports on the effect of consolidation in the petroleum industry on oil prices -- and came to opposite conclusions.

Past Member (0)
Friday April 11, 2008, 10:32 pm
Al Gore is a sleaze bag. But the planet is in trouble. Plankton produce more of the oxygen we need than the forests. O2 levels drop as both plankton and forests disappear. America stuffs its face with ten times more of everything than anyone really needs and developing nations race to match the conspicuous over consumption that characterizes a 'rich' nation. With thanks to George Michael:

This is the year of the hungry man
Whose place is in the past
Hand in hand with ignorance
And legitimate excuses

The rich declare themselves poor
And most of us are not sure
If we have too much
But we'll take our chances
'Cause God's stopped keeping score
I guess somewhere along the way
He must have let us all out to play
Turned his back and all God's children
Crept out the back door

And it's hard to love, there's so much to hate
Hanging on to hope
When there is no hope to speak of
And the wounded skies above say it's much, much too late
Well maybe we should all be praying for time

Judy Cross (83)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 12:23 am

Chris O., you are absolutely right Depleted Uranium has nothing to do with climate change BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT and DU is a REAL PROBLEM. AGW/CC was cooked up to divert attention from real problems like RADIATION POISONING. That St.Al gets to make money from it is all explained away. He's a Saint, after he's allowed to rip us off.

The millions (not billions)of tons of CO2 humans produce mean very little since it is only 3% of the incredibly small amount already in the atmosphere which is only 0.038% of all the air there is.....AND IT IS NOT AS IF YOU NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE.

Al Gore is running a scam and he has the backing of the increasingly stupid and nasty elite that is trying to kill off 5 1/2 billion people through war, starvation and disease.

So why are you helping them by quoting nonsense, my dear sir?

Isa Kocher (8)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 2:46 am
"Whether or not this leads to "global warming"" whether or not is relevant because global warming will kill at least half of humanity in this century and maybe within the next 50 years and god-knows how many species and change the whole planet. There has not been such a die back of species for literally billions of years AND: is is happening at a rate far faster maybe 20 times faster than it was believed ten years ago so that the window of opportunity here is withing the next five years. In five years the whole world has to change its entire economic focus or we are all cooked. After that we will have to decide how to survive being cooked.

Isa Kocher (8)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 3:09 am
"What there was has been shown to have been faked. " this is as absurd as it gets! every single counter argument presented here has been refuted by hundreds of serious scientists working in literally hundreds of countries. Anyone who says the eveidence is faked just either is ignorant or lying. This research is published and researched and published in the foremost scientific scholarly journals. Anyone who can imagine that every climate scientist in the world is engaged in conspiracy needs to see a doctor. The research is clear and overhelming. 20 years of strong solid serious science by thousands of climate scientists all over the planet and evry suggestion as to any other cause than human generated gases, not just CO2 but gases from everything humans do has tipped the scale and generated a global climate change. A change of one tenth of 1 percent is a massive change when speaking of a global factor. There are now absolutely no climate scientists anywhere who disagree. Only skeptics with no training at all in climate science. The massive discussion of conspiracy theory here is a sad tragic and unfortunate outcome. The case has been made and the research done all over the world by leftists rightists conservaitves and progressives and scientists of every possible color, language religion and ideology have all agreed. Case closed. Calling Gore names is a childish response. Immature and insulting. Name calling is the last refuge of someone with nothing to back up their story.

If i am to bet my life, I will go with the massive consensus of trained scientists over the wild accusations of conspiracy amateurs any day of the week and god help those who think they can argue their way out of it.

Sabina P (41)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 3:13 am
Hoax or no hoax – I see the strong debate over climate change only as a trigger that people start to think about what they are doing to the nature. The more we talk about it the more it will be done to protect the nature. That’s the positive effect.
It worked with me – I started to think about my environmental footprint. Not only how much CO2 i produce, but also if I buy gasoline I’m co-responsible for the death of people and animals that are being killed as a “side effect” of taking over the land that is rich with oil. I’m co-responsible for the pollution from oil drills, I’m co-responsible for the fact that there are almost no tunas in the see (I stopped eating tuna for that reason). And much much more. Our environmental footprint is more complex than just climate change.
What is actually behind it – who knows? The few guys that run the whole world know it.
We have to start thinking how to liberate ourselves from all dependences that make few guys very reach. How? I would be very glad if we can find some way. The most important thing is to stop being angry about it and start searching for a creative solutions. And what we are doing – we are angry because of all injustices or we get ourselves drugged with food, TV, fancy lifestyle and not caring at all for anything. That’s not the right way. We have to search for creative solutions, become more consciousness and be more compassionate. Negative (anger) only creates more negative.
How much evidence and debate do you need to start solving the problem in a new way?

Isa Kocher (8)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 3:15 am
" Gore’s 10 Errors: Old and New. " In the face of the overwhelmingly massive consensus of real scientist really doing real research in the real world all over the world, Gore's silly mistakes really don't matter. So Gore made a mistake? Who didn't. That is why scientists publish their mistakes in public so everyone can see what their mistakes are. That is how science is done. The massive overwhelming incontrovertible consensus of the whole world of climate scientists is this: It is fact. Not theory. Fact. It is happening and humans are doing it. Go read the science. Read all the science. It is out there. It is certainly not here with the conspiracy theory non-scientists who really don't know.

Isa Kocher (8)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 3:28 am
"Scared to Death: From BSE To Global Warming — How Scares Are Costing Us The Earth by Christopher Booker and Richard North (Continuum, £16.99) is available for £14.99 + £1.25 p&p. To order call Telegraph Books on 0870 428 4115 or go to" These people are NOT climatologist. They have not done the research. Their facts are not. Real climatologists all over the world have long ago looked at and disproven all the accusations distortions and outright untruths this books panders. This book is so completely full of misinformation it would take a thousand pages to go through its fundamental mistakes. AND, long before it was published real science had already asked and answered the questions it asks. Anybody who without having actually read the science in SCIENCE, and in NATURE and in NASA reports and in the climatology, geology, physics and other journals where the actual facts are published can believe a conspiracy theory written for money book like this needs to go back and take a basic course in basic science. Hundreds of such books are written by people who deny that tobacco kills. Hundreds of books like this are written to PROVE that Aficans are inferior. Hundreds of books like this are written by people who believe nobody went to the moon and that is a scam. Books like this are easy to write and easy to sell and anyone who reads them and then does not go out and check the facts is sad. Comspiracy theory is a nice hobby. But the scientists of the world have done their job: calling all the scientists in the world liars is just plain nonsense. When anyone starts to believe that ALL the scientist or all anybody in the world are scamming us then that is proof that logic is no longer in the discussion. That is nonsense. Cut out whole cloth from nonsense about nonsense. The science is massive and clear and proven.

Alf I (246)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 6:45 am
Comment added on your blog Steve......
‘Peter Sutherland, the chairman of British Petroleum, who rallied his fellow elitists at the Trilateral Commission meeting last month, to exploit the hysteria of global warming in order to impose a standardized carbon tax, a measure that will create artificial scarcity and, just like peak oil, raise prices, reaping billions in profits for oil industry moguls at the very top of the ladder.’
Just as always the top people either invent or utilize a global terror campaign for their own gains.
Global warming is the new terror campaign.
Al Gore is a fake!!
We the people as usual are the fodder to do the dirty work and head out front of the battle lines while the rich and powerful reap the rewards.
There are other reasons to go green and start taking care of number one.
Coal and oil WILL run out so we need to move on to more sustainable energy.
As prices rise food will become scarce so we all need to start growing our own.
Pollution kills and harms people and animals and needs to be stopped.
Trees not only provide us with oxygen but also provide homes for critters so we need to plant more and stop cutting so many down.
All these things we should do regardless of the overlords of global warming hysteria.
Do it for yourselves not for them.
Finally in taking command of our own lives we all need to stop looking to the other ‘masters’ the doctors and medical ’scientists’ to save us.
Their medicine is quackery based on dogma and fraudulent animal studies. Take control of your own health. Reject their unproven and dangerous vaccines and drugs and eat some real homegrown food.
Be healthy, be happy.

Hans L (958)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 6:54 am
If Al Gore and the other Global warming advocates where serious about CO2 reduction why dont they start with the MEAT industry?

Hans L (958)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 7:16 am
Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

Isa Kocher (8)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 7:39 am

"Do it for yourselves not for them.
Finally in taking command of our own lives we all need to stop looking to the other ‘masters’ the doctors" you seriously are going to go out and do all that climate study yourself? without help. Scientists are not telling you what to do. Scientists are telling you what the facts are. What you do is up to you but whoever just calls scientists bad names prooves that they have nothing concrtete helpful or intelligent left to say except bad mouthing. Global warming caused by human activity is a proven fact. What you do about it is up to you but unless everyone gets together and decides we all are going to suffer

Past Member (0)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 7:43 am
I wish it known that i beleive in global warming I am with the Rep from Oklahoma that stated "Gays are responsible for global warming" and after FOX announced that "trees are the cause for global warming" I was a firm believer.

But it wasn't until the one of the richest men in world taught me that the reason that NASA has stated that Mar's is also warming, and the Moons of Saturn and Jupiter were warming is because they are closer to the Sun then the Earth is"

With ground breaking facts like this I have no ther choice but to be a firm beleiver in Global warming

Past Member (0)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 7:45 am
Global warming caused by human activity is a proven fact.

Weather control, Chemtrails, War, Military ships in the North and south Pole, Neocons Drilling for oil, Depleted uranium, Gore coal mines, Madonna with her 6 buses, Travolta with his 7 airplanes, CIA torture flights, CIA blowing up WTC and releasing all that asbestos in the air

Isa is correct Global warming is man made

Past Member (0)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 7:47 am
Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural
Attempts to reduce CO2 emissions "pointless" as sun is cited as climate change culprit
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, December 11, 2007

The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.

The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.

(Article continues below)

Authored by Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia), the study appears in this month's International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society.

“The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming," said lead author David H. Douglass.

Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

Subscribe today for just $39.95 and get the equivalent of 5 months free!

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate. Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless – but very costly."

The findings of the report help to explain why we are witnessing climate change in almost every corner of our solar system, from Mars to Pluto, to Jupiter and to the moons of Neptune - and clearly identify the sun as the main culprit and not CO2 emissions - which are being used as a pretext for control freaks to completely dominate every aspect of our lives.

Man-made global warming advocates have often made their case by claiming that the scientific consensus is fully behind CO2 emissions as the main driver of climate change, when in fact the UN's own IPCC report was disputed by the very scientists that the UN claimed were behind it.

In reality, a significant number of prominent experts dispute the global warming mantra, but many have been intimidated into silence and had their careers threatened simply for stating an opposing view.

HAT TIP: Canadian Free Press


Past Member (0)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 7:48 am
Skeptical Global Warming Scientists To Challenge "Consensus"
Hundreds of experts to meet in New York, will media blackball story to maintain climate myth?
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, February 15th, 2008

Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts are set to meet in Manhattan next month to discuss the other side of the climate change debate that the establishment media prefers to pretend does not exist.

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change seeks to "call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged “consensus” that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis," according to The Heartland Institute.

Of course the fact that the establishment likes to engage in regular mass public deception by claiming the debate about global warming is over and any dissent is tantamount to holocaust denial doesn't bode well for potential media coverage of the conference, unlike December's UN meeting in Bali, which was lavished with endless ninnying importance about the need for a global carbon tax to save the planet from the evils of plant food (CO2).

