About This Presentation



the non-crisis of global warming introduction the big round greenhouse history of climate events and back further still 3000 year climate history general circulation ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:287
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 41
Provided by: usedbraina


Transcript and Presenter's Notes


Global Warming is a phrase so often heard that
it has become a haunting mantra often heard,
but little understood by most people except as a
vague rumor of destruction and fear. This
presentation will attempt to provide a concise,
accessible tool for the understanding of a
complex and divisive issue that has been touted
by some to be a threat on the scale of nuclear
war. Follow along on a journey through the
swirling, inconstant gases of our planets
atmosphere, and the equally chaotic vapors of
the academic and political processes that attempt
to describe and govern it.
Life on Earth, as we all know, is made possible
by energy from the Sun. Of equal importance is
the thin atmosphere that blankets the planet and
selectively filters the solar radiation.
The greenhouse effect is one of these filters.
Certain gases freely allow ultraviolet
radiation to pass, heating the atmosphere and the
surface of the earth . Heat is radiated back
into space as infrared, but some is trapped by
these so-called greenhouse gases. The
most important of these gases are water vapor
(H2O), responsible for about 95 of the effect
and carbon dioxide (CO2), a minor but
significant component and the subject of our
The greenhouse effect makes life possible and
is nothing to be alarmed about. Likewise,
carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but is
essential to the biosphere. Without it there
could be no plants, and without plants, no
complex life whatsoever. Since the late 1800s,
the concentration of CO2 has been increasing, in
part due to the combustion of fossil fuels by
man. This anthropogenic, or man-caused CO2
increase has been accompanied by a modest
increase in average global near-surface
temperatures, about 0.7 C (1.3 F) during the
20th century. As we shall see, the combination of
slightly warmer temperatures with a significant
boost in atmospheric CO2 will likely produce a
greener, more productive, more bio-diverse
planet that experiences a milder general climate
with fewer, and less extreme, severe weather
events. You have perhaps been told quite the
opposite, but if you will continue to turn the
pages it will become evident that doom and gloom
predictions are not supported by the evidence.
The Twentieth Century

Prior to about 1940, the slow buildup of CO2 was
insufficient to have had any significant
greenhouse effect, yet it is this period that
displays the greatest and most rapid temperature
increase. As CO2 increased from the 1940s to
the mid 1970s, a dramatic cooling trend
dominated. Temperatures began to rise again
until we are now very near the century average.
From about 1500-1850 A.D. a climatic period known
as the Little Ice Age was evident across the
globe. Average temperatures reached about 1.5 C
(2.7 F) cooler than the 20th century. The
Medieval Warm Period, from about 900-1200 A.D.,
was marked by temperatures around 2.0 C (3.6
F) warmer than the 20th century average. Wine
production could be sustained in England, and
the Vikings named what is now a largely glaciated
island Greenland. Clearly, wide temperature
variations are common, natural, and quite well
tolerated by the life on this Earth.

Houghton/IPCC 1990

Also known as GCMs, these models are complex
computer programs that try to simulate climate
processes. GCMs form the basis of the evidence
presented to justify the crisis scenarios so
often depicted by politicians, the media, and
some scientists. Numerous such models exist,
produced by various research groups, and all
produce varying results, some dramatically so.
For the most part they share several things in
common -They are limited by the amount and
quality of the information used in the model.
Atmospheric circulation is so complex, affected
by so many factors that it is impossible to
take them all into account. Averages and
assumptions are used. -They operate on large
spatial scales, so their resolution is very low,
like having 3 pixels where 300 would be
necessary for a clear picture. Thus, while GCMs
are of extremely limited value even for large
scale observations, they are useless as
indicators of small scale events and trends,
such as regional or local projections. -They
cannot replicate, or hindcast, the actual
events of the 20th century. Most indicate
that precipitation should have decreased during
that period, but in reality a steady increase
was recorded. Cooling occurred when the models
said it should have been getting warmer.
Since they replicate the known events of the past
so poorly, climate models should be considered
skeptically as guides to the future. Climate
modeling is very inexact, a science in its
infancy. It should not influence policy.
Two models utilized in policy decisions are from
the Canadian Climate Centre (CGCM1), and the
Hadley Centre Model (HadCM2). These two models
are used below to complete the 200 year
history from 1890 to 2100. Model results begin
in 2000.

