EXCLUSIVE – British Peer: Copenhagen Summit Has Established A World Government

“Institutional framework” paves the way for unelected international bureaucracy

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Friday, Dec 18, 2009

Amid all the mainstream media reports of the talks in Copenhagen “limping” to a close and having failed, Lord Christopher Monckton, reporting from the summit, has stated that the only goal of the conference was to implement the framework and the funding for a world government – which he asserts has been achieved.

“That is the one thing that they are definitely going to succeed in doing here and they will announce that as a victory in itself, and they will be right because that is the one and only single aim of this entire global warming conference, to establish the mechanism, the structure, and above all the funding for a world government.” the British politician, business consultant, policy adviser exclusively told the Alex Jones show yesterday.

“They are going to take from the western countries the very large financial resources required to do that.” Monckton said, adding “They will disguise it by saying they are setting up a $100 billion fund for adaptation to climate change in third world countries, but actually, this money will almost all be gobbled up by the international bureaucracy.”

“The first thing they will do, and the one thing I think they were always going to succeed in doing at this conference is to agree to establish what will be delicately called ‘the institutional framework’. Now that is a code word for world government.”

Lord Monckton explained that although the word “government” has been dropped from the treaty, all the interlocking bureaucratic features of a world government are still present in the final draft of the treaty, which also legislates for a global tax on financial transactions that will be paid directly to the World Bank.

“These are the new entities that they are going to bring into being in order to create this world government” he said.

“Ban Ki Moon, the head of the UN is clearly expecting that part of the treaty to go through because he is saying that we are going to have to set up a structure of global governance just to handle the enormous amounts of money which we are going to be getting from the countries of the West, once this agreement goes through at Copenhagen.” Monckton added

Ban Ki-moon made those comments on Wednesday in an interview with the LA Times in which he also said that a formal treaty would be signed by mid-2010.

“They are expecting to get this through,” the British peer stated, “so all the reports you see about how the parties are fatally deadlocked, China has walked out, the African countries have walked out… all of these things are the traditional window dressing to try to disarm those of us who don’t want any of this to succeed because we’d rather like to see our national sovereignty preserved.”

Monckton explained that there is still a great deal of hope in fighting the establishment of an unelected world government:

“What has been going on over the last ten days is they have been trying to see whether they can get a binding treaty, and more or less at the outset they realised they would have to abandon that because it would never pass the U.S. Senate.”

“If they call it a treaty it requires two thirds of the U.S. Senate to vote for it and there are just too many blue dog Democrats, as well as sensible Republicans, who will not vote for the destruction of the U.S. Constitution, the establishment of a world government, for the bankrupting of the United States, the destruction of working people’s jobs right across the industries of the U.S.”

“If they declare that they are going to do this and they do not have the constitutional authority to do this, and that will certainly be the case in the United States, then it is possible to fight it.” Monckton added.

Following president Obama’s announcement that he would attempt to circumvent the legislative process and bypass Congress to implement a cap and trade system on carbon emissions, Lord Monckton noted “If he tries to do that he will be impeached.”

“He had better tread very carefully indeed or he will be out of office and in prison before he knows it. There are constitutional constraints which, thank god, may yet save not only America but the rest of the world from what you rightly describe as a tyranny.”

“World government is coming because the leaders of the West have given up. They no longer care about democracy, they know longer care about the truth about the climate.” Monckton said. “They are willing to go along with this world government because they see roles for themselves in that world government in exactly the same way as the leaders of the EU did.”

“They can get more power as unelected leaders than they can at home.” Monckton added.

The British peer also spoke of the physical attacks on skeptics at Copenhagen by UN security, police and other demonstrators, adding that he himself was attacked and knocked out by a Danish police officer acting under UN authority after not allowing him access to a forum at the summit.

Watch the full interview below:

Copenhagen: Global Population Control Program Suggested To Stop Climate Change

Communist Chinese delegates cite concept as key to saving the planet

Steve Watson,
Infowars.net
Thursday, Dec 10, 2009

The Chinese government delegation at the Copenhagen climate change conference has argued that the Communist dictatorship's one child policy should "serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation."

Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) population program told other delegates at the summit that China "has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society" by instituting population control.

"Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture," said Zhao.

The Chinese delegate also cited the UN's own 2009 State of World Population report, which suggests that if the global population remains at 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of increasing to just over 9 billion, as projected, "it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions".

As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao bragged.

She also suggested that financing family planning is the most cost effective way of reducing climate change in comparison to clean technologies and reduced deforestation.

"Some 85 percent of the Chinese women in reproductive age use contraceptives, the highest rate in the world. This has been achieved largely through education and improvement of people's lives," Zhao said.

Not forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilization then? No no no, just good old fashioned "education" has ensured success for China's one child policy.

Of course, the fact that somewhere in the region of twenty-five million men in China are unable to find brides because so many girls are murdered shortly after birth was somewhat glossed over by the Chinese delegate:

"I'm not saying that what we have done is 100 percent right, but I'm sure we are going in the right direction and now 1.3 billion people have benefited," she said.

The explosion in the illegal sex trade in Asia as a direct result of the shortage of women is also, presumably, another benefit, as is the fact that China now has a vastly imbalanced population in terms of age.

Suggestions that China's population control should be integrated globally are insipid, patently ludicrous and downright insulting you may cry. However, not so according to our leaders, who seemingly adore the prospect.

Forced abortions, mass sterilization and a“Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death were all core concepts put forth by John P. Holdren, the man now in control of science policy in the United States, in his co-authored 1977 book, Ecoscience.

In fact, Holdren's ideas pre-date the inception of China's one child policy by two years.

In the United Kingdom, top government aides have lauded China's method of population control, ignoring the fact that it has been the primary source of the most human rights abuses of any government policy on the planet.

Two days ago, a national newspaper in Canada implored the delegates at Copenhagen to implement a global program of population control in the guise of the Chinese.

It is no surprise that China's population genocide is being tolerated at the UN led Copenhagen summit, given that The United Nations Population Fund directly supports the Communist State's policy.

In 2002 Secretary of State Colin Powell stated in a letter to Congress:

"Regrettably, the People's Republic of China has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births. This regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the penalties and therefore amounts to a ‘program of coercive abortion.’ Regardless of the modest size of UNFPA’s budget in China or any benefits its programs provide, UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.”

Yet The UNPFA seem to think this is a great thing:

"China has had the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind in terms of quantity and with that, China has done mankind a favour," United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) representative Sven Burmester said last week. —10/11/99 Agence France-Presse

Under the Reagan Administration legislation sponsored by then-Rep. Jack Kemp (NY) and then-Sen. Bob Kasten (WI) ensured funding to the UNPFA was cut off for these very reasons. Yet is was no surprise when In 1993, the Clinton Administration dramatically revised the official interpretation of the “Kemp-Kasten amendment” in order to facilitate U.S. funding of UNFPA, thus making available $14.5 million.

In May 2003, the House Committee on International Relations narrowly adopted an an amendment by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) revoking the ban on such participation with the UNPFA. The amendment earmarked $100 million for UNFPA over the next two years.

All this is being disturbingly tied in to the climate change debate by hijackers of the environmental movement who have spuriously associated fears over global warming with over-population, suggesting that the solution is to implement depopulation policies and punishments for those who flout them.

The connection is an appealing one to advocates of the anthropological global warming theory because, if you believe humans are to blame for dangerous alterations in the climate, eventually the conclusion of less humans = less warming is reached.

However, there is a fundamental flaw in associating climate change with overpopulation.

Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth's population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. "The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050," states a United Nations report. The UN's support for depopulation policies is in direct contradiction to their own findings.

Once a country industrializes there is an average of a 1.6 child rate per household, so the western world population is actually in decline. That trend has also been witnessed in areas of Asia like Japan and South Korea. The UN has stated that the population will peak at 9 billion and then begin declining.

In addition, as highlighted by the Economist recently, global fertility rates are falling.

Since radical environmentalists are pushing to de-industrialize the world in the face of the so called carbon threat, this will reverse the trend that naturally lowers the amount of children people have. If climate change fanatics are allowed to implement their policies, global population will continue to increase and overpopulation may become a real problem – another example of how the global warming hysterics are actually harming the long term environment of the earth by preventing overpopulated countries from developing and naturally lowering their birth levels.

Even if you play devils advocate and accept that humans do cause catastrophic warming and there are too many of us, and if you can skip past the Nazi eugenics connotations of population control and depopulation policies, those methods are fundamentally still not a valid solution to the perceived climate change threat.

The real solution would be to pour funds into increasing the standards of living of the cripplingly poor third world, allowing those countries to industrialize, and seeing the population figures naturally level out.

Instead, the third world has seen a doubling in food prices owing to climate change policies such as turning over huge areas of agricultural land to the growth of biofuels.

In addition, the leaked Copenhagen text that emerged earlier this week highlighted the fact that developed nations are planning to take on less of a burden than anticipated and that more would be demanded of poorer countries despite the fact that any further cuts in CO2 emissions will further cripple their flimsy economies and poverty-stricken people.

The draft agreement would allow people in developed countries to emit twice as much carbon per head than those in poorer countries, who have not caused the rise in emissions said to be threatening our existence on the planet. The revelations have led third world leaders to accuse the developed world of “climate colonialism”.

Another revelation from the summit reveals that under a plan tabled by Britain, money earmarked for education or health in poorer countries would be diverted into projects such as solar panels and wind farms, again diverting much needed aid away from efforts to increase the standard of living.

Linking environmental policy to depopulation agendas opens the door to eugenics and it is no surprise that through that door have come pouring hordes of elitist filth just begging to be on the front line of the extermination policy.

One example is UK-based public policy group The Optimum Population Trust (OPT), which has launched a new initiative urging wealthy members of the developed world to participate in carbon offsets that fund programs for curbing the population of developing nations.

In 2007, the group also published a report announcing that children are 'bad for planet and 'having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags.

The same talking point has been re-iterated again and again by public policy groups and environmentalists, as well as the most influential scientists in the US government.

While you may think ideas of sterilization and depopulation could never be accepted by the public, those very concepts are now being embraced and popularized by some as the way forward for humanity.

The reality is that the summit in Copenhagen and it's attendees are providing a platform, and in some cases actively pushing for a policy enforced by a dictatorship that actively hunts down mothers who become pregnant with their second child, abducts them off the street and takes them to government controlled hospitals where they are drugged and their baby is killed - all in the name of saving the planet.

Alex Jones' Films Endgame and Fall Of The Republic address the hijacking of the environmental movement by elite social Darwinists in more detail.

Furious Reaction To Sick Editorial Calling For Global One Child Dictatorship

Francis advocates brutal regime that kidnaps, drugs women, and carries out forced abortions in China

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, December 11, 2009

An article featured in Canada’s Financial Post newspaper calling for China’s draconian one child policy, where woman are kidnapped off the streets, drugged, and forced to undergo compulsory abortions, to be imposed worldwide has been met with widespread hostile reaction, yet such measures are being debated at the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen.

In her editorial published on Tuesday, columnist Diane Francis wrote that, “A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate.”

Just days later, the Chinese government delegation at the Copenhagen climate change conference argued that the Communist dictatorship’s one child policy should “serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation.”

As we have exhaustively documented, the overpopulation myth is often cited by control freak phony environmentalists as a justification for the implementation of drastic policies, yet it has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Due to falling fertility rates globally, humans will soon stop replacing themselves and population numbers will naturally fall.

Populations in developed countries are declining, only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth’s population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. “The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050,” states a United Nations report. The UN’s support for depopulation policies is in direct contradiction to their own findings.

Once a country industrializes, there is an average of a 1.6 child rate per household, so the western world population is actually in decline. That trend has also been witnessed in areas of Asia like Japan and South Korea. The UN has stated that global population will peak at 9 billion and then begin declining.

Since radical environmentalists are pushing to de-industrialize the world in the face of the so called CO2 threat, this will reverse the trend that naturally lowers the amount of children people have. If climate change fanatics are allowed to implement their policies, global population will continue to increase and overpopulation may become a real problem – another example of how the global warming hysterics are actually harming the long term environment of the earth by preventing overpopulated countries from developing and naturally lowering their birth levels.

As is the norm with these so-called “liberals” who espouse modern-day eugenics, what they are advocating are the most illiberal, inhumane and barbarous policies imaginable – a Hitlerian final solution in the name of saving Mother Earth.

We need to call out these people for what they are – would-be mass murderers who are advocating arcane and brutal programs of global eugenics that have no place in the 21st century.

Francis’ poorly written diatribe is not only absent of facts, it is shockingly devoid of any notion of compassion or humanity for what a global implementation of China’s one child policy will entail.

China’s one child policy is enforced by way of forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilization.

Somewhere in the region of twenty-five million men in China are unable to find brides because so many girls are murdered shortly after birth. The explosion in the illegal sex trade in Asia is also a direct result of the shortage of women.

In many cases, women are literally kidnapped off the street by state goons from the “Birth Control Office,” driven to government hospitals, drugged, and their child is forcibly aborted.

In one case earlier this year, both a young woman and her baby were killed after such an abduction in Liaocheng City.

“According to a Doctor at the hospital where the two died, the young woman was kidnapped by the “Birth Control Office” and taken to the hospital where she was forced to undergo an abortion procedure,” reported the Epoch Times.

“The young woman fought with staff to protect her unborn child however a half a dozen men, pushed her down on a bed and injected her with a drug to induce labor. After the young woman had a still birth, she developed a massive hemorrhage and soon thereafter died.”

This is the kind of tyrannical regime Francis is calling to be introduced worldwide.

Policies introduced in the name of cutting CO2 emissions are already killing millions of people in the third world. The implementation of policies arising out of fraudulent fearmongering and biased studies on global warming is already devastating the third world, with a doubling in food prices as a result of the introduction of biofuels causing mass starvation and death.

If Diane Francis is so keen on getting rid of stupid people that breed too much, then maybe she should step forward as the first candidate. As with all these control freaks, people like Ted Turner who calls for a 95% population reduction yet has five children and is the largest land owner in North America with some 2 million acres, they are utter hypocrites – do as I say not as I do. Francis herself has two children, according to her Wikipedia biography – one more than what she says the rest of the world should be allowed to have by decree of the dictatorial system of government she is proposing.