(Article continues below)

The "consensus" that came out of Bali was again enforced by threats, intimidation and ignorance, as skeptical scientists who tried to present contradictory arguments were shunned and ignored, with many running into difficulties even trying to gain access to the event, with the organizers scared stiff that their official orthodoxy of man-made warming would be challenged.

The New York conference will also highlight an issue that is always overlooked by self-righteous, self-important morons who like to lecture the rest of us about how to live our lives - the fact that the global warming bandwagon spells disaster and misery for third world populations who are trying to develop their countries and wrestle themselves free from the shackles of poverty.

Following last year's Bali resolution to impose a global carbon tax, over one hundred prominent scientists signed a letter dismissing the move as a futile bureaucratic scheme which would diminish prosperity and increase human suffering.

Did the media even acknowledge the story? Not at all, because it dared challenge the sacred cow that scientists uniformly agree on man-made global warming, a myth that will be maintained until hell freezes over, presumably from global cooling, which we were told was the big threat in the 1970's.

"The global warming debate that the public and policymakers usually see is one-sided, dominated by government scientists and government organizations agenda-driven to find data that suggest a human impact on climate and to call for immediate government action, if only to fund their own continued research, but often to achieve political agendas entirely unrelated to the science of climate change. There is another side, but in recent years it has been denied a platform from which to speak," reads the press release for the Manhattan conference.

The event is the first major gathering of climate change skeptics and intends to be a launch pad for future conferences, all of which will probably be sidelined, shunned and blackballed by an agenda-driven bias media that seeks to inculcate the fallacy that sober-minded scientists aren't standing up to the mindless fearmongering being pumped out by the global warming cult.


Past Member (0)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 7:48 am
They call this a consensus?

Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post
Monday June 4, 2007

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.

My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.

What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007."

An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC's comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.

A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities.

Such diversity of views is also present in the wider scientific community, as seen in the World Federation of Scientists, an organization formed during the Cold War to encourage dialogue among scientists to prevent nuclear catastrophe. The federation, which encompasses many of the world's most eminent scientists and today represents more than 10,000 scientists, now focuses on 15 "planetary emergencies," among them water, soil, food, medicine and biotechnology, and climatic changes. Within climatic changes, there are eight priorities, one being "Possible human influences on climate and on atmospheric composition and chemistry (e.g. increased greenhouse gases and tropospheric ozone)."

Man-made global warming deserves study, the World Federation of Scientists believes, but so do other serious climatic concerns. So do 14 other planetary emergencies. That seems about right. - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation. Email:


Past Member (0)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 7:49 am
Three Quarters Believe Global Warming A 'Natural Occurrence'

Life Style Extra
Tuesday June 26, 2007

ALMOST three quarters of people believe global warming is a 'natural occurrence' and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today.

This goes against the views of the vast majority of scientists who believe the rise in the earth's temperatures is due to pollution.

The online study which polled nearly 4000 votes found that a staggering 71 percent of people think that the rise in air temperature happens naturally.

And 65 percent think that scientists' catastrophic predictions if pollution isn't curbed are 'far fetched'.

Emma Hardcastle, publisher at Pocket Issue which carried out the research, said: "If 71% of people feel that Man has nothing to do with the recent change in our climate then those same people are not going to buy into any movement to reduce their carbon footprint.

"We need to make it clear that there is nothing natural about the significant rise in both carbon emissions and global temperatures since the industrial revolution.

"Pocket Issue’s brief is to help people to understand the facts, encouraging them to click through to a carbon counter as a result.

"Pocket Issue feel that the poll highlights the need for government and influential bodies to concentrate on getting the public to understand the facts about global warming and ‘why’ rather than ‘how’ they should reduce their carbon footprint."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which represents most scientists, stated earlier that the increase in global temperatures is 'very likely due to the observed increase of man-made greenhouse gas concentrations'.

They define very likely as 'more than 90 percent certain'.


Past Member (0)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 7:50 am
ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'

James Spann
Friday, January 19, 2007

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.

WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.

I have nothing against “The Weather Channel”, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.

Past Member (0)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 7:51 am
Just like 9/11, WACO, and OKC,,ask yourself this "Who stands to benefit"
Obviously the people, Making speeches, lawmakers developing a tax, and the Neocon shills pushing the global warming lie.

Past Member (0)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 7:54 am
Don't you just love FACTS

SUV's On Jupiter?
Are humans responsible for climate change on the outer reaches of the solar system, or is it the sun?

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, November 16, 2006

Kofi Annan today slammed global warming skeptics as being "out of step" and "out of time," but how will altering human activity halt climate change when the evidence clearly indicates that the sun itself and not SUV's is heating up the entire solar system?

"The U.N. chief lamented "a frightening lack of leadership" in fashioning next steps to reduce global emissions. "Let us start being more politically courageous," he urged the hundreds of delegates from some 180 member nations of the 1992 U.N. climate treaty," reports Forbes.

But how do we square the fact that almost every planet in our solar system is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns. Does this not suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun? Can Al Gore fill me in on this one?

- Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists
In what is largely a reversal of an August announcement, astronomers today said Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit.

- New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change
The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.

- Current Science & Technology Center: Global Warming on Mars?
A study of the ice caps on Mars may show that the red planet is experiencing a warming trend. If both Mars and Earth are experiencing global warming, then perhaps there is a larger phenomenon going on in the Solar System that is causing their global climates to change.

- United Press International: NASA looks at a monster storm on Saturn
NASA says its Cassini spacecraft has found a hurricane-like storm at Saturn's South Pole, nearly 5,000 miles across -- or two-thirds Earth's diameter.

- Science Agogo: Global Warming Detected on Triton
There may not be much industrial pollution on Neptune's largest moon, but things are hotting up nonetheless. "At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming," confirms astronomer James Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase."

- Associated Press: Study says sun getting hotter
Solar radiation reaching the Earth is 0.036 percent warmer than it was in 1986, when the current solar cycle was beginning, a researcher reports in a study to be published Friday in the journal Science. The finding is based on an analysis of satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight.

- London Telegraph: The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

The simple fact is that throughout the ages the earth has swung wildly between a warm, wet, stable climate, to a cold, dry and windy one - long before the first fossil fuel was burned. The changes we are now witnessing are a walk in the park compared to the battering that our planet has taken in the past.

This is not a defense of the oil cartels or the Neo-Con wreckers, who would have every motivation to ignore global warming whether it is man-made or not.

Nor is it a blanket denial of the fact that the earth is getting very gradually hotter, but how do we reconcile global warming taking place at the farthest reaches of the solar system with the contention that it is caused by human activity? Have our exhaust fumes left earth's atmosphere and slipped through a black hole to Triton?

The assertion that global warming is man made is so oppressively enforced upon popular opinion, especially in Europe, that expressing a scintilla of doubt is akin to holocaust denial in some cases. Such is the insipid brainwashing that has taken place via television, newspapers and exalted talking heads - global warming skeptics are forced to wear the metaphoric yellow star and only discuss their doubts in hushed tones and conciliatory frameworks, or be cat-called, harangued and jeered by an army of do-gooders who righteously believe they are rescuing mother earth by recycling a wine bottle or putting their paper in a separate trash can.

Fearmongering about an imminent climate doomsday also hogs news coverage and important environmental issues like GM food, mad scientist chimera cloning and the usurpation and abuse of corporations like Monsanto flies under the radar.

Global warming is cited as an excuse to meter out further control and surveillance over our daily lives, RFID chips on our trash cans, GPS satellite tacking and taxation by the mile, as well as a global tax at the gas pump.

The extremist wing of the environmentalist movement, characterized by people like Dr. Erik Pianka, advocate the mass culling of humanity via plagues and state sanctioned bio-terrorism, in order to "save" the earth from the disease of humanity. Nazi-like genocial population control measures and the environmental establishment have always held a close alliance.

The orthodox organized religion of global warming and its disastrous consequences for our freedom of speech, freedom of mobility and our right to remain outside of the system, needs to be questioned on the foundational basis that the phenomenon is solar-system wide and it is mainly caused by the natural evolution of the sun and not human activity.


Past Member (0)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 7:55 am
The earth has previously gone through 7 major global temperature changes. The earth is very efficient at regulating itself, but the human population has expanded beyond the earth's capacity to support human activity. We are only beginning to experience the results of this. According to leading climatologists, between the years 2040 and 2060 the summers in Europe will consistently be as hot as they were in 2003 when 20-thousand people died. Some argue that everyone will simply have air conditioning by then. However, with summers consistently that hot, there will be no agriculture and no food for 700 million people.

The human species will survive... but that doesn't make it any less tragic when the vast majority of us will not. It is his hope that those who do survive will learn from the experience and behave differently in the future. The age of the earth is currently comparable to that of an 80-year old human. She cannot tolerate the abuse she once could.

Past Member (0)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 7:56 am
I noticed that one person who commented, was pushing IPCC data and telling people, look look look!
Well Look look look IPCC scientist says global warming is a farce. Please address this issue oh mighty GOV and edu link pusher

Past Member (0)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 8:04 am
So let's all Join the commenter above and just commit suicide to stop global warming. Would save taxpayers billions in having to transport everyone to FEMA camps and the govt Eugenics program can revel in their achievement.

If anyone hasn't notice i agree with Global warming and putting little glass particles in the air to refract the Sun and increase the heat is the answer, Ask the govt? they know whats good for you

If it was up to the govt to help global warming you should do these things

Get rid of that inherited China from Grandma and eat off paper plates
Don't buy new fashionable clothes, buy used Salvation army ragmuffin clothes
Don't drive your car, ride a bicycle(As Gore passes you in his stretch limo)
Drink water with Flouride in it, known to cause health problems
Volunteer for the govt Eungenics program by Enlisting
Take Vaccinations that contain Mercury and Barium
Switch your light bulb to bulbs that contain high concentrations of Mercury
Do not be ANTI war, Be Pro War
Shut off your lights for one hour, while your city runs street lights 24/7
You drive in Gas cars while govt drives in Propane cars

Are you starting to get the picture yet?

Past Member (0)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 8:06 am
Do as we say not as we do

Chris Otahal (507)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 8:21 am
Please do a search on "golbal warming" - instead of cherry picking individual articles which fit your dogma :)

Chris Otahal (507)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 8:22 am
that would be global

Chris Otahal (507)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 8:33 am
and Judy - we do produce BILLIONS of tons for CO2 - not millions - the US alone produced almost 6 BILLION tons of CO2 in 2007 alone - China about 4.5 Billion tons - Europe about 4.5 Billion tons - Russia about 1.5 BILLION tons ...

Chris Otahal (507)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 8:38 am
hear is a better link to the information above:

Carol W (119)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 8:51 am

Then there was methane and ...Among the types of pollution, the one that has existed longer than any other is water pollution. Its consequences are readily seen when pollutants reach groundwater reservoirs, creating serious health hazards to people drinking the water. The current version of the Federal Clean Water Act can be found at 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.
Blaming USA consumption when Americans don’t live there anymore unless they have incorporated.
A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies concludes that over 33 million legal immigrants and illegal aliens now live in the United States, an increase of 2 million immigrants since the recent April 2000 Census7. How significant is an increase of 33 million people?
• 33 million is larger than the current population of Canada.
• 33 million people in the U.S. would require over 12 million housing units8, would require 15.8 million more passenger cars9, and would consume about 825 million barrels of oil a year (25 barrels per person per year). 33 million Americans will consume all of the economically recoverable oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in less than four years time.

• 33 million people can be expected to consume 2.26 billion cubic feet of roundwood per year (80 cubic feet per person). Over 75 million acres of forest will be needed to supply 33 million people with their paper and wood needs.
Every hour, ten acres of our farmland and open space are lost to development.
• Immigration from 1925 to 1965 averaged 178,000 per year. Now, we're taking in approximately 1.1 million legal immigrants and up to 700,000 illegal aliens annually.

