TCR Reports: NWO, Environmentalism and the Superweapon

Phillip and Paul Collins, authors of The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship return to the webcast; this time to discuss: Nuclear Anxiety and the Cult of the Superweapon, and Environmentalism, the Religion of the Eco-theocratic Superstate and more! [Listen here]

The Collins Brothers Unleashed Episode Six: Our Armed Services Subverted

Paul and Phillip D. Collins examine the subversion of the U.S. Armed Services by racist, radical, and even satanic elements. DISCLAIMER: This discussion is not a sweeping condemnation of the U.S. Armed Services, but of the forces that are corrupting it. [Listen here]

The Collins Brothers Unleashed Episode Seven: The Systemic Corruption of U.S. Military

Paul and Phillip D. Collins continue their discussion of systemic corruption of the U.S. Armed Services. DISCLAIMER: Again, nothing said here should be construed as a blanket condemnation of America’s military. We are merely examining the dubious elements that are corrupting it. [Listen here]

(more…)

John Stossel - November 11, 2009

I’ve been following the hysterical reaction of the Global Warming Church towards the authors of Super Freakonomics. Much of the hysteria was whipped up by Climate Progress blogger Joe Romm who attempted to discredit the book by smearing the authors. As I said before, if you don’t agree with global warming orthodoxy, you face personal attacks.

Full story

27 October 2009 - Alex Newman

All across the world, collections of global-warming protestors financed by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund gathered on October 24 to call for forceful “climate change” action at the United Nations summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, this December.

Most of the gatherings were minuscule, even in big cities, but the effort did receive widespread publicity. According to organizers cited by Agence France-Presse, over 5,000 demonstrations were held in more than 180 countries.

The protestors rallied around the motif of “350” — the supposed level of carbon dioxide in parts per million that some scientists claim is an acceptable ceiling. They carried signs and unfurled banners reading 350, even forming themselves into giant human numbers to illustrate their point.

“We had no idea we would get the overwhelming support, enthusiasm and engagement from all over the world that we’re seeing,” explained Bill McKibben, a climate-change activist who founded the Rockefeller-funded organization 350.org that coordinated the day of protests. “It shows just how scared of global warming much of the planet really is, and how fed up at the inaction of our leaders.”

Full story

In a startling new book, Christopher Booker reveals how a handful of scientists, who have pushed flawed theories on global warming for decades, now threaten to take us back to the Dark Ages

Christopher Booker - 25 Oct 2009

Next Thursday marks the first anniversary of one of the most remarkable events ever to take place in the House of Commons. For six hours MPs debated what was far and away the most expensive piece of legislation ever put before Parliament.

The Climate Change Bill laid down that, by 2050, the British people must cut their emissions of carbon dioxide by well over 80 per cent. Short of some unimaginable technological revolution, such a target could not possibly be achieved without shutting down almost the whole of our industrialised economy, changing our way of life out of recognition.

Full story

Henry Lamb - October 24, 2009

It is impossible to overstate the importance of the climate-change treaty now being negotiated for adoption at the Copenhagen, Denmark, U.N. meeting in December. The Kyoto Protocol was bad enough. It required the United States to reduce its carbon emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. When fully implemented, the Kyoto target was supposed to reduce global carbon emissions by 5.2 percent. Thanks to George W. Bush, the U.S. did not participate in the Kyoto accord.

According to the World Bank, global emissions have risen by 19 percent since 1990. U.S. emissions have risen 20 percent since 1990. India’s and China’s emissions have risen by 88 percent and 73 percent respectively. Neither of these countries was bound by the Kyoto Protocol.

Full story

James Simpson - October 21, 2009

Not content with his humiliation at Copenhagen this past September, President Obama will be traveling again to the Danish capital in December to attend the U.N. COP15 Climate Change Conference. This agreement would commit the United States to punitive and expensive greenhouse gas regulations dictated by the United Nations without recourse.

COP stands for “Conference of the Parties” and the December Copenhagen conference will be the 15th under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), hence COP15. According to their website, it will be one of the largest conferences ever held outside the New York or Geneva headquarters, with an anticipated attendance of over 10,000 people, including governmental representatives from 189 countries, industry groups, and other non-governmental organizations.

Full story

Science chief argued for population control to limit ‘global cooling’

Jerome R. Corsi - October 06, 2009

What is clear from the record going back over nearly four decades is that White House science czar John Holdren is a climate alarmist, even if he can’t make up his mind whether the crisis is the Earth warming up or cooling down.

But long before Holdren was the global warming Cassandra he is today, he was a global cooling alarmist predicting a new ice age.

The only consistency seems to be that Holdren has always utilized climate hysteria to argue that government must mandate public policy measures to prevent imminent and otherwise unavoidable climate catastrophes.

Full story

F. William Engdahl - September 24, 2009

President Obama just made a melodramatic appeal at the United Nations for global measures to dramatically curb what he called “the climate threat,” current euphemism for what is more popularly known as Global Warming, the theory that man-made CO2 emissions from cars, coal plants and other man-made sources are causing the earth to warm to the point the polar icecaps are irreversibly melting and threatening to flood a quarter or more of the earth’s surface. There’s only one thing wrong with Mr. Obama’s dramatic scenario: it is scientifically utterly wrong. Since 2007 the polar icecaps have been growing not melting and the earth has been cooling, not warming.