On the positive side, the reaction to Francis’ editorial has been vehement, furious and hostile to the kind of authoritarian hell she is pushing. Comments in response to her article were almost universally in opposition, as were callers to radio shows that she subsequently appeared on.

A selection of responses to Francis’ disgusting diatribe are reprinted below.

“Diane Francis was on a talk radio show the same morning this article was published. NOBODY agreed with her. I mean nobody at all. People can see through this Eugenics bullshit. The walls are closing in on the elite scum of the earth.”

“You make me ashamed of living in Canada. If you’re a first-born, it’s too bad your mother had you and if you’re not, she should have started with you. You are a heartless, dirty woman and shame on you. Ask the Chinese people who fled their country and came to Canada and the U.S. exactly why they’re here. Hang your head in shame.”

“That this Malthusian junk science is still proposed from time to time speaks of the fact that some in academia just refuse to learn from empirical evidence. And now it’s slipped into journalism. The management of the Financial Post should be quite embarrassed. I’ll just stick to the WSJ and not bother coming back here again. An editorial board that thinks that this is worthy of publication couldn’t possibly know how to edit a newspaper / website.”

“I am currently reading “War and Genocide” by Bergen and it strikes me that these horrible Nazi ideas keep coming back.With Nazism it was a “scientific” eugenics that led to forced abortions, sterilizations, heavy fines, etc. for some who dared procreate. For Francis, it is a “scientific” environmentalism that will lead to the exact same evils for all (except, of course, herself).”

“It’s hard to believe that this opinionated rant is called journalism. I saw no evidence of journalistic balance, fairness, and objectivity. She made NO mention of the grave problems caused by the One-Child Policy in China, including: forced sterilizations and abortions, heavy fines, disparate sex ratio, infanticide of females, increase in mental health problems (including Chinese women’s suicide rates)…”

“This reporter is a complete nut job. I can’t believe anyone in a North American country would actually believe this is a legitimate idea. And by the way, China’s policy has had major consequences. many girl babies were aborted and killed, and due to the scarcity of Chinese women, Chinese men are paying through the nose to obtain brides. Therefore, lives are unfulfilled, and the Chinese population decreases much further than they even desired.”

“And so one must wonder, what kind of journalism does this article or “column” represent? Which of her children would Diane Francis give up in order to live up to her death rhetoric? One might also ask, what kind of a self-professed do-gooder wants to have power over others in order to “help” them? Who, after all, are these elites who keep telling us that we need to be better controlled, “for our own good, you see”?”

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak

Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol

• Read the 'Danish text'
• Video: behind the science at Copenhagen

John Vidal in Copenhagen
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 December 2009 14.09 GMT

A Haitian delegation rests before the second-day session begins in Copenhagen. Photograph: Attila Kisbenedek/AFP/Getty Images

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed."

Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."

The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.

Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2C and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15.

Footnote: This article was amended on 9th December 2009. The photograph caption was changed to state that the delegate was resting before the start of the second day talks.

How to Reverse Global Warming: 21st Century Climate Blueprints

Perspectives from the Recent History of the Atmosphere

by Dr. Andrew Glickson

26 July, 2009

The Earth surface temperature reflects the net balance between incoming solar (shortwave) radiation and outgoing terrestrial (long wave) radiation (Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997 [1]). The severe disturbance of the energy balance of the atmosphere ensuing from the emission of over 320 billion tons of carbon since 1750 threatens a shift in the state of the atmosphere/ocean system to ice free greenhouse Earth conditions. Based on the recent Copenhagen Synthesis Report [2], climate change trends at the top range of IPCC 2007 projections [2], and the identification of tipping points in the recent history of the atmosphere/ocean system (i.e. at 14 - 11 and 8.2 thousand years-ago [3]), the scale and pace of 21st Century climate changes [4] require re-consideration of mitigation and adaptation strategies.


1. The combined CO2 and methane level in the atmosphere is fast tracking toward a level of 500 ppm, which defines the approximate onset of the East Antarctic ice sheet [5], the upper climate range which allowed the development of habitats where large mammals flourished from about 40, and in particular 34 million years ago, and hominids appeared from about 7 million years ago [6] (Figure 1). Feedbacks from the carbon cycle, including release of methane from permafrost, polar sediments and bogs, and feedbacks from ice melt/warm water interaction dynamics, accelerate this process. In view of the cumulative nature of CO2 in the atmosphere, at current growth rates of about 2 ppm per-year, rising above the combined CO2 + methane level of 450 ppm [7], the atmosphere/ocean system is fast tracking toward conditions similar to those of an ice-free Earth.

2. The scale of such greenhouse event may, or may not, bear an analogy to the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) event about 55 million years ago [8], including release of large volumes of methane. Recent methane release from Siberian permafrost, lakes and shallow sediments [9].

3. Due to hysteresis (retardation of effect after cause), the effects of temperature rise, superposed ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) cycles (Figure 2), melting of Greenland and the west Antarctic ice sheets [10], sea level rise [11], possible collapse of the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation [12], and potential tipping points (Figure 3), lag behind CO2 rise by as yet little-specified periods. A shift of the climate system through a transitional stage is occurring at present and is associated with extreme weather events [13].

4. With a mean global temperature rise of about 0.8 degrees C since 1750, plus a rise of about 0.5 degrees C masked by sulfur aerosols emitted by industry [14], plus temperature rise due to ice albedo loss and infrared absorption by water [10], in particular the Arctic Sea, global warming is potentially near 1.5 degrees C. At this rate, conditions which existed on Earth about 2.8 million years ago (mid-Pliocene +2 to 3 degrees C; Sea level rise of 25+/-12 meters) [6] could be reached within time frames of a few decades.

5. The unique nature of the "experiment" Homo sapiens is conducting with the atmosphere through the emission of 319 billion tons of carbon by 2007 [15], and the consequent extreme rise in atmospheric CO2 of about 2 ppm/year, two orders of magnitude faster than during the last glacial termination [16], counsels caution.

John Holdren, Obama's science advisor, compared global warming to “being in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."

Should humanity choose to undertake all possible mitigation and adaptation efforts in an attempt at slowing global warming down, or even reversing it, steps need to include:

1. Urgent deep reductions in carbon emissions, on the scale of at least 5 percent of emissions per year, relative to 1990 (Anderson and Bows, 2008 [7]).

2. Global reforestation efforts in semi-arid and drought-effected regions, among other providing employment to millions of people.

3. Construction of long-range water conduits from flood-affected to drought-stricken regions (an even more important task than designing Broadband networks…).

4. Urgent development of atmospheric CO2 draw-down methods, including CO2-sequestering vegetation, soil carbon enrichment, sodium-based CO2 capture (a technology no more complex than space projects technologies and financially not more expensive than military expenditure).

5. Rapid transition to clean energy (solar-thermal, hot-rock, hydrogen, wind, tide, photovoltaic) and transport systems (electric vehicles).

It is possible that, in order to gain time, some governments may opt for geo-engineering efforts, including stratospheric injection of sulfur aerosols (simulating volcanic eruptions) [17], likely over polar regions, meant to temporarily raise the Earth albedo while other measures are undertaken.

The alternative to urgent fast tracked mitigation efforts does not bear contemplation.

Andrew Glikson is an Earth and Paleoclimate scientist at the Australian National University



References

1. Kiehl, J. T. and Trenberth, K. E.: Earth’s annual global mean energy budget, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 78, 197–208, 1997.
2. Copenhagen Synthesis Report. Copenhagen Synthesis Report ( http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport/). Rahmstorf, S.R. et al. 2007. Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections, Science Express, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;316/5825/709)
3. Broecker W.S. 2000. Abrupt climate change: causal constraints provided by the paleoclimate record. Earth Science Reviews 51, 137–154; Alley, R.B., 2000. Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate changes.Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Science 97, 1331–1334; Alley, R.B. et al., 2003. Abrupt Climate Change, Science 299, 2005–2010; Kobashi, T., et al., 2008. 4±1.5 °C abrupt warming 11,270 years ago identified from trapped air in Greenland ice. Earth Planetary Science Letters, 268, 397–407; Steffensen, J.P., et al., 2008. High-resolution Greenland ice core data show abrupt climate change happens in few years. Science Express, 19.6.2008; Ganopolski, A., Rahmstorf, S., 2002. Abrupt glacial climate changes due to stochastic resonance. Physics Review Letters 88, 038501.
4. Lenton, T.M., et al., 2008. Tipping points in the Earth system. PNAS, 105, 1786–1793 _ www.pnas.org_cgi_doi_10.1073_pnas.0705414105; http://researchpages.net/ESMG/people/tim-lenton/tipping-points/. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1786.abstract; Easterling and Wehner, 2009. Is the climate warming or cooling? Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L08706 ( http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037810.shtml); Eby, M., et al., 2009. Lifetime of Anthropogenic Climate Change: Millennial Time Scales of Potential CO2 and Surface Temperature Perturbations, J. Climate, 22, 15 May 2009; Dakos, V., et al., 2008. Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change. PNAS, 105, 14308–14312. ( www.pnas.org_cgi_doi_10.1073_pnas.0802430105. Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change ); Stipp, D., 2004. The Pentagon’s Weather Nightmare: the climate could change radically, and fast. That would be the mother of all national security issues. Http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/02/09/360120/index.htm .
5. Zachos, J.C, et al., 2008. An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics, Nature 451 (7176): 279–83; Royer, D. L., 2006. CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic. Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, 70, 5665–5675; Royer, D.L. et al., 2004. CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate. GSA Today, 14, 4–10; Royer, D.L., et al., 2007. Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years. Nature, 446. doi:10.1038/nature 05699; Beerling, D.J., Berner R.A., 2005. Feedbacks and the coevolution of plants and atmospheric CO2. PNAS, 102, 1302–1305; Berner, R.A. 2004. The Phanerozoic Carbon Cycle: CO2 and O2, Oxford University Press, New York; Berner, R. A., 2006. GEOCARBSULF: A combined model for Phanerozoic atmospheric O2 and CO2. Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, 70, 5653–5664; Berner, R.A., Vandenbrook, J.M.,Ward, P.D. 2007. Oxygen and evolution. Science 316, 557–558.
6. de Menocal, P.B., 2004. African climate change and faunal evolution during the Pliocene-Pleistocene. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 220, 3–24; Dowsett, H.J., et al., 2005. Middle Pliocene sea surface temperature variability. Paleoceanography, 20, PA2014; Haywood, A., Williams, M., 2005. The climate of the future: clues from three million years ago. Geology Today, 21 (4), 138–143.
7. Anderson, K., Bows, A., 2008. Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0138; Global Carbon Project ( http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/). Hansen, J.R. et al., 2006, Global temperature change. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 101, 16109–16114. Hansen, J.R., 2007. Climate change and trace gases. Philosophical Transactions Royalk Society London, 365A, 1925–1954; Hansen, J., et al., 2008. Target CO2: where should humanity aim? http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126.
8. Gingerich, P. D., 2006. Environment and evolution through the Paleocene ­ Eocene thermal maximum. Trends Ecol. Evolution 21, 246–253; Sluijs, A.,et al., 2007 Subtropical Arctic Ocean temperatures during the Palaeocene/ Eocene thermal maximum. Nature, 441, 610–613.
9. Walter, K.M., Smith, L.C., Chapin, F.S., 2005. Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming. Nature, 443, 71–75.
10. Chen, J.L., Wilson, C.R., Blankenship. D.D., Tapley, B.D., 2006. Antarctic mass rates from GRACE. Geophysical Research Letters 33, L11502; Frederick, T.R. E., Krabill, S. Martin, C., 2006. Progressive increase in ice loss from Greenland. Geophysical Research Letters 33, L10503, doi:10.1029/2006GL026075; Hanna, H., Huybrechts, P., Janssens, I., Cappelen, J., Steffen, K., Stephens A., 2005. Runoff and mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet: 1958–2003. Journal Geophysical Research, 110, D13108; NASA 2006. Greenland ice loss doubles in past decade, raising sea level faster, news release, 16 Feb. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/ Nasa News/2006 /2006021621775.html; National Snow and Ice Data Centre [NSIDC], 2008. http://nsidc.org/NSIDC, 2008, http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080325_Wilkins.html; Steffen, K., Huff R., 2002. A record maximum melt extent on the Greenland ice sheet in 2002. Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado at Boulder, CO 80309-0216); Steffen, K., Nghiem, S.V., Huff, R., Neumann, G., 2004. The melt anomaly of 2002 on the Greenland Ice Sheet from active and passive microwave satellite observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 31 (20), L2040210.1029/ 2004GL020444; Steffen, K. and Huff, R., 2002. A record maximum melt extent on the Greenland ice sheet in 2002. Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado at Boulder; Velicogna, I., Wahr, J. 2006. Measurements of Time-Variable Gravity Show Mass Loss in Antarctica, Science, 311.
11. Rahmstorf, S.R., 2006. A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise. Science, 315, 368–370; Church, J.A., White, N., 2006. A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826, 2006. http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/church_white/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf ;
12. Bryden, H.L., et al., 2005. Slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25N. Nature 438, 655–657.
13. Rising natural disasters and insurance costs between 1950 and 2006: Values in $billion. Source: http://www.draeger-stiftung.de/HG/internet/SD/pdf/charts_hoeppe.pdf ; Webster, P.J., Holland, G.J., Curry, J.A., Chang, H.R., 2005. Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment, Science, 309, 1844–1846.
14. IPCC 2007 SPM-2. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/aerosols-chemistry-and-climate/;
15. Raupach et al., 2007. Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO₂ emissions. PNAS June 12, 2007 vol. 104 no. 24 10288-10293. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/10288/suppl/DC1;
16. Glikson, A.Y., 2008. Milestones in the evolution of the atmosphere with reference to climate change. Aust. Journal Australia Earth Science, 55, 125–140
17. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=d97echlg1&show_article=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_air_capture; Lenton, T. M., N. E. Vaughan, N.E., 2009. The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options. http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/2559 /2009/acpd-9-2559-2009.pdf

Excluded from the Copenhagen Agenda: Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) and Climate Change

The manipulation of climate for military use

by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, December 5, 2009

The term "environmental modification techniques" refers to any technique for changing - through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes - the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space. (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Geneva: 18 May 1977)

"Environmental warfare is defined as the intentional modification or manipulation of the natural ecology, such as climate and weather, earth systems such as the ionosphere, magnetosphere, tectonic plate system, and/or the triggering of seismic events (earthquakes) to cause intentional physical, economic, and psycho-social, and physical destruction to an intended target geophysical or population location, as part of strategic or tactical war." (Eco News)

"[Weather modification] offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary... Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies." (US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report)

World leaders are meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009 with a view to reaching an agreement on Global Warming. The debate on Climate Change focuses on the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and measures to reduce manmade CO2 emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.

