Archive for Global Warming
This week The Corbett Report was sent documents purported to be the notes of an attendee of the recent Toronto G20 meeting. The documents, if genuine, show that the recent meeting once again gave the G20 a chance to discuss global government as an answer to the ongoing economic meltdown and reaffirm that carbon taxes are high on the globalists’ priority list.
The idea of funding a nascent global governmental structure through the introduction of carbon taxes is by no means a new one.
The notes were obtained from a source inside a South African bank whose CEO was a confirmed attendee of the Toronto meeting. According to the source, they are most likely notes from a feedback session between the CEO and bank officials upon the CEO’s return from the conference.
Download the documents in PDF format via this link.
According to the documents, the delegates concluded that a process of fiscal consolidation would be the key solution to the crisis, involving country-specific ideas with central coordination…presumably by the G20 itself. Although the delegates evidently discussed the need to address the sovereign debt crisis “through cutting expenses and not through increased taxes,” that statement is immediately followed in this attendee’s notes by the idea of introducing carbon taxes.
The idea of funding a nascent global governmental structure through the introduction of carbon taxes is by no means a new one, having been proposed as a funding mechanism for a North American Union at a secret Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting in Banff, Canada in 2006.
Perhaps not coincidentally, the idea was last floated in the G20 Finance Ministers’s meeting in Scotland last year. In leaked documents from that meeting it was revealed that attendees had seriously discussed the possibility of using a carbon tax to fund an international financial body which would supposedly be entrusted to look after climate adaptation and mitigation programs.
That the carbon tax was discussed during G20 deliberations comes as no surprise. Nor does the fact that the delegates deliberated on the need “to develop Global governance structures” and the desire for “coordination across countries.” The urge to use a manufactured economic crisis to institute a new international system of governance administered by the very bankers who created the problem in the first place has likewise been noted for years.
But there are hopeful signs that the globalists’ agenda is being derailed by a mass political awakening among the public, exactly as key globalist Zbigniew Brzezinski discussed in a recent speech. Perhaps the foremost hurdle to the implementation of the G20’s plans comes from fierce opposition to the carbon tax agenda in the United States exemplified by the fact that the current Senate climate bill is likely dead in the water. Another hopeful sign are those passages of the leaked documents that seem to suggest that national governments may be diverting from the globalist agenda in order to protect their national interests, including repeated references to the specter of increased protectionism as a result of the global downturn.
On a more ominous note, however, are references to the need to create a “B20″ or “Business 20″ to give unaccountable multi-nationals an even bigger stake in the nascent global governmental structure inherent in the G20 structure.
This year’s G20 drew the ire of Canadians and concerned citizens around the world for its $1.3 billion security budget and brutal treatment of protestors. The next G20 summit will take place in November in Seoul, Korea.
James Corbett – The Corbett Report
Royal Society’s initiative will provide textbook for population control agenda
The Royal Society, an organisation made up of renowned eco-fascists and depopulation fanatics, is to launch a major study on human population growth and its implications for social and economic development, a study it has ludicrously branded “objective”.
“The society acknowledges it is delving into a hugely controversial area, but says a comprehensive and scientific review of the evidence is needed.” reports the BBC, along with a picture of a huge crowd of people crammed together (which is actually a rock concert of some kind).
“This is a topic that has gone to and fro in the last few decades, and appears to be moving back up the political agenda now,” said the leader of the study Sir John Sulston.
“So it seems a good moment for the Royal Society to launch a study that looks objectively (emphasis mine) at the scientific basis for changes in population, for the different regional and cultural factors that may affect that, and at the effects that population changes will have on our future in term of sustainable development.”
The manifestly obvious problem with this study, as anyone who knows anything about the Royal Society will note, is the fact that leading members of the group are obsessed with pushing a depopulation agenda.
The Royal Society is a 350 year old establishment outfit that has recently thrown its full weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and drastically reduce living standards everywhere.
The society has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.
It was also intimately tied to the Whitewashing of the Climategate emails scandal.
As the BBC notes in their report, one of the members of the Royal Society’s working group for this population study is Jonathon Porritt. Porritt is the former chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, one of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, who has stated that Britain’s population must be cut in half from around 60 million to 30 million if it is to build a sustainable society.