• Under current policy, U.S. population will double this century - practically within the lifetimes of today's children - and will continue to grow2.
1.3 million acres, an area the size of Delaware, are being black topped each year.
• Post 1970 immigrants and their descendants have added more than 55 million people to our country; this is the equivalent of absorbing all of Central America in thirty years.
• U.S. population will double this century, practically within the lifetimes of children born today. Leaving such a legacy has been described as a hate crime against future generations.

• Governor's Commission on Saving Open Spaces, Farms, and Ranches found : "Rapid growth, inadequate water supply and extremely dry conditions have left cities thirsty for more water."
• In 2002 Colorado water shortages forced farmers to cut crop yields by 50% and liquidate 70% of their cattle herds.
• "Grand County will quadruple in next 30 to 50 years." And "In Summit County, water use is expected to more than double.
Colorado may need up to 500,000 new acre-feet of new water within the next 30 years
• A quarter-million illegal aliens from Middle-East countries currently live in the U.S., many now entering across the Arizona-Mexico border.

California has practically doubled in population in the last 35 years. 96% of its growth in the 1990's was due to immigration. California now has 35 million, and is larger than most countries of the world
• There are 287,000-363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year.
• Denver has the 4th worst sprawl in the nation, according to Fannie Mae Foundation.
• Housing costs for the elderly have increase to more than 50% of their average income.

• Approximately 1 acre of open land is lost through urbanization and degradation for each person added to the U.S. - about 3 million people and therefore 3 million acres lost each year. (Gore calls it carbons, I think it is the miles & miles of green life we bury with concrete and/or toxins.)
• In the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the U.S. paid Mexico approximately $20 million for all of present-day California, Nevada, and Utah, and parts of present-day Arisona, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming. The nation of Mexico by then had officially controlled California and the mentioned territories for less than thirty years.
................In Other News:
Disaster Capitalism in the News
"According to the most recent reports of their personal finances, 151 current members of Congress had between $78.7 million and $195.5 million invested in companies that received defense contracts of at least $5 million in 2006. In all, these companies received more than $275.6 billion from the government in 2006, or $755 million per day....While Democrats are more likely to advocate for ending the Iraq war sooner than Republicans, as a group they have more of their own money invested in America's military efforts. In 2006 Democrats had at least $3.7 million invested in the defense sector alone, compared to Republicans' $577,500. More Republicans, however, held stock in defense companies in 2006—28 of them, compared to 19 Democrats."
- Lindsay Renick Mayer, Center for Responsive Politics, April 3, 2008


Carol W (119)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 8:54 am

Real problems with real solutions... What if they made a movie?

Judy Cross (83)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 9:11 am
Chris, you are right. A Giga ton is how it is usually phrased, which turns out to be a billion. You win that one.
But it is still inconsequential since the amount of CO2 humans produce is only 3% of the total.....and REPEAT ...CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere.

There isn't enough CO2 to do anything meaningful and WATER VAPOUR is 95% of the greenhouse effect.

Those facts alone would normally close the case if people involved in pushing this nonsense weren't scamming.

Hans L (958)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 9:12 am
Meat and Climate Change?
First Dutch climate film ‘Meat the Truth’ presented in the Tuschinski

Today the Nicolaas G. Pierson Foundation presented the first Dutch climate film in the Tuschinski cinema in Amsterdam. The film, which is presented by the Party for the Animals’ leader Marianne Thieme, forms an addendum to earlier climate films, which failed to address the biggest cause of global warming. Numerous scientific reports including the World Watch Institute, the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, the Profetas research study, which various Dutch universities were involved, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), were translated by researchers at the NGPF and the Free University Amsterdam into conclusions that even children will be able to understand. Indeed, children have the greatest interest in protecting the climate. The film was produced by Claudine Everaert and Gertjan Zwanikken.

For the documentary Meat the Truth, in which Marianne Thieme demonstrates the relationship between the greenhouse effect and livestock production, recordings were made in Washington DC, Norfolk (Virginia), Seattle and Amsterdam. The following individuals also participated in the making of the film: Georgina Verbaan, Antonie Kamerling, Karen van Holst Pellekaan, Yvonne Kroonenberg, Mensje van Keulen, Henk Schiffmacher, Dolf Jansen, Giel Beelen, Lousewies van der Laan, Wim T. Schippers, Harry Aiking, Wayne Pacelle, Matt Prescott, Howard Lyman and many others.

The Nicolaas G. Pierson Foundation, the scientific bureau of the Party for the Animals, chose to compile the best available current scientific information and to translate it into a film suitable for the general public. The film acts as an erratum to earlier climate films, which while convincingly drawing attention to the issue of global warming, failed to mention one of the most important causes thereof. In the film it became clear that worldwide the livestock industry is a far greater cause of global warming than all of the cars, lorries, aeroplanes and ships added together. A dairy cow emits just as many greenhouse gasses as 4.5 cars. The issues of the impact of livestock farming on water shortages and the unequal distribution of food resources are also raised in this documentary. At the end of the film, practical solutions to tackle climate change at the level of the individual consumer are presented.

These solutions have been calculated by scientists at the Free University Amsterdam and make it pertinently clear just how simple it could be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in large amounts. Here is just one example: if all Dutch people decided to eat no meat for three days a week, then we could reduce the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as we would by taking 3 million cars off the Dutch roads. Even if Dutch people ate less meat for just one day a week, that would make a huge difference to Dutch climate policy. All of the climate goals of the Dutch government for private households would be realised in one fell swoop.

The film will be shown in movie theatres and art house cinemas throughout the Netherlands in the spring and will then be released on DVD. Even before the presentation there has been great interest the production of an international version for cinemas in the United States and Australia. Last week the biggest newspaper in Argentina, La Nacion, devoted attention to the documentary in a full page article.

The Nicolaas G. Pierson Foundation hopes that the film will make a valuable contribution to the social discussion about a transition to a more plant-based and thus also a more humane society. The Foundation also hopes that the film will provide a showcase for prominent scientific reports, which have thus far proved inaccessible to the general public.

Hans L (958)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 9:13 am
Carbon savings table

Meat the Truth is not just a critical analysis of the relationship between the greenhouse gas effect and the intensive livestock farming industry. It also offers practical solutions, which can help to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Consumers are confronted with thought-provoking, personal dilemmas: would they be better off giving up their cars, or their steak?

The film demonstrates that even if everyone in the Netherlands was to abstain from eating meat for just one day a week, this would make a huge difference to Dutch climate policy. All of the Dutch government’s climate goals for private households would be achieved in one fell swoop.

Naturally, these solutions have not simply been pulled out of thin air. They are the result of the expert calculations, which have been made by scientists at the Institute for Environmental Studies, Free University Amsterdam. Click here to see the carbon savings table. This table presents their calculations for the carbon savings that could be achieved as a result of the reduction in meat consumption

Hans L (958)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 9:15 am
If we all ate no meat for x day(s) a week
(calculated by the Institute for Environmental Studies, Free University Amsterdam)
1 day
Eating no meat for one day would lead to the same carbon savings as taking 1 million cars off the road for a year .
It would save twice as many greenhouse gas emissions as replacing all light blubs
with energy saving bulbs (2x 1,66 megaton)
The present cabinet's goal of reducing domestic emissions (3 megaton CO2 in
2010) could be reached in one fell swoop.
We could save many more greenhouse gasses than if we all replaced cars with a
C/D energy label with ones with a B energy label B (2,8 megaton)
We could reduce just as many greenhouse gas emissions as if we double glazed an
entire house (1,5 megaton) and replaced all light bulbs with energy saving ones
(1,66 megaton)
2 days
By cutting out meat for two days a week we could save just as many greenhouse
gasses as using an energy efficient refrigerator and freezer (1,8 megaton), energy
efficient washing machine (0,18 megaton) and tumble dryer (0,18 megaton), an
energy efficient dishwasher (0,615 megaton), plus an energy efficient central
heating boiler (0,625 megaton), double glazing the whole house (1,5 megaton)
and insulating the exterior walls (1,34 megaton).
3 days
Three days without meat could save just as much as taking 3 million cars off the
road for a year
4 days
Eating no meat for four days a week could saves just as much (CO2 emissions) as
all CO2 emissions from domestic energy use in the Netherlands (13 megaton)
5 days
Five days without meat would make the equivalent savings to 32 million return
flights Amsterdam-Nice (500 kg CO2 per return flight) 6 days
Cutting out meat for six days a week would save just as many emissions as taking 6
million cars off the road for a year
It could also saves more CO2 emissions than are created by all the kilometres
driven in the Netherlands (18 megaton)
7 days
Eating a vegetarian diet for seven days a week would save more (on CO2
emissions) than the CO2 emissions caused by domestic use of gas by all Dutch
households, for warming homes, warm water for baths/showers and cooking (20

First Dutch climate film 'Meat the Truth'

Today the Nicolaas G. Pierson Foundation presented the first Dutch climate film in the Tuschinski cinema in Amsterdam. The film, which is presented by the Party for the Animals' leader Marianne Thieme, forms an addendum to earlier climate films, which failed to address the biggest cause of global warming. Numerous scientific reports including the World Watch Institute, the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, the Profetas research study, which various Dutch universities were involved, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), were translated by researchers at the NGPF and the Free University Amsterdam into conclusions that even children will be able to understand. Indeed, children have the greatest interest in protecting the climate. The film was produced by Claudine Everaert and Gertjan Zwanikken.

For the documentary Meat the Truth, in which Marianne Thieme demonstrates the relationship between the greenhouse effect and livestock production, recordings were made in Washington DC, Norfolk (Virginia), Seattle and Amsterdam. The following individuals also participated in the making of the film: Georgina Verbaan, Antonie Kamerling, Karen van Holst Pellekaan, Yvonne Kroonenberg, Mensje van Keulen, Henk Schiffmacher, Dolf Jansen, Giel Beelen, Lousewies van der Laan, Wim T. Schippers, Harry Aiking, Wayne Pacelle, Matt Prescott, Howard Lyman and many others.

The Nicolaas G. Pierson Foundation, the scientific bureau of the Party for the Animals, chose to compile the best available current scientific information and to translate it into a film suitable for the general public. The film acts as an erratum to earlier climate films, which while convincingly drawing attention to the issue of global warming, failed to mention one of the most important causes thereof. In the film it became clear that worldwide the livestock industry is a far greater cause of global warming than all of the cars, lorries, aeroplanes and ships added together. A dairy cow emits just as many greenhouse gasses as 4.5 cars. The issues of the impact of livestock farming on water shortages and the unequal distribution of food resources are also raised in this documentary. At the end of the film, practical solutions to tackle climate change at the level of the individual consumer are presented.

These solutions have been calculated by scientists at the Free University Amsterdam and make it pertinently clear just how simple it could be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in large amounts. Here is just one example: if all Dutch people decided to eat no meat for three days a week, then we could reduce the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as we would by taking 3 million cars off the Dutch roads. Even if Dutch people ate less meat for just one day a week, that would make a huge difference to Dutch climate policy. All of the climate goals of the Dutch government for private households would be realised in one fell swoop.

The film will be shown in movie theatres and art house cinemas throughout the Netherlands in the spring and will then be released on DVD. Even before the presentation there has been great interest the production of an international version for cinemas in the United States and Australia. Last week the biggest newspaper in Argentina, La Nacion, devoted attention to the documentary in a full page article.