The underlying consensus is that greenhouse gas emissions constitute the sole cause of climate instability. Neither the governments nor the environmental action groups, have raised the issue of "weather warfare" or "environmental modification techniques (ENMOD)." for military use. Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of climatic manipulations for military use has been excluded from the UN agenda on climate change.

John von Neumann noted at the height of the Cold War (1955), with tremendous foresight that:

"Intervention in atmospheric and climatic matters ....will unfold on a scale difficult to imagine at present... [T]his will merge each nation’s affairs with those of every other, more thoroughly than the threat of a nuclear or any other war would have done." (Quoted in Spencer Weart, Environmental Warfare: Climate Modification Schemes, Global Research, December 5, 20090

In 1977, an international Convention was ratified by the UN General Assembly which banned "military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects." (AP, 18 May 1977). Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention.

Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, ... and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare, (...) Recognizing that military ... use of such [environmental modification techniques] could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare, Desiring to prohibit effectively military ... use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind. ... and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective, (...) Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military ... use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party. (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Geneva, May 18, 1977. Entered into force: 5 October 1978, see full text of Convention in Annex)

The Convention defined "'environmental modification techniques' as referring to any technique for changing--through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes--the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or of outer space." (Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed, States Parties Declare, UN Chronicle, July, 1984, Vol. 21, p. 27)

The substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in very general terms in the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:

"States have... in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the (...) responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction." (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 1992)

Following the 1992 Earth Summit, the issue of Climate Change for military use was never raised in subsequent climate change summits and venues under the auspices of the UNFCCC. The issue was erased, forgotten. It is not part of the debate on climate change.

In February 1998, however, the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the U.S based weather warfare facility developed under the HAARP program.

The Committee's "Motion for Resolution" submitted to the European Parliament:

"Considers HAARP.[The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program based in Alaska].. by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body...; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration... to give evidence to the public hearing ...into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program." (European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999).

The Committee's request to draw up a "Green Paper" on "the environmental impacts of military activities", however, was casually dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacked the required jurisdiction to delve into "the links between environment and defense". Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington. (see European Report, 3 February 1999).

In 2007, The Daily Express reported --following the release and declassification of British government papers from the National Archives-- that:

"The [declassified] documents reveal that both the US, which led the field, and the Soviet Union had secret military programmes with the goal of controlling the world's climate. "By the year 2025 the United States will own the weather, " one scientist is said to have boasted.

...

These claims are dismissed by sceptics as wild conspiracy theories and the stuff of James Bond movies but there is growing evidence that the boundaries between science fiction and fact are becoming increasingly blurred. The Americans now admit that they invested L12million over five years during the Vietnam war on "cloud seeding" - deliberately creating heavy rainfall to wash away enemy crops and destroy supply routes on the Ho Chi Minh trail, in an operation codenamed Project Popeye.

It is claimed that rainfall was increased by a third in targeted areas, making the weather-manipulation weapon a success. At the time, government officials said the region was prone to heavy rain. (Weather War?, Daily Express, July 16, 2007)

The possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military agenda, while formally acknowledged by official government documents and the US military, has never been considered relevant to the Climate debate. Military analysts are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter, and environmentalists are strung on global warming and the Kyoto protocol.

The HAARP Program

The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokona, Alaska, has been in existence since 1992. It is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating "controlled local modifications of the ionosphere" [upper layer of the atmosphere]:

HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of scientific and academic research. US military documents seem to suggest, however, that HAARP's main objective is to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes." (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: "Owning the Weather" for Military Use, Global Research, September 27, 2004

Without explicitly referring to the HAARP program, a US Air Force study points to the use of "induced ionospheric modifications" as a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar. (Ibid)

HAARP also has the ability of triggering blackouts and disrupting the electricity power system of entire regions:

"Rosalie Bertell, president of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, says HAARP operates as ‘a gigantic heater that can cause major disruptions in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet’.

Physicist Dr Bernard Eastlund called it ‘the largest ionospheric heater ever built’. HAARP is presented by the US Air Force as a research programme, but military documents confirm its main objective is to ‘induce ionospheric modifications’ with a view to altering weather patterns and disrupting communications and radar.

According to a report by the Russian State Duma: ‘The US plans to carry out large-scale experiments under the HAARP programme [and] create weapons capable of breaking radio communication lines and equipment installed on spaceships and rockets, provoke serious accidents in electricity networks and in oil and gas pipelines, and have a negative impact on the mental health of entire regions.’

Weather manipulation is the pre-emptive weapon par excellence. It can be directed against enemy countries or ‘friendly nations’ without their knowledge, used to destabilise economies, ecosystems and agriculture. It can also trigger havoc in financial and commodity markets. The disruption in agriculture creates a greater dependency on food aid and imported grain staples from the US and other Western countries." (Michel Chossudovsky, Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare, The Ecologist, December 2007)

An analysis of statements emanating from the US Air Force points to the unthinkable: the covert manipulation of weather patterns, communications systems and electric power as a weapon of global warfare, enabling the US to disrupt and dominate entire regions of the World. According to an official US Air force report

"Weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary... In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels." (US Air Force, emphasis added. Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ emphasis added)

Copenhagen CO15

The manipulation of climate for military use is potentially a greater threat to humanity than CO2 emissions.

Why has it been excluded from the debate under COP15, when the UN 1977 Convention states quite explicitly that "military or any other hostile use of such techniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare"? (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques United Nations, Geneva, 1977)

Why the camouflage?

Why are environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) not being debated by the civil society and environmentalist organizations under the auspices of the Alternative Forum KlimaForum09?

---

Related articles

Spencer Weart, Environmental Warfare: Climate Modification Schemes, Global Research, December 5, 2009

Weather War?, Daily Express, July 16, 2007

Michel Chossudovsky, Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare, The Ecologist, December 2007

Michel Chossudovsky, The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: "Owning the Weather" for Military Use, Global Research, September 27, 2004

---

ANNEX

Adopted by Resolution 31/72 of the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1976. The Convention was opened for signature at Geneva on 18 May 1977.

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

The States Parties to this Convention, Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, and wishing to contribute to the cause of halting the arms race, and of bringing about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare,

Determined to continue negotiations with a view to achieving effective progress towards further measures in the field of disarmament,

Recognizing that scientific and technical advances may open new possibilities with respect to modification of the environment,

Recalling the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972,

Realizing that the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes could improve the interrelationship of man and nature and contribute to the preservation and improvement of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations,

Recognizing, however, that military or any other hostile use of such techniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare,

Desiring to prohibit effectively military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind from such use, and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective,

Desiring also to contribute to the strengthening of trust among nations and to the further improvement of the international situation in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Have agreed as follows:

Article I 1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.

2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organization to engage in activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article.

Article II As used in article 1, the term "environmental modification techniques" refers to any technique for changing - through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes - the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.

Article III 1. The provisions of this Convention shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes and shall be without prejudice to the generally recognized principles and applicable rules of international law concerning such use.

2. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information on the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes. States Parties in a position to do so shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international organizations, to international economic and scientific co-operation in the preservation, improvement and peaceful utilization of the environment, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Article IV Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to take any measures it considers necessary in accordance with its constitutional processes to prohibit and prevent any activity in violation of the provisions of the Convention anywhere under its jurisdiction or control.

Article V 1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to consult one another and to co-operate in solving any problems which may arise in relation to the objectives of, or in the application of the provisions of, the Convention. Consultation and co-operation pursuant to this article may also be undertaken through appropriate international procedures within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. These international procedures may include the services of appropriate international organizations, as well as of a Consultative Committee of Experts as provided for in paragraph 2 of this article.

2. For the purposes set forth in paragraph 1 of this article, the Depositary shall within one month of the receipt of a request from any State Party to this Convention, convene a Consultative Committee of Experts. Any State Party may appoint an expert to the Committee whose functions and rules of procedure are set out in the annex which constitutes an integral part of this Convention. The Committee shall transmit to the Depositary a summary of its findings of fact, incorporating all views and information presented to the Committee during its proceedings. The Depositary shall distribute the summary to all States Parties.

3. Any State Party to this Convention which has reason to believe that any other State Party is acting in breach of obligations deriving from the provisions of the Convention may lodge a complaint with the Security Council of the United Nations. Such a complaint should include all relevant information as well as all possible evidence supporting ItS validity.

4. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to cooperate in carrying out any investigation which the Security Council may initiate, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, on the basis of the complaint received by the Council. The Security Council shall inform the States Parties of the results of the investigation.

5. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to provide or support assistance, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to any State Party which so requests, if the Security Council decides that such Party has been harmed or is likely to be harmed as a result of violation of the Convention.

Article VI 1. Any State Party to this Convention may propose amendments to the Convention. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Depositary, who shall promptly circulate it to all States Parties.

2. An amendment shall enter into force for all States Parties to this Convention which have accepted it, upon the deposit with the Depositary of instruments of acceptance by a majority of States Parties. Thereafter it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of acceptance.

Article VII This Convention shall be of unlimited duration.

Article VIII 1. Five years after the entry into force of this Convention, a conference of the States Parties to the Convention shall be convened by the Depositary at Geneva, Switzerland. The conference shall review the operation of the Convention with a view to ensuring that its purposes and provisions are being realized, and shall in particular examine the effectiveness of the provisions of paragraph 1 of article I in eliminating the dangers of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.

2. At intervals of not less than five years thereafter, a majority of the States Parties to this Convention may obtain, by submitting a proposal to this effect to the Depositary, the convening of a conference with the same objectives.

3. If no conference has been convened pursuant to paragraph 2 of this article within ten years following the conclusion of a previous conference, the Depositary shall solicit the views of all States Parties to this Convention concerning the convening of such a conference. If one third or ten of the States Parties, whichever number is less, respond affirmatively, the Depositary shall take immediate steps to convene the conference.

Article IX 1. This Convention shall be open to all States for signature. Any State which does not sign the Convention before its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article may accede to it at any time.

2. This Convention shall be subject to ratification by signatory States. Instruments of ratification or accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

3. This Convention shall enter into force upon the deposit of instruments of ratification by twenty Governments in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article.

4. For those States whose instruments of ratification or accession are deposited after the entry into force of this Convention, it shall enter into force on the date of the deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession.

5. The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Convention and of any amendments thereto, as well as of the receipt of other notices.

6. This Convention shall be registered by the Depositary in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article X This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send duly certified copies thereof to the Governments of the signatory and acceding States.

In witness whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto, have signed this Convention

Done at Geneva, on the 18 day of May 1977.

Annex to the Convention

Consultative Committee of Experts 1. The Consultative Committee of Experts shall undertake to make appropriate findings of fact and provide expert views relevant to any problem raised pursuant to paragraph 1 of article V of this Convention by the State Party requesting the convening of the Committee.

2. The work of the Consultative Committee of Experts shall be organized in such a way as to permit it to perform the functions set forth in paragraph 1 of this annex. The Committee shall decide procedural questions relative to the organization of its work, where possible by consensus, but otherwise by a majority of those present and voting. There shall be no voting on matters of substance.

3. The Depositary or his representative shall serve as the Chairman of the Committee.

4. Each expert may be assisted at meetings by one or more advisers.

5. Each expert shall have the right, through the Chairman, to request from States, and from international organizations, such information and assistance as the expert considers desirable for the accomplishment of the Committee's work.

China says population control key to Copenhagen deal

Li Xing
China Daily
December 10, 2009

Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .

“Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture,” said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation.

Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.

“Calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 percent of emissions growth,” so stated by the 2009 State of World Population, released earlier by the UN Population Fund.

Read entire article

Scientists worry about climate change enforcement

Brian Winter
USA Today
December 11, 2009

COPENHAGEN — Ray Weiss looks at the chanting protesters, harried delegates and the 20,000 other people gathered here for a global warming summit and wonders: What’s the fuss all about?

Weiss, a geochemist who studies atmospheric pollution at San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography, says the numbers at the core of the debate in Copenhagen are flawed.

Specifically, he says the cuts that countries including the USA are proposing in greenhouse gas emissions are difficult to measure and highly susceptible to manipulation by government officials and companies.

Read entire article

Ecoscience Co-Author Paul Ehrlich Maintains Global Population Control Advocacy in Recent Interview

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
December 13, 2009

In response to questions raised by University World News, biologist and co-author of Ecoscience, Paul R. Ehrlich is still calling for “interventions to decrease birth rates”.

As current Bing professor of Population Studies and President of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University, Ehrlich is living proof that old habits die hard- and eugenic habits die even harder.

	Paul R. Ehrlich, co-author of Ecoscience, advocates the creation of a “global system” to create a “behavioral change”.

After his famous book The Population Bomb was published in 1968, he has fallen somewhat in credibility for the world kept on turning and mankind is apparently still around, despite of the doom predicted. In 1969 Ehrlich predicted that ““smog disasters” in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles” and “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people”.

Nevertheless, despite Ehrlich’s prediction of the total collapse of human society if the population would continue to rise, after 40 years the man still maintains his point, this time pointing to “climate change” as the consequence of human activity. In the interview of December 13th, Ehrlich states:

“The population explosion will come to an end. The only question is whether it will do so by humanity balancing its interventions to decrease death rates with interventions to decrease birth rates, or whether the death rate will soar.”