Porritt is also a member of The Optimum Population Trust (OPT), a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population to what it sees as a “sustainable” level.
An OPT article on today’s news opens with the line, “The human population is far higher than any other primate at any time in history”. This outlines exactly where these people will approach the study from.
Another notable member of both the OPT and The Royal Society is Futurist and top Eco-Fascist James Lovelock.
Lovelock became a patron of the OPT in 2009. In a statement released by the trust to mark the appointment, Lovelock called on the environmental movement as a whole to “recognise the truth and speak out” on the link between rising human numbers and global warming.
Lovelock said: “Those who fail to see that population growth and climate change are two sides of the same coin are either ignorant or hiding from the truth. These two huge environmental problems are inseparable and to discuss one while ignoring the other is irrational.”
He added: “How can we possibly decrease carbon emissions and land use while the number of emitters and the space they occupy remorselessly increases? When will the environmentalists who claim to be green recognise the truth and speak out?”
Lovelock also recently called for the ending of freedom in order that an overriding global power made up of “a few people with authority” can oversee the radical stemming of the planet’s human population in order to combat climate change.
So you begin to see how laughable it is to expect the Royal Society’s global population study, which will certainly be used as a reference by other leading institutions and global bodies, to be in any way “objective”.
The OPT and The Royal Society also boast, as a patron, BBC darling wildlife broadcaster and film-maker Sir David Attenborough, who has called for a one child policy like that of Communist China to be implemented in Britain. The proposal is one of the OPT’s main initiatives. Attenborough is also on the Royal Society’s working group for this population study. Again, is this man’s influence going to result in an “objective” study on population?
Another member of the working group is Cambridge economist Sir Partha Dasgupta, also a fellow of the OPT.
Professor Malcolm Potts, another member of the working group was the first male doctor at the Marie Stopes Abortion Clinic in London, he also advised on the UK’s 1967 Abortion Act.
Marie Stopes was a prominent campaigner for the implementation of eugenics policies. In Radiant Motherhood (1920) she called for the “sterilisation of those totally unfit for parenthood [to] be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.” That group, according to her, included non-whites and the poor.
Stopes, an anti-Semite Nazi sympathizer, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.
Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.
Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.
Perhaps most notably, the head of the Royal Society’s new study, John Sulston, most famously played a leading role in the Human Genome Project, the effort to identify and map the thousands of genes of the human genome. Sulston worked under James D. Watson, a notorious eugenicist who has previously argued that black people are inherently less intelligent than whites and has advocated the creation of a “super-race” of humans, where the attractive and physically strong are genetically manufactured under laboratory conditions. Watson is also affiliated with the Royal Society, indeed, in 1993 he recieved the society’s Copley Medal of honour for “outstanding achievements in research in any branch of science, and alternates between the physical sciences and the biological sciences”.
Sulston is also a leading advocate of the renowned Atheist group, The British Humanist Association.
It is clear that this organisation and these people are immersed in the science of eugenics, and that they have continued the science under the guise of environmentalism. They hate humanity and any notion that their population study will represent anything other than an establishment avocation of mass depopulation is farcical.
It is imperative that the media, places of education, government representatives and the wider public are made aware of these facts.
Alex Jones’ film End Game explains why the elite are obsessed with pushing eugenics and bizarre race hygiene philosophies. Click here for more clips.
The Royal Society has also conducted extensive research into geoengineering the planet to manipulate its climate, and continually lobbies the government to divert funding into the area. The UK government recently published a lengthy report on geoengineering, drawing heavily on Royal Society research. The report proposed methods including spraying sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect produced by volcanic eruptions, as well as placing mirrors in space to reflect the Sun’s rays away from the Earth, a technique known as Solar Radiation Management (SRM).
Mass sterilization, one child policies 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.
While you and I may think the notions of sterilization and depopulation could never be accepted by the public, those very concepts are now being embraced and popularized as the way forward for humanity.
Letting these modern day eugenicists mess with the planet would be like handing Dr. Josef Mengele control of the health care system. This group have proven themselves as total control freaks, promoting a brand of bloodthirsty eugenics even more depraved than anything Hitler proposed in his drive for a super race.