The Nicolaas G. Pierson Foundation hopes that the film will make a valuable contribution to the social discussion about a transition to a more plant-based and thus also a more humane society. The Foundation also hopes that the film will provide a showcase for prominent scientific reports, which have thus far proved inaccessible to the general public.

Past Member (0)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 9:31 am
I just would like to say this: "America, what ever you do will have an effect on my country and on my neighbor's country. You call yourself rich and mighty. You think you need to better the world through wars and agression. You throw you weight around with the air of the rightous. So, America, let me hold you responsible for knowingly cause the biggest enviromental disaster with your wars and weapons and further more for not signing the Koyoto agreement, for not contributing to enviromental protection." Should I say, who cares if they don't shape up why should I?How can we demand from China to clean up their act? How can we medle in their buisiness how they treat the animals or Japan or Taiwan or Korea? How can we ask countries like India and China to reduce their CO2 emissions? Please tell me you ask them based on what? Personally I don't give a hoot what you do or not. I don't have kids and I won't be around all that much longer. My home also is a few hundered meter higher than the sea. Why should I care if New York really will be a few feet under water or not? If you want to risk it, if you want to risk you children having to live in a world as the scientist paint it ... fine go ahead. I am starting to realize that no matter what will happen, is happening and was happening ... people will not learn or shape up. We are too lazy and to self rightous. Shame on us.

Tere M (75)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 9:38 am
So go. See. Feel. Live. :)

Carol W (119)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 10:11 am

Isabella thats a bit off topic.
the only 3 sovereign nations effecting all countries not just yours are,
Inner London, Washington D.C., and the Vatican City.
And Rich Mighty? Again refer to the three above.

Who/what is America?
The 30 million immigrants that have taken up legal permanent residence?
The 700,000 immigrants on legal temp. 5 year visas? Or the 300,000 illegal immigrants from mainly just south of our border?
the 20,000 families a week currently loosing their homes, or those out of 800,000 jobs outsourced in just the last 6 months.

National Geographic:

believe their models can replicate reasonably enough the contribution of human-caused greenhouse gases and thus they can be used to estimate future warming. The other scientists believe this is not the case.

The reasons vary among the scientists, but the most common ones are: CO2, the target gas, pales in its abilities to impact temperature compared to water vapor and solar variability (not just radiation but also magnetic flux (which controls cosmic radiation and cloudiness) and orbital mechanics). Some scientists believe that CO2 is actually a cooling gas and we need to look elsewhere.

Additional factors that some skeptics believe are not adequately considered are the natural contributions of CO2 and other gases that dwarf the human component and the impact of cosmic radiation on the formation of clouds. Also, it is not clear to some scientists whether CO2 increases lead to warming or whether warming leads to CO2 increases.

To many skeptics, the over valuation of CO2 as a causative agent, particularly in light of it having a logarithmic function that decreases impact with the amount of CO2, is an indication of a policy agenda meant to deter the use of fossil fuels, not understand climate change

# This warming is largely recovery from the Little Ice Age. The natural rate of increase of about 1 deg F (0.5 C) since the LIA (~1500-1900) has not been removed from the IPCC estimations of temperature rise. The CO2 contribution is negligible or non-existent because there is no credible way to compensate for the sharp cooling from 1940 to the 1970s in the face of the rapid growth of CO2, nor the similar (to present) rise from 1920 to 1940 in the absence of rapid CO2 growth. See for example, Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”?: A possible cause of global warming by Syun-Ichi Akasofu (7 May 2007) . Another difficulty with accepting the temperature rise at face value is the evidence that the start of the use of thermometers in about 1850 comes at the same time as the emergence from the coldest period in 8,000 years.
# The rate of warming is dangerous. Not so, say the skeptics, pointing out that the rate of warming from 1980 to 1998 has been seen before, and for many parts of the Earth such temperature changes are recurrent, such as when the Atlantic and Pacific and ENSO (el Niño) oscillations change state.
# Sensationalist press not counteracted. The fact that Antarctica is warming in the area nearest Chile gets heralded, but the IPCC science documents show that, as a whole, Antarctica is stable. Flooding of coasts and cities, attributed to warming, is not countered by the IPCC, even though its science document shows no discernible acceleration in the rate of rise, a solid indicator of warming and necessary for prior sea level projections.

More at national;

Pollution, Monsanto, Govt. Controls. where to direct your anger, energy, and attacks.
...In my humble opinion.

mary b (2)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 11:07 am
Yes it could be viewed as a hoax if your only source of information is FOX TV. Now IF there is even a miniscule chance that global warming COULD be true just a teensy eensy weensy shred of truth, wouldn't it be a good idea to consider that and change the course of our greedy, consumer ridden, toxic, careless corporate ruled world view? Have we learned nothing? anyone with the least bit of common sense could see that we are heading in the wrong direction, our values are distorted, "Oil companies reap largest profits ever" the average person, can hardly afford to drive to work, food prices soar. Global warning is a huge wake up call and just the tip of the iceberg. We have become a world culture, but technology has superceeded our humanity. Why do we have to donate money to the starving masses while our military industrial complex spends billions destroying innocent cultures? We are screwed up and maybe we've gone to far to ever realize the logic of humanity.

Vijay Tankha (28)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 12:06 pm
America is doing what it does best, bash the guys who try to improve a disaster situation. If you folks lived in my part of the world, you'd know that Global warming is a very real threat and something that cannot be trivialized. We're dying here, its so hot in summer. Wimters last a few weeks. Wake up world! Its not only about the developed countries. We can see it heating up here before our very eyes.

Judy Cross (83)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 12:10 pm
Mary B.....I never watch Fox. And there is a miniscule chance that a herd of elephants will flatten my house. Should I prepare now? How much should I spend on reinforcements? Should I warn the neighborhood? Should I get taxes raised to pay for reinforcing the area? The elephants would have to take tthree ferries to get here...but hey, you never know, right? Can't be too cautious.

This is an argument about science...which is about what can be proven. The Man-made Global Warming HOAX has been DISPROVEN.

The elephants ruining my house has a better chance of happening than CO2 does of changing climate.
Just because the military is out of control doesn't make "Global" warming true....and the latest starvation is due to being made into fuel on the basis of a science fiction scenario promulgated by a man, St. Albert G. himself, who will make millions if not billions from the scam.

Read what skeptical scientists have to say.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Report Released on December 20, 2007

U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]

Scientists from Around the World Dissent

This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC's view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, Argentina, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were "futile." (LINK)

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. "I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority."

Daniel Barker (35)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 1:51 pm
I've been eating flexitarian for years - I began eliminating meat on a casual basis in 1992. One question - what about Bill Clinton eating at McDonald's in 1992, and Hillary making one thousand into one hundred thousand on cattle futures?

As Bette likes to comment, plant trees, plant life. I tell people we are doing something right - there are too many cars, airplanes, electricity, coal, oil, gas and nuclear. We are living in the land of plenty.

I am learning to live within my means - my energy means. I have been using rechargeable batteries for years, they last about seven years.

I have no children, and plan on one child and adoption.

NRDC has pointed out it goes beyond population, they have found out even when population has decreased, consumption of oil has increased due to poor development - neighborhoods are designed for vehicles, not other means of transportation.

We are smart, we live in a free country. I have confidence we can solve our problems. As Edward Bok put it, I want to leave this world a better place than I found it.

Past Member (0)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 3:50 pm
And there is also conflicting scientific evidence about whether smoking causes cancer. Yea, right. So global warming is a hoax. Hmmm, lets' see who can pay a better salary for scientists, the oil industry or environmental organizations? Obviously, there is incredible financial incentive for scientists to lie about global warming and get bankrolled by the Sierra Club and other non-profits. As for me, I'll trust those altruistic scientists working pro-bono for industry to expose the truth about the global warming hoax.

Chris Otahal (507)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 4:47 pm
Yes, human caused global warming MAY be incorrect - most of the literature I have seen indicate that there is a 90% chance that we are a SIGNIFICANT (but not the only) cause of the current warming trend (science, real science, never gets to 100% certancy - but the denialists present their DOGMA as certain). Given the high likelyhood that we are a significant cause of the current warming trend - and given the potentially catastrofic effects of this warming (killing MILLIONS of people and wiping out THOUSANDS of species) I feel we are justified in taking action. Anyway, what is wrong with promoting renewables, becomming more energy efficient,stopping deforestation and planting trees for example? Yes, there are some bad choices of solutions - I would put nuclear energy in that catagory - but those bad ideas are what we should be discussing and taking action against.

Nick W (10)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 6:13 pm
This 'Ninnying fatuous self-important moron' IS a scientist and I am disgusted by the insults that the global warming denialists (who often have their own ego problem or are being paid to 'spoil' the issue - THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME TACTIC THE TOBACCO AND ASBESTOS INDUSTRIES USED).

The ignorant and often deliberate mis-casting of what 'science

Sensible debate is one thing, but the rampant tosh that gets sprayed about (C02 is a 'plant food', therefore more and more and more is good; there is a global conspiracy by, for example, all the meteorological services of every country; that there has been recent cooling, as most areas have warmed.)


Nick W (10)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 6:35 pm
OK, I hit the wrong button, but I am still a bit heated up about the crap spouted about what 'science' is and what it can and should say on this issue. Virtually nothing in the natural world can be 'proven' like a high school science experiment, especially something like climate that never ends...

What you can do is look at association and balances of probability, including by statistical methods. It is like having 99 red balls and 1 blue ball in a box...if asked to pick one and guess the colour what would sensible people pick? Red of course as it is FAR MORE LIKELY.

I am not being paid by an environmental organisation and in Australia, say, the Bureau of Meteorology has been in existence for 103 years...they are not dependent on a global hoax for funding and are made up of skilled professionals.

And do people really fall for global conspiracy theories so readily? Perhaps you all believe in the 'round earth' conspiracy, as there is 'evidence' and 'debate' about the earth being flat too.

And won't look on the internet for the IPCC or for the actual warming that is happening over most of the globe. And be sceptical that other issues like CO2 acidifying the oceans is conveniently ignored. And ignore the personalities...I have never seen Al Gore's film and he means very little.

And who supplied the 'evidence' against global warming? Journalists, religious nuts, past and present employees of fossil fuel companies, paid industry 'think tanks' etc. Kind of ironic that those apparently unconcerned about changing climate are happy to jump on fragmented, often discredited or out of context information when 99% is counter to their view.

And finally...gases in the atmosphere DO trap heat. The world would be MUCH colder without them. Just think - what happens when more of the same gases are put in the atmosphere?


Jillyanne Michelle Cape (718)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 7:56 pm
Well,I do know that we have plenty of armadillos in Missouri now, whereas you never used to see them north of Texas.... Maybe when the gators get up this far somebody will get a clue...

Lee Stone (24)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 10:25 pm
I have personally found that supposed evidence of climate change deniers sometimes does not indicate what they say it shows.

Let me present this. I followed the following links: On Steve's blog above click on the link in the bulleted statement that states, "An ice sheet did collapse, but overall ice levels are increasing;" and click the link to Sen. James Imhof's (a Denier) Minority Report of 27 march 2008, headlined "Media Hype or 'Melting' Antarctic Ignores Record Ice Growth," and click on the link which takes you to the NASA "Earth Observatory News." Now, this short news item, which Sen. Imhof and Steve are using as evidence against global warming, in fact says that research--Antarctic Temperature Trend 1982-2004--found that ocean waters around Antarctica are WARMING! The report speculates that the warmer waters might be the cause of increased precipitation in the continental interior. Either someone in Sen. Imhof's staff (and Steve) did not read the news item or there is intentional obfuscation.