Malthus nor Mao Zedong could have said it better themselves. Speaking of China- and specifically, China’s coercive one-child policies- Ehrlich maintains:

“India and China are both vastly overpopulated by the simple standard that they are living on (and exhausting) their natural capital – agricultural soils, ground water, and the biodiversity that runs our life-support systems. Until and unless we can humanely begin to shrink the global population, following the lead of over-consuming and over-populated European nations, the future seems grim.”

“Humanely shrink the global population”, says Ehrlich. He is wise enough to edit the word “humanely” in if he is to avoid the same indignation that befell his friend John Holdren, who co-authored Ecoscience with him in 1977. There is of course no humane way of shrinking the global population. Only a planetary authority, enforcing such a shrinkage, could get the job done. And it is exactly such a planetary regime Mr. Ehrlich called for, together with current chief science advisor to President Obama.

In the following fragment, Paul Ehrlich advocates the creation of a “global system” to create a “behavioral change”. Ehrich: “We don’t have any international effort to say, you know, how are we behaving. We have global problems, why don’t we have a global system to fix it.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulkt4j-qooQ

Under threat of some worldwide virus taking hold to finish off a large part of the world population, Ehrlich advocates global interventions to decrease birthrates. One could argue that Ehrlich advocates only voluntary actions to make sure the birthrates do not increase, were it not that he himself implies such voluntary actions are not sufficient:

“Most unfortunately”, Ehrlich asserts, “over the past few decades the principal population issues considered by activists and foundations have been of reproductive health and rights. Those, of course, are very important but they will be totally moot if overpopulation, helping to drive climate disruption, land-use change, ocean overharvesting, toxification of the entire planet, the increased probability of novel epidemics, and greater threats of resource wars – especially a nuclear one – has not abated.”

Well, it seems Mr. Ehrlich will have his way with humanity if the Copenhagen Treaty will have success. There is your global system, with a globally enforceable mandate- at first to impose carbon taxes upon humanity- later on to do what the eugenicists have always called and planned for: the orderly extermination of at least 80 percent of the global population.

Notorious Double Agent Gadahn Apologizes for al-Qaeda Murders

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
December 12, 2009

In order to keep the CIA created terror group al-Qaeda in the news as Obama prepares to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan, the corporate media is reporting today on Adam Gadahn’s profuse apology.

The latest al-Qaeda video produced in the CIA’s studios.

“Adam Gadahn, also known as Azzam the American, appeared in a 17-minute video released on Islamist online forums late Friday, offering condolences to the families of innocent people killed in al Qaeda attacks,” reports CNN.

“We express our condolences to the families of the Muslim men, women and children killed in these criminal acts and we ask Allah to have mercy on those killed and accept them as shohadaa (martyrs),” he says in the video.

“We also express the same in regard to the unintended Muslim victims of the mujahedeen’s operations against the crusaders and their allies and puppets, and to the countless faceless and nameless Muslim victims of the murderous crusades” in Afghanistan, Pakistan’s Waziristan regions and Swat Valley, and elsewhere, he said.

It is a rare example of al Qaeda offering condolences to the families of those killed in the group’s own attacks.

It is also a transparent effort to link the escalation in Afghanistan to a phony terrorist organization named after a mujahideen database and exploited for years now to convince millions of war-weary Americans that a cartoonish gaggle of patsies, mental deficients, and CIA operatives are a threat to U.S. national security.

Adam Gadahn, known by spook sponsored jihadis worldwide as “Azzam the American,” lived in Garden Grove, California, until he followed the call to make badly produced al-Qaeda (As-Sahab) videos. Gadahn’s grandfather was Dr. Carl K. Pearlman, a prominent Jewish urologist in Orange County who sat on the the board of directors of the Anti-Defamation League. Gadahn’s aliases are Abu Suhayb Al-Amriki, Abu Suhayb, Yihya Majadin Adams, Adam Pearlman, and Yayah.

It was said he was killed last year when a U.S. military drone bombed a house where he was supposedly staying in a village called Khushali Torikhel, 12 kilometers south of Mir Ali town, in North Waziristan. It was later reported he escaped unscathed.

The house in Khushali Torikhel was owned by one Madad Khan who worked for the CIA. It appears the bombing was a set-up to kill Abu Laith al-Libi, a Libyan national and said to be an important al-Qaeda leader. If so, Khan paid dearly for his treachery — two of his wives and three of their children were killed in the attack.

Gadahn, the former death metal rocker from California, joins a long line of CIA patsies and tools:

- Vinnell bombing leader Khaled Jehani (worked for the CIA in Bosnia, Chechnya, and Afghanistan)

- USS Cole bomber Jamal al-Badawi (worked for the CIA in Bosnia)

- the mental case Zacarias Moussaoui (fought for the CIA in Chechnya)

- the notorious media darling Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (worked for the CIA in Bosnia) who in addition to supposedly materminding dozens of terror attacks is also accused of working with Ramzi Yousef on the Operation Bojinka terror plot (Yousef was recruited by the CIA and associated with the intelligence asset the Muslim Brotherhood).

- former head of Egyptian Islamic Jihad (an asset of the US-British intelligence penetrated Muslim Brotherhood) Ayman al-Zawahiri, sidekick of the late Osama bin Laden, a former CIA operative in Bosnia who received gobs of money from the CIA (he also had a free pass to come and go from the United States while on official CIA business)

- Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, the “spiritual leader of the CIA-backed mujaheddin” (according to the Boston Globe) who was considered by the CIA and Special Forces officers to be “valuable asset” (until he was set-up and convicted for the World Trade Center bombings in 1993) and also flew around on the CIA’s dime

- the key player and former Grand Poobah of the CIA mujahideen operation in Afghanistan, Abdullah Azzam, the founder of Maktab al-Khidamat (the organization received hundreds of millions in U.S. dollars via the CIA) who was blown to bits prior to Osama’s ascension to the al-Qaeda throne. Azzam was also a frequent flier to the United States, land of the Great Satan.

1991 UN Policy Paper Describes Exact Purpose and Trajectory of Current Copenhagen Treaty

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
December 10, 2009

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster”

Richard Sandbrook, Closing the Circle: Democratization and Development in Africa, Zed Books limited, London, 2000.

	Ignacy Sachs.

A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by self-described ‘ecosocioeconomist’ professor Ignacy Sachs outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship. As the professor states in the paper:

“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span.”

In his paper “ The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global”, Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensure “population stabilization”:

“In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.”

In the first part of the (in retrospect) bizarrely accurate description of the years to come, Sachs points out redistribution of wealth is the only viable path towards population stabilization and- as he calls it- a “virtuous green world”. The professor:

“The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development.”

“(…) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today.”

“The bolder the steps taken in the near future”, Sachs asserts, “the shorter will be the time span that separates us from a steady state. Radical solutions must address to the roots of the problem and not to its symptoms. Theoretically, the transition could be made shorter by measures of redistribution of assets and income.”

Sachs points to the political difficulties of such proposals being implemented (because free humanity tends to distrust any national government let alone transnational government to redistribute its well-earned wealth). He therefore proposes these measures to be implemented gradually, following a meticulously planned strategy:

“The pragmatic prospect is one of transition extending itself over several decades.”

In the second sub-chapter “The Five Dimensions of Ecodevelopment”, professor Sachs sums up the main dimensions of this carefully outlined move to make Agenda 21 a very real future prospect. The first dimension he touches upon is “Social Sustainability”:

“The aim is to build a civilization of being within greater equity in asset and income distribution, so as to improve substantially the entitlements of the broad masses of population and of reduce the gap in standards of living between the have and the have nots.”

This of course means, reducing the standards of living in “The North” (U.S., Europe) and upgrading those of the developing nations (“The South and The East”). This would have to be realized through what Sachs calls “Economic Sustainability”: “made possible by a more efficient allocation and management of resources and a steady flow of public and private investment.”

The third dimension described by the professor is “Ecological Sustainability” which, among other things, limits “the consumption of fossile fuels and other easily depletable or environmentally harmful products, substituting them by renewable and/or plentiful and environmentally friendly resources, reducing the volume of pollutants by means of energy and resource conservation and recycling and, last but not least, promoting self-constraint in material consumption on part of the rich countries and of the privileged social strata all over the world;”

In order to make this happen Sachs stresses the need of “defining the rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policies.”

Dimension 4: “Spatial Sustainability”:

“directed at achieving a more balanced rural-urban configuration and a better territorial distribution of human settlements and economic activities (…)”.

The fifth and last dimension described in the UN policy paper is “Cultural Sustainability”: “looking for the endogenous roots of the modernization processes, seeking change within cultural continuity, translating the normative concept of ecodevelopment into a plurality of local, ecosystem-specific, culture-specific and site-specific solutions.”

But to realize such a dramatic new direction for the world, Sachs once again stresses the importance of incremental implementation. A matter of boiling the frog slowly as opposed to throwing the poor animal into a boiling-hot cooking pan:

“Even if we know where we want to get, the operational question is how do we proceed to put humankind on the virtuous path of genuine development, socially responsible and in harmony with nature. It is submitted that UNCED 92 should give considerable attention to the formulation of transition strategies that could become the central piece of the Agenda 21.”

This is the word- Agenda 21: the UN strategy for redistributing the wealth accumulated by the “North” in order to create a completely “balanced” world society- under auspices of the United Nations of course and the private central banks controlling it. This can only come about by destroying the middle-class. A sudden redistribution and industrialization would not do- for the middle-class would undoubtedly rise in defiance against it. Therefore, Sachs argues for an incremental and carefully planned dissolution of the middle-class phase by phase:

“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span. The retooling of industries, even in periods of rapid growth, requires ten to twenty years. The restructuration and the expansion of the infrastructures requires several decades and this is a crucially important sector from the point of view of environment.”

Then Sachs plunges into his most shocking statement:

“However, the single most important reason to consider the transition strategies over a minimum of thirty-five to forty years stems from the non-linearity of these strategies; they should be devised as a succession of changing priorities over time. A good illustration is provided by the population transition. In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.”

Sachs argues that “an accelerated programme of social and economic development of the rural areas should be the outmost priority in the first phase of a realistic population stabilization scheme.”

Who or what is to coordinate all this, according to Sachs, and how exactly is the UN to take control?

“The solutions”, says Sachs, “can vary in terms of their boldness and take the form of global, multilateral or bilateral arrangements.” These arrangements should as far as Sachs is concerned ensure “at least partially the automacity of financial transfers by some form of fiscal mechanisms, be it a small income tax or an array of indirect taxes on goods and services whose production and consumption has significant environmental impacts.”

Over time, gradually, these taxes should increase:

“Starting the operation with a one per ten thousand tax and increasing it so as to reach one per thousand in ten to twenty years seems a fairly realistic proposal, the more so that the scheme creates an interesting market for the private enterprises involved in R and D.”

Reading all this, the question as to what entity should take charge is not difficult to answer. Sachs:

“In order to generate maximum synergies between the national strategies and global action, the United Nations should create a forum for the periodical discussion and evaluation of these strategies and a research, monitoring and flexible planning facility to put them in a global perspective.(…). The forum should have a fair representation of all the main actors involved: governments, parliaments, citizen movements and the business world. Given its importance, it should be lifted from specialized agencies to a central place in the UN system.”

The “fair representation” Sachs is talking about is of course only a pretext to get everybody on board. As the recently surfaced “Danish Text” clearly illustrates, the IMF and World Bank will always have final say in the construction of any international system.

Third World Under Attack From Genocidal Climate Change Policy

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, December 10, 2009

The implementation of policies arising out of fraudulent fearmongering and biased studies on global warming is already devastating the third world, with a doubling in food prices causing mass starvation and death – a primary reason why the climategate crooks and their allies should be criminally investigated and hit with the strongest charges possible.

As Lord Monckton outlined in his recent Alex Jones Show appearance, climate change alarmism and implementation of global warming policies is a crime of the highest nature, because it is already having a genocidal impact in countries like Haiti, where the doubling of food prices is resulting in a substantial increase in starvation, poverty and death.

Poor people around the world, “Are being killed in large numbers by starvation as a result of (climate change) policy,” said Monckton, due to huge areas of agricultural land being turned over to the growth of biofuels.

“Take Haiti where they live on mud pie with real mud costing 3 cents each….that’s what they’re living or rather what they’re dying on,” said Monckton, relating how when he gave a speech on this subject, a lady in the front row burst into tears and told him, “I’ve just come back from Haiti – now because of the doubling in world food prices, they can’t even afford the price of a mud pie and they’re dying of starvation all over the place.”

As a National Geographic Report confirmed, “With food prices rising, Haiti’s poorest can’t afford even a daily plate of rice, and some must take desperate measures to fill their bellies,” by “eating mud,” partly as a consequence of “increasing global demand for biofuels.”

In April last year, World Bank President Robert Zoellick admitted that biofuels were a “significant contributor” to soaring food prices that have led to riots in countries such as Haiti, Egypt, the Philippines, and even Italy.

“We estimate that a doubling of food prices over the last three years could potentially push 100 million people in low-income countries deeper into poverty,” he stated.

“That’s how serious this is, these people, by their scientific fraud and financial fraud, they’re profiting enormously….while people die of starvation in a dozen regions of the world….it is a scandal of the worst proportion – our own fellow creatures are being killed by starvation because these people have lied and made up the science and hidden it so nobody else could check,” said Monckton.

If the measures currently being debated at the Copenhagen summit in the name of fighting global warming are passed, we can only expect a further assault on the already horrifying plight of the population of the third world.

In the leaked Copenhagen text that emerged earlier this week, leaders of third world countries were horrified to discover that developed nations would take on less of a burden than anticipated and that more would be demanded of poorer countries despite the fact that any further cuts in CO2 emissions would further cripple their flimsy economies and poverty-stricken people.