Both models predict a sudden, extreme, and
constant rise in temperature unprecedented in
any existing observed climate history. Many
other more conservative models exist. Yet these
two high-end ones were chosen for the United
States National Assessment of the Potential
Consequences of Climate Variability and Change,
published in 2000.

These are the climate models considered by the
USNA team. Those chosen for inclusion are the
ones producing the most extreme results, those
least representative of observed conditions. For
example, CGCM1 results in a linear increase of
1.5 C. during the 20th century, while the
actual recorded data from the National Climatic
Data Center reveals a 0.5 C rise, a 300 error.
The National Assessment is an evangelistic
statement about a coming apocalypse and not a
scientific statement about the evolution of a
complicated system with significant
uncertainty. -Dr. John Christy, University of
Alabama in Huntsville
-The USNA was established by John Gibbons, the
Science and Technology Assistant to Bill
Clinton. -Used outdated assumptions such as the
unrealistic doomsayings of Paul Erlich and
grossly over- estimated CO2 growth rates. -Used
extreme data from climate models
available. -Professor Patrick J. Michaels
demonstrated that the models used by the USNA
were no more

accurate than a set of random numbers applied to
observed average temperatures for the 20th
century, a fact that the USNA team acknowledged.
They did not alter their findings, however.
The IPCC is the 2500 member United Nations body
concerned with CO2 and mans impact on climate.
Only about 70 or so are qualified climate
scientists who author scientific papers, and
those papers are not peer reviewed in the
appropriate way. It is important to realize that
the IPCC is a political body, not a scientific
-Early prophesies by the IPCC were dire and
extreme large temperature increases, melting
ice, droughts and floods, severe storms, drastic
sea level rise, and species going extinct at
dizzying rates. -Scientists produced frightening
results from a wide array of data that we will
see is highly suspect. -The news media hyped
the disaster scenarios without regard to actual
evidence to the contrary. -Politicians and other
opportunistic individuals in industry and
international finance seized the opportunity to
capitalize on the ensuing fear.

By 2001 the IPCC had pushed fantasy as far as it
would go and began to acknowledge the pervasive
and undeniable evidence that the world was simply
not going to come to an end just to suit the UN
bureaucrats. The following frank admissions are
illustrative of the new, more sober
IPCC. Changes globally in tropical and
extra-tropical storm intensity and frequency are
dominated by inter-decadal and multi-decadal
variations, with no significant trends evident
over the 20th century. UNIPCC Third Assessment
Report, p.5. Clearly there is little agreement
between models on the changes in storminess that
might occur in a warmer world. Conclusions
regarding extreme storm events are obviously
more uncertain. UNIPCC Second Assessment,
1996. Projections of components contributing to
sea level change from 1990 to 2100using a range
of climate modelsgive a Greenland contribution
of -0.02 to 0.09 meters. -UNIPCC Third
Assessment Report, 2001 Despite these overt
confessions the steamroller of fear-mongering and
policy manipulation continues. 20 billion
later and all that the IPCC can say is
essentially this No Big Deal!
Perhaps the most important single factor in
stirring the stew of global warming fear was the
June 23, 1988 testimony before Congress by James
Hansen of NASA. He assured those legislators
that he was 99 percent sure that anthropogenic
causes were responsible for the climate extremes
being experienced at the time. Hansens words
started the flow of lucre that became a 20
billion flood.
Dr. Hansen changed his tune by 1999. Here are
some examples -The forces that drive long-term
climate change are not known with an accuracy
sufficient to define future climate change.
1999 -Future global warming can be predicted
much more accurately than is generally realized
we predict additional warming in the next 50
years of ¾C ¼C, a warming rate of 0.15C
0.05C per decade. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 2001 -Emphasis on extreme
scenarios may have been appropriate at one time,
when the public and decision-makers were
relatively unaware of the global warming issue.
Now, however, the need is for demonstrably
objective climate..scenarios consistent with what
is realistic under current conditions. Natural
The nearly universal tendency for hyperbole among
global warming alarmists is perhaps best summed
up by Stephen Schneider of Stanford University in
comments made in 1988 We are ethically bound
to the scientific method, in effect promising
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
butOn 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 public 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. This double ethical
blind that 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. (emphasis
added) This kind of attitude may explain
why the truth is such an elusive quality in
modern climate science reporting. The next
few slides are prominent examples of how this
double ethical blind has indeed blinded some
scientists to their ethical duty to truth.