Steve, any comment from you about this specific item?

This happens too frequently. The "evidence" does not show up beyond the headline. I am willing to be convinced by the evidence. So far, research shows global climate change is observable and measurable and well documented.

. (0)
Saturday April 12, 2008, 10:38 pm
For those committed to blaming man for global climate variations; they fail to look at other possible causes or to even consider opposing points of view. One opposing point of view is that water vapor (95% of the so called greenhouse gases) is formed into clouds by cosmic radiation, more specific gamma rays. Earth has been being hit by large amounts of gamma rays for nearly a month as the result of the biggest supernova ever witnessed. This event was so great that it completely blocked out the light from its home galaxy and Hubble still, three weeks after the explosion, can not image that galaxy. The overall global temperature has been and still is below normal. I realize this is only a short term event, however it is an event that supports the scientific findings that say water vapor in the form of clouds is not a greenhouse gas, but a cooling gas because clouds reflect the sun’s warming rays back into space. As Judy C. has pointed out numerous times the temperature stations that provide the data to establish the average temperature have over the years been encroached on by urban development and can not be relied on to provide accurate readings, but even they are recording below what is considered normal temperatures which means the actual average temperature is even lower than those being recorded.

Chris O., honored adversary, you need to expand your literature consumption because if 90% of what you read supports manmade global warming, you are only getting 40% of the information available.

Thankfully, those that wish to completely eliminate man’s contribution of CO2 from the atmosphere will not have any detrimental affect on the food chain that begins with plant life which needs CO2 to survive, because Mother Nature is the major contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere providing 99 plus percent. Manmade global warming supporters give man far too much blame for causing climate change and way too much credit for being able to do anything about climate change.

Judy Cross (83)
Sunday April 13, 2008, 12:36 am
Lee, the Antarctic warming is localized and was found to be due to an undersea volcano.
Scientists Discover Undersea Volcano Off Antarctica

As you will see at the link below, there are many both in the surrounding sea and on land.
The site itself is worth looking over. Below is a discussion of the latest temperature data.

No one disagrees that the Earth warmed recently...but it stopped in 1998.
We still have not reached the warmth ofeither the Medieval or Roman Warm Periods.
We didn't even get as warm as it was in the 1920-40 period....remember the Dust Bowl?
They lie...there is no evidence that human production of CO2 can cause the Earth to warm or the climate to change all by its little itty bitty self....remember it's only 0.038% o the atmosphere.

The reason you believe the lie is because it is such a Big Lie and us normal folks couldn't imagine anybody telling that big a whopper and getting away with it......

Without a complicit media, they couldn't have.

Nick W (10)
Sunday April 13, 2008, 3:47 am
I would ask reasonable people to look further than a few domineering personalities here and their egos and evident lurid conspiracy theories (HIV aids conspiracy, smoking cancer conspiracy, climate change advocates deny the holocaust etc). And in the end, they ALWAYS end up with insults (pathetic last refuge of the ignorant).

Look at the IPCC ( or meteorological services (eg Don't believe trivia about individual volcanoes or individual years (global warming stopped on Dec 31 1998 - laughable). And how likely is it really that 100s of governments and 1000s of scientists are sitting somewhere faking graphs and deciding what colours to put on maps.

There is much less 'debate' about climate change than one might think from here. The climate has warmed and continues to do so, oceans have adidified and continue to do so, sea levels continue to rise. Remember there is 'debate' about a flat earth. 'Debate' about whether smoking causes cancer. 'Debate' about whether the planets are distant or not.

Myke Salmon (324)
Sunday April 13, 2008, 4:35 am
Here Here Nick W. - At last a REAL voice of reason .... among the ostriches and flat Earthers... If one can't even believe the evidence of one's own senses and experience what can one believe *LoL* __I once heard a story about the an Empoerer and sme New Clothes ... turnred out that it took a small boy to make him realse that he was naked....

Randy Ferrell (82)
Sunday April 13, 2008, 6:05 am
Beautiful hoax? I don't know what is more disturbing, the almost joyful blindness reflected by the author of this nonsense, or the pure state of denial that he and so many others are living in. The picture of the polar bears disgusts me. It is reckless mockery of a very sad event that is occurring right now. There is no hoax. There is no debate here. It is what it is. Come to grips with it. Accept that mankind's corporate greed and reckless stewardship, has thrown earth's natural balance out of whack. Accept it, and then do what you can to make a difference. Encourage change. Support clean energy, sustainability and social responsibility. Denial is the enemy of progress.

Hans L (958)
Sunday April 13, 2008, 6:32 am
Steve you realy did a great job here finally people are discussing and i am sure that all the people will reduce their impact! And thats exactly what we need! Reduce the consumption dont think that you can compensate CO2!
Steve is right that much of the global warming problem is just about making business! Otherwise they would start with the meat industry...
Global warming is true! And we should Cool it!
Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent.

Lomborg presents us with a second generation of thinking on global warming that believes panic is neither warranted nor a constructive place from which to deal with any of humanity's problems, not just global warming.


Past Member (0)
Sunday April 13, 2008, 6:37 am
Nick W. I applaud your sense. You as a tree-hugging biologist sure bring the issue to the point. Kudos to you
Myke you are of course as well and Hans and so many others, just to name the last few of this string. Randy you are right as well - but read to the end of the Blog and you'll realize it is really a sarcastic way to state the issue.
Steve great job - but do you really think people will wake up?

Past Member (0)
Sunday April 13, 2008, 6:39 am
Btw apperantly some people still think Global Warming is a National issue and apperantly only the resposiblity of a few ....this really kills me. 0% understanding of the reprocautions.

Past Member (0)
Sunday April 13, 2008, 6:40 am
How I still manage to be surprised by what I read here is still a miracle in its own - but people - when you do not know whom you should believe, then use your own logic.
Logic says plants emit Co2 during the night and consume this Co2 during the day to produce O2. So, if only plants are responsible for the production of Co2 everything is perfect. Of course I do not omit wildlife in this scenario as it does hold a key position.
Now you take into the equation stock animals, human energy needs, unusual many wild fires etc which all add more Co2 then they produce. What you get? Will you stop breathing at night?
The issue is not alone on how much carbon dioxide we humans produce with our huge animal stock farms or cars or coal burning industries, but also the pollutants we pump into our bodies of water. Animal feces, organophosphates etc entice the growth of algae which consume too much oxygen causing animal organisms to die off, as well as other plants. The oceans are warming - there is no doubt about that. The coral reefs are dying off as a result of that ( If I remember correctly 0.5C warmer will do the trick. Water takes up and releases heat energy much slower than air). If there are no more coral then soon there won't be any animals around that depend on the reefs for food ....hence fish like sharks and turtles …… hence humans won't have enough fish ….as you can not take us out of the food chain equation.
Polar bears drown because of breaking up ice. The good swimmers there are, they can not cope with the long distances between ice shelves. Maybe even that in its own would not be so bad, seen in the long run. True, a hot summer in one year might be followed by a cool one. Then hot years by 15 cold ..etc. BUT keeping in mind that in the case of the polar bear we are simultaneously shooting them, exterminating their food source (seals), oil drilling in their habitats and poisoning them with lead and mercury - then you realize that there is too much pressure on the species too fast and they won't be able to mutate as fast in order to survive this disaster.

All the hype about environment taxes etc. and the threat of loosing jobs IF and WHEN we all go green or greener is just absurd. Most of us are willingly paying liquor and tobacco tax. You could avoid this so easily by not consuming these items, yet you do pay and destroy your health on top of it. You want to tell me that you are not able or willing to pay maybe 20 - 40$ more a month for the environment, while saving at the same time on your energy bills, as you use solar or wind energy? Or that a coal worker can not work in another profession?
In Europe we pay around 6$ for the gallon of gasoline. We drive in average shorter distances and use a wide array of public transportation. Recycling of refuse is mandatory. Many city sport now traffic restrictions to cars with high emissions. Diesel engines in Germany have a filter for micro particles, as they do play a very big role in keeping in heat.
More and more roof gardens are planted - and not only for CO2 consumption, but to counter act heat storage. Anybody living in the big cities knows how sweltering hot it gets and for how long concrete will give off heat. This changes the climate of the area.

I can understand that someone living in South or North Dakota can't really see the urgency in the Global Warming issue. Maybe even not in the simplified environmental consensus. There is too much space around everyone, population density to minimal. But this doesn't really matter. Those few people won't make much of an impact. Point is, that the fridges and Styrofoam etc that they are buying must be CFC free, the gasoline with less sulfur. And the meat they produce should fetch money through quality rather than quantity.
There is no point in just Europe going green, when big nations like the US are not following suit.
Point is that we all should consume based on our strive to enhance our true quality of life. What I mean by that is - what is more important to you: Fruit and Vegetables out of season imported from a remote corner of the earth or locally grown, vitamin rich and tastier produce? One T-shirt made of organic farmed cotton with no formaldehyde, produced by fare trade or pro worker factories or 10 T shirts produced by companies like Nike using child labor and full of chemicals?
Will a solar park reduce your quality of life? Will roof gardens spoil your sense of beauty?
So why not jus do it? Why not start with your own resources, based on your own logic, like so many people are already doing?

For those of you who still think that the Global Warming issue is a national issue, may I ask on what planet you are living?

Past Member (0)
Sunday April 13, 2008, 7:11 am
Steve i hope that all the people who are active above will spread the word!
We need to focus on problems that we can solve! Everyone can reduce his impact! One earth one mission! if we all start at home we will be able to make a difference! Check your footprint please in our how long group!

Past Member (0)
Sunday April 13, 2008, 7:48 am
Great work Steve! I am sure that all the people will discuss this!
And that they will spread the news!

James Waldie (11)
Sunday April 13, 2008, 7:55 am
There are a few of you on the right track and there are others who are very much blinkered I 'am not nearly as cleaver as you all seem to be but my own thoughts are that Global Warming is not a HOAX no mater what the Big business and the scientists say that theres is no need to worry its all a myth it will be when half the world is under water.
If you are a country person like me less than five minutes walk and you are out of town and nothing but the countryside for miles you can see the difference you can tell there is a change happening you can smell it.
When i was a boy you had long hard winters In Scotland its about 5 years ago now when we had a weeks snow and it wasn't all that much but there has been far more very high winds and much more rain and flooding and in England and Wales they seem to be getting it more that we are and the winds from the Jetstream are getting stronger Why is that? would some like to explain that to me.
Yes if we do not bury our heads in the sand do all we can to change our ways and the ways of our Governments I 'am sure Mother Nature will heal herself but it will be some rough times if we don't but our Children's children might live to see the changes its up to the Individual.
I have said enough they are my views and my experiences.
Jim W

Steve N (567)
Sunday April 13, 2008, 11:01 am
Well, I must say... I'm very disappointed!

Disappointed that so many well-informed and educated people have decided to keep this discussion within the confines of the Care2 community instead of putting it out there on my blog where the less informed are far more likely to find it.

Further, I'm disappointed by the number of people who are arguing so passionately and yet don't appear to have actually read my blog to know what they are arguing about. (Thanks to those of you who DID read and appreciate where I was coming from.)

There is little point in me wasting my time and money to raise awareness of these crucial issues if people aren't going to read what I write, or worse still, they take the discussion out of the public domain where I have placed it and isolate it within Care2.

Care2 does a terrific job in many respects, but if we want to change the world, we have to go out into it, not just snatch the odd thing from the real world and then run like hell back into the comfort zone of Care2 where we can chat about it with our cronies.

