The 900-paged book, ‘A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Secret Cold War Experiments,’ painstakingly explores Olson’s odd death and reveals it to be a murder.

In a bizarre about-face, the secretive Central Intelligence Agency has requested documents from an investigative journalist, even though the writer had earlier obtained them from the CIA itself under the Freedom of Information Act.

Walterville (Vocus/PRWEB ) December 16, 2009 — In a bizarre about-face, the secretive Central Intelligence Agency has requested documents from an investigative journalist, even though the writer had earlier obtained them from the CIA itself under the Freedom of Information Act.

The strange request was made last week to author H.P. Albarelli Jr., whose recently published book A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Secret Cold War Experiments, details a myriad of CIA drug experiments and exposes a large number of previously anonymous physicians and business officials who contracted with the agency. The experiments resulted in the deaths of a number of people and sent hundreds more seeking medical help.

“The caller, an agency official, who identified himself by a name I was quite familiar with from past requests,” explained Albarelli, “asked if I would be so kind as to send by fax two documents my book referenced in its narrative and footnotes. I suppose I should have been bowled over by the request, but I wasn’t. It happened once before.”

“The crazy thing,” added Albarelli, “is that all of the requested documents came from my FOI requests to the agency in the early 1990s.”

(more…)

Paul and Phillip D. Collins continue their examination of radical environmentalism, this time focusing on the enigmatic character of Maurice Strong. [Listen here]

The head of the UN’s climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with ‘carbon trading’ companies, Christopher Booker and Richard North write.

No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

Full story

Frank Furedi recalls being educated through fear in Stalinist Hungary, and is disturbed that the same tactics are now used by environmentalists.

Frank Furedi (15 December 2009)

There is a long and sordid tradition of trying to socialise children by scaring them. The aim of such socialisation-through-fear is twofold: firstly, to get children to conform to the scaremongers’ values; secondly, to use children to influence, or at least to contain, their parents’ behaviour.

When I was a schoolchild in Stalinist Hungary, we were frequently warned about the numerous threats facing our glorious regime. I also recall that we were encouraged to lecture our errant parents about the new wonderful values being promoted by our brave, wise leaders. The Big Brothers of the 1940s saw children as tools of moral blackmail and social control. Today, in the twenty-first century, scaremongers see children in much the same way, exploiting their natural concern with the wonders of life to promote a message of shrill climate alarmism.

Full story

• Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor
  • User contributions For William M. Connolley
  • Edit Counter: Username: William M. Connolley

Laurence Solomon also wrote an extensive series on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Deniers, which he extended into a 2008 book: The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud - And those who are too fearful to do so.

One of the best articles in the original series is “Climate change by Jupiter: The alignment of the planets, and especially that of Jupiter and Saturn, control the climate on Earth.” It introduces the amazing work of the late Rhodes Fairbridge of Columbia University. For more on Fairbridge, see “How Barycentric Orbits Influence Climate” and especially Richard Mackey’s academic paper, “Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate.” The title says it all - and delivers.

James Howell (17 December 2009)

On my first day at university in London this September, as I navigated my way through the throng of students hiding behind their MacBooks and Blackberries, I was struck by the omnipresence of recycling bins, posters advertising green student societies, and advice on how to live an eco-friendly student lifestyle.

I had thought that in joining an institution like Goldsmiths, University of London, which is known for being a progressive university – this is where the BritArt explosion happened in the 1990s and many famous writers, musicians and academics have studied and taught here – I would be immersing myself in a free-thinking, non-conformist, alternative atmosphere. I was wrong.

Full story

An hour with Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher and a critic of global warming theories.

Joanne Nova (December 16th, 2009)

You might think journalists at a popular science magazine would be able to investigate and reason.

In DenierGate, watch New Scientist closely, as they do the unthinkable and try to defend gross scientific malpractice by saying it’s OK because other people did other things a little bit wrong, that were not related, and a long time ago. Move along ladies and gentlemen, there’s nothing to see…

The big problem for this formerly good publication is that they have decided already what the answer is to any question on climate-change (and the answer could be warm or cold but it’s always ALARMING). That leaves them clutching for sand-bags to prop up their position as the king-tide sweeps away any journalistic credibility they might have had.

Full story

What is that statue at around 1:47?