While the BBC notes in its report on The Royal Society that “The burgeoning human population is acknowledged as one of the underlying causes of environmental issues such as climate change, deforestation, depletion of water resources and loss of biodiversity.” the facts tell quite a different story.
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.
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.
We are being bombarded daily with idiotic notions that the human race and life itself is a virus that has spread all over the planet and that we must consider stemming our own progression to counter it.
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.
The Royal Society’s study is to be launched on “World Population Day”, and is due to be completed by early 2012 – I wonder what conclusion it will reach?
While they peddle their insane proposals, backed by rampant fearmongering over climate change on behalf of our governments and the mainstream media, it is we who are charged with saving the planet and our place on it by exposing their nefarious agenda of mass depopulation before it is too late.
“In a Horizon special, naturalist Sir David Attenborough investigates whether the world is heading for a population crisis.
In his lengthy career, Sir David has watched the human population more than double from 2.5 billion in 1950 to nearly seven billion. He reflects on the profound effects of this rapid growth, both on humans and the environment.
While much of the projected growth in human population is likely to come from the developing world, it is the lifestyle enjoyed by many in the West that has the most impact on the planet. Some experts claim that in the UK consumers use as much as two and a half times their fair share of Earth’s resources.
Sir David examines whether it is the duty of individuals to commit not only to smaller families, but to change the way they live for the sake of humanity and planet Earth.”
A new “study” has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) which has examined the credentials and publication records of climate scientists who are global warming skeptics versus those who accept the “tenets of anthropogenic climate change”.
Not surprisingly, the study finds that the skeptical scientists have fewer publications or are less credentialed than the marching army of scientists who have been paid hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 20 years to find every potential connection between fossil fuel use and changes in nature.
After all, nature does not cause change by itself, you know.
The study lends a pseudo-scientific air of respectability to what amounts to a black list of the minority of scientists who do not accept the premise that global warming is mostly the result of you driving your SUV and using incandescent light bulbs.
There is no question that there are very many more scientific papers which accept the mainstream view of global warming being caused by humans. And that might account for something if those papers actually independently investigated alternative, natural mechanisms that might explain most global warming in the last 30 to 50 years, and found that those natural mechanisms could not.
As just one of many alternative explanations, most of the warming we have measured in the last 30 years could have been caused by a natural, 2% decrease in cloud cover. Unfortunately, our measurements of global cloud cover over that time are nowhere near accurate enough to document such a change.
But those scientific studies did not address all of the alternative explanations. They couldn’t, because we do not have the data to investigate them. The vast majority of them simply assumed global warming was manmade.
I’m sorry, but in science a presupposition is not “evidence”.
Instead, anthropogenic climate change has become a scientific faith. The fact that the very first sentence in the PNAS article uses the phrase “tenets of anthropogenic climate change” hints at this, since the term “tenet” is most often used when referring to religious doctrine, or beliefs which cannot be proved to be true.
So, since we have no other evidence to go on, let’s pin the rap on humanity. It just so happens that’s the position politicians want, which is why politics played such a key role in the formation of the IPCC two decades ago.
The growing backlash against us skeptics makes me think of the Roman Catholic Inquisition, which started in the 12th Century. Of course, no one (I hope no one) will be tried and executed for not believing in anthropogenic climate change. But the fact that one of the five keywords or phrases attached to the new PNAS study is “climate denier” means that such divisive rhetoric is now considered to be part of our mainstream scientific lexicon by our country’s premier scientific organization, the National Academy of Sciences.
Surely, equating a belief in natural climate change to the belief that the Holocaust slaughter of millions of Jews and others by the Nazis never occurred is a new low for science as a discipline.
The new paper also implicitly adds most of the public to the black list, since surveys have shown dwindling public belief in the consensus view of climate change.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D
A major event that takes place in 2014 will plunge the world into a crisis that will characterize the rest of the century, according to Cambridge professor Nicholas Boyle, and only the introduction of global governance can save humanity from an era of poverty and violence.
“A ‘Doomsday’ moment will take place in 2014 – and will determine whether the 21st century is full of violence and poverty or will be peaceful and prosperous, according to a Cambridge University professor,” reports the Daily Mail.
“In the last 500 years there has been a cataclysmic ‘Great Event’ of international significance at the start of each century, he claims. Occurring in the middle of the second decade of each century, they include events which sparked wars, religious conflict and brought peace.”