My readership is growing at a very impressive rate and people are coming to my blog from all over the internet. By isolating the conversation here, we really are doing a disservice to all those causes we are supposed to be passionate about because the message isn't reaching many that it should be.

If anyone wants to know my views on the way the discussion is developing and the points raised here, then you'll have to read my blog. This will not be my only post on global warming. But, please, next time I post, do me the courtesy of reading the entire post. It isn't the first time I've had comments from people who read the title, the first paragraph or so, then made an 'informed' argument to decry everything I stand for, little realizing they were talking complete and utter nonsense.

Hans L (958)
Sunday April 13, 2008, 11:40 am
Hi steve it should be everywhere! I agree! But we wanted to bring the people to your blog!

I have submitted the link to your blog! And have than be asked to add the link to the C2nn news allthough i had copied the news intro! If you look at c2nn you will find out how small the care2 community is! Only max 300 people who note news and maybe 3500 active people!
Your story has been excellent!
This discussion has been interesting and since this is the worldwide number one issue this has been a very good indicator for the power of care2!
You dont reach the masses with this story because the masses dont care2!
Did you ever see the simple switch? I allways believed that we could snowball this news...but we cannot...the effect shown here is amazing but it does not work! That is the inconvenient truth!
we can reach only 10% of the people...and only 1% is willing to act!
Nevertheless this has been a great news story!
Thanks for all the great contributions reduce your impact ! Amen!


mary b (2)
Sunday April 13, 2008, 12:16 pm
Judy, Judy, unfortunately its not just about you or your neighborhood, its about the viable potential for ALL living beings to be impacted negatively by our consumerism and complacency. A herd of elephants very clever, but the stakes are beyond your sarcasm. Military spending is not just out of control, the impact of the Iraq war over oil is that Iraq is no longer habitable due to irradiation, do you think that we can continue the way we are going? and if you do I simply disagree. I am referring to our priorities, military spending, oil consumption, newest largest fastest vehicles, throw away everything including people, profits before people. I have a very clear understanding of right and wrong and do no harm. Instead of debating the "science" look at the results. I dont need to be "right" I will not risk the potential consequences of such devestating proportion. I believe we are on the wrong track as a world culture. Fortunately or unfortunately you and I may not be here to witness the truth of this debate, but yes I prefer to take whatever steps I can to protect the earth I live on. It only makes sense to me we have the ability to be caretakers or rape the earth for whatever we can get. You make your choice I make mine. As one evolutionary biologist said The world will take care of itself, it is the sentient beings that will suffer. I dont have any children, but if I did I would be deeply concerned. Global warming is a great warning and if you cant see that even the implications of it, we are on different sides of the same coin.

Past Member (0)
Sunday April 13, 2008, 7:49 pm
From Sabina P., partial quote: "Saturday April 12, 2008, 3:12 am:

Hoax or no hoax – I see the strong debate over climate change only as a trigger that people start to think about what they are doing to the nature. The more we talk about it the more it will be done to protect the nature. That’s the positive effect."

That simple bit sums up most everything written here in the end.

I many people read Steve's entire blog, with an open mind, and truly understood what the MESSAGE was, before jumping to one conclusion or the other? Food for thought there...

Nick W (10)
Sunday April 13, 2008, 8:43 pm
Well, I for one have read the blog - it is not as if it takes a lot of time as it is insubstantial. "Research" is a few newspaper articles or similar!? And the premises are familiar as the usual ignorance or deceit underpinning much of the 'global warming is a global conspiracy/hoax' chatter.

The statement there is 'no conclusive evidence' for GW shows ignorance or deceit. There is a HUGE amount of evidence - under the auspices of the IPCC there are at least 14 major climate models running, all refined over many years now and collectively very good at matching observed temperature (not quite as good yet on rainfall). But it can't be 'proven' in the simplistic manner that genuinely uninformed or, as in this case, the wilfully ignorant or deceitful don't realise. 'Conclusions' by definition are impossible unless something is concluded and climate will never be...we are early in the radiative forcing being enacted by excess warming gases in the atmosphere, so it is ignorance or deceit to pretend that 'proof' is possible.

Like the must have been obvious it was going to hit the iceberg, but even a micro-second before impact it was not 'proven' that it would. But it was still obvious what the trend was and where it was going.

Steve's blog also ignorantly or deceitfully starts with a headline about the last winter. Staggering for someone purporting to be a serious contributor. Meteorologists use running averages of 11 years to account for short term fluctuations (eg La Nina is running now) and reference periods of 30 years to smooth out decadal fluctuations. They UNDERSTAND this stuff in the way a plumber understands a bloody tap!

What is so difficult? There is no 'conclusion', just very, very strong indications, e.g. the numbers say there is a >95% probability that recent climate has had extra 'radiative forcing' - there is no other way to account for it unless pink pigs fly. It is very likely that this relates to extra warming gas in the atmosphere (we KNOW we are doing that), and precautions are needed to head off an even greater problem.

Steve looks to emotionally blackmail people by pointing out a few other calls on money, but I will say that the figure he quotes is all of $1 per person across the world. And why not take aim at the American military, especially in Iraq - that is likely trillions of dollars.

How many here have read summaries at least from the IPCC? They are in plain language and are very explicit about method and the issue of 'proof'.


Sissie Forget (4)
Monday April 14, 2008, 11:31 am
I'm just curious.. the IPCC... who are they, who formed them and what is their purpose?
They have 14 major climate models running? What is a climate model? How does it help us determine the fate of the planet?

Sissie Forget (4)
Tuesday April 15, 2008, 7:09 am
The following quotes illustrate the dangerous anti-human nature of cells within the environmental movement, many of whom have adopted today's climate crusade as their primary raison d'être:

Biologist David Graber (U.S. National Park Service): "They [natural things] have intrinsic value, more value - to me - than another human body, or a billion of them. Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. Somewhere along the line - about a billion years ago - we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."

Philosophy Professor Paul Taylor, City University of New York in "Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics", p. 115): "Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo Sapiens, not only would the Earth's community of life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being would be enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed. And if we were to take the standpoint of that Life Community and give voice to its true interests, the ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty "Good riddance!"

Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!: "Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."

Earth First! Journal editor John Daily: "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."

An equally extreme case is Peter Singer, a 'bioethicist' at Princeton University. He maintains that the suffering of a crippled ant deserves equal consideration to that of a crippled human child. If we could only save one, he says, we should decide by the flip a coin or else we would be "speciests".

And of course the macabre " Voluntary Human Extinction Movement " is apparently alive and well with its "volunteer" class members agreeing that, "All of us should voluntarily refrain from reproducing further, bringing about the eventual extinction of Homo sapiens." Asserting that "Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health", the group's motto is "May we live long and die out."

In the extraordinary book "Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" written 150 years ago by Charles Mackay, is written, "Men … think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
Let's hope that Mackay's pessimism is no longer quite so applicable in a world where instantaneous and inexpensive mass communications is a fact of life – certainly society cannot afford to continue to sleep at the switch while eco-activists rapidly come to dominate governments. Environmental extremism is the real threat to society, not the miniscule contribution human-emitted carbon dioxide might make to global climate. It will take time for the general public to finally recognize this but, when they do, expect the whole environmental movement, its good aspects included, to be set back at least a generation. That will be the sad legacy of Al Gore, Barbara Boxer and David Suzuki.

Sissie Forget (4)
Tuesday April 15, 2008, 7:20 am
"Earth Hour" Turns the Light Out On Humanity
by Henry Makow Ph.D. – March 29, 2008

At 8 p.m. on March 29, millions of people around the world obeyed Big Brother and shut off their lights for an hour to "conserve energy and fight climate change."

Organized by the elite World Wildlife Fund, "Earth Hour" was a psy-op designed to remind us we are a burden on the ecosystem. The elites, who represent one percent of the world's population yet own over 40% of the resources, organized the event.

From the elite perspective, we're superfluous-which is the real message of Earth Hour. Have they ever done anything to CELEBRATE human life?

If we are energy challenged. it is because the Illuminati banking cartel has been suppressing non-polluting free-energy technology for almost a century. At the same time, this cartel has been fomenting wasteful and tragic wars. Why not end war for the sake of the Earth? Al Gore, how about your record on the use of depleted uranium?

Millions of people in 26 countries participated on March 29. Whole city skylines went dark. What better symbol of the New World Order!

"It's a way for people to stand up in a positive way, not just feel guilty about it," explains Josh Laughren of World Wildlife Fund-Canada.

"But if this begins and ends with Earth Hour and we go back to ordinary will not have been a success. There are ways we can all reduce our carbon footprint to ensure every hour in future is Earth Hour."


If people feel they are such a burden, why not kill themselves? Is there a more effective way to say you care about the planet? Erase your "carbon footprint" altogether.

We will need some time to get our affairs in order, and say our goodbyes, but perhaps next Spring, the World Wildlife Fund could sponsor a "Kill-Yourself-for-the-Earth Day." Families, companies, cities and countries could offer sacrifices to the Environmental God. With proper promotion, millions might volunteer.

Why dither with symbolic gestures when we can make a real difference?

As former US vice-president Al Gore said last year in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize: "We are what is wrong and we must make it right!"

No, Al Gore. You and your Illuminati henchmen are the problem. Please consider my modest proposal.

. (0)
Tuesday April 15, 2008, 9:54 pm
LOL, Sissie I love your comments. Here is a green star.

Sissie Forget (4)
Tuesday April 15, 2008, 10:38 pm
Thank you Ralph!

"If everybody is saying the same thing, then it is objective…it’s all within the established belief. if you say something different, that’s a little jarring, then that becomes questionable. Our tendency to accept data or an argument as true or not, depends less on the content and substance of it, then it does on how congruent it is with the background assumptions we already have. Those background assumptions, are of course established by the whole climate of opinion and the whole universe of communication that we are immersed in constantly here…
Which is why dissidents learn the discipline of fighting and developing their arguments, and arguing from evidence, while those who work within the safe mainstream, work a whole lifetime with unexamined assumptions and presumptions."

excerpt transcribed (not perfectly) from Michael Parenti, The Struggle for History

thought you might like that...:)


Lee Stone (24)
Thursday April 17, 2008, 5:02 pm
Sissie F,
Something is not clear to me: If the nihilistic "environmentalist" people you quoted are (not-so-secretly) anti-human, even advocating the demise of Homo sapiens, then why would they be interested in ameliorating the global environment? Would they not be more intrinsically interested in furthering planetary destruction to rid the planet of the cancerous human presence? Are they working against their own professed objectives? Perhaps there is some irrationality in your reasoning?

Second, what kind of giant conceptual leap did you muster to equate Al Gore and Babara Boxer with the nihilistic, "Homo-cidal" fringe? Desiring to preserve the Home Planet for my children is not a trivial matter.

Lee Stone (24)
Thursday April 17, 2008, 5:39 pm
The article submitted above by a Dr. Makow is a study in comic absurdity, at best, or propaganda, at worst. For Makow to claim that the "elitist" World Wildlife Fund is somehow a part of the billionaire global elite who control most of the world's resources and corporations, is preposterous. As an erstwhile member of WWF, did this translate into my being a member of the top 1% of humanity? At my teaching salary of $50k per year, I assure you I control little of the Planet's wealth.

Second, what would be the rationale of the "global elite"--those who control global resources and global corporations which depend on ordinary people's spending and energy use--to discourage the very energy use upon which their corporate investments depend? Would not the global elites want INCREASED energy use to add to their corporate coffers?

Third, what ridiculousness for Makow to take his/her argument into theatre of the absurd by saying perhaps the most effective way (based on the nihilism of the people/groups he/she quoted) to save the Earth would be for the "elite" to organize mass suicides. Perhaps Makow just wanted to say something absurb and sardonically "comic."