In August of 2000 the New York Times reported
that an unprecedented melting of the North Pole
had occurred due to global warming. They were
forced to print a retraction admitting that
open water in summer at high latitudes was not
As shown above, Arctic temperatures reveal a
slight increase during the winter, but no trend
for the same period in summer temperatures. The
Antarctic shows similar results. Yet the next
set of diagrams reveals completely different
patterns of change in sea-ice extent. Ablation
and accretion of polar ice seems independent of
temperature. The 2-3 C upward trend in winter
temperatures has little effect on ice melt when
-40 is common. The ice doesnt melt in the
winter. There is no significant temperature
trend in summer at either pole when ice does
The retreat of prominent glaciers such as those
on Mt. Kilimanjaro and at Glacier National Park
has been presented as evidence of climate change
a la humanity. Yet, the last quarter million
years have seen the dramatic advance and retreat
of vast sheets of ice in the northern
hemisphere, and the smaller scale behavior of
local alpine glaciation has likewise oscillated
with little regard to mans meager
input. -Kilimanjaros ice has been dwindling
throughout the last century whether global
temperatures were rising or falling. The
greatest rate of retreat was from 1912 to 1953,
before human- related alteration of the
atmosphere was a factor. Since 1979 the region
around the famous glacier has experienced a
cooling trend of about 0.22 C, yet the ice still
recedes. -Since reliable temperature records
began in the 1880s for the Glacier National Park
area there has been decadal-scale
variation with no trend indicating general
warming. Current temperatures are very
near the average for the record.
Alpine glaciers formed during the Little Ice
Age reached maximum extent by the 1800s and
began rapidly to recede well before the CO2
content of the atmosphere was significantly
enhanced by man.

-J.P. Croxall, scientist for the British
Antarctic Survey, published a review in Science,
2002 claiming that sea-ice retreat due to rising
sea surface temperatures was responsible for a
decline in penguin populations. -Refuted by
penguin authority D.G. Ainley in April 18, 2002
Science. Only the Adélie penguin populations
along the north-western Antarctic Peninsula are
in decline, possibly due to disturbance by
scientists (the Adélie is the most studied of
the three Antarctic species) and to the increase
of eco-tourism. -Croxall used whaling ship logs
as proxy data to determine sea-ice extent in the
past, but these data are flawed.
Whalers were forced southward due to increasing
scarcity of open- water whale
populations, not because melting sea ice allowed
them to. -Deep ocean cores reveal that the winter
margins of Antarctic sea-ice have not changed in
thousands of years.
-Camille Parmesan, entomologist, University of
California-Santa Barbara, paper in Nature, 1996.
Studied the apparent extirpation of Ediths
Checkerspot butterfly from northern Mexico and
its alleged shift north to British Columbia as a
result of warming in those regions. -There has
been no warming in British Columbia for 75 years,
and no variation in northern Mexico outside of
historical norms. In drier and hotter Nevada,
the Checkerspot thrives. -Professor Patrick J.
Michaels pointed out the flaws in Parmesans
interpretation, which she acknowledged, but her
work was still offered as proof of a global
warming attack on biodiversity. In a later
study in Europe, Parmesan,, again tried to
argue the northward forcing of non-migratory
butterflies. Many species were observed well
north of their historic ranges while
maintaining their accustomed southern
territories. If these data prove anything,
they indicate increased ranges and greater
biodiversity, not less.

