Decades Of Environmental Fraud Being Exposed

Maybe it is taking economic disaster, massive unemployment, bottomless governmental debt, despair, hopelessness, bitter partisan politics, and rioting in the streets, (to name a few of the symptoms of the illnesses afflicting the world) to wake us up to the fact that modern "environmentalism" may actually be the PROCESS by which this illness spreads.  The illness is a deadly CANCER on society.  This deadly cancer is the idea of ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.  The idea that ONE group of men (people), an "elite" group for sure, can and SHOULD control ALL others.  Call it socialism, welfare state, nanny state, communism, or fascism......it is EVIL and has caused more deaths and suffering than any movement in human history.

If they can't do it through climate control, they will do it through health control, or water control, or through the creation of massive debt and perpetually higher taxation (slavery).  Who are "they"?  We know the names well by now, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, etc. and now the principal flag-carrier, Obama.  We must fight this trend with everything we can.  Destroying the myth of man-caused global warming/climate change is a good beginning.  The following article summarizes some of the issues well.
Peter 

The entire fraudulent environmental house of cards is crashing down.......and that is a very good thing.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9994-peter-gleicks-actions-exposes-end-justifies-means-mentality-poses-problem-for-un-agenda-21?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climatechangedispatch%2FnkcO+%28Climate+Change+Dispatch+news%29

Peter Gleick’s Actions Exposes “End Justifies Means” Mentality: Poses Problem for UN Agenda 21

www.climatechangedispatch.com

 

 

Peter Gleick’s Actions Exposes “End Justifies Means” Mentality: Poses Problem for UN Agenda 21

Written by Dr. Tim Ball, guest post | February 25 2012

Peter Gleick - (Photo credit: World Economic Forum)

Peter Gleick obtained documents falsely from the Heartland Institute (HI) and used them to vilify that organization. HI was a major target for promoters of human caused climate change because they dared to hold international conferences presenting the other side of the climate debate. This was actively surpressed by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Climatic Research Unit (CRU) members, as leaked emails showed. (Disclosure; I was privileged to be a keynote speaker at the first conference in New York and commented in my opening remarks, I’ve waited thirty years for this day.)

Gleick’s activities apparently manifest a groupthink mentality of several faculty at Stanford University. The late faculty member and grandfather of IPCC, Stephen Schneider, delineated it in Discover magazine in 1989.

“On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, wed like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. (Precisely the problem,; this is not science, but politics and it is NOT good.  Peter)  This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

The penultimate sentence is wrong frightening and not justified by the last sentence as Schneider apparently thought. Scientific ethicist Gleick agreed with Schneider as he wrote, “He taught me and many others he mentored to understand and honor the science, but he also taught us the importance of speaking up in defense of the integrity of science and the public interest. “

Gleick is fully compromised, but will likely continue because of his claims about water. It’s the environmental vehicle replacing climate for achieving government control, nationally and internationally.

Stanford University was the academic centre for issues that framed the Club of Rome (COR). Pivotal publications included Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb, but predictions were set out primarily in Limits to Growth using simplistic computer models. They extended the Malthusian idea that population would outgrow food supply and applied it to all resources with amplification by capitalism and fossil fuel driven economies. Almost all the predictions were disastrously wrong.

Others involved were PhD Stanford graduate John Holdren, co-author with Ehrlich, and now Obama’s Science Czar. Gleick’s water research is referenced throughout their works.

Water was central to the COR concerns, probably with Gleick’s influence. Their agenda was incorporated into United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) specifically as Agenda 21. At the 1977 United Nations ‘Water Conference’ they set up the International Drinking Water Decade as 1981 – 1990. People involved with this project were associated with the COR and the plans for One World government. Central was socialist Barbara Ward, former Cabinet Minister in the UK government. In an article titled “Only One World: An Awakening” Stephen Berry quotes Ms. Ward, “We may be on the way to a new moral reality.” This view pervades all the policies emanating from the UN, the COR and the environmental movement of the last 40 years.

The objective is one world government with almost total control.

Environment became a vehicle for social control of individual countries and suppression of capitalism and technology. Strong used the UNEP with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Neil Hrab wrote: “What’s truly alarming about Maurice Strong is his actual record. Strong’s persistent calls for an international mobilization to combat environmental calamities, even when they are exaggerated (population growth) or scientifically unproven (global warming), have set the world’s environmental agenda.” Now that warming has failed as the political vehicle water is rapidly advancing as a replacement.

Mark Dubrulle: 40-year member of the COR was asked in 2008, “Is water an issue within this consultation process and the general program of the Club of Rome?” He replied, “Resources include water by definition. We have within the Club very distinguished members who already years ago draw our attention on the problem of water. We intend to play an active role in the debate on water resources, water supply and water consumption, with a very critical attitude towards the current policies. Ian Johnson, the new Secretary General of the international Club of Rome, clearly stated that water is one of the big challenges, perhaps even more important than oil.”