In addition, the leaked paper revealed that funds from climate financing, originally allocated to go to the UN and then be doled out piecemeal to third world nations, would instead be paid directly into the coffers of the World Bank and IMF, organizations that have made a habit out of looting poorer countries with crippling loans that cannot be paid back, forcing such countries to hand over their entire infrastructure to globalist loan sharks.

The fact that policies arising out of the contrived science of global warming are already killing people in vast numbers in the third world further illustrates the fact that the entire climate change movement is a Malthusian offshoot of the profusely stated goal on behalf of the global elite to eliminate a huge chunk of the global population via modern-day eugenics.

This agenda was vehemently argued for by President Obama’s top science advisor and one of the pre-eminent climate change ringleaders, John P. Holdren, in his 1977 book Ecoscience, in which he called for installing a “planetary regime” to enforce draconian population control measures such as forced abortion and mandatory sterilization through the water supply.

Watch the segment from the interview below where Monckton discusses how the climate crooks are deliberately devastating the third world with their lies about global warming.

Holdren Can’t Get Climate Change Doomsday Story Right

Pete Winn and Christopher Neefus
CNSNews
December 10, 2009

Which is it–6 feet or 3.5 feet?

Last week, White House science czar John Holdren told members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of 6 feet or more in a century.

But Joan Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told the same committee on the same day that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of up to 3.5 feet in this century.

Holdren and Lubchenco were the only two witnesses called to testify at the Global Warming committee’s Dec. 2 hearing, which was titled “The State of Climate Science.”

Read entire article

Science According to Al Gore: Earth Interior “Millions of Degrees”

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
December 10, 2009

Not only did Al Gore invent the internet, he has also redefined earth science. The puffed up phrophet of the phony climate change movement went on the Conan O’Brien Show in mid-November and told the world the temperature of the interior of the earth is “millions of degrees.” O’Brien didn’t flinch.

In fact, the Inner Mantle of the earth is 5400 ºF (3000ºC) and the Outer Mantle is 2520 ºF (1400ºC) and 5400 º F (3000ºC). The Core of the earth is between 9032 – 10832 ºF (5000-6000 ºC).

This is an estimation. Nobody knows the exact temperature of the earth’s interior. The estimate of the temperature is derived from theoretical modeling and laboratory experiments, but no scientist believes the temperature is anywhere near a million degrees.

The above video demonstrates that Al Gore is a carnival huckster for the globalist movement peddling junk science and has no idea what he is talking about.

Science According to Al Gore: Earth Interior “Millions of Degrees”

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
December 10, 2009

Not only did Al Gore invent the internet, he has also redefined earth science. The puffed up phrophet of the phony climate change movement went on the Conan O’Brien Show in mid-November and told the world the temperature of the interior of the earth is “millions of degrees.” O’Brien didn’t flinch.

In fact, the Inner Mantle of the earth is 5400 ºF (3000ºC) and the Outer Mantle is 2520 ºF (1400ºC) and 5400 º F (3000ºC). The Core of the earth is between 9032 – 10832 ºF (5000-6000 ºC).

This is an estimation. Nobody knows the exact temperature of the earth’s interior. The estimate of the temperature is derived from theoretical modeling and laboratory experiments, but no scientist believes the temperature is anywhere near a million degrees.

The above video demonstrates that Al Gore is a carnival huckster for the globalist movement peddling junk science and has no idea what he is talking about.

Copenhagen Report: IPCC’s Damage Control and Hitler Youth

The Moral Liberal
December 9, 2009

IPCC’S DAMAGE CONTROL

As the evidence continues to mount against top Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located at England’s University of East Anglia from emails a hacker obtained proving man-made global warming is a fabricated concept, the IPCC issued a statement to contain the damage. The statement is a definite indication the IPCC is feeling the pressure from the world community over the scandal.

The statement’s first paragraph calls the emails “stolen” and “condemns the illegal act which led to private emails being posted on the internet” and the IPCC “stands by the findings” of the researchers “whose professional standards and careful scientific work . . . provided the basis for these conclusions.” The standards mentioned are obviously not the same standards used by most of the scientific community. Also, if the information revealed in these emails supported their data, they would be applauding the disclosure.

The statement also claims their assessment process considers all relevant scientific information from journals with “robust peer review processes, or from other sources which have undergone robust and independent peer review.” Additionally, “Every layer in the process plays a role in keeping IPCC assessments comprehensive, unbiased, open to the identification of new relevant literature.” Not so. The emails obtained proved there was a deliberate attempt to exclude or discredit any peers or peer reviews that disagreed with the IPCC findings. The statement simply perpetuates more false claims and lies. To admit otherwise would be to admit there is no evidence for man-made global warming. It was signed by Prof. Thomas Stocker and Prof. Qin Dahe both co-chairs of the Working Group I which contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

HITLER YOUTH

Every arm of the United Nations is designed to bring the world into a one world government through treaties. The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) is working steadfastly and stealthily under the auspices of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) to this end creating a worldwide youth movement reminiscent of the Hitler youth. The UNCROC has been ratified by more countries than any other treaty. It makes the child the equal of the parents thus taking away all parental rights. Parental rights are passed to the United Nations. If governments are not moving fast enough, raise up a generation indoctrinated in the UN theology and the ball will not only move to the finish line, it will be carried over the finish line.

The ball is now the new climate change treaty known as the Copenhagen Protocol meant to replace the Kyoto Protocol due to expire in 2012. UNICEF got the ball rolling a week before the actual Conference of the Parties (COP 15) begins by holding the Children’s Climate Forum. From November 30-December 5th, 164 young Climate Ambassadors — children ages 14-17 from 44 countries — were brought to Copenhagen to discuss or in actuality, be told, what their rights are related to climate change and how they must commit to change. They were told if they are forced to live in an environmentally compromised planet, they won’t be able to enjoy their lives fully, since threats to their health and wellbeing will increase.

At the end of the week, the Climate Ambassadors had prepared a “Children’s Forum Declaration” which was presented in a special Friday night ceremony to the President of COP 15, Ms. Connie Hedegaard. The Declaration states “We commit to personal lifestyle changes that place the common good above our individual desires and current way of life;” “We commit to engage and actively cooperate with . . . governments in combating climate change;” and finally, “We are prepared to give all we have as long as there is the possibility of saving our planet.” The last sentence, directed at the government leaders of the conference states, “We expect the same courage from you.”

I attended the special ceremony Friday night, December 4, 2009. The celebration was held in Copenhagen’s majestic City Hall and the large hall was filled with young people, some looking as young 10 yrs. old. Posters were exhibited all around the room expressing the supposed problems climate change has caused in each country represented.

I spoke with a 16-year-old young man from Florida in the U.S. named Pulkit Agrawal. Pulkit explained to me he was worried South Florida would soon be under water if the glaciers continue to melt. He was one of four young people chosen out of 75 from the U.S. to be a Climate Ambassador. He first attended a Junior 8 Summit held in conjunction with the G8 Summit last July in Italy. At the J8 Summit young people discussed their rights as related to the global financial crisis, again ending with a Declaration to be presented to the leaders of the G8 Summit. Pulkit along with the others from the U.S. met with Obama in Italy.

In order to be considered for the Climate Forum, Pulkit submitted four essays explaining what he was doing to combat climate change. He attends the North Miami Senior High School in Florida where he has started a UNICEF club. It is easy to understand why these young people have an automatic allegiance to an organization that flies them all over the world not only to meet with world leaders but to demand their rights from these leaders. Talk about building an unrealistic image of one’s own importance.

The celebration ended with a Danish rock group singing “It’s My World” written by a Danish composer especially for the forum. Some of the verses of the song are:

Everyday when I get home, I can see what I did wrong

And the back of my mind says, that I should know better

And I would give it all up, if I could turn back the clock

Would’ve treated you better, now I see it clearer.

I do believe there’s a time to change

And I’m not caught up in yesterday

Chorus

‘Cause the world will keep on turning

And the light will keep on burning

For the fact that I’ll be learning

Every minute of the journey

But if we don’t stop pretendin’

There will be consequences

For the rivers that are flowing

When the fire’s on the fire’s on

It’s my world, it’s my world, it’s my world

(repeated two more times)

Somebody made it all up, the beauty of a raindrop

Just like a work of art, mountains and rivers

I wanna see where it ends up, if I give it all my love

Every thought I give her will come back forever

I know that we’ve got a right to change

And there’s no reason to place the blame

Chorus

I’ve got a choice to make, before it fades away

It’s now or never, can’t be like “hey, whatever”

Whatever motivates, I’ve gotta make a change

Make a change, make a change

We’re in this together.

The backdrop on the stage was a large tree made of construction paper. The Climate Ambassadors were asked to make a one-year commitment to take action against climate change. Each ambassador wrote their commitment on a paper leaf which was then pasted on the tree.

UNICEF is an evil organization intent on controlling the hearts and minds of our children.

WHO ‘Mr Flu’ under investigation for gross conflict of interest

F. William Engdahl
Financial Sense
December 8, 2009

The man with the nickname “Dr Flu”, Professor Albert Osterhaus, of the Erasmus University in Rotterdam Holland has been named by Dutch media researchers as the person at the center of the worldwide Swine Flu H1N1 Influenza A 2009 pandemic hysteria. Not only is Osterhaus the connecting person in an international network that has been described as the Pharma Mafia, he is THE key advisor to WHO on influenza and is intimately positioned to personally profit from the billions of euros in vaccines allegedly aimed at H1N1.

Earlier this year the Second Chamber of the Netherland Parliament undertook an investigation into alleged conflicts of interest and financial improprieties of the well-known Dr. Osterhaus. Outside Holland and a mention at the time in the Dutch media, the only note of the sensational investigation into Osterhaus’ business affairs came in a tiny note in the respected British magazine, Science.

Osterhaus’s credentials and expertise in his field were not in question. What is according to a short report published by the journal Science, are his links to corporate interests that stand to potentially profit from the swine flu pandemic. Science carried the following brief note in its October 16 2009 issue about Osterhaus:

“For the past 6 months, one could barely switch on the television in the Netherlands without seeing the face of famed virus hunter Albert Osterhaus talking about the swine flu pandemic. Or so it has seemed. Osterhaus, who runs an internationally renowned virus lab at Erasmus Medical Center, has been Mr. Flu. But last week, his reputation took a nosedive after it was alleged that he has been stoking pandemic fears to promote his own business interests in vaccine development. As Science went to press, the Dutch House of Representatives had even slated an emergency debate about the matter.”1

On November 3, 2009 it appeared that Osterhaus emerged with at least the damage somewhat under control. An updated Science blog noted, “The House of Representatives of the Netherlands today rejected a motion asking the government to sever all ties with virologist Albert Osterhaus of Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, who had been accused of conflicts of interest in his role as a government adviser. But Dutch health minister Ab Klink, meanwhile, announced a “Sunshine Act” compelling scientists to disclose their financial ties to companies.” 2

Read entire article

The Climate Change Propaganda Machine

Paul Murdock, Psy.D
Infowars
December 9, 2009

	The ability to set the public agenda and determine social perceptions is a powerful tool in social psychology.

In the last several weeks we have learned several new facts about climate change research. First, climate scientists’ motives are biased. Second, scientists actively discussed how to achieve political ends through their research. Third, and more disturbingly, the public has learned of discarded data, attempts to keep opposing views silent, and total political adherence to an ideology. Yet, without thinking twice, the main stream media and President Obama have shrugged off the controversy and continued boldly with their partisan agenda. It is clear the science behind climate change is biased and disputed, leaving the propaganda machine as the only fact that remains.

Research by the conservative Media Research Group has stated that since the Climategate scandal broke out, ABC, CBS, and NBC have not mentioned the story in any of their news casts including their morning shows. Even when the outlets discussed Obama’s upcoming trip to Copenhagen, the controversy was never mentioned. There has been no mention of recently published research questioning climate change or that thousands of scholars disagree. Recently, the Wall Street Journal has raised questions of silencing dissenting opinions at the EPA, and there are now questions about NASA’s data. Even with a wide variety of dispute, the networks continue to use the language of propaganda including “undisputed, unequivocal, settled, and consensus.”

Despite the media’s refusal to discuss dissenting opinions, the media continues to universally promote climate change policies. Just as the climate conference begins, the EPA announced that greenhouse gases are toxic, the UN stated this decade may turn out to be the hottest on record, and 56 newspapers around the world ran a common front page editorial supporting drastic climate change action. Here is an excerpt from the editorial:

Social justice demands that the industrialized world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions…. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The authors also continue on to invoke the words of Lincoln to inspire us to change and then finish by calling those who do not, “stupid.” Again, it is clear only calculated propaganda remains!

Most people believe propaganda is just “lies” or “tall stories” that influence the weak and feeble minded. However, modern propaganda is a sophisticated and calculating machine that invades every aspect of our lives. The formidable author Jacques Ellul in his expansive work on the subject describes this process as designed to create proselytes and militants rather than wise or reasonable men. In support of Ellul, a judge in Britain recently ruled that Tim Nicholson’s climate views “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations.” Now environment organizations and fanatics such as Greenpeace can literally join the religiously deluded.

Despite the role of the media, our most pernicious enemy is found in the classroom. The first goal of modern propaganda is to develop conditioned reflexes through education and social dialogue. Jacques Ellul describes the role of education as “pre-propaganda.” Thus, it is no accident that climate change, social justice, and sex education are taught to young students, while there is no religious acceptance or comprehensive discussion of the principles of liberty and freedom.

Let’s review a few recent headlines. Yesterday in Columbia, Missouri notebooks were being given to students with Obama’s slogan and campaign picture on the front. Children have been videotaped literally signing President Obama’s praises and the University of Minnesota is discussing how to best reindoctrinate “biased” individuals. Today, there is news about Obama’s education czar’s educating children with “black books” which included discussions of grotesque sexual acts.