In order to “fight climate change,” which as the Climategate scandal highlighted, is nothing more than a contrived fraud exaggerated and exploited by the elite in an effort to plunder the taxpayer and impose draconian rules and regulations on our day to day existence, as well as to solve the financial crisis (also a creation of the elite), Boyle states that peace and security can only be guaranteed if an “effective system of global governance is introduced” to replace nation states.
Boyle’s warning that only global governance run by by an enlightened elite can rescue the planet from turmoil is a familiar talking point put out by the establishment to hoodwink people into meekly accepting the end of national sovereignty as an inevitable process, a natural progression that they have no power to stop.
In reality, the move towards global governance is not natural at all, it has come as a consequence of elitists exploiting the crises they create to artificially push the globe towards a centralized and dictatorial political and economic system run by the few to the detriment of the many.
No better can this be illustrated than with the financial crisis, which the elite had foreknowledge of and positioned themselves to exploit in order to propose more regulation and global economic governance as the only solution.
Immediately before the credit crunch,globalist financial firms like Goldman Sachs were secretly betting on a U.S. housing market collapse while telling their clients to buy $40 billion in securities backed by at least 200,000 risky home mortgages. Likewise, central banks knew that a global collapse in the property market would herald the start of the worldwide economic downturn, but deliberately kept such information from the public.
Elitists like Boyle are indoctrinated by the establishment and the academic system into a consensus view that global governance will benefit humanity, when in reality by its very nature it is undemocratic and beneficial only to the tiny group of insiders who hold the reigns of power.
Global government does not represent an improvement on the world being governed by nation states, as Boyle claims, it is merely being promoted for the administrative convenience of an elite who wish to decimate individual freedoms, the democratic process in general, and set themselves up as autocratic overlords perched in their own Tower of Babel ruling over all the serfs below.
Global government is not being developed as some kind of utopian Star-Trek like structure of enlightened and benevolent rule, it is designed to be dictatorial, plutocratic and completely unrepresentative of the people’s interests.
This fact was admitted by one of Boyle’s peers, Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman, who in a 2008 piece called for a dictatorial global government to be installed to fight terrorism, climate change and solve the financial crisis.
Global government is by no means a new phenomenon proposed as a “solution” to current problems, it is the ultimate goal for a long-standing agenda that seeks to crush national sovereignty and freedom and replace it with a tyrannical new world order.
When international financier James Warburg told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1950, “We shall have a world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest,” he obviously wasn’t referring to some touchy-feely world government, he was characterizing it as a dictatorial, dominant force that would crush any opposition to its implementation.
The notion that global governance is both inevitable and a natural political progression for mankind needs to be countered at every turn. The growth of global governance has always been advanced by artificially contrived crises unleashed upon humanity by an arrogant and wicked elite who wish to see prosperity and the middle class destroyed by returning to the dark ages of serfs and peasants.
Paul Joseph Watson
International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn today called for a huge global warming slush fund to be established as an interim measure before carbon taxes are implemented in the name of preventing weather disasters related to alleged man-made climate change.
Speaking in Nairobi Kenya today, “Strauss-Kahn said the Fund is concerned about the huge amount of funding needed and the effect that will have on the global economy,” reports the Associated Press.
The IMF chief said that an outline paper would be published later this week which would detail how countries would adopt a quota system “which could bring in money faster than proposals to increase carbon taxes or other fundraising methods”.
Strauss-Kahn said that the measure was merely a stop-gap in anticipation of the longer term implementation of carbon taxes, that is a global levy on the very substance we exhale.
“We all know that (carbon taxes and other fundraising methods) will take time and we don’t have this time. So we need something which looks like an interim solution, which will bridge the gap between now and the time when those carbon taxes will be big enough to solve the problem,” Strauss-Kahn said. “And that is exactly what the IMF proposal is dealing with.”
Strauss-Kahn cited the failed Copenhagen “agreement” in claiming that $100 billion dollars a year would be needed to help poorer countries fight the effects of climate change, which as the Climategate scandal exposed, have been completely exaggerated and even fabricated by the IPCC in pursuit of a predetermined consensus.