If the fear of death from a fictitious Swine Flu were not enough, the scare stories on world media such as BBC or CNN, showing melting icebergs are dramatic enough to cause one sleepless nights. The Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon even made a recent appeal while standing on an Arctic ice-flow, claiming that man-made CO2 emissions were causing “100 billion tons” of polar ice to melt each year, so that in 30 years the Arctic would be “ice-free”. One organization, the WWF, claimed that the Arctic ice was melting so fast that in eighty years sea-levels would rise by 1.2 meters, creating “floods affecting a quarter of the world.” Wow! That’s scary. Goodbye Hamburg, New York, Amsterdam…

Full story

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill

Ben Cerruti - September 22, 2009

It is disturbing to hear the President of the United States propagate that which is not true. In his speech to the United Nations today he advanced the Global Warming/Climate Change myth. At the same time appearing in the New York Times an article by Andrew Revkin contains the fact that “global temperatures have been stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years”, In addition, there are many scientists, meteorologists and weather experts who have debunked the notion that the creation of excessive amounts of Carbon Dioxide is the cause of global warming if, in fact, it actually exists.

When leaders in all major countries in the world including ours claim there is climate change that has been created by mankind caused green house gasses our citizens tend to believe them. When they claim that man made Carbon Dioxide is a green house gas and must be reduced markedly people tend to accept that as a fact. In fact, established evidence proves the propaganda which they are conveying is not the truth. Why would our leaders and others in high places lie to us since on the surface there appears no reason to do so? There is a reason and it should be shocking to those who are willing to acknowledge it. Especially since it could lead to the loss of our country’s sovereignty. Let’s look at some interesting history on this subject.

Full story

Paul Chesser
OpEd Contributor
September 18, 2009

Scientists see no temperature increase (on average) in the oceans or on the surface of the Earth over the last decade. That hasn’t stopped an activist group from infiltrating high schools with the panicky message that we are on the verge of a “planetary emergency” due to global warming.

These alarmists are the recently formed Alliance for Climate Education, an Oakland, Calif., nonprofit created by wealthy wind energy entrepreneur Michael Haas. The organization has targeted five metropolitan areas and now is opening a Washington office.

Haas, who donated $24,600 to President Obama’s campaign and victory funds last year, stands to reap millions of dollars in government subsidies that climate change-driven energy policies would bring.

Meanwhile the teenagers targeted by ACE are treated to hip presentations with slick animation to propagate the idea that they and everyone in their spheres of influence must modify their behaviors so as to stop global warming. This is achieved by cutbacks in their energy use, which ACE believes produces too many greenhouse gases (from fossil fuel combustion like coal and oil) that warm the planet.

Full story

zomblog - Wed, Sep 16, 2009

In 1971, John Holdren edited and contributed an essay to a book entitled Global Ecology: Readings Toward a Rational Strategy for Man. He wrote (along with colleague Paul Ehrlich) the book’s sixth chapter, called “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide.” (Click here to view a photograph of the table of contents, showing Holdren’s essay on pages 64-78; click on the image to the left to view the cover.) In their chapter, Holdren and Ehrlich speculate about various environmental catastrophes, and on pages 76 and 77 Holdren the climate scientist speaks about the probable likelihood of a “new ice age” caused by human activity (air pollution, dust from farming, jet exhaust, desertification, etc.).

Full story

In seeking to use religion to force people to change their eco-unfriendly behaviour, greens are debasing both religious belief and scientific truth.

Frank Furedi - 15 September 2009

We live in world where the cynical manipulation of people’s fears and anxieties often overrides informed public debate. Principles and beliefs seem to have become negotiable commodities, and all too often the search for truth gives way to doing ‘whatever works’. In recent decades religious figures have, at various times, embraced the authority of science, therapy and the environment as a way of communicating their messages. Indeed, the old statement ‘our faith demands…’ has increasingly given way to the claim that ‘the research shows…’. If Christian fundamentalists can reinvent their dogma in the language of ‘creationist science’, how long before atheist scientists seek to justify their moral crusade in the language of religion?

Full story

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”

Vaclav Klaus
Blue Planet in Green Shackles

by Des Moore

August 10, 2009

Should We Believe (All) Scientists?

Some may say it ill behoves an economist to pass judgement on scientists: after all economists are obviously to blame for the current recession.

But reflecting on 28 years in Treasury (and subsequently), I conclude that many proposals by both economists and scientists do not warrant government intervention to “save” the economy and/or society. Modest expertise helped me, but my most important methodology is common sense questions – such as “how exactly will society (rather than a particular group) benefit if this proposal is implemented?”

Full story

Marc Morano - August 09, 2009

Desperation time has arrived for the promoters of man-made global warming fears. As the science of man-made climate fears continues to collapse, new tactics are being contrived to try to drum up waning public support.

A series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears continues unabated, including new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies, more evidence that rising CO2 is a boon for the atmosphere, and the Earth’sfailure to warm. In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion and even activists at green festivals are now expressing doubts over man-made climate fears and a Nobel Prize-winning economist is wishing for ‘tornadoes’ and ‘a lot of horrid things’ to convince Americans of a climate threat. (See “Related Links” at bottom of this article for more inconvenient scientific developments.)

The core of the claims made in the August 8, 2009 New York Times article by John M. Broder are stated as follows: “Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.”

Full story

Joe Weisenthal - Jul. 30, 2009

The media portrays climate scientists as having delivered a final verdict on global warming.

They haven’t.

There remain some holdouts who say this consensus is little more than conformity to a politically correct idea. Perhaps even more surprising is that a few of these global-warming skeptics are actually respected!

No matter where you stand on this debate, you should know who the major skeptics are and what they think.

Full story