Around the world, educational systems, beginning in elementary school, are organized to promote social change. In some instances, children can now attend public schools such as The Little Village Lawndale High School in Chicago and focus exclusively on social justice classes. To highlight the calculated attempt to indoctrinate our youth, in March 2009 the United States Congress passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (GIVE). Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” the legislation states “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”

In addition to education, modern propaganda must build on societies need for safety, security, and community. It must exploit human weaknesses in a comprehensive, total, and unyielding manner through all available channels. This is accomplished by inundating individuals with constant propaganda such as the news, youtube, magazines, and teachers.ons. As previously mentioned, the large media outlets refuse to provide dissenting opinion. The UN now has its own youtube channel called “Raise your voice and change climate change.” The cover of the Economist on newsstands today reads “Stopping Climate Change,” and every news article I read uses the word “consensus.”

The end effect of this organized media blitz is to focus the public on one event, climate change, to the exclusion of all the rest. The ability to set the public agenda and determine social perceptions is a powerful tool in social psychology. For it is clear that when individuals are faced with large social opposition or view themselves as out of the norm, individuals typically move towards the mean. The mean in this case is fascism and socialism.

Dr. Paul Murdock is the co-founder of The Freemen Institute, www.freemeninstitute.com

A Call to Action: Stop the Climate Scientific Global Dictatorship

Adam Murdock, M.D.
Infowars
November 29, 2009

As a physician and as one that has conducted research and published in peer-reviewed journals, I am intimately connected to the scientific world and the scientific process. The scientific process requires a complete objectivity, a complete reliance on the data. It does not rely on what politicians think, or what the supposed majority of other scientists believe, or even upon what was thought to be proven in the past. It requires continual scrutiny and a stubborn willingness to be critical of everything proven and unproven. At times this stubborn willingness to continually analyze and reanalyze established beliefs places the scientific world in disarray as new beliefs replace old. What marks someone as a true scientist is a willingness to let go of previously held beliefs when the facts turn in another direction, even at expense of one’s established research, reputation, and tenure.

EU President Herman Von Rompuy: the climate agenda goes hand in hand with the plan for global governance.

A scientific dictatorship occurs when this willingness to follow the data is disregarded and replaced with political correctness, consensus, economic motives, or personal hopes and aspirations. This dictatorship which attempts to suppress alternative viewpoints or theories is merely an attempt to make a scientist’s own selfish view preeminent at the expense of the scientific process and sometimes the truth. Inevitably, this dictatorship uses tactics like vilification, name calling, discrimination, and sometimes even threats of physical incarceration or violence in order to enforce the accepted dogma.

There are no greater examples of this than the ordeal of scientists that challenged the belief that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. The scientists that challenged the existing scientific aristocracy or dictatorship of the time were often incarcerated and even sometimes put to death. If true scientists like Copernicus and Galileo and their counterparts lived in a world filled with true followers of the scientific process they might have encountered some initial skepticism but would not have suffered like they did. True scientists would have evaluated the evidence that they presented and quickly have come to the same conclusion themselves. The fact that this didn’t happen was evidence of an over-arching scientific dogma or dictatorship at that time. Their theories threatened the position, theories, and power of the existing scientific elite of their day.

The same type of scientific dogma or dictatorship exists in the world today. There are many examples of modern scientists that have challenged the accepted scientific dogma. Oftentimes, they have had to surmount tremendous obstacles and go to great lengths to prove they were right.

It was only twenty years ago that two Australian scientists, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall implicated a bacteria, Helicobacter pylori, as the causative agent in many intestinal ulcers. Prior to 1982, the predominant theory for the cause of ulcers was overproduction of stomach acid. The prevailing wisdom of the time was that if only stomach acid could be reduced then ulcers could be controlled. Of course, this would lead to lifelong treatments for acid suppression. When these two scientists proposed a simple bacterium as the cause, which could be eradicated with a simple antibiotic cocktail, they were more than met with initial skepticism – they were mocked and ridiculed. It was only because of tireless persistence on their part, which included ingesting the very causative organism in question and testing their hypothesis on themselves, that eventually the established dogma began to subside.

Along the same lines it is within the last twenty years the cyclo-oxygenase type 2 (COX-2) inhibitors like the infamous Vioxx were touted as the new anti-inflammatory medications for this generation. They would replace similar medications like Ibuprofen and Advil. When evidence surfaced that these medications may be causing increased incidences of heart attacks and deaths, they were forced off the market. Unfortunately, because the company and its’ scientists had great reputations, profits, and careers at stake it may have taken 3 years after the associations with heart attacks were discovered before the drug was removed from the market. It is not clear how many people have suffered the ultimate consequence for scientists letting ulterior motives cloud scientific purity.

This brings to me to the most important issue of our day – the debate over whether climate change is related to man-made green house gases or if it is related to natural processes such as sun-spot cycles. While it is not the purpose of this article to discuss the science around this discussion in detail, what can be illuminated is the presence of a dogmatic scientific bureaucratic dictatorship that has one particular view in mind at the expense of all others. This view contends that mankind is responsible for

global warming, the inevitable consequence of which will be a collapse of the earths vital ecosystems. In order to stop man and the collapse of the earth, the global scientific and political dictatorship would have the first world nations dramatically reduce their production of green-house gases. This will be accomplished by the cap-and-trade system, which would de-industrialize, depopulate, and subjugate the peoples of Europe and America and transfer their wealth to the third world and to the sponsors and ministers of the system.

As the EU President Herman Von Rompuy recently put it:

“2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.”

It is clear from this statement that the climate agenda goes hand in hand with the plan for global governance. In fact, it may serve as the key stone to the foundation of just such a superstate. It is precisely because the globalists are using this issue as the means for attaining their long sought after dominion that the climate change debate is the most important issue of this generation.

What about the science that is being used as one of the stepping stones to global governance? Has global temperature really been increasing in lock-step with carbon-dioxide emissions?

Climate change skeptics have recently challenged the assumption of climate change fanatics by pointing out that the global temperature doesn’t appear to have continued to rise over the past decade or more, despite a continued surge in carbon-dioxide emissions. In fact, the temperatures may have decreased slightly. Yet, this information has fallen on seemingly deaf ears in the climate community. Fortunately, the question was recently answered by the climatologist global warming alarmists themselves. In emails that were leaked from the bastion of climate activism, the climate research unit (CRU) of East Anglia University, are some really startling yet somehow expected revelations about the real data, propaganda, intimidation, and fraud perpetrated by the climate change scientific community.

In fact, in response to a recent skeptical article entitled “Whatever happened to Global Warming” by Paul Hudson, a BBC weatherman, one of the lead authors of the IPCC report commented within the private leaked emails:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

In commenting about Hudson’s piece, climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University added:

“extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?”

What is clear from the conservations in these emails is that not only is the science not settled but there was a systematic attempt by these scientists to keep any contrary viewpoints out of the media, published literature, and the political arena. Does this sound like people genuinely seeking after truth or just scientists trying to protect their own turf, reputations, and agenda – whatever the cost?

In another email, the director of the East Anglia climate center, Phil Jones, suggested that we:

“will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

This email highlights a very important but little understood point outside of academic circles. Central to life of an academic researcher is their ability to publish peer-reviewed papers in to the literature. Often times, the amount of published material they produce correlates with their ability to become tenured and to continue to receive grants. What is particularly disturbing about these emails is they demonstrate a willingness to destroy other people’s lives by making it difficult for them to publish.

An example of this scientific shakedown by these supposed scientists occurs in email by Michael Mann that suggests destroying a journal that dared publish these alternative viewpoints. He writes:

“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

In another of the emails, Tim Wigley says that pressure should be applied to a particular journal, Climate Research, to fall in line with the established climate change order. He writes that the publisher needed to be more concerned with how publishing alternative viewpoints, or as he puts it “misinformation,” would be “perceived.” He added: “whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about– it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.”

This scientific witch hunt is vaguely reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition. It is not about the truth of their ideas, it is about the opposition. If it takes destroying their opponents’ careers in order to perpetuate their climate fraud, then they seem perfectly willing to do it. Another excerpt demonstrates this career-destroying intention of theirs. In a comment about James Saiers of the Geophysical Research Letters journal:

“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted”

In response to these vicious attacks, one of the subjects of some of the emails, Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute, said in response that: “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”

To add insult to injury these very same scientists also write about their attempts to fraudulently distort their own data so they can continue the charade. In another email by Phil Jones the truth about the agenda comes out. It turns out they are more worried about the climate agenda going forward than what their data actually shows. If they have to distort the data then they will do what it takes. He writes:

“In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.”

In another email they write:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Here we sit on the verge of subjecting ourselves to the tyranny of global government in the name of protecting the planet. Now that the truth has been established and the hypocrisy and error revealed, let us press our congressman and senators before it is too late. In a matter of a couple weeks the most important conference of our lifetimes will convene in Copenhagen in order to decide our fate. I urge you with all the energies of my heart; let us pull down the global warming false idol worshippers and their climate dictatorship while we still have time.

Adam Murdock, M.D. is founder of The Freemen Institute, www.freemeninstitute.com.

9/11 Pentagon Aircraft Hijack Impossible

PilotsFor911Truth
November 29, 2009

Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence that the reported hijacking aboard American Airlines Flight 77 was impossible to have existed. A data parameter labeled “FLT DECK DOOR”, cross checks with previously decoded data obtained by Pilots For 9/11 Truth from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through the Freedom Of Information Act.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 departed Dulles International Airport bound for Los Angeles at 8:20 am Eastern Time. According to reports and data, a hijacking took place between 08:50:54 and 08:54:11[1] in which the hijackers allegedly crashed the aircraft into the Pentagon at 09:37:45. Reported by CNN, according to Ted Olson, wife Barbara Olson had called him from the reported flight stating, “…all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers…”[2]. However, according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB, the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. How were the hijackers able to gain access to the cockpit, remove the pilots, and navigate the aircraft to the Pentagon if the Flight Deck Door remained closed?[3]

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center attack. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials along with Mainstream Media refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

[1] Hijacker Timeline – http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17

[2] Common Strategy Prior to 9/11/2001 – http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

[3] Right click and save target as here to download csv file with “FLT DECK DOOR” parameter.

New Cheap and Effective Cancer Drug: But Big Pharma Says NO WAY!

Will Dr. Evangelos Michelakis' Invention be blocked by a Profit Driven Pharmaceutical Industry?

University of Alberta Researcher Dr. Evangelos Michelakis has developed an effective drug which can be used to treat cancer. The project of this inexpensive drug does not fit the plans of the Pharmaceutical industry



CTV Background Article

Researchers at the University of Alberta have reported that a drug that has been used for decades in the treatment of rare disorders of metabolism, holds promise as a potential effective drug for the treatment of several forms of cancer. Dichloroacetate (DCA) appears to alter the metabolism of cancer cells, without affecting that of normal cells, leading to regression of cancers in test tubes and animals, without apparent toxicity.

These results are exciting and offer hope that similar success might follow its use on the treatment of patients with cancer. The work was published in a prestigious medical journal (Cancer Cell) and has already attracted the interest of media and patients around the world. The interest of the public focuses around two important questions:

1) What do these findings mean for real patients with cancer and how likely are that the tumors growing in patients will respond to the drug in a manner similar to the tumors growing in animals?

There are numerous examples in the history of Medicine of therapies or drugs that failed to show benefit in real patients despite promising effects in animals. The research team at the University of Alberta is optimistic because the tumors studied were actually human cancers growing into animals. In addition, DCA has already been used in real patients for decades and has shown a good safety profile (although the number of patients was relatively small and these were not cancer patients). However, one has to wait for properly performed clinical trials before any conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of this drug can be drawn.

2) Since the drug is already used and no company owns a patent or its rights (meaning that the drug will not bring the huge profits that other patented drugs bring in pharmaceutical companies), who will fund the many millions of dollars required for multicenter, multinational clinical trials?

The research team at the University of Alberta has been working on this project for more than 2 years now. Early on, two of the investigators (Drs Michelakis and Archer) filed for a “use” patent. Although no patent could be filed for DCA itself, a patent could be claimed for its specific use in cancer. Instead of forming a company in order to pursue this privately, Drs Michelakis and Archer requested a partnership with their University. The University of Alberta sponsored the patent application, which became successful as a “provisional” use patent. However, despite trying for a year, the University failed to attract the interest of any investors or biotech companies for the development of the drug. This is likely the result of the fact that the “use” patents are generally considered to be “weaker” than standard patents and therefore they cannot guarantee profit. Eventually, the University considered this patent “high risk” and withdrew its sponsorship, returning the rights and the cost to support it back to the investigators. In theory, it is still possible that investors will still be interested to take over and sponsor the development of the drug. However, there is no question that for the completion of the large amount of the clinical research that will be required before DCA is proven to be effective and safe in humans with cancer, support from non-profit government organizations, like the CIHR or NIH, will be critical.

Either way, the performance of such trials requires time. The time required for the DCA trials will be shorter compared to brand new drugs that have never been tried in humans before. DCA has already passed phase one trials and can enter directly phase 2 trials in patients with cancer. In addition, at least for Canada, DCA has to be purified, sterilized and appropriately formulated before it can receive approval from Health Canada for oral use in humans. The agony of the public for their loved ones already suffering from advanced forms of cancer can be dramatic but the appropriate steps need to be followed.

To address such concerns, the University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board have created a dedicated website (www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca) in order inform physicians and patients regarding the commitment to initiate clinical trials in the near future and record the progress towards this goal. In addition, in order to address the large number of calls expressing interest to donate funds for this effort, this website will have a user-friendly mechanism to facilitate donations to the University for these efforts. It is important to say that, so far, there is an impressive number of people expressing their wish to contribute with donations; while there is no indication yet of interest from large companies or industries.

source: CTV

Climategate: the Whitewash Begins

by James Delingpole
blogs.telegraph.co.uk - 2009-11-27

The Telegraph

Friday, November 27th 2009, 1:36 PM EST

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill. It seems the AGW establishment has launched an urgent damage limitation exercise in order to whitewash the Climategate scandal in time for Copenhagen.

Here’s the (so far unconfirmed) story:

1) Lord Rees (Royal Society) to be asked by UEA to investigate CRU leak.

2) Foreign Office and government leaning heavily on UEA to keep a lid on everything lest it destabilises Copenhagen.

3) CRU asked to prepare data for a pre-emptive release in past couple of days but trouble reconciling issues between data bases has stopped this.