The 74 Club book explains they believe “democracy has failed and new forms of governance are required”. They determined that “a common enemy must be found, one either real or invented, to unite humanity." They explain, “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”

Schneider’s dilemma is non-existent; the truth is the only option. Gleick’s unethical actions indicate he believes it’s an option and the end justifies the means. We are on notice, so diligence about all water resources claims is required.

Regarding truth and science you might also like to look here: 

http://thefellowshipofscientifictruth.blogspot.com/

Environmental Falsehoods Are Costly And Common

The ClimateGate leaking of Emails and computer climate programs revealing the corruption, deceit and lies by "climate scientists"promoting the myth of man-caused global warming is just the tip of the iceberg where the "environmental movement" is concerned. This disease costs everyone dearly and will take a long, long time to cure. Maybe ClimateGate will be a beginning of much needed change into how science is conducted and viewed by the public. Thank goodness for the internet!
Peter

 

 

 

 

Hillary's Energy Plan.....

Here is what the leading Democrat Presidential candidate is planning for our future. Hillary obviously has no real understanding of global warming or climate change and what is causing it. Consider this statement of hers, "If other countries like China and India are polluting the atmosphere," she said, "all of their pollution will get up on the wind currents and fall right down on us." She's talking about carbon dioxide emissions, they don't "fall right down" anywhere. Her understanding of the subject sounds about like that of a five-year old child.

Remember, this is all being proposed under the wishful thinking that these huge expenditures are going to control global warming and stop harmful climate change. If any of these proposals come to pass, be prepared to pay, big time.
Peter


The Light Bulb Over Hillary's Head
By Terence P. Jeffrey CNSNews.com Editor in Chief November 07, 2007
If Thomas Edison's invention of the incandescent light bulb is the perfect symbol of how an entrepreneur can exploit American freedom to create a product that changes the world, then Sen. Hillary Clinton's plan to rid this nation of incandescent bulbs may be the perfect symbol of how Americans can lose their freedom to a government bent on changing the world.

Yes, Mrs. Clinton has it in for incandescent light bulbs. She said so Monday at a windmill manufacturing plant in Iowa. Nor is the light bulb you use the only thing she intends to change in your home, and in your life, in her crusade to save Earth from overheating.

Two years ago on plane ride to Alaska, Mrs. Clinton discovered that our planet is in peril. "Traveling over those vast coniferous forests that blanket those harsh, unforgiving latitudes, I looked down to see dead trees as far as the eye could reach," she said at the windmill factory. "The forests, it turns out, were once protected by cold, cold winters." Global warming, she learned, is killing them.

Mrs. Clinton is now committed to making the world a colder place. At the windmill factory, she laid out her plans for this in a 6,000-word speech, in which she argued that the threat of a climactic apocalypse will require her, as president, to "move us from a carbon-based economy to an efficient, green economy." This, of course, will require government and more government.

For starters, Mrs. Cinton said, "We must change the way utilities make money." She will do this by "decoupling" their earnings from selling you electricity, which she will somehow accomplish by inducing them to pay the "up-front costs" of installing "solar power and cold resistant glass and other improvements" in your home. "I also," she said, "want to launch a green building fund to invest $1 billion per year into energy efficiency in public buildings ... help 20 million low-income families modernize their homes ... create a ... Carbon Neutral Mortgage Association ... put in place a ... cap and trade system to reduce carbon pollution ... (in which the) federal government auctions permits for 100 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions ... raise the fuel efficiency standard to 40 miles per gallon by 2020 and 55 by 2030 ... provide $20 billion in green vehicle bonds to help domestic automakers ... invest $2 billion in research and development ... of lithium ion batteries ... offer consumers a tax credit of up to $10,000 for purchasing a plug-in hybrid ... increase funding for public transit to more than $1.5 billion each year ... (propose) a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund to invest in the clean energy technologies of the future ... end() the tax breaks that oil companies receive ... require oil companies and other major gasoline retailers to install E85 pumps ... increase the goal for biofuels to 60 billion gallons ... make the production tax credit for wind and solar permanent." And: "We will phase out the incandescent light bulb, the technology that Thomas Edison pioneered."

Her plan, Mrs. Clinton hopes, will "reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050," which she says is "the amount necessary to avoid the most dangerous and destructive consequences of climate change." She gamely admits, however, that even if she succeeds in imposing all this additional government on America, it will have no impact on the global situation if foreign nations keep coughing up carbon. "If other countries like China and India are polluting the atmosphere," she said, "all of their pollution will get up on the wind currents and fall right down on us."

Thus, she proposes creating even more government on a global scale by, among other things, "leading the process to develop a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire in 2012." "I'll establish an E8 that's modeled on the G8, which is where the big industrial economies come together," she said. "I want to focus on international attention to solve the problem of global deforestation."