-Benjamin Santer in Nature, 1996, used weather
balloon data from 1962 to 1988 to prove that
temperature trends in the troposphere were
consistent with model predictions. -The balloon
temperature history was complete from 1957 to
1995, but Santer, chose not to include
the data near both endpoints. When these data
are included the entire claim fails. -Evidence of
dishonesty in the form of selective use of data
and a lack of effective peer review. -Nature was
forced to print a correction. --------------------
-In Nature, 2004, Chris Thomas used statistical
modeling to predict that a 0.8 C rise in global
temperature in the next century would result in
the extinction of 20 of the earths
species. -The previous century exhibited a
temperature increase of almost that much, but
there is no evidence of such a massive
extinction as a result, thus no reason to expect
such in the future. -There have been large
fluctuations in temperature in the past, some of
them with quite rapid onset. If life on earth
was as sensitive as Thomas, claim, little
life would remain. -------------------------------
-In August of 2002 Greenpeace issued the
following statement If we are going to stop
the earths climate spinning out of control, most
of the worlds reserves of fossil fuels such as
coal, oil and gas cannot be used for energy and
must stay underground. We must make the switch
to positive energy at home and globally. As
this green group was promoting this agenda,
they were cruising in a massive luxury diesel
yacht to Earth Summit II.
Many alarmists have linked recent increases in
malaria with climate change. Simon Hay of
Oxford University studied the relationship
between these factors at several sites where the
disease was prevalent and found no correlation
between infection and climate change. The
diagrams below show the temperature and
precipitation trends for one of these sites,
Kericho, Kenya. Actually, no trend is present
for either of these climate factors in the
period of greatest CO2 emissions. Hay obtained
similar results for several other sites
throughout east Africa. Factors other than
climate appear to be responsible for the spread
of the disease in the region.

-Paul Epstein, Harvard School of Medicine, 2000
editorial in the Washington Post, claimed that
increased temperatures and climate variability
would lead to a West Nile Virus epidemic in the
U.S.. -Citing the displacement of the yellow
fever-carrying Aedes aegypti mosquito by another
species from Asia, Paul Reiter of the CDC and
author of the seminal 2001 review on mosquitoes
and climate change in
Environmental Health Perspectives insists
that This displacement of one species by
another illustrates a major flaw in the popular
debate on climate change. Biotic responses to
climate change cannot be predicted on the mere
basis of climate envelopes. The distribution of
species is determined by its interaction with
other species and by many other behavioral and
ecological factors. It is therefore naïve to
suggest that species will move to higher
latitudes and altitudes simply on the basis of
temperature change. -The Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) does not consider West Nile virus
to be a serious health threat in the United
States. As with malaria and other mosquito-borne
pathogens, factors not related to climate play a
significant role in transmission of disease.
These include -Increased concentration of
populations in urban centers and enhanced
availability of easy transportation. -Social,
economic, and political pressures that force
migration and/or limit sanitation and access to
medical care. Resistance of pathogens to medical
treatment. -Resistance to insecticides, or the
lack of them, for example the ban on
DDT. -Availability of simple, preventive
adaptations such as window screens and air
Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute and
author of the non-science annual State of the
World was quoted in 2002 from an edition of that
publication one gets a feeling that the
temperature is rising and that the rise is
gaining momentum. Patrick J. Michaels offers
the following data in place of feelings. The
first shows the linear trends of three global
temperature histories. The second indicates
trends from 1977 to each year in the series.
Neither describes an increase in rate of
temperature rise.

SOURCE Michaels, Meltdown, 2004
Lester Brown also proclaimed the plight of the
central Pacific island, Tuvalu. According to
Mr. Brown, Tuvalu was in danger of being covered
by the rising ocean as a result of glacial melt
from global warming. The government of Tuvalu is
seeking refugee status for its citizens from New
Zealand and Australia. -Tuvalu is in the center
of a region of the ocean that has been falling in
level for the last 50 years, based in part on
satellite sea surface topography
mapping. -Tuvalus real disaster is a stagnant
economy on a group of islands devoid of
adequate resources.