The appointment of Lord Rees, if confirmed, is especially worrying. It’s the rough equivalent of appointing King Herod’s grand vizier to investigate a mysterious outbreak of mass baby killing in Judaea.

First, Lord Rees – formerly Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal – is very much of the catastrophist mindset which helped launch the whole AGW scare in the first place. Five years ago, he declared:

“I think the odds are no better than 50/50 that our present civilisation will survive to the end of the present century.”

Second, he has previously suggested that there might be certain areas where frank and open scientific enquiry is not a good idea.

“He asks whether scientists should withhold findings which could potentially be used for destructive purposes, or if there should be a moratorium, voluntary or otherwise, on certain types of scientific research, most notably genetics and biotechnology.”

Third, he is president of an institution – The Royal Society – which has persistently used its distinguished name (founded 1660); and supposed unimpeachable scientific authority to push AGW theory.

Here is the Royal Society’s most recent statement on the subject, brought out in the aftermath of the Climategate scandal.

The UK is at the forefront of tackling dangerous climate change, underpinned by world class scientific expertise and advice. Crucial decisions will be taken soon in Copenhagen about limiting and reducing the impacts of climate change now and in the future. Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

As three of the UK’s leading scientific organisations involving most of the UK scientists working on climate change, we cannot emphasise enough the body of scientific evidence that underpins the call for action now, and we reinforce our commitment to ensuring that world leaders continue to have access to the best possible science. We believe this will be essential to inform sound decision-making on policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change up to Copenhagen and beyond.

I’m sure that Lord Rees will strive to be as scrupulously unbiased as he is possibly capable. But with a history like this behind him, I can’t say I am terribly reassured.

UPDATE: More on Lord Rees’s resolutely neutral position on AGW – as posted on the Bishop Hill blog.

Interview with Lord Rees:

“What one single thing convinces you most that climate change is taking place?

The main reason for concern is that the carbon dioxide level is rising by 0.5 per cent a year and is now at a level that it has not been at for the last half a million years. I think if we knew nothing else than that, there would still be great reason for concern.

What is the most important thing you are personally doing on climate change?

I am becoming more and more conscious of the need to avoid waste. I use a small economical car, for instance.

If you were the Prime Minister, what one thing would you do about climate change?

I think Tony Blair has already played an important role leading the G8 nations on the climate change issue. I think he was right to do this and the issue is now high on the international agenda. The recently published Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change will have an impact internationally as well as help the G8 nations move further on this subject.

Do you agree with the Bishop of London that “making selfish choices such as flying on holiday or buying a large car are a symptom of sin”?

Bishops are experts in defining sins and I am not, but one change that may happen and I hope will happen over the next few years is that it will become socially unacceptable to be conspicuously wasteful.

There’s so much noise about climate change, are people in danger of becoming complacent?

It’s a difficult issue for the public because the downside is very long-term and is international, unlike pollution for instance, which people are concerned about because it affects their localities. The effects of carbon dioxide emissions are worldwide rather than local and the most severe effects will be far in the future. “

Yep. He’s going to come down hard on those CRU scientists all right. Just the man for the job!

The Day Global Warming Stood Still

by Mark Sircus

From the mainstream press we read, “As scientists confirm the earth has not warmed at all in the past decade, others wonder how this could be and what it means for Copenhagen. It will be a very cold winter of discontent for the warm-mongers. The climate show-and-tell in Copenhagen next month will be nothing more than a meaningless carbon-emitting jaunt, unable to decide just whom to blame or how to divvy up the profitable spoils of climate change hysteria. ^[1]

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the leading Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee said, “Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked. Today I have been vindicated.”

And then we find out that hackers broke into the computer network run by the Hadley Climate Research Unit, removing 61 megabytes of e-mails and data, which they promptly spilled onto the Web and reveal something startling: The scientists at Hadley, one of the world’s leading climate change study centers, aren’t scientifically objective at all. If true, this is massive scientific fraud.

It was almost two years ago that I first reported on Global Cooling and I had waited a full year before I did so because I wanted to be sure before I risked being such a contrarian on this hugely important subject. Now even the BBC is weighing in on global cooling as are many others. ^[2]

October 2009 will go down as the 3rd coolest October on record for the United States, according to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Records go back to 1880. ^[3]

The mainstream press is finally coming to the conclusion that the entire climate debate about global warming is about to collapse so they had better get out of that game and come clean with what is happening with the sun and what that means for planet earth and all the people on it. The global warming gig has played itself out and has only gone on as long as it has because climate change was a weapon for more mass taxation. ^[4]

Global warming is hard to maintain as heaters across the country are being turned on much earlier than usual. Stunning records for cold were set across the nation increasing the demand for heating fuels over the weekend. The Chicago Marathon, according to the Chicago Tribune, had its coldest start since a 33 degree low in 2002 which they say was a far cry from 2007 when temperatures soared into the upper 80s and officials canceled the marathon after 3 1/2 hours into the event.

In Denver it was reported that an arctic cold front moved in and broke a cold temperature record that stood for 104 years. In fact on the 9th of October Denver saw temperatures plunge 23 degrees in five hours setting the stage to make that record low. There were record lows in many parts of the country like Wyoming, Utah, Illinois and Iowa and if records were not broken in many areas it was extremely close. ^[5]

So it might be a long hard winter in the northern hemisphere and that is bad news for the many who can hardly afford increased heating bills. It was not that long ago that we read the headlines of thousands dying from the heat; soon it will be from the cold and already we are hearing of the mounting deaths from the flu, which gets its fuel from the cold weather.

Throughout history we have had men and women leaders from the earliest times leading humanity toward destruction and ruin and it is not hard to understand their motives of corruption, power and greed. In December leaders from all over the world are gathering in Copenhagen and the good news about this meeting is that God himself did an end run around them mocking the meeting and exposing these men and women who work for the world’s elite; who just cannot seem to get it straight what it means to be a human being. The Copenhagen Treaty was meant to create a world government for the purpose of policing all nations for their carbon emissions but they are being foiled by Nature who just does not want to cooperate. The best laid plans of both mice and men get broken asunder and that’s just the way life is.

As politicians they were making their plans to sign an international treaty about global warming and carbon taxes – setting up structures for increased power of the now partially in place world government – record breaking cold temperatures were being set in both Europe and America. We still see news about global warming when it is clear that the world is in a period of cooling as the sun cycles down and sun spots vanish and the oceans cool.

As a startling example of how a central world leader can weigh in on the wrong side; a few weeks ago U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he’s hopeful the U.S. Senate will pass a significant bill to limit carbon emissions because of global warming. Such is the arrogance of the world’s elite and the political people who follow them that even with the deep chill surrounding window panes everywhere even before real winter sets in they had every intention of signing this treaty until President Obama threw in the towel.

Prof. Don J. Easterbrook comes to the conclusion, “Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years. The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycles. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.” ^[6]

Meanwhile despite the international financial crisis pollution is still increasing as we continue to blanket the planet with mercury from coal fired electrical plants around the world. Mercury and thousands of other chemicals continue to be released in staggering tonnages and this is the real threat that we and our children face. Again they had most people worrying about the wrong thing – our old friend CO2.

Should we count the huge tonnage of Coke and Pepsi into our calculations of poisons released on earth directly into peoples’ guts?

Things are quite a bit different today than in 1918 when the last pandemic (first large experimental vaccine program) happened. Today people and our children are walking chemical time bombs. Diseases are accidents only waiting to happen and the triggers that will set us off get more fine haired every year. The global catastrophe with chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart and neurological diseases has more too do with chemical poisoning running head on into nutritional deficiencies; and the fact that too many have lost their souls and don’t know truth from untruth anymore than anything else.

We could easily conclude that vaccines and influenza viruses both are hair triggers but for some unfortunately they are hard hammers.

<sup>Notes

[1]</sup> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01

^[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

^[3] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&year=2009&month=10

^[4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming

/6300329/Sceptics-welcome-BBC-report-on-global-cooling.html

^[5] http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20091012/energy-report-monday-october-12.htm

^[6] http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783

Copenhagen: A Climate of Suspicion

by Christopher Caldwell
Financial Times

The publication last week of excerpts from 3,000 e-mails stolen from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia comes as a blow to global-warming activists on the very eve of the Copenhagen climate summit. The e-mails concern a handful of US and UK scientists affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPPC has used a graph nicknamed the “hockey stick”, which shows a spike in temperatures in the past century. It is a centrepiece of the assessment of global warming that will be the basis of talks in Copenhagen.

But it has its detractors. In a paper published in 2005, the Canadian economist Ross McKitrick attacked the IPCC’s work as statistically flawed and warned that “group efforts are always at risk of self-selection and groupthink.” Citing the importance of the IPCC to policymakers, he urged an independent panel be appointed to assure, first, that “the data are publicly available” and, second, that “the statistical methods were fully described”.

The e-mails appear to bear out Mr McKitrick’s worries. One, allegedly written by Phil Jones of East Anglia, asks that “Mike” (Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania) and another scientist (“Gene”) delete certain of their e-mails regarding a 2007 IPCC study. The author of the e-mail volunteers that another scientist (“Keith”) would delete his own, and that “Caspar” would do the same. At least two letters describe ways the scientists should use their influence to pressure and delegitimise a peer-reviewed journal that had published a hostile paper. At least two describe manoeuvres to avoid Freedom of Information requests. The e-mails do not in themselves undermine the IPCC’s science. But they are evidence of groupthink. The author of the incriminating “Phil” e-mail appears hopeful, at least, that five distinguished scientists would be willing to destroy their own correspondence to defend their work not against error but against scrutiny. Mr Jones said this week that the e-mails were written out of frustration and that none have been deleted.

Even before the e-mails became public, American public opinion on climate change had undergone a shift towards scepticism. A Washington Post poll published this week found that only 72 per cent of Americans believe global warming “has probably been happening”, as against 80 per cent last year. Since 2006, the percentage of Americans who think there is no such thing as global warming has doubled, to 26 per cent.

These findings are in line with a more detailed study done in October by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The percentage of Americans who see global warming as a “very serious problem” has fallen since last year, to 35 per cent from 44 per cent. This decline is occurring in all regions and all political parties. It is sharpest among independents, 79 per cent of whom were seriously worried about global warming in 2008 and barely half of whom (53 per cent) are now. Democrats are more likely to see global warming as a “serious problem”, but only a minority of them (49 per cent) do. And although Americans marginally favour President Barack Obama’s cap-and-trade plans for reducing carbon emissions, those who follow the issue closely oppose them by two-to-one. A Senate bill that would have strengthened the president’s negotiating hand in Copenhagen has stalled out and will not be revisited until the end of the year.

Democratic consultant Mark Mellman reacted to the waning faith in climate change by telling the Post: “It’s a sad state of affairs when science becomes subject to partisan politics.” But it is worth stressing that Copenhagen is a political, not a scientific, summit. World leaders are not going to Copenhagen to discuss whether and how climate change is happening – they are trying to hammer out solutions. So perhaps the poll data reflect the folk wisdom that if there is no solution, there is no problem. Even if solutions are not scientifically impossible, they may be politically impossible.

Taxpayers in the developed countries have reason to worry that they will be taken to the cleaners at Copenhagen. If rich countries get tight targets for carbon emissions and poor ones get technology transfers and subsidies (through sellable carbon-offset credits) to “green their industrialisation”, then it looks less like a cleanup and more like a redistribution of productive capacity. Many programmes that appear reasonable in academic or political conclaves will prove explosive when exposed to the oxygen of democracy.

Paying poor countries is easier said than done. If you give money directly to farmers or “rainforest communities”, it will be inefficiently spent. To purchase land, say, or to develop alternative industry, you need concentrations of capital. That means giving the money either to governments (which introduces the certitude of corruption) or big companies (which introduces the possibility money will simply be transferred from western wage-earners to western moguls of “green industry”, who already receive large US subsidies and are prone to confuse their own interests with the developing world’s).

Democratic publics are not science faculties. Most of those who urge teaching creationism, instead of evolution, in high-school biology classes, for instance, could not explain Darwin’s theory to you. But neither could most of those who consider creationism an embarrassing superstition. When the public debates scientific questions, it is not attitudes towards science that divide them but attitudes towards authority. The stolen e-mails will not necessarily settle any scientific arguments. But they may settle some political ones.

Lord Monckton: Shut Down The UN, Arrest Al Gore

Anti-climate cult crusader calls for world to rise up against communistic killers behind global warming fraud

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Saturday, November 28, 2009

Appearing on The Alex Jones Show yesterday, Lord Christopher Monckton went further than ever before in his vehement opposition to the elitists running the climate change scam, calling for the UN to be shut down and for fraudulent peddlers of global warming propaganda like Al Gore to be arrested and criminally prosecuted.

Monckton said that those who are threatening to shut down economies, bankrupt nations, and deepen the problems of the third world by implementing draconian policies in the name of global warming should be indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned “for a very long time”.

“The fraudsters and racketeers from Al Gore to the people at the University of East Anglia who have been making their fortune at the expense of taxpayers and the little guy,” should be criminally charged, said Monckton, in response to the climategate scandal.

“We the people have got to rise up worldwide, found a party in every country which stands for freedom and make sure we fight this bureaucratic communistic world government monster to a standstill – they shall not pass,” he added.

Monckton said that the United Nations should be “closed down,” adding that he talked to a senior UN ambassador in Canada who told him that he no longer saw any purpose in the UN and it exists “only to enrich itself at the expense of the nations it claims to serve, it’s time it was brought to an end.”

“We would all save billions if we shut down the UN and just about all of its hideous bureaucracy,” said Monckton.

Lord Monckton emphasized how the emails released as a result of climategate prove that global warming alarmism was still prevalent in public but behind closed doors, warmist scientist are admitting that the “deniers” as they label people like Monckton are correct.

“Publicly they’re saying the science is settled, we’re all doomed unless you close down the economies of the west, whereas privately they’re saying to each other ‘we’ve got it wrong, none of this adds up and it’s a travesty that we can’t explain it’.”