The "energy crisis," Mrs. Clinton grandly concluded, equates to World War II. "While young, brave troops served and bled and died overseas, here at home Americans did their part," she said. "Men and women went to work in factories to build ships and planes. Americans grew victory gardens, purchased war bonds, and conserved fuel and electricity. The task before us commands the same urgency and demands the same resolve." "This is a transformational challenge for our nation and our government," she said. No kidding. The statist transformation Mrs. Clinton envisions would not only abolish Mr. Edison's light bulb, but put out the light of freedom by which such inventions are made.

(Terry Jeffrey is the editor in chief of CNSNews.com.)

Iraq, Oil, and Alan Greenspan

What a unique idea, that the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent "war" is really about creating stability in the Middle East because of the need for oil. If this is the truth, which I believe it is, why weren't we told this from the beginning? Would people say no to war and stop using oil? Of course not.
Peter

from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20817260/


Greenspan clarifies Iraq war, oil link
Says he told White House ousting Saddam was 'essential' to world supplies
WASHINGTON - Clarifying a controversial comment in his new memoir, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he told the White House before the Iraq war that removing Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies, according to an interview published on Monday.

Greenspan, who wrote in his memoir that “the Iraq War is largely about oil,” said in a Washington Post interview that while securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House before the 2003 invasion with the case for why removing the then-Iraqi leader was important for the global economy.
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said in the interview conducted on Saturday. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ’Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”

In his new book “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” Greenspan wrote: “I’m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil.”
Gates rejects commentU.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday rejected the comment, which echoed long-held complaints of many critics that a key motivating force in the war was to maintain U.S. access to the rich oil supplies in Iraq.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Gates said, “I have a lot of respect for Mr. Greenspan.” But he disagreed with his comment about oil being a leading motivating factor in the war.
“I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don’t believe it’s true,” Gates said.
“I think that it’s really about stability in the Gulf. It’s about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It’s about aggressive dictators,” Gates said.
Greenspan retired in January 2006 after more than 18 years as chairman of the Fed, the U.S. central bank, which regulates monetary policy.
He has been conducting a round of interviews coinciding with the release of his book, which goes on sale on Monday.

Economic motivation for war
In The Washington Post interview, Greenspan said at the time of the invasion he believed like President George W. Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction “because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something.”

But Greenspan’s main support for Saddam’s ouster was economically motivated, the Post reported.
“My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day” passing through,” Greenspan said.
Even a small disruption could drive oil prices as high as $120 a barrel and would mean “chaos” to the global economy, Greenspan told the newspaper.
Given that, “I’m saying taking Saddam out was essential,” he said. But he added he was not implying the war was an oil grab, the Post said.

Dismay with DemocratsGreenspan, who in his memoir criticized Bush and congressional Republicans for abandoning fiscal discipline and putting politics ahead of sound economics, also expressed dismay with the Democratic Party in an interview with The Wall Street Journal published on Monday.

Greenspan told the Journal he was “fairly close” to former President Bill Clinton’s economic advisers, but added, “The next administration may have the Clinton administration name, but the Democratic Party ... has moved ... very significantly in the wrong direction.” He cited its populist bent, especially its skepticism of free trade. Clinton’s wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, is the Democratic presidential front-runner.
Greenspan, a self-described libertarian Republican, told the Journal he was not sure how he would vote in the 2008 election.
“I just may not vote,” he was quoted as saying, adding, ”I’m saddened by the whole political process.”

Democrats Social Engineering: Our Worst Nightmare Coming True

If people think global warming and climate change is a danger, wait until (and if) new legislation intending to control climate change begins to take effect. First of all, be aware that once again, this is about controlling carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Sound, clear, common-sensical scientific studies show that CO2 is not the driving force behind global warming and climate change. Only some computer models, fabricated by scientists with an agenda, based on theory, and manipulated by politicians, suggest CO2 is a pollutant.

Yet is spite of such flimsy evidence, our genius politicians are trying to pass laws that are going to cost us billions of wasted dollars. Somehow, someway, people are going to figure out we're being shafted. Here are some excerpts from the article and a link to it.
Peter


"Two of the frontrunners for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination this week agreed to co-sponsor legislation aimed at curbing global warming by putting caps on carbon emissions. Sen. Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, announced Tuesday that Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois are co-sponsoring the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act.

Clinton and Obama lead the pack of contenders for the Democratic nomination, based on recent polls. Other current senators seeking the nomination, Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, also support the bill.

The bill crafted by Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders would set carbon emission standards for electricity plants, establish a carbon credit trading program, and set carbon emission standards for automobiles beginning in 2016.

It also expresses the "sense of the Senate that federal funds for clean, low-carbon energy research, development, and deployment should be increased by at least 100 percent each year" for 10 years.

to read the entire article, go here: http://www.cnsnews.com:80/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200705/POL20070510c.html