To me, the humorousness of his essay is the "logic" he uses. What is less funny, and quite possibly tragic, is that the environmental condition of the Planet requires that humans be resolute in taking effective action. Obfuscatory absurdity does not help.

Lee Stone (24)
Thursday April 17, 2008, 6:51 pm
Judy C., Hey. Thanks for your response to me above about the undersea volcano and the break-off of the ice shelf. Sorry I do not have the link, but I saw a map on one of the science news sites showing research documenting a change toward warmer waters in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica. It shows that waters around the ENTIRE continent have warmed, not just in localized spots as you contend. Also, there is ample evidence that hundreds of glaciers are accelerating their movement toward the ocean.
So, it seems that the Southern Ocean, or at least the water closest to the continent, is warming and glaciers by the hundreds are speeding their exit from the continent.
Your response?

Sissie Forget (4)
Friday April 18, 2008, 12:08 am
Lee: Thank you for a great question! :)

I'm hoping that you will be able to analyze my answers away from the background assumptions you filter your view of world through...(like we all do)
YOUR QUESTION "Something is not clear to me: If the nihilistic "environmentalist" people you quoted are (not-so-secretly) anti-human, even advocating the demise of Homo sapiens, then why would they be interested in ameliorating the global environment?"

ANSWER: They aren't entirely anti-human, but they do feel that 6.6 billion people is too many people.( I'm sure you've seen something somewhere about how over population is bad for the environment, right?)

If you read through some of the environmental posts in newsgroups,blogs, and mainstream publications you will see a definite trend towards over population being a problem, and people with good hearts who want to help, and do the right thing, will even say they are not going to have any children to lessen the burden on the already over-populated planet.

Some people have even speculated that China's one child policy is actually a prototype for a world wide one child policy.

Now when they say population control, they are talking about us not them.
Here's very small example, but it illustrates the same principle.
What happens when you have lots of parking tickets? They tow your car and charge you lots of money, make you go to court...etc.. What happens when members of the UN get parking tickets? NOTHING. Why? Because the laws are meant for us, and not those who make them.

So the answer to your question is simple. They want to make the world better for THEM, and not for us. The ideal world population (in their opinion) is 500 million.

First, this could be explained as the product of a covert but successful population reduction program -- a program which uses do-gooder organizations like UNICEF for political cover. The proponents of Darwinian eugenics programs, like the British Eugenics Society and the Club of Rome, have openly discussed such things for decades. [1] For instance, here's a quote from Prince Philip, founder of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), flagship of the modern "environmental" movement:

"Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We're in for a major disaster if it isn't curbed... We have no option. If it isn't controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war."

-- HRH Prince Philip, interview "Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation", People Magazine, Dec. 21, 1981

Second, this could be justified by the twisted logic of elitist eco-socialism, which says that such a "culling of the herd" is necessary and desirable, especially among inferior races. Again, from Prince Philip:

"The object of the WWF is to 'conserve' the system as a whole; not to prevent the killing of individual animals. Those who are concerned about the conservation of nature accept... that most species produce a surplus that is capable of being culled without in any way threatening the survival of the species as a whole."

-- HRH Prince Philip, founder of WWF, in the Chancellor's Lecture, Salford University, June 4, 1982.
THEN you said:
"Would they not be more intrinsically interested in furthering planetary destruction to rid the planet of the cancerous human presence? Are they working against their own professed objectives?"
Their professed objective is to "cull the herd" while preserving the planet for themselves.So the answer is NO. destroying the world is not in their best interest.

Reality Check

A little research reveals that the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), of which Stephen Lewis is a director, was launched by none other than the Rockefeller Foundation and heavily funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has provided over $150 million dollars so far [2].

Both Stephen Lewis and Seth Berkley, the President of IAVI, are on the faculty of Columbia University in Manhattan, which is closely associated with nearby Rockefeller University. Joint programs include the center on "Sustainable Development" at Columbia's Earth Institute, headed by Jeffrey Sachs, who also directed the recent Millennium Project on sustainable development for the United Nations Development Program.

The Manhattan headquarters of the U.N. sits on land donated by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., whose son John D. Rockefeller III was the founder of the Population Council along with eugenicist Frederick Osborn, the Secretary of the American Eugenics Society for over 40 years. Osborn wrote:

" "People simply are not willing to accept the idea that the genetic base on which their character was formed is inferior and should not be repeated in the next generation."

-- "Galton and Mid Century Eugenics" by Frederick Osborn, Galton Lecture 1956, in Eugenics Review, vol. 48, 1, 1956

I agree, who wants to hear that? But if you spin it into "save the planet" You catch alot of good people with that hook...

If you are able to wrap your mind around even a tiny bit of this and would like to learn more, I recommend you read some books on Eugenics...
It was a hard pill for me to swallow but the research bears it out.


Sissie Forget (4)
Friday April 18, 2008, 12:29 am
An copy and paste answer to your second post (because it's late and I'm

You are definitely, and obviously not part of the elitest 1%. That's like saying bank tellers are equal to the banks shareholders and that is comical!

Official lore from the environmental movement's publications asserts that the movement emerged from the grass roots. The truth, however, is that funding and policy lines comes from the most prestigious institutions of the Eastern Liberal Establishment, centered around the New York Council on Foreign Relations, and including the Trilateral commission, the Aspen Institute, and a host of private family foundations.

The vast wealth of the environmentalist groups may come as a shock to most readers who believe that these groups are made up of "public interest", "nonprofit" organizations that are making great sacrifices to save the Earth from a looming doomsday caused by man's activities. In fact, the environmental movement is one of the most powerful and lucrative businesses
in the world today.

The First Earth Day

First demonstrators who put spotted owls first, environmentalists define people as the enemy.

At the same time that the environmental organizations were becoming a well-funded big business, their propaganda output was used to create popular support for the environmentalist cause in the United States. A turning point in the transformation of the environmentalist fringe into a radicalized mass movement was Earth Day 1970.

On April 22, 1970, thousands of college students and curious onlookers turned out to participate in the widely publicized Earth Day festivities in dozens of major U.S. cities. Fold music, antinuclear slogans, "Love Your Mother Planet Earth" posters and college students were everywhere. On the surface it appeared to most observers that the nationwide rallies represented a grass roots movement to protest "the destruction of the environment". Nothing could be further from the truth. The Earth Day publicity stunt was part of a highly coordinated effort to create a climate of sympathy for Malthusian zero growth, where none yet existed in the United States.

Earth Day was partly bankrolled by a $200,000 personal grant from Robert O. Anderson, at the time the president of Atlantic Richfield Oil Corporation, the president of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, and a personal protégé of University of Chicago zero-growth ideologue Robert Maynard Hutchins. Anderson and the Aspen Institute played a crucial role in the launching of a worldwide environmentalist movement, and Earth Day was a big step along the way.

Coincident with the Earth Day effort, The Progressive, a 70-year-old publication of the U.S. branch of the Fabian socialist movement of H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and Julian and Aldous Huxley, devoted its entire issue to a special report on "The Crisis of Survival". Among the environmentalist ideologues who contributed to this special issue were Ralph Nader and Paul Ehrlich. Denis Hayes, a Stanford University graduate who would later become the environmentalist-in-residence at the Worldwatch Institute, wrote the keynote article on Earth Day. He stated:
"April 22 is a tool -- something that can be used to focus the attention of society on where we are heading. It's a chance to start getting a handle on it all; a rejection of the silly idea that bigger is better, and faster is better, world without limits, amen.

"This has never been true. It presumes a mastery by Man over nature, and over Nature's laws. Instead of seeking harmony, man has sought to subdue the whole world. The consequences of this are beginning to come home. And time is running out."

In 1970, most Americans would have summarily rejected this pessimistic view. But, by the time the organizers of Earth Day 1970 were planning 20th anniversary celebrations of the event for 1990, the environmentalist hoax had been sold to the population of the United States. In the months before Earth Day 1990, every elementary and secondary school in the nation was provided with a special Earth Day preparation curriculum from the environmental Protection Agency. EPA spokesmen toured the nation. Television, magazines, and newspapers from the national to local level reported and editorialized on the event. State and town governments promoted it with public funds.

On Earth Day 1990, according to a spokesman for Friends of the Earth (a leading arm of the environmentalist lobby also financed by Robert O. Anderson), "one of the largest demonstrations ever" was held in Washington, D.C. and tens of thousands of people, representing "all types of environmental groups from all over the United States and internationally" were there. Smaller celebrations were held in literally thousands of state capitals, towns, and cities across the United States. A mass movement against science, technology, and economic growth had been consolidated in the United States.

Next Comes Genocide

In 1989, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak estimated that 500 million people in the Third World had starved to death in the decade of the 1980's; current estimates by the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) are that 40,000 children under the age of five starve to death every day. Most of these deaths can be attributed directly or indirectly to debt service and "technological apartheid", policies that prevent modern technologies -- such as water treatment plants, nuclear energy, refrigeration, mechanized agriculture, pesticides, and fertilizers -- from being used in Third World countries. These policies were considered colonialist in past decades; today, they are promoted by environmental groups in industrialized nations, under the guise of saving the Earth from pollution.

Many environmentalists have no idea of the consequences of their belief system for the people of the Third World, but it is clear that those at the top of the environmentalist movement are witting in their advocacy of policies that ultimately kill people. We know this is the case because many of the environmentalist policy-makers say so publicly. It is not simply that the ban on CFCs will kill people and that the top environmentalists know that it will kill people.

The fact is that the top ozone depletion propagandists at the World Wildlife Fund, the Club of Rome, the Population Crisis Committee/Draper Fund, and other elite bodies want it to kill people. Depopulation is one of the reasons they devised the ozone hoax in the first place. By scaring the general population with stories of imminent catastrophe, these policy-makers intend to justify adoption of stringent measures that will curtail economic growth and population. The ozone hole is just one of several such scare stories.

On July 24, 1980, the U.S. State Department unveiled the Global 2000 Report to the President. It had been in preparation by the White House Council on environmental Quality and the State Department, employing scores of government personnel and hundreds of outside consultants since the early days of the Carter administration -- an administration dominated by elite members of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission. The report was a long-inded proposal that "population control" -- a euphemism for killing people -- be made the cornerstone of the policies of all U.S. presidents from that time forward.

Pervading the report and several companion documents were lurid predictions: crises in water resources, severe energy shortages, shortfalls in strategically vital raw materials -- all blamed on "population growth".

The report argued that without countervailing action, by the year 2000 there will be 2 to 4 billion people too many. Therefore, the report said, it is required that government implicitly direct all policies domestic and foreign toward the elimination of 2 to 4 billion people by the year 2000.

The rationale for proposing a crime of such great magnitude is the simple -- and totally wrong -- Malthusian ideology that claims population growth inherently exhausts "natural resources" and there are, therefore, "limits to growth", as the Club of Rome has insisted.

In the real world of human production of the means of human existence, there is no correlation between "natural resources" and human population potential, for the simple reason that resources are not really "natural". The resources for human existence are defined by human science and technology, and the development of science and technology defines whole new arrays of "resources" for the societies that avail themselves of such progress. For example, oil was there "naturally", but if did not exist as a resource for humankind until the technology -- combustion engines, and so on -- existed to make it a resource. Before that, it was a black mud that usually meant ruination of farm fields.

This means two things. First, there are no "limits to growth". There are only limits within the confines of a given array of technology. So, unless scientific and technological progress were stopped dead, there could never be an absolute limit to "resources" for human life. There can never be such a thing as absolute "overpopulation" of the human species.