Monckton also slammed Obama’s science czar John P. Holdren, who in his 1977 book Ecoscience called for draconian population measures to be enforced by a “planetary regime” in the name of saving the earth, as an “openly admitted communist”.

Monckton pointed out how Holdren had been once of the most prominent alarmists in the 70’s warning about the onset of rapid “global cooling”.

“Now with seamless mendacity he says that what we’re now facing is global warming,” said Monckton.

“How can anyone like Holdren stand up with a straight face and expect anyone to believe it,” he added.

Monckton said that the agenda behind the global warming movement was to set up a communistic world government which will be run by people who “do not care how many people they kill with their policies” and that their goal is to “do away with democracy forever by stealth using the excuse to save the planet.”

Monckton said that the people running the scam had a “deliberate desire to control population by killing people in large numbers deliberately if necessary.”

The former advisor to Margaret Thatcher said that the warmists were sounding more and more desperate and knew that they had been rumbled as a result of climategate, which would only make it more urgent for them to try and force through a binding treaty in Copenhagen.

Monckton said that the answer to combating the move towards neo-feudalism and global government was to form a worldwide “freedom party” that would operate nationally in every country in order to defend freedom, democracy and prosperity while routing out every aspect of the communistic takeover.

“Every time these people try to take it away, we in the freedom party will stop them, and I think now is the time,” said Monckton.

Watch the interview

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Christopher Booker
London Telegraph
November 29, 2009

Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Read entire article

“Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google

Watts Up With That?
Sunday, Nov 29th, 2009

Note: title suffix – “autosuggest still blocked” has been removed, see update2 at bottom of story.

We’ve had the term “global warming” in the lexicon since well before the Internet became a household tool, certainly well before Google itself.

So it is with amazement that I report the rise of a new term, “Climategate” in just a little over 1 week in the Google search engine.

Here’s our old friend “global warming”:

And here is the new term that is spreading like lightning, “climategate”:

global warming – 10,100,000

climategate – 10,400,000

Note that these are web searches, not news searches, but Google suggests a few news stories first. These two searches were conducted about 1 minute apart.

Individual results and search permutations may vary, but it sure seems like “climategate” has grown virally in since the story on the CRU files broke on November 19th.

Here are some other interesting tidbits about “climategate”.

Google seems to be blocking their search box suggestions from using the word, reports on WUWT and my own observation two days ago indicate it was once there. I used by upper right Google Search Box in IE8 to find out.

For example “global war….” has lots of suggestions:

And so does “climate”:

I find it interesting that climate depot and climate audit are suggested ahead of climate progress.

But even when you spell out almost the enirety of “climategate” Google doesn’t seem to think it’s worth suggesting to you:

With “climategate” now as big as, likely even bigger than “global warming” on the web, Google might want to rethink this.

UPDATE: From comments I see that “Bing”, the new search engine from Microsoft, has no such problems, and in fact puts “climategate” right at the top after only 3 letters “c l i”:

click for larger image

I thought the Langjokull Glacier in Iceland was a nice touch. Bing apparently rotates backgrounds, so who knows what you’ll see.

UPDATE2: About 3 hours after this story was first posted, it appears that Google has added the word “climategate” to autosuggest.

UN scientists turn on each other

Marc Morano

Climate Depot
Saturday, Nov 28th, 2009

A UN scientist is declaring that his three fellow UN climate panel colleagues “should be barred from the IPCC process.” In a November 26, 2009 message on his website, UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: “CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process.”

Zorita writes that the short answer to that question is: Short answer: “Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.”

Zorita indicates that he is aware that he is putting his career in jeopardy by going after the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita candidly admits, a reference to the ClimateGate emails discussing how to suppress data and scientific studies that do not agree with the UN IPCC views.

Zorita was a UN IPCC Contributing Author of Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Since 2003, Zorita as headed the Department of Paleoclimate and has been a senior scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre in Germany. Zorita has published more than 70 peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Zorita’s stunning candor continued, noting that scientists who disagreed with the UN IPCC climate view were “bullied and subtly blackmailed.”

“In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research,” Zorita explained. [Zorita's full statement is reprinted below.]

Continuing fallout of ClimateGate

Zorita’s revelations are the latest in a series of continuing fallout to the global warming establishment and to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), since the email and data scandal dubbed “ClimateGate” broke earlier this month.

Zorita’s defection from the global warming establishment comes after the shocking news today that one of the scientists employed at ground zero of what has been termed “ClimateGate” has suggested disbanding the United Nations climate panel, the IPCC. See: Pressure Mounts From Inside: Disband IPCC? Scientist from U. of East Anglia Suggests ‘UN IPCC has run its course…politicizes climate science…authoritarian, exclusive form of knowledge production’ – Mike Hulme Excerpt: ClimateGate reveals science has become ‘too partisan, too centralized…more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures’

In addition, scientists from around the world are now demanding that the “ClimateGate” scientists be banned from future UN IPCC climate work. See: More ClimateGate Fallout: Prominent German Scientist Declares ‘Compromised’ UN Scientists should be excluded from IPCC and Peer-Review Process – November 24, 2009
Meanwhile, pressure to fire or resign continues to increase for the man at the center of the ClimateGate scandal, Phil Jones. See: Phil Jones, the Fall Guy? Scientist in climate change ‘cover-up’ storm told to quit – UK Daily Mail – Nov. 25, 2009

Caught in Another Untruth? THEN: UN IPCC’s Phil Jones, Dec 3, 2008: ‘About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all’ – NOW: UN IPCC’s Phil Jones, Nov 24, 2009: ‘We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU’

The New ‘Deniers’: UK Greenie George Monbiot: ‘Most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial’ — ‘Pretending the climate email leak isn’t a crisis won’t make it go away’ – Monbiot: ‘There is no helping it; Phil Jones has to go, and the longer he leaves it, the worse it will get’ – UK Daily Mail – Nov. 25, 2009

More Defections! Center for Env. Journalism’s Tom Yulsman: ‘I’m standing with George Monbiot on this’ – Nov. 25, 2009 – ‘I believe the CRU (Climate Research Unit) should agree to an independent examination of what happened…to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again’

Shock — Et Tu, DeSmogBlog?: Climate Alarmists at DeSmogBlog Call for Phil Jones to Offer his Resignation! – Nov. 25, 2009 – ‘It would be savvy for Jones to at least offer to step aside before someone in authority makes a move to give him a push’

Et tu? Head of UN IPCC Pachauri Now throwing global warming under the bus?! There is a ‘larger problem’ than climate fears?! – Nov. 23, 2009 – Urges ‘time and space to look at the larger problem of unsustainable development, of which climate change is at best a symptom’

As the UN IPCC’s ClimateGate scandal unfolds, it appears New Zealand may have their similar type scandal involving manipulation of temperature data by a government agency. See: More Warmist Woes: New Zealand: Government agency accused of ‘cooking the books to create a warming trend where none exists’ – Nov. 26, 2009

Scientists from around the world now are questioning the propriety of a UN climate conference during all of this unraveling controversy surrounding the credibility of top UN scientists. See: UK Scientist: ‘Case for climate fears is blown to smithereens…whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed’ – Nov. 26, 2009

All of this has caused skepticism of man-made global warming to become the new political expediency. See: Losing Their Religion: 2009 officially declared year the media lost their faith in man-made global warming fears – Oct. 13, 2009 and see: ‘Welcome to the delayers’: Obama’s ‘half-hearted climate efforts’ welcomed by skeptics – Nov. 17, 2009 [Editor's Note: ClimateGate may have prompted President Obama to attend the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen. There is such a sense of panic in the global warming establishment that they now feel it is "all hands on deck" time to help save the movement. See: 'Series of inconvenient developments for promoters of man-made global warming fears continue unabated' – August 25, 2009]

New Political Reality: Five Australian MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax – November 26, 2009

NASA Warming Scientist James Hansen says Gore ‘deceiving’ himself – Nov. 26, 2009 – Hansen: “What really worries me is that Gore sounds optimistic that we’re now on a track to solve this problem. Hansen lets out an incredulous chuckle. “We’re not, however, on a track, and that’s clear.”

#

Complete Statement of UN IPCC Scientists Dr. Eduardo Zorita on the UN IPCC’s “ClimateGate” scandal.

CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process.

Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.

A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research ’soldiers’. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.

To the question of legality or ethicalness of reading those files I will write a couple of words later. I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research.

I thank explicitly Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn for their work in the formulation of one Chapter of the IPCC report. As it distills from these emails, they withstood the evident pressure of other IPCC authors, not experts in this area of research, to convey a distorted picture of our knowledge of the hockey-stick graph.

Is legal or ethical to read the CRU files? I am not a lawyer. It seems that if the files had been hacked this would constitute an illegal act. If they have been leaked it could be a whistle blower action protected by law. I think it is not unethical to read them. Once published, I feel myself entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of our work on the ‘hockey stick graph’ or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. Also, these mails do not contain any personal information at all. They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior. [End Eduardo Zorita's full statement regarding ClimateGate.]

Climategate: The Silence is Deafening from the Corporate Media

J Speer-Williams
Infowars
November 29, 2009

Who said, “Breakin’ news is always bad!”?

Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer.

By now most of us in the alternative media are aware of the some 61 megabytes of global warming research data of emails, documents, and computer code released by whistleblowers (or hackers), that have exposed climate scientists, at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain, as the frauds they’ve proven themselves to be.

This decade of emails and documents clearly concludes that global warming scientists have manipulated scientific data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures; and the fact that, there has been no statistically significant global warming for fifteen years, but our world has experienced a rapid and significant cooling for nine years.

So breath-taking has been this leaked data, to date, it has produced some startling headlines in the alternative media:

(1) Climategate: Greatest Scandal in Modern Science!”

(2) “Climategate? Smoking Gun? Blood in the Water?”

(3) “Global Warming Scientists Seek to Protect Their Government Funding by Corrupting the
Peer-review Process.”

(4) “Climate Bombshell: Hackers {or Whistleblowers] Leak Emails Showing Conspiracy.”

(5) “Email Leaks Turn Up Heat on Global Warming Advocates.”

(6) “Climategate Scientists Caught Red-handed in Monumental Fraud.”

(7) “Bad Scientists? No Criminals!”

Now, these global warming scientists, who have been so severely exposed for the frauds they are, are crying, “Persecution!”. While their own emails prove they have been very busy planning how best to get tenured professors fired, who will not shallow the rotten fish of anthropogenic global warming, how to black-ball them from scientific journals, and prevent them from participating in the peer-review process.

Persecution? No, prosecution in a criminal court of law is what they deserve.

Even Obama’s Climate Czar, John P. Holdren has been exposed, by these emails, for the fraud he is, proving Holdren’s avid global warming advocacy has been more driven by politics than science.

Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is no stranger to extremist views: In a 1977 book, Holdren co-authored (Ecoscience – Population, Resources, Environment), he campaigned for compulsory abortion, mass sterilization, involuntary infertility, a one-child policy, and global governance.

In another of Holdren’s books (Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions), he even argued that babies were not human beings.

Mr. Holdren, there’s no question babies are human. The real question is are you a human being?

These academic and governments fraudsters, along with their corporate media counterparts, account for the fact that many people have been denied the truth regarding the man-made global warming myths.

The so-called “consensus” establishing the validity of the man-made global warming theories does not exist; the mainstream, corporately owned media merely tell us it does; and, do not expect “our” media to widely broadcast anything about these email exposures; many people will never hear of them.

When caught red-handed in their lies, the corporate media always has but one response: Utter silence, waiting for the smoking gun to cool, and then be forgotten. But if the red-hot pistol doesn’t cool quickly enough, the whole corrupted system of the controlled press goes into over-drive, preparing for a workable gambit: Which is usually their tried and true method of creating controversy, something relatively easy for them to do. And once an issue enters the world of controversy, the Establishment usually wins the info wars of public opinion, because they get the most words, the loudest words, and the last words. And after all, they represent authority.

Trial and error is employed to find the kindling that will ignite the fires of controversy. Usually the first maneuver is tested with some secondary official, from some secondary country, to gage the effectiveness of the ploy. This process has already begun with Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer.

Ms. Cramer has claimed that the East Anglia University whistleblowers, or hackers, altered 61 metabytes of computer data before leaking the files, in spite of the fact such a statement, has to date, never been made by the man-made global warming advocates, who wrote it all .

If Ms. Cramer’s allegations gain traction, expect to hear more about how the whistle-blowers falsified the data. We may even hear of innocent people coming to trial, falsely confessing they were the ones who “altered” all the emails, before releasing them. But, with enough mind control, I could be convinced, I was the one who falsified them, even though I know so little about computers, I can hardly use my Apple program to write this sentence.

Ms. Cramer, in her outrage, screamed, “This is just criminal. It’s unacceptable.”

What is acceptable Ms. Cramer, the death of a billion starving people, and the guaranteed poverty of the rest of us, due to the pending Cap and Trade legislation in Washington, and the coming international laws, directives, regulations, and more laws, that will inhibit the farming of food and the means to get it to market, with few of us having enough money to buy food if it were available?

Am I exaggerating? I hope so, but believe not.

Major Corporations Control European Union

David Cronin
The Guardian
November 27, 2009

It is little wonder that José Manuel Barroso is seldom seen without a grin on his face these days. For the European commission chief is one of the luckiest guys in international politics. First, the appointment of a low-profile Belgian as the EU’s first permanent president has meant that Barroso will be able to keep on behaving as if he is the most powerful man in Brussels. And now, it looks likely that Barroso won’t need to lose any sleep about assembling his new team of commissioners (even if they don’t formally start work until January, a few months later than originally expected)

Theoretically, it’s still possible that MEPs will cause him difficulties as they did in 2004, when they objected to the nomination of Rocco Buttiglione as justice commissioner because the Italian equated homosexuality with sin. The signals from the European parliament have been that if it wanted to embarrass Barroso this time around, it would take issue with the grotesque gender imbalance in the EU executive. However, the probability of this happening has lessened in the past few days as the final composition of his 27-strong team emerged. It features nine women – one more than the outgoing commission.

Read entire article