Martin Hutchinson (Dec 16, 2009)

Excerpt:

The shakiness of the mathematics underlying the global warming “consensus” was highlighted by the recent “climategate” e-mails and computer tapes involving researchers at the University of East Anglia. Like Wall Street risk managers, climate scientists pooh-poohed the obvious flaws in the assumptions underlying their mathematical models. Like Wall Street bankers, they asserted a consensus behind those models - in Wall Street’s case, to win from regulators a profitable loosening of their leverage limits; in climate scientists’ case, to persuade politicians to provide them with hugely profitable research opportunities and capital for their “new energy” start-ups.

Like Wall Street traders, the scientists rejected any modifications of the models that had served them well and pushed those models to their outer limits; the Wall Street gang to trade ever more exotic derivatives, the scientists to justify ever more alarmist predictions of climate change.

The denouement in both cases may also turn out to be similar. In Wall Street’s case, the faulty models have led to losses in the financial system totaling in excess of US$1 trillion. In the climate scientists’ case, the precise degree of error in their assumptions is not yet apparent. It is only clear that dubious methods were used to cover up the flaws in their models and observations, and that the more extreme predictions (”6 degrees Celsius by 2100″) were made up out of whole cloth to justify gargantuan economy-destroying projects of government control.

Should the conference on climate change at present underway in Copenhagen produce anything beyond alarmist blather, the net cost to the global economy is likely to exceed by far that of the subprime mortgage fiasco. The difference between the two cases is that in Wall Street, the first decent-sized downturn showed the models to be rubbish, although admittedly that took 21 years to happen after the first demonstration. On the other hand, with climate models we will have to wait even longer, until 2100, to find out whether they were completely spurious or merely exaggerated.

Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D. (December 14, 2009)

As I have explained before, the Nazis were simply a subpart of a larger Power Elite (PE) plan for world domination. And to find out who funded Hitler, you might read James and Suzanne Pool’s Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler’s Rise to Power 1919-1933.

Before WWII, John J. McCloy was an attorney for IG Farben (German chemical company), and as the war ended McCloy helped many Nazis avoid prosecution. For example, the infamous Klaus Barbie and others reportedly were sent to the 370th Counter Intelligence Corps at Oberammergau where Private Henry Kissinger (McCloy’s protégé) was located.

In Part 2 of this series, I mentioned Nazi General Reinhard von Gehlen who was Hitler’s chief intelligence officer. With the war’s end, the Gehlen Organization (GO) began working for the U.S., with Allen Dulles’ CIA giving the GO hundreds of millions of dollars. In turn, Gehlen helped Dulles (operating out of Bern, Switzerland) to overthrow the elected Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953.

Gehlen’s chief man and successor in the U.S. was SS officer Otto Albrecht von Bolschawing, who in 1969 worked for TCI which had classified Defense Department contracts. Nazi spy George de Mohrenschildt was also in the U.S. after WWII. He was a member of the “White Russian” (anti-Communist) community and befriended Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President John F. Kennedy. De Mohrenschildt was found shot in 1977 on the day a U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations investigator was to see him. Attorney Mark Lane in Plausible Denial asserts that de Mohrenschildt was a CIA contract agent.

Full story

Charles Krauthammer (December 14, 2009)

In the 1970s and early ’80s, having seized control of the UN apparatus, Third World countries decided to cash in. OPEC was pulling off the greatest wealth transfer from rich to poor in history. Why not them? So in grand UN declarations, they began calling for a “New International Economic Order” (NIEO). The NIEO’s essential demand was simple: to transfer fantastic chunks of wealth from the industrialized West to the Third World.

On what grounds? In the name of equality — wealth redistribution via global socialism — with a dose of post-colonial reparations thrown in.

The idea of essentially taxing hard-working citizens of the democracies in order to fill the treasuries of Third World kleptocracies went nowhere, thanks mainly to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. They put a stake through the enterprise.

But such dreams never die. The raid on the Western treasuries is on again, but today with a new rationale to fit current ideological fashion. With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service to the newest religion: environmentalism.

Full story

Michael Shaw (12 December 2009)

Have we abandoned the uniquely American concept of the political, legal and educational recognition of unalienable rights? If so, is there a political movement to restore the core purpose and principle of the American Declaration of Independence?

As documented in Understanding Unalienable Rights, the dictionary meaning of unalienable rights has been corrupted. School children are no longer instructed about this most basic element of the Declaration of Independence. Leading liberty minded legal and “think tank” organizations often fronting the freedom movement, treat or label the seeking of unalienable right protections as outdated. They argue a system of “civil rights” [1] as the appropriate man-made replacement. Think tanks of most stripes quietly argue that the idea of unalienable rights is flawed and indefensible. Correspondingly, the idea has been largely abandoned by academia and intellectuals.