Second, were modern agricultural and industrial capabilities, even as they exist in industrialized nations today, diffused throughout the Third World, we would discover that not only do we have ample resources for year-2000 population levels, but we also have too few people to operate advanced agroindustrial facilities at optimum capacity. If we took account of in-sight technological advances, we would discover that underpopulation is the main problem we face.

The Global 2000 Report, however, assumed no diffusion of modern agroindustrial capabilities to the Third World. Instead, it assumed that the Third World would be denied even available forms of technology.

In addition, it assumed no progress beyond existing scientific and technological arsenals. The over population forecast follows neatly from these assumptions: The report assumes that science and technology have been forced to come to a stop, in order to assert that by the year 2000, there will be 2 to 4 billion more people than the world economy can sustain. The report neglects to point out that if science and technology were not to be forced into stagnation, the globe's population would have much brighter prospects.

In other words, the Global 2000 Report is simply a statement of policy intent for genocide, not a scientific forecast at all. It reveals in a unique way the depopulation aims of those also behind the ozone-depletion hoax.

Lest the skeptical reader think we exaggerate, listen to Thomas Ferguson, a Benedick colleague and head of the Latin American desk at Benedick's Office of Population Affairs. Ferguson made these comments on State Department policy toward the civil war in El Salvado (as reported by Executive Intelligence Review, 1981, p. 43):

"Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. The professionals are not interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons… In El Salvador, there is no place for these people -- period. No place.

"Look at Vietnam. We studied the thing. That area was also overpopulated and a problem. We thought that the war would lower rates, and we were wrong. To really reduce population quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females. You know, as long as you have a large number of fertile females, you will have a problem…

"In El Salvador, you are killing a small number of males and not enough females to do the job on the population. The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease., like the Black Death.

"What might happen in El Salvador is that the war might disrupt the distribution of food: The population could weaken itself, you could have disease and starvation. Then you can successfully create a tendency for population rates to decline rapidly… but otherwise, people breed like animals."

Ferguson's level of moral depravity is not unique among government policy-makers. Listen to William Paddock, an adviser to the State Department under both Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance. In spring 1981, Paddock told a Georgetown University seminar that 3.5 million of El Salvador's 4 million people should be eliminated, and would be, provided that there was "continuous turmoil and civil strife, which is the only solution to the overpopulation problem."

Paddock continued:

"The United States should support the current military dictatorship, because that is what is required… But we should also open up contacts with the opposition, because they will eventually come to power. As we do that, we should work with their opposition, because we will need to bring them to power. That is what our policy is, that is what it must be… an endless cycle."

Readers are encouraged to seek out and read the documentation for themselves in official government documents. For example, National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, a recently declassified memo written by National Security Advisers Brent Scowcroft and Henry Kissinger in 1974, states specifically that population growth in the developing sector is a national security threat to the United States, and must be curtailed as a matter of America's foreign policy. Under the rubric of this document, the United States has worked internationally to cut the growth and overall size of the darker-skinned peoples of the Third World -- an explicitly racist policy.*

This policy against the Third World and "less advantaged populations" is being implemented on a scale never seen before but, in fact, it is nothing new. Historian Anton Chaitkin documented recently that the policy-makers gathered around George Bush, the family of the President, and the Anglo-American financial establishment behind the Bush administration, are the same group of people who put the racist Adolf Hitler into power and copied his eugenics policies in practice in the United States. The continue to promulgate the policy of Hitlerite "eugenics" or race purification under the new label of population control and in the name of "saving the environment".

Bush's work for population control goes back to the 1960s, when he was the first congressman to introduce national population-control legislation. Bush was also a conspicuous activist for population reduction when he was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from 1971 to 1972. In 1972, prodded by Bush and others, the U. S. Agency for International Development (AID) began funding the Serilization League of America to sterilize nonwhites.

In his introduction to the 1973 book The World Population Crisis: The U.S. Response, by Phyllis Piotrow, Bush wrote that "one of the major challenges of the 1970s… will be to curb the world's fertility".

In 1988, U.S. AID made a new contract with the Sterilization League, committing the U.S. government to spend $80 million over five years. This contract is not listed in the public U.S. AID budgetary literature, yet the group says that 87 percent of its foreign operations are funded by the U.S. government.

The sterilization program is based on deception.

The U. S. AID tells Congress and the public, that since the Reagan and Bush administrations have been opposed to abortions, tax money that would have funded abortions in foreign countries has been diverted to "family planning activities". They fail to explain that in addition to buying 7 billion condoms, the program funds surgical sterilization of growing numbers of the Third World Population.


Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer, 1990. "Ralph Nader, Inc.", Forbes (9-17) pp 117-122 (cover story)

Anton chaitkin and Webster Tarpley, 1992. George Bush; The Unauthorized Biography. In Press.

Council on Environmental Quality, 1980. "The Global 2000 Report to the President: Entering the Twenty-first Century", Washington D.C.

Executive Intelligence Review, 1981. The Conspiracy Behind the Trilateral Commission, New York.

Joseph Farman et al. 1985. "Large losses of total ozone in Antartica reveal seasonal CLOx/NOx Interaction", Nature, Vol. 315 (Jan 24), pp 207-210.

Peter Metzger, 1980. "Government-Funded Activism: Hiding behind the Public Interest". Present at the 47th Annual Conference of the Southwestern Electric Exchange in Boca Raton, Florida (March 26).

Mario J. Molina and F.S. Rowland, 1974. "Stratospheric sink for chlorfluromethanes: chlorine atomic-atalysed {sic} destruction of ozone", Nature, Vol. 249 (June 28), pp 810-812.

Kathleen Murphy, 1979. "The 1980s Project: Blueprint for 'Controlled Disintegration' ", Fusion (October), pp. 36-47.

National Security Study Memorandum 20, 1974, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, Washington, D.C.

William Paddock, 1981. "The Demographic and National Security Inplications of the Salvado Revolution". Washington, D.C.; Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies Seminar (Feb. 27).

Sharon Road. 1989. Ozone Crisis: The 15-Year Evolution of a Sudden Global Emergency. New York; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lydia Schulman, 1981. "Global 2000: Will the Zero-Growthers capture the White House?" Fusion Magazine (May), pp. 18-19.

"The State Department's Office of Population Affairs: Depopulating by 'War and Famine' ", 1981. Fusion magazine (June), pp. 20-23.

Nancy Shute, 1983. "The Greening of James Watt", National Review (Aug 5), pp 924-928

Kathleen Teltsch, 1990. "Rockefeller Foundation Starts Ecology Effort", The New York Times, July 24.

Past Member (0)
Friday April 18, 2008, 7:00 am
Why are we covering the big glaciers which are our primary source of drinking water in the alps? Why have they reduced in size at a rate faster than ever before?

Hans L (958)
Friday April 18, 2008, 7:44 am
Global warming is no haux...Steven is one of the greatest environmentalists on this planet i dont doubt that his questions are the right ones! We should focus on problems that we can solve!

Lee Stone (24)
Friday April 18, 2008, 7:45 pm
It is not easy to know where to begin reviewing your two posts above. They are full of polemics about the supposed agendas of totalizing governments, billionaire clubs, or secret organizations. The contentions contained within them are breathtaking in their sweeping hypothetical generalizations. (I'm now quite curious as to where you find these views.)

I do not now need to read a book on eugenics (I did, however, write a graduate history paper about it), because the reality of population control is found in the well documented hopes and aspirations of people on rural land and in the streets of cities all through the world. They know what they want.

People do not decide to have fewer children because of wanting to conserve the "Commons." (The "Problem of the Commons" is that people will do what is good for them individually, not for a faceless collective, even though they might be destroying the resource base upon which they all depend.) No, people nearly everywhere around the world--as documented by ethnographers and others--want fewer children, and are having fewer children, because as urbanization proceeds apace and people move into cities, they NATURALLY AND RATIONALLY WANT FEWER CHILDREN, because children are less of an asset in cities as compared to children in rural areas who can perform some agricultural work. Families in Italy want fewer children. Families in Japan want fewer children. Families in the U.S. want fewer children. The same is true in all developing countries (unless the society is recovering from warfare). Nearly everywhere in the world the birth rate has fallen--not due to government fiat, nor to a scheming billionaire, eugenicist, conspiratorial, one-world-government, depopulate-the-Planet, totalitarian U.N. THEM (as you say), but ordinary people deciding for themselves.

China's One-Child Policy has been successful partly, possibly largely, due to its rapid urbanization, not only because of governmental penalties. It found that it rarely had to exact penalties. (In any case, a bribe to a governmental official would do the trick, done usually to try for a male baby.) Chinese people rationally began having fewer children due to their OWN SELF-INTERESTS.

By the way, China is already foreseeing that it will need more workers. But it is a truism that it is easier to convince people to not have children than to persuade them to have more. Witness Singapore, Russia, Germany, France and other countries, who have implemented policies to encourage more births.

To contend, as you do, that some sinister world-controlling group of racists is culling peoples worldaround is to ignore that people worldaround are deciding for themselves--rational economic decisions--to practice birth control. They simply use the NGOs who provide family planning to do what individuals want to do for the good of their own future.

Check out your own, or your friends', family tree: Compare the number of individuals in each generation. You will see that in the U.S. (and EVERYWHERE on the Planet) people are having fewer children. Are you saying the eugenicists have controlled your family, too?

Lee Stone (24)
Friday April 18, 2008, 8:33 pm
On the other hand, as we are still in the waning decades of a population explosion, the contention that racist eugenicists are culling peoples in developing countries is clear: The "condom-dispensing eugenicists" must be writhing in their abject failure, because the world is growing at a (ever-reducing) rate of 1.4 million people each week (that's NET GAIN!) Seems the culling crowd has failed in their save-the-world-for-themselves policies.

Sissie Forget (4)
Friday April 18, 2008, 9:38 pm
I wish it were just "condom-dispensing".. I have no problem with that... handing out condoms implies freedom of choice. My problem is when the freedom to choose is taken away... (freedom for everyone, everywhere to make their own choices is very important to me..)

"And those of you saying there is no connection between population control and vaccination are wrong because there is clear evidence that people interested in population control normally incorporate it into their health services. And about the use of HCG; the drug used to cause infertility in women, there is evidence that HCG was put into a Tetanus vaccine that was deliberately put together to immunise women of child-bearing age in Nicaragua, Mexico and Philippines. It was not aside effect because it has no business being in Tetanus vaccine. Women were given about 3 to 5 doses of that vaccine, when they need only one dose to protect them for ten years. Men were not targeted only women of childbearing age. All these call for concern because of the same desperation the international bodies showed during those vaccinations in what we are seeing here in Nigeria today for polio vaccination."
Emir of Kazaure Alhaji Najeeb Hussain Adamu at his palace in Kazaure, to representatives of World Health Organisation,before the commencement of the controversial polio vaccination programme..( I think in 2003, but might be wrong..)

WARNING: sarcasm ahead!

Yeah, your right. Everyone thinks having fewer children is a good idea. Hmm. well maybe not in Nigeria, Nicaragua, Mexico and I guess that justifies poisoning their vaccines with HCG.. you know for their own good. They obviously can't be trusted to make the right decision... so we'll make the hard decisions for them.. you know.. for the good of the planet...nope. no culling going on around here.... hey! look! SURVIVOR is on!!

“Go back to bed, America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your government is in control. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their farking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!”

(I just love him) tee! hee!

anyways, no hard feelings, we will obviously not see eye to eye on this subject, and I did want to say I appreciated the debate, and I hope all is well with you and yours in your corner of the world :)
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Environment

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.