Based on ridiculous projections such as the
Canadian Climate Centre model, the various
political entities (IPCC, USNA, etc.) have
forecast dire expectations about future
heat-related mortality, but as Robert Davis of
UVa demonstrated, heat-related deaths have
actually declined in the past few decades due to
adaptation and awareness. W.R. Keatinge of Queen
Mary and Westfield College reported that
cold-related deaths were far more significant
than those caused by heat. The data of Davis, agrees. Since greenhouse warming is most
pronounced during the winter and at higher
latitudes, such warming will likely reduce net
climate-related mortality.

In 1997 the United Nations sponsored a conference
on global warming in Kyoto, Japan. It resulted
in a consensus demand for drastic reductions of
greenhouse emissions by the industrialized
nations. This Kyoto Protocol is based entirely
upon the sort of spurious science we have thus
far profiled. -If implemented, the Protocol
would cost the United States 283 billion a
year. -Mario Lewis of the Cato Institute insists
that the Kyoto guidelines would have almost no
effect on global temperatures. In fact, the
IPCC itself admits that a fully implemented
Kyoto Protocol would decrease the temperature by
only 0.07 C over the next 50 years, an amount
that is hardly even measurable! -In 1998, a
petition signed by more than 17,000 scientists
was sent to Congress urging those legislators
to reject the baseless and damaging requirements
contained in the Kyoto Protocol. -The petition
was endorsed in a letter from Dr. Frederick
Seitz, former president of the National Academy
of Sciences. The petition also included an
article by Dr. Arthur B. Robinson that
presented the relevant current research on the
issue. -The thousands of climatologists,
atmospheric scientists, meteorologists,
physical chemists, and others expressed
emphatically There is no convincing evidence
that human release of carbon dioxide, methane,
or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in
the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic
heating of the Earths atmosphere and disruption
of the Earths climate.
As the IPCC states in its Third Assessment, storm
frequency and intensity is subject to natural
variability and cannot be predicted by climate
models. This variability is apparently not
dependent on global temperature. Stanley
Goldenberg noted in Science that variability
in Atlantic hurricane activity is much greater
than what would be expected from a gradual
temperature increase attributed to global
warming Tropical North Atlantic sea surface
temperature has exhibited a warming trend of
0.3 C over the last 100 years whereas Atlantic
hurricane activity has not exhibited trendlike
variability, but rather distinct multi-decadal
cycles. Likewise, hype about warming-induced
tornado intensity increases is unfounded. These
powerful cyclones are not fueled by increased
temperature, but by the temperature differential
between the cold north and the warm south. Since
greenhouse warming should be most pronounced in
the Arctic winter, this differential should be
reduced, and so should storm intensity. This is
in fact the observed trend for the last 50 years.

Total number of severe tornadoes (F3, F4, F5)
from 1950-2002 Source
Hundreds of studies in the scientific journals
describe the positive effects of enhanced CO2 on
plant productivity. Sherwood Idso, et. al.,
provide an impressive compendium of these
beneficial effects at,
including -Increased growth rates and biomass
production. Productivity gains as much as 300
in some species. Improvement in 95 of species
studied. -Improved water use efficiency and
enhanced drought resistance. -Greater heat
resistance. Elevated optimum growing
temperatures. -Increased availability of plant
biochemical components-greater medicinal value,
nutritional content boosted, more vigorous
resistance to insect predators. In addition, it
has been demonstrated independently by David
Easterling of the National Climatic Data Center,
and Scott Robeson, Indiana University, that
winter temperature increases have led to a
lengthening of the growing season in the U.S. by
as much as a week.
Finally, there has been a gradual increase in
precipitation in the U.S. in the last 100 years.
All of these things considered, we can look
forward to a greener, better fed world. Sylvan
Wittwer, former head of the Board on Agriculture
of the National Research Council, credits carbon
dioxide alone with a 10 increase in crop yield.

U.S. annual total precipitation. Source
The true influence in climate change and
variability is and always has been the Sun.
Astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon
produced strong evidence of a tight correlation
between solar output for the last century and the
temperature pattern for that period. This
relationship reproduces the pattern that GCMs
fail to hindcast. The Sun also has other effects.
In independent studies, Jan Veizer, University
of Ottowa, and Nir Shaviv of Jerusalems Hebrew
University concluded that solar input is
responsible for a significant portion of the
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. A strong
relationship between solar influx and temperature
was also demonstrated by J. Lean and D. Rind in
the Journal of Climate, 1998.
This further underscores the reason why climate
models fail to produce valid results. Many
variables enter into the climate equation, and
CO2, along with the other trace greenhouse
gases, plays only a minor role in global climate.

Dotted linesolar output measured by sunspot
activity Solid lineproxy temperature
history Dashed lineground-based thermometer
history -Source Lean and Rind, 1998.

SOURCE A.B. Robinson, S.L. Baliunas, W.. Soon,
and Z.W. Robinson
This diagram illustrates a well established
property of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide
and water vapor- as their concentration
increases, their effect on temperature is
reduced. This means -Runaway, catastrophic
temperature increase from CO2 is, again, not
supported by physical evidence. -The modest
increases that do result will occur in those
places where water vapor makes the least
contribution, particularly in the Arctic winter,
about the driest, coldest place on earth.

Source Michaels, Meltdown, 2004
In addition, according to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration, per capita global
emissions of CO2 have been leveling off and even
declining since 1988. This may actually be less
than good news since the effect of the gas on
temperature is of little concern and continued
increase of CO2 means greater plant productivity
and a greener Earth.
. Why, then, do some members of academia,
government, and the media cling so stubbornly to
the tales of disaster when all physical
observations suggest persistence of natural
cycles of climate variability? The scientific
facet has been masterfully elucidated by Patrick
J. Michaels in his book, Meltdown, in
conjunction with the analysis of scientific
attitude presented by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962
work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. -As
these scientists point out, science has always
operated on a paradigm-consensus basis within a
rigid framework of resistance to change. Kuhn
states, The transition of allegiance from
paradigm to paradigm is a conversion experience
that cannot be forced. Lifelong resistance,
particularly from those whose productive careers
have committed them to an older tradition isan
index to the nature of scientific research
itself. -An example of this is the paper
published by Svante Arrhenius in 1895. He
postulated that human emissions of CO2 might
cause upward forcing of global temperatures. He
was ignored due to resistance by the then
current ruling paradigm. -The modern paradigm of
human-induced disaster has likewise become
entrenched in scientific thinking in the same
way that the flat earth was once accepted as
proven fact. -The system of gaining credentials-
publication, peer review, and academic
tenure-insures the continuation of the paradigm
whether that paradigm is accurate or not. -As
Kuhn also notes, Individual scientists embrace a
new paradigm for all sorts of reasons and
usually for several at once. Some of these
reasonsfor example the sun worship that helped
make Kepler a Copernicanlie outside the sphere
of science entirely. This postulate is well
exemplified in the remarks by Stephen Schneider
about relativism in truth about climate science
reporting that we examined earlier. Science does
not always drive the conclusions of scientists.
A popular axiom of investigation is follow the
money, so let us do just that. The first
massive infusion of government influence into
theoretical science in the U.S. culminated in a
very bright flash over Hiroshima in 1945.
Following the success of the Manhattan Project
the federal government sought to
institutionalize the relationship between science
and national policy in part by providing funding
for research. Remember, he who pays the piper
calls the tune. -President Roosevelt authorized
his science advisor Vannevar Bush to initiate the
series of events that resulted in the National
Science Foundation and other avenues of outlay
for federal support of scientific research. -The
majority of the funding for climate science
research comes from such sources, so far about
20 billion since 1988. Scientists must compete
for this largesse departures from the paradigm
receive less attention and therefore less
funding. -The media is complicit in this by
focusing its attention on the most extreme and
lurid of the climate scenarios offered by
researchers these enjoy the greatest, and in
some cases the only, attention, and this prompts
further funding. This is a classic example of a
positive feed-back loop, a directional,
self-reinforcing set of reactions much like a
thermostat set to turn the heat on when the
temperature rises above 75-it just keeps
going. -The fire is further fanned by well funded
eco-advocacy groups who promote the alarmist
paradigm for their own purposes, and support a
small but very mobile and very vocal activist
network. This may prompt one to ask, Why would
the government spend billions of dollars and
initiate drastic policy when the bulk of evidence
insists that no credible threat exists and no
policy can have any significant effect on the
After the U.S., and the world, had been
maneuvered into two great wars and had since
begun the process of diluting and relinquishing
many aspects of national sovereignty in the name
of peace, it became apparent that people were
reluctant to surrender liberty and empower
government in the absence of a threat to that
peace. The globalist elements in our leadership
sought sources of intimidation other than war to
capture public imagination and continue the
climate of dependence on government intervention
so carefully cultivated in the first half of the
20th century. In 1966, an interesting publication
appeared titled The Report From Iron Mountain. It
is a detailed study for planned crisis in world
where major war is a thing of the past. Some
other peril must be fabricated to instill the
fear necessary for continued growth of government
in a world without war. Some have speculated
that it is a leaked government study from the
Hudson Institute commissioned by Robert
McNamara's Defense Department. Others claim it
to be an elaborate hoax by giddy anti-war
academics. Regardless of its origins, it
seemsapparent that its basic tenets have been
adopted as policy by establishment operatives. In
the words of the report, "substitutes for the
functions of war...alternate enemies" such as
"massive global environmental pollution" must be
concocted to justify the ever expanding role of
government. Like any organism, government seeks
to feed and to grow, and the time tested means to
insure this is to instill fear. Massive global
destruction is a useful vehicle for that purpose.
In the 1960s, Jerry Kirk was an activist with
radical left-wing organizations such as the
Black Panthers and the Students for a Democratic
Society (SDS). As he testified before both the
House and Senate Internal Security Committees, he
broke from those socialist-centered
organizations when he discovered that they were
in fact largely funded by the establishment that
he thought he had been opposing. Then, as now,
the power structure provided the cause for
discontent, financed the opposition to that
cause, and finally proposed the solution-more
government, more control. Environmental groups
are heavily funded by tax-exempt foundations with
names like Ford Rockefeller, Carnegie, Alcoa,
and Hewlett. In 1953 the U.S. House of
Representatives began an investigation of the
large foundations due to their repeated support
of radical, subversive organizations. The Reece
Committee appointed Norman Dodd as Research
Director for the investigation. In a
conversation with Mr. Dodd, H. Rowan Gaither,
then President of the powerful Ford Foundation,
informed the investigator that the U.S. State
Department and other federal agencies had been
operating for years under directives from the
White House to so alter life in the United
States as to make possible a comfortable merger
with the Soviet UnionWe are continuing to be
guided by just such directives. At least in
name, the Soviet Union no longer exists, but the
push to merge America with foreign interests
continues, using the endless wealth of tax-exempt
foundations controlled by ambitious globalists.
And just as in the 1960s, emotional liberals and
radicals of all stripes are the tools, complicit
or unwitting, of the establishment elite that has
been quietly manipulating the economy, politics,
and social turmoil of America for the past
Also known as The Earth Summit Strategy to Save
Our Planet, Agenda 21 was presented in Rio de
Janeiro in 1992 and was subsequently adopted as
official United Nations policy. It calls for the
total regulation of every conceivable human
activity. The Kyoto Protocol is but a small
part of the control sought under this bloated
document. Its own words proclaim its
intent Effective execution of Agenda 21 will
require a profound reorientation of all human
society, unlike anything the world has ever
experienceda major shift in the priorities of
both governments and individuals and an
unprecedented redeployment of human and
financial resources. This shift will demand that
a concern for the environmental consequences of
every human action be integrated into individual
and collective decision-making at every
level. This is nothing more than Soviet-style
social engineering with a layer of green paint.
It is not surprising, since one of the chief
evangelists of the of the modern religion of
earth worship is none other than Mikhail
Gorbachev-- ex-KGB official, former dictator, and
unrepentant communist. The late Jacques
Cousteau delivered an address that was adopted as
the unofficial preamble to Agenda 21 at this
so-called earth summit An American-born child
is environmentally too expensive to maintain to
his or her adulthood in a world economy.
American women must be subjected to some manner
of regulation beyond licensing and mandatory
abortion practices.Unconventional and extreme
measures must be implemented and enforced by
global U.N. mandate as it is deemed necessary.
The bodies of these world eco-criminals should
be commercially yielded for reintroduction in
the world's natural systemic food and nutrient
chains, in order to restore a more natural
biological balance and order to our Sacred Earth.
This presentation has provided data and evidence
in support of the following conclusions 1)
Human impact on climate change, if any, is
minor. 2) Temperature variation over the last
century was moderate and well within a
historically normal range well tolerated by the
biosphere. 3) Future temperature potentials are
known accurately with a small degree of error.
No catastrophic effects are expected, but
proven benefits are anticipated. 4) No action,
social or political, on our part will have any
measurable effect on reducing future
climate change. 5) Implementation of political
instruments such as the Kyoto Protocol will
have serious disastrous effects on national
economies and living standards worldwide. 6)
Entrenched scientific thinking is resistant to
modification even in the presence of
overwhelming evidence contrary to the established
paradigm. 7) Government involvement in funding
scientific research promotes intellectual
inertia and stifles effective peer review of
researchers. 8) Media exploitation of
exaggerated claims of doom and gloom provide
false credibility to the paradigm. 9) The
resultant fear and doubt is utilized to
consolidate power, order all human
activity, and limit individual liberty in the
name of a non-existent threat. It is imperative
that the truth about climate change be recognized
and that the pressure to make drastic and
destructive political changes be resisted.
This was not intended purely as a lesson in
science, nor is it simply a documentary of
current events. This is an invitation to become
informed, and a call to action to insist that any
and all public policy be based on sound
principles, and not upon hysteria, hype, and
questionable science. This presentation is far
from comprehensive. It would require hours of
time and hundreds of slides to even begin to do
justice to the overwhelming body of evidence and
documentation available. The key sources of
information are supplied at the conclusion of the
presentation, as well as the sources cited
throughout. Let this be the beginning, not the
end of your search for truth in this complex and
contentious subject. The global warming scare is
but a small element of the pattern of
misinformation being used to direct policy
decisions and manipulate public opinion there is
much, much more. Pressure must be placed on
Congress to base their decisions on accurate
information, and it is up to all of us to see
that such information is made available to them,
and to hold them fully accountable for their
ACADEMY 6060 South 300 West 2 E-mail Murray,
UT 84107
DIAGRAMS Meltdown The New American
CO2 Science
Meltdown The Predictable Distortion of
Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and
the Media by Patrick J. Michaels Cato
Institute. Wash., D.C. 2004
Dr. Michaels is research professor of
environmental sciences at the University of
Virginia, senior fellow in environmental studies
at the Cato Institute, and past president of the
American Association of State Climatologists.
Winner 2003 climate science Paper of the Year,
Assoc. of Am. Geographers
-------------------- An
impressive compendium of climate- related
research and analysis is provided by Sherwood
Idso, Craig Idso, Keith Idso
New World Religion. William F. Jasper. The New
American. September 23, 2002. Pp.11-14. Eco-Agenda
for Planetary Control. Jasper. TNA. September
23, 2002. Pp. 15-21. The Sky Is Falling! Or Is
It?. John F. McManus. TNA. September 8, 2003. Pp.
9-13. Behind the Environmental Lobby. William
Norman Grigg. TNA. April 4, 2005. Pp.
17-22. Science, Politics and Death. A.B. Robinson
and J.M. Orient. TNA. June 14, 2004. Pp.
18-23. The New American. American Opinion
Publishing,Inc. Appleton, WI.
18, 1974. AM RECORDS, INC.
This presentation is the product of The Used
Brain Academy. Opinions expressed do not
necessarily reflect the opinions or intentions of
the authors of the sources cited.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)