However, one of the primary reasons behind the failure of Copenhagen was put down to the leak of the “Danish text,” which revealed how the IMF and the World Bank were using climate change as a smokescreen with which to hide their neo-colonial agenda.
As we reported at the time, the leaked text exposed how 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 debts that cannot be paid back, forcing such countries to hand over their entire infrastructure to globalist loan sharks.
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.
Billionaire elitist George Soros subsequently told Copenhagen delegates how poorer nations would be forced to take on what he described as “green loans” in the name of combating climate change, a policy that would land the already financially devastated third world with even more debt, payable to globalist institutions such as the IMF.
The creation of revenue streams to bankroll the structure of global governance that will oversee the implementation a “green world order” will again be up for discussion at a series of new Copenhagen process negotiations set to take place in April, May and June.
As we highlighted last month, leaked policy documents reveal that the United Nations plans to create a “green world order” by 2012 which will be enforced by a structure of global governance and funded by a gargantuan $45 trillion transfer of wealth from richer countries, as the globalists’ insidious plan to centralize power, crush sovereignty while devastating the economy is exposed once again.
Paul Joseph Watson
In a recent TED Talk, Bill Gates has put forward the theory that mankind can reach zero carbon emissions by reducing our population, services, energy and carbon output. And yes, he’s even suggested a trendy, yet totally absurd, equation to legitimatize his eugenicist viewpoint. All I can say is, “What a crackpot!” Maybe it’s because he hasn’t noticed the systematic fraud exposed in the climate-gate debacle or maybe it’s because the mathematics of his equation are so blatantly imbecilic but I can’t help myself from truncated laughter. This guy is a genius? Really?
First and foremost, the summation equation is immeasurably misleading. No one, and especially not a world renowned computer programmer, should make the mistake of multiplying the variables of a summation. And even if you could overlook that magnitude of an inaccuracy, the number of variables that lead to a reasonable projection of a true change in any chaotic system are far more varied and complex than the four presented by Mr. Gates’ second grade presentation. Yet in typical fashion one TED attendee, Laura Trice, stated, “Bills Gates reduced the environmental CO2 issue to a simple math equation I could understand.”
So, assuming you are among the lemurs that have bought into the CO2 bogeyman storyline (during a carbon starved period of history); you still must concede that anything times zero is zero and therefore Bill Gates, even if inadvertently, called for zero human population. And though one could try to fool themselves into believing that he wouldn’t call for the expansion of the depopulation agenda, you didn’t need to wait very long to hear that directly from his own mouth. Soon into his talk he states that the world’s population is rapidly heading toward a staggering 9 billion and that, “if we do a good job on new vaccines, healthcare, and reproductive health services we could lower that by 10-15%.” Yes, you guessed it; Bill Gates is suggesting tried and tested Malthusian population manipulation to achieve the new world order’s nominal depopulation agenda.
He later states that if they can’t achieve the kind of carbon reduction necessary by their standards; then they will consider using current “geo-engineering” methods to change weather patterns and extend their timeline. But the ultimate fumble of the speech came when Gates was asked what he would say to “climate deniers”. After clumsily attempting to make a point for what seems like an eternity, Gates exclaims, “if we can make the alternatives cheaper then they won’t care anymore.” Well I for one disagree with Mr. Gates’ assertations. For one, reproductive health services is an obvious code phrase for sterilization and abortion services, as so cunningly detailed by Obama Science Czar John Holdren in his government eugenics handbook “Ecoscience”. And secondly, I refuse to take anyone serious that still considers CO2 emission standardization to be anything less than the introduction of a new highly mercenary financial exchange instrument.
However, in the typical fashion of a seasoned professional pitchman, Bill Gates does deliver one singular great point that struggles to lend credibility to all of the previously presented non-sense. The productive use of depleted uranium in a newly designed slow-burn reactor is an idea that has been long overdue. After the egregious use of DU on the battle fields of Iraq, it almost sounds like a fairytale to have the potential to steer the toxic psychosis permeated elite war mongers towards a use for DU that may actually benefit mankind. And once the perpetrators of similar War and State crimes (illegal wiretaps, illegal preemptive war, torture, etc) have been tried and sentenced; DU reactors are surly at the top of the to-do-list.
Stephen P. Fuller