The question then becomes: Can the American experiment in freedom continue without a foundation predicated on the notion that each person possesses a life that is their own? I conclude that without the political recognition of unalienable rights it cannot be assured that the political system will recognize that your life belongs to you.

This is not a moot issue. At the root of the globalist movement is Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. This worldwide program agreed upon by 178 nations, including the United States, reveals the directive that human population is to be decreased by 85% (United Nations; Global Biodiversity Assessment Report, page 673). This policy has appealed to many who argue “overpopulation.” Accordingly, says the consensus, everyone’s “right to life” must be discarded in order to achieve globalist objectives.

Full story

The subheadline in Diane Francis’ now-infamous article reads: “The whole world needs to adopt China’s one-child policy.” However, the verb “adopt” really just sugarcoats what she’s actually advocating.

She writes that a “one-child policy,” “planetary law … is the only way,” and admits that China’s one-child-only measure is in fact an edict: e.g. an authoritarian/totalitarian decree. Nothing will work to cure “environmental degradation,” unless “a China one-child policy is imposed.” “Governments should control family sizes,” or we’ll regret it, she writes.

Watch Francis try and dissemble in this interview (failing miserably):

Here’s a quote from another Francis interview, which illustrates her elite mentality: “The fact is we have a global economy and we have no global governance and so what we’re seeing is the beginning of a global government….I think it’s a welcomed development.” Diane Francis, National Post (3:53-4:19)

Francis has received a lot of flak after writing the article; it was a colleague, Colby Cosh, who made one of the best points:

I don’t understand why people who claim to be “passionate” about the environment of the future haven’t adopted zero-child policies for themselves.

Well, actually, I do understand it, because they all used to be big on Zero Population Growth as both a policy goal and a social ideal back in the ’70s. Diane Francis is singing an old song that environmentalists unlearned for strategic reasons. It made them look like she looks right now: authoritarian and nihilist and out of touch with the hopes and ambitions of ordinary people. And many of those environmentalists wanted to have kids themselves — i.e., they hypocritically put their personal desires above the interests of the planet when confronted with the biggest choice of all.

—-

Further reading:

• Forced Birth Control Kills Mother and Child
• Climategate Did Not Begin With Climate (Remembering Julian Simon and the storied intolerance of neo-Malthusians)
• Jack Cafferty All But Endorses Global One-Child Policy to Fight Climate Change
• Fear depopulation, not overpopulation
• Population Control Today
• Copenhagen Anti-Population Push Coming from UN

Steve McIntyre, Dec. 10 2009

Much recent attention has been paid to the email about the “trick” and the effort to “hide the decline”. Climate scientists have complained that this email has been taken “out of context”. In this case, I’m not sure that it’s in their interests that this email be placed in context because the context leads right back to a meeting of IPCC authors in Tanzania, raising serious questions about the role of IPCC itself in “hiding the decline” in the Briffa reconstruction.

Relevant Climategate correspondence in the period (September-October 1999) leading up to the trick email is incomplete, but, in context, is highly revealing. There was a meeting of IPCC lead authors between Sept 1-3, 1999 to consider the “zero-order draft” of the Third Assessment Report. The emails provide clear evidence that IPCC had already decided to include a proxy diagram reconstructing temperature for the past 1000 years and that a version of the proxy diagram was presented at the Tanzania meeting showing the late twentieth century decline. I now have a copy of the proxy diagram presented at this meeting (see below).

The emails show that the late 20th century decline in the Briffa reconstruction was perceived by IPCC as “diluting the message”, that “everyone in the room at IPCC” thought that the Briffa decline was a “problem” and a “potential distraction/detraction”, that this was then the “most important issue” in chapter 2 of the IPCC report and that there was “pressure” on Briffa and other authors to show a “nice tidy story” of “unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more”. [Update Dec 11 - see note at bottom on the chronology. Comments from readers have clarified that the issue at the Arusha meeting was that the Briffa reconstruction "diluted the message" more through its overall inconsistency as opposed to the decline, which was still relatively attenuated in the Arusha version. After the Arusha meeting, Briffa hastily re-calculated his reconstruction sending a new version to Mann on Oct 5, 1999 and it was this hastily re-done version that introduced the very severe decline that was hidden in the First Order Draft and Jones WMO Report]

The chronology in today’s posts show that the version of the Briffa reconstruction shown in the subsequent proxy diagram in the IPCC “First Order Draft” (October 27, 1999), presumably prepared under the direction of IPCC section author Mann, deleted the inconvenient portion (post-1960) of the Briffa reconstruction, together with other modifications that had the effect of not “diluting the message